40370 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 145 /Wednesday, July 29, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MI67–01–7275; FRL–6128–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Michigan:

Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Removal of direct final rule

amendment.

SUMMARY: On May 19, 1998, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

published a proposed rule (63 FR

27541) and a direct final rule (63 FR

27492) approving a correction to the

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

State of Michigan regarding the State’s

emission limitations and prohibitions

for air contaminant or water vapor. The

EPA determined that Michigan’s air

quality Administrative Rule, R336.1901

(Rule 901), was erroneously

incorporated into the SIP and approved

removal of Rule 901 from the approved

Michigan SIP because Rule 901 does not

have a reasonable connection to the

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) and related air quality goals of

the Clean Air Act. The EPA is removing

the final rule amendment due to adverse

comments and will summarize and

address all relevant public comments in

a subsequent final rule (based upon the

proposed rule cited above).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This removal is

effective July 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following location:

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

(Please telephone Victoria Hayden at

(312) 886–4023 before visiting the

Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Victoria Hayden, Regulation

Development Section (AR–18J), Air

Programs Branch, Air and Radiation

Division, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, telephone number (312) 886–

4023.

I. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604). Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act do not

create any new requirements but simply

approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because

the Federal SIP approval does not

impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246,

255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate; or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under section 205, the EPA must select

the most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule and is

consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 203 requires the EPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to state, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This action is not

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2). This rule will be effective.

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by September 28, 1998. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review, nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements (see section

307(b)(2)).

F. Protection of Children From

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks

This direct final rule is not subject to

E.O. 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not an

economically significant regulatory

action as defined by E.O. 12866.’’

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Reporting and

recordkeeping.

Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is

amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 145 /Wednesday, July 29, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 40371

Subpart X—Michigan

§ 52.1174 Amended

2. Section 52.1174 is amended by

removing paragraph (q).

Dated: July 9, 1998.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–20006 Filed 7–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[CO–001–0026a; FRL–6131–7]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants; Colorado; Control of

Landfill Gas Emissions From Existing

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the

Colorado plan and associated

regulations for implementing the

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill

Emission Guidelines at 40 CFR part 60,

subpart Cc, which were required

pursuant to section 111(d) of the Clean

Air Act (Act). The State’s plan was

submitted to EPA on April 13, 1998, in

accordance with the requirements for

adoption and submittal of State plans

for designated facilities in 40 CFR part

60, subpart B. The State’s plan

establishes performance standards for

existing MSW landfills and provides for

the implementation and enforcement of

those standards. EPA finds that

Colorado’s plan for existing MSW

landfills adequately addresses all of the

Federal requirements applicable to such

plans.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on September 28, 1998 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by August 28, 1998. If adverse

comment is received, EPA will publish

a timely withdrawl of the direct final

rule in the Federal Register and inform

the public that the rule will not take

effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action may be mailed to Vicki Stamper,

8P2–A, at the EPA Region VIII Office

listed. Copies of the documents relative

to this action are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Program,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,

Denver, Colorado 80202–2466. Copies of

the State documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection at the Air Pollution Control

Division, Colorado Department of Public

Health and Environment, 4300 Cherry

Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado

80222–1530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vicki Stamper, EPA Region VIII, (303)

312–6445.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Under section 111(d) of the Act, EPA

has established procedures whereby

States submit plans to control certain

existing sources of ‘‘designated

pollutants.’’ Designated pollutants are

defined as pollutants for which a

standard of performance for new

sources applies under section 111, but

which are not ‘‘criteria pollutants’’ (i.e.,

pollutants for which National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are set

pursuant to sections 108 and 109 of the

Act) or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)

regulated under section 112 of the Act.

As required by section 111(d) of the Act,

EPA established a process at 40 CFR

part 60, subpart B, which States must

follow in adopting and submitting a

section 111(d) plan. Whenever EPA

promulgates a new source performance

standard (NSPS) that controls a

designated pollutant, EPA establishes

emissions guidelines in accordance with

40 CFR 60.22 which contain

information pertinent to the control of

the designated pollutant from that NSPS

source category (i.e., the ‘‘designated

facility’’ as defined at 40 CFR 60.21(b)).

Thus, a State’s section 111(d) plan for a

designated facility must comply with

the emission guideline for that source

category as well as 40 CFR part 60,

subpart B.

On March 12, 1996, EPA published

Emission Guidelines (EG) for existing

MSW landfills at 40 CFR part 60,

subpart Cc (40 CFR 60.30c-60.36c) and

NSPS for new MSW Landfills at 40 CFR

part 60, subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.750–

60.759). (See 61 FR 9905–29.) The

pollutant regulated by the NSPS and EG

is MSW landfill emissions, which

contain a mixture of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), other organic

compounds, methane, and HAPs. VOC

emissions can contribute to ozone

formation which can result in adverse

effects to human health and vegetation.

The health effects of HAPs include

cancer, respiratory irritation, and

damage to the nervous system. Methane

emissions contribute to global climate

change and can result in fires or

explosions when they accumulate in

structures on or off the landfill site. To

determine whether control is required,

nonmethane organic compounds

(NMOCs) are measured as a surrogate

for MSW landfill emissions. Thus,

NMOC is considered the designated

pollutant. The designated facility which

is subject to the EG is each existing

MSW landfill (as defined in 40 CFR

60.31c) for which construction,

reconstruction or modification was

commenced before May 30, 1991.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.23(a), States

were required to either (1) submit a plan

for the control of the designated

pollutant to which the EG applies or (2)

submit a negative declaration if there

were no designated facilities in the State

within nine months after publication of

the EG, or by December 12, 1996.

EPA has been involved in litigation

over the requirements of the MSW

landfill EG and NSPS since the summer

of 1996. On November 13, 1997, EPA

issued a notice of proposed settlement

in National Solid Wastes Management

Association v. Browner, et. al., No. 96–

1152 (D.C. Cir), in accordance with

section 113(g) of the Act. (See 62 FR

60898.) It is important to note that the

proposed settlement does not vacate or

void the existing MSW landfill EG or

NSPS. Pursuant to the proposed

settlement agreement, EPA published a

direct final rulemaking on June 16,

1998, in which EPA is amending 40 CFR

part 60, subparts Cc and WWW, to add

clarifying language, make editorial

amendments, and to correct

typographical errors. See 63 FR 32783–

32784, 32743–32753. EPA regulations at

40 CFR 60.23(a)(2) provide that a State

has nine months to adopt and submit

any necessary State Plan revisions after

publication of a final revised emission

guideline document. Thus, States are

not yet required to submit State Plan

revisions to address the June 16, 1998

direct final amendments to the EG. In

addition, as stated in the June 16, 1998

preamble, the changes to 40 CFR part

60, subparts Cc and WWW, do not

significantly modify the requirements of

those subparts. See 63 FR 32744.

Accordingly, the MSW landfill EG

published on March 12, 1996 was used

as a basis for EPA’s review of Colorado’s

submittal.

II. Analysis of State’s Submittal

On April 13, 1998, the State of

Colorado submitted its plan and

regulations (hereafter referred to as the

‘‘State Plan’’) for implementing EPA’s

MSW landfill EG. The Colorado State

Plan includes the ‘‘111(d) Plan for

Existing Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills Existing in Colorado’’ and the

State’s implementing regulations in Part

A of Colorado Regulation No. 6.