p.1 

OAR Box 1813 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

161) F.R. August 18, 1999 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 11/5/20081:25:06 PM Sheet 161 of 166 
P.2 

Wednesday 

August 18, 1999 

frT2T02L 

Part VIII 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

Title V Operating Permit Deferrals for 

Area Sources: National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Chromium Emissions From 

Hard and Decorative Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing 

Tanks, Etc.; Proposed Rule 
P.3 

45116 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 159/Wednesday, August 18, 1999/Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[AD-FRL-6419-4] 

Title V Operating Permit Deferrals for 

Area Sources: National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Chromium Emissions 

From Hard and Decorative Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium 

Anodizing Tanks; Ethylene Oxide 

Commercial Sterilization and 

Fumigation Operations; 

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning 

Facilities; Halogenated Solvent 

Cleaning Machines; and Secondary 

Lead Smelting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed amendments. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

continue to allow permitting authorities 

the discretion to defer title V operating 

permitting requirements until December 

9, 2004 for area sources of air pollution 

that are subject to Rve NESHAP for 

source categories. T ndments 

would continue to relieve industrial 

sources, State and local agencies, and 

the EPA Regional Offices of an undue 

regulatory burden during a time when 

available resources are needed to 

implement the title V permit program 

for major sources. Under the proposed 

amendments, sources must continue to 

meet all ap. requirements, 

including all applicable 

control, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements established by 

the respective NESHAP. 

DATES: Cninni: must receive 

comments on or before 

Jflffi unless anyone requests a public 

hearing by September 8. 1999. If anyone 

nests a hearing, we must receive 

written comments by October 18,1999. 

Public Hearing: We will hold a public 

hearing, if requesti-d, to pn pone 

an opportunity tn present data, views, or 

arguments concerning the proposed 

amendments. If anyone contacts us 

requesting to speak at a public hearing 

by September 8, 1999, we will hold a 

public hearing on September 17. 1999, 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. If we hold a 

hearing, we will keep the dockets open 

for 30 days after the hearing for anyone 

to submit rebuttal or supplementary 

information as provided by section 

307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act (Act). 

Request To Speak at a Hearing: 

Anyone requesting to speak at a public 

he,iring must contact EPA by September 

8. 1999. 

ADDRESSES: Comments: Send comments 

(in duplicate, if possible) to: Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center (MC-6102), Attention Docket No. 

A-ftfr-1 l (subpart M). or Attention 

Docket No. A-88 A)2 [subpart N). or 

Attention Docket No. A-88 -03 (subpart 

£fl, or Attention Docket No. A-92-39 

(s.uhpartJ£). or Attention Docket NOTA -

02-43 (.subpart XJ. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, 

Washington, DC 20460. Please send a 

separate copy to the contact person 

listed below in die FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 

information on submitting comments 

eletronically see the SUPPLEMENTARY 

INFORMATION section. 

Docket: The following dockets, 

containing supporting information for 

the original rulemakings, are available 

for public inspection between 8:00 a.m. 

and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday 

except for Federal holidays: Docket No. 

A-88-1 ^..subpart M NESHAP: Docket 

No. A-SB-nVsi^pflrt, N N^SH^ : 

Docket No^^^^nbjjarK) , 

NESHAP: Docket Nn A-Q2-39,. subpart 

T NESHAP: Doda-t : \ 'Sl 43, 

.subpart X NESHAP. These dockets are 

available for public inspection at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M 

Street SW. Washington, DC 20460. 

telephone (202) 260-7548, Room M1500. Waterside Mall (ground floor). We 

may charge a reasonable fee for copying. 

Public Hearing; Anyone interested in 

attending the hearing should contact 

DorotJiy Apple. (919) 541-4487. to 

verify that a hearing will occur. 

Request To Speak at a Hearing: 

Anyone requesting to speak at a public 

hearing must contact Dorothy Apple, 

Emission Standards Division (MD-13), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park. NC 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541-4487. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Rick Colyer, Emission Standards 

Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmi 

Protection Agency, Research Trial 

Park, NC. 27711, telephone number 

f919l 541-5262, lax number (919) 541-

0942. or e-mail: colyer.rick@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Submitting Electronic Comments 

You may also comment on the 

proposal by electronic mail (e-mail) to: 

a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Send 

electronic comments as an ASCII file to 

avoid using special characters and anv 

form of encryption. We will also accept 

comments and data disk 

WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1 file format. 

Identity all < omments and data in 

electronic form by the docket number. 

Don't send confidential business 

information (CBI) through electronic 

mail. You may file electronic comments 

on these proposed amendments online 

at many Federal Depository Libra] 

Technology Transfer Network 

The Technology Transfer Netwink 

(TTN) is a network of our electronic 

bulletin boards. The TTN provides 

information and technology exchange in 

various areas of air pollution control. 

You can access the TTN through the 

Internet at "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/.' 1! 

you need more information on the TTN, 

call the HELP line at (919) 541-5384. 

The preamble outline follows. 

i. What types of fe< ilities are potentially 

v these amendm 

li. What is the purpose of those amendrrn' 

III Why are we proposing to extend 

erral from permitting tor Bn 

IV. What are the administrative requirements 

for these proposed arnendmei 

A. D<" kel 

I 2866 

C. Executive Order 12875 

D. Executive Order 13084 

n funded Mandates Refoni; 

F, Regulat 

G.l' Reduction Act 

H. Executive Order 13045 

I. National Tei hnologj Transfer and 

Advani ement 

I. What Types of Facilities Are 

Potentially Affected by These 

Amendments? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by this action 

include: 

Category North American Industry Classification 

System Codes 

331492 

332.333,334.335,336,447 ... 

Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Secondary lead smelters. 

Halogenated solvent cleaning machines at fabricated metal product manufacturing facilities, machinery manufacturing facilities, computer and electronic 

product manufacturing facilities, electrical equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing facilities, transportation equipment manufacturing facilities, and gasoline stations. 
P.4 

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 159/Wednesday, August 18, 1999/Proposed Rules 4511 7 

Category 

• 

North American Industry Classification 

System Codes 

332, 333, 334, 335, 336 

8123 

3391 

Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Chromium electroplating machines at fabricated metal product manufacturing 

facilities, machinery manufacturing facilities, computer and electronic product 

manufacturing facilities, electrical equipment, appliance, and component 

manufacturing facilities, and transportation equipment manufacturing facilities. 

Dry cleaning and laundry facilities. 

Ethylene oxide sterilizers at medical equipment and supplies manufacturing facilities. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers of the entities likely to be .. 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that we are now 

aware could be regulated by this action. 

Other types of entities not listed in this 

table could also be affected. To 

determine whether your facility, 

company, business organization, etc., is 

regulated by this action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria in the following sections of title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: 

• § 63.320, perchloroethylene dry 

cleaning. 

• § 63.340, ckromium electroplating. 

• § 63.360, ethylene oxide sterilizers. 

• § 63.460, halogenated solvent 

cleaners. 

• § 63.541, secondary lead smelters. 

If you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the "For Further Information" 

section. 

II. What Is the Purpose of These 

Amendments? 

The purpose of these amendments is • 

to extend the deadline for certain area 

sources to submit applications for title 

V operating permits. The Act requires 

sources subject to standards or 

regulations under section 112 to obtain 

title V operating permits, but allows us 

to exempt nonmajor sources from the 

requirement to obtain operating permits 

if we determine through rulemaking that 

compliance with such requirements is 

impracticable, infeasible, or 

unnecessarily burdensome on such 

categories. See section 502(a) of the Act. 

Under section 112 of the Act, such 

nonmajor sources are termed "area 

sources." See CAA section 112(a)(2).1 

1

 Generally, an area source under section 112 is 

a source whose potential to emit air pollutants is 

below the levels that define a major source. A 

"major source" under section 112 is any source that 

emits or has the potential to emit at least 10 tons 

per year of an individual hazardous air pollutant. 

(HAP) or at least 25 tons per year of a combination 

of HAP (or such lesser quantity, or different criteria 

in the case of radionuclides, as established by the 

Administrator). You should consult section 

112(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and 40 CFR 63.2 to 

determine if you have a area source. 

"When we issue standards or other 

requirements under section 112 of the 

Act, we determine whether to exempt 

any or all area sources from the 

requirement to obtain a title V permit at 

the time that the new standard is 

promulgated for a particular source 

category. See 40 CFR 70.3(b)(2), 40 CFR 

71.3(b)(2), and 63.1(c)(2). Our general 

provisions implementing section 112 

provide that unless we explicitly 

exempt or defer area sources subject to 

a MACT standard from the permitting 

requirement, they must obtain operating 

permits. See 40 CFR 63.1(c)(2)(iii). 

Since the Act allows an exemption 

from the permittingsrequirements, we 

interpret it to allow a temporary 

exemption (i.e., a deferral) of those 

requirements. We previously allowed 

permitting authorities to defer 

permitting for area sources subject to 

five NESHAP (59 FR 61801, December 

2, 1994; 60 FR 29484, June 5,1995; 61 

FR 27785, June 3, 1996, and 64 FR 4570, 

January 29,1999).2 Those provisions 

will expire December 9,1999. The 

source categories for which we deferred 

title V operating permit requirements for 

area sources were: hard and decorative 

chromium electroplating and chromium 

anodizing tanks, ethylene oxide 

commercial sterilization and fumigation 

operations, perchloroethylene dry 

cleaning facilities, secondary lead 

smelting facilities, and halogenated 

solvent cleaning machines. As we 

approach this December 9,1999 

expiration date, the conditions 

prompting the allowance for previous 

deferrals have not changed. We Eire, 

therefore, proposing to extend the 

deferral provisions for the NESHAP for 

an additional 5 years. 

The proposed amendments have been 

written in "plain language," as directed 

in President Clinton's June 1,1998, 

Executive Memorandum on Plain 

Language in Government Writing. While 

we believe the proposed language 

2

 In this rulemaking, we continue to rely upon the 

rationale provided in the prior rulemakings, in 

addition to the rationale discussed in today's 

action, and in the action extending the deferral for 

halogenated solvent cleaning machines to part 71 

(64 FR 37683; July 13, 1999). 

improves the understandability of the 

current language, the intent and 

meaning of the text is unchanged. 

HI. Why Are We Proposing To Extend 

the Deferral From Permitting for Area 

Sources? 

On December 13,1995 (60 FR 64002), 

we proposed to allow title V permitting 

authorities to defer the requirement for 

obtaining title V operating permits for 

area sources in several source categories 

for which standards were promulgated 

under 40 CFR part 63. We finalized that 

proposal on June 3, 1996 (61 FR 27785). 

A deferral from the requirement to 

obtain a part 70 operating permit for 

halogenated solvent cleaners at area 

sources was promulgated on December 

2, 1994 (59 FR 61805), and amended 

June 5, 1995 (60 FR 29484). 

At the time we established the June 3, 

1996, deferral option, we stated we 

would decide whether to adopt 

permanent exemptions by the time the 

allowed deferrals expired. We also 

stated that during the deferral period we 

would continue to evaluate the 

permitting authorities' implementation 

and enforcement of the standards for 

area sources not covered by title V 

permits, the likely benefit of permitting 

such sources, and the costs and other 

burdens on such sources associated 

with obtaining a title V permit. 

However, we dp not yet have sufficient 

information to determine whether 

permit exemptions are warranted for 

most area sources and are continuing to 

evaluate the above-noted 

considerations. Thus, we are not yet 

prepared to make decisions that either 

permanently relieve these area sources 

from title V, or that allow them to 

become immediately subject to the 

permitting requirement. In light of this, 

we believe the most reasonable 

approach is to extend the status quo 

(i.e., defer the title V permitting 

requirements), rather than to "decide" 

by default through letting the current 

deferral expire this December. 

Many permitting authorities are 

having difficulty issuing permits even to 

major sources, and some agencies have 

initially underestimated the resources 
P.5 

45118 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 159/Wednesday , August 18, 1999/Propose d Rules 

necessary to prepare large and complex 

permits for many major sources. If we 

discontinue the title V permit deferral 

for the tens of thousands of area sources 

subject to the five NESHAP that are the 

subject of these proposed amendments, 

owners and operators of such area 

sources would require assistance from 

the permitting staff at permitting 

agencies due to their relative lack of 

technical and legal expertise, resources, 

and experience in dealing with 

environmental regulation. Since many 

of these owners or operators have little 

or no permitting expertise, a substantial 

amount of permitting authority staff 

time would be needed to provide the 

administrative and technical support to 

owners and operators of area sources to 

prepare and submit permit applications. 

As noted above, this staff time would 

scarcely be available, which in turn 

would cause many area sources td be 

unable to obtain technical and 

procedural assistance to help them file 

timely and complete applications, 

unless they have paid consultants to 

prepare applications for them. This 

scenario would constitute an 

impracticable, infeasible and 

unnecessary burden on these area 

sources, most of which are small 

businesses, especially considering that 

by definition they emit less than majors. 

This would also compound the 

difficulties permitting authorities are 

currently having in processing and 

timely issuing initial title V permits to 

major sources under their developing 

title V programs. Similarly, EPA regions 

are just beginning to permit major 

sources in Indian country and would 

find it administratively very difficult to 

focus on area sources at the same time. 

The net result is a basic impracticability 

for these area sources and permitting 

authorities to develop and process title 

V operating permits in the near future. 

We believe that it is reasonable and 

fair to allow permitting authorities to 

defer title V permitting for area sources 

for an additional five years, since this 

would allow deferral for one more cycle 

of permitting. Title V permits have not 

been issued for many major sources, and 

permitting resources are currently 

directed to completing those. We 

anticipate another 5-year term of permit 

issuance should fully complete the 

outstanding initial permitting of major 

sources and other subject sources such 

as solid waste incineration units. By 

that time, we anticipate that permitting 

authorities' resources may be more 

available to aid area sources in 

developing permit applications. But in 

order to allow permitting authorities to 

continue to be able to focus on the 

critical and immediate task of issuing 

permits to major sources, the most 

feasible remedy is to allow permitting 

authorities to defer permitting of these 

area sources for anadditional five-year 

permit cycle. 

In sum, and as described in prior 

rulemakings granting the deferral 

option, requiring area sources subject to 

the NESHAP that are the subject of this 

rulemaking to obtain title V permits at 

this time would constitute an 

impracticable, infeasible and 

unnecessary burden on these area 

sources and would be an additional 

burden on the permitting agencies. 

We note that this deferral is an option 

at the permitting authority's discretion 

under part 70 permit programs and not 

an automatic deferral that the source 

can invoke. Some permitting authorities 

may decide that area sources in one or 

more of the above-mentioned source 

categories warrant permitting, or they 

have in place a streamlined permitting 

mechanism for area sources that 

minimizes the burden both on the 

authority and the source, e.g., a general 

permit (see §§ 70.6(dJ and 71.6(d)). In 

areas where no part 70 program has 

been approved, and part 71 permitting 

is administered by EPA, we propose 

deferral for these area sources until 

December 9, 2004. 

IV. What Are the Administrative 

Requirements for These Proposed 

Amendments? 

A. Docket 

The docket is an organized and 

complete file of all the information 

considered by the EPA in the 

development of these proposed 

amendments. The docket is a dynamic 

file, because material is added 

throughout the rulemaking 

development. The docketing system is 

intended to allow members of the public 

and industries involved to readily 

identify and locate documents so that 

they can effectively participate in the 

rulemaking process. Along with the 

proposed and promulgated standards 

and their preambles, the contents of the 

docket will serve as the record in the 

case of judicial review. (See section 

307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.) 

B. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735; October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is "significant" and therefore 

subject to Office of Management (OMB) 

review and the requirements of the 

Executive Order. The Executive Order 

defines "significant regulatory action" 

as one that is likely to result in a rule 

that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President's priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

It has been determined that these 

proposed amendments do not qualify as 

a "significant regulatory action" under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866.and, 

therefore, are not subject to review by 

OMB. 

C. Executive Order 12875 

Under Executive Order 12875, the 

EPA may not issue a regulation that is 

not required by statute and that creates 

a mandate upon a State, local, or tribal 

government, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by those governments, or 

EPA consults with those governments. If 

EPA complies by consulting, Executive 

Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to 

OMB a description of the extent of 

EPA's prior consultation with 

representatives of affected State, local, 

and tribal governments, the nature of 

their.concerns, copies of any written 

communications from the governments, 

and a statement supporting the need-to 

issue the regulation. In addition, 

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to 

develop an effective process permitting 

elected officials and other 

representatives of State, local, and tribal 

governments "to provide meaningful 

and timely input in the development of 

regulatory proposals containing 

significant unfunded mandates." 

Today's proposed amendments do not 

create a mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments. These proposed 

amendments do not impose any 

enforceable duties on these entities. 

Accordingly, the requirements of 

section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do 

not apply to these proposed 

amendments. 

D. Executive Order 13084 

Under Executive Order 13084, the 

EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
P.6 

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 159/Wednesday, August 18, 1999/Proposed Rules 4511 9 

. 

not required by statute, that 

significantly or uniquely affects the 

communities of Indian tribal 

governments, and that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

those communities, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by the tribal 

governments, or EPA consults with 

those governments. If EPA complies by 

consulting, Executive Order 13084 

requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a 

separately identified section of the 

preamble to the rule, a description of 

the extent of EPA's prior consultation 

with representatives of affected tribal 

governments, a summary of the nature 

of their concerns, and a statement 

supporting the need to issue the 

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 

13084 requires the EPA to develop an 

effective process permitting elected 

^.officials and other representatives of 

Indian tribal governments "to provide 

meaningful and timely input in the 

development of regulatory policies on 

matters that significantly or uniquely 

affect their communities." 

These proposed amendments do not 

alter the control standards imposed by 

"part 63, subparts M, N, O, T, and X, for 

any source, including any that may 

affect communities of the Indian tribal 

governments. Under the proposed 

amendments, sources must continue to 

meet all applicable requirements, 

including all applicable emission 

control, monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements established by 

the respective NESHAP. Hence, today's 

proposed amendments do not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of Indian tribal 

governments. Accordingly, the 

requirements of section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 

these proposed amendments. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104-4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

the EPA generally must prepare a, 

written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with "Federal mandates" that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any 1 year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires the EPA 

to identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The provisions of section 205 do not 

apply when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows the EPA to adopt an alternative 

other than the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative if the Administrator 

publishes with the final rule an 

explanation why that alternative was 

not adopted. Before the EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

The EPA has determined that these 

proposed amendments do not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in aggregate, or the private sector in any 

1 year, nor do they significantly or 

uniquely impact small governments, 

because they contain no requirements 

that apply to such governments or 

impose obligations upon them. Thus, 

today's proposed amendments are not 

subject to the requirements of section 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small business, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. These 

proposed* amendments would not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, because they 

impose no additional regulatory 

requirements on owners or operators of 

affected sources and would relieve 

owners or operators of such sources of 

regulatory requirements that may 

otherwise apply if this action is not 

taken. Therefore, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

These proposed amendments do not 

require the collection of any 

information. Therefore, the 

requirements of the Paperwork . 

Reduction Act do not apply. 

H. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045: "Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, 

April 23,1997) applies to any rule that 

(1) is determined to be "economically 

significant" as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

the EPA has reason to beliove may havo 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially offectivo 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that are based on 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5-501 of 

the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. Theso 

proposed amendments are not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because thoy do 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

/. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal 

agencies to use voluntary consensus 

standards instead of government-unique 

standards in their regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

material specifications, test methods, 

sampling and analytical procedures, 

business practices, etc.) that are 

developed or adopted by one or more 

voluntary consensus standards bodios. 

Examples of organizations generally 

regarded as voluntary consensus 

standards bodies include tho American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM), the National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA), and the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). The 

NTTAA requires Federal agencies liko 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

with explanations when an agency 
P.7 

45120 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 159/Wednesday, August 18, 1999/Proposed Rules 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

. These proposed amendments do not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 6, 1999. 

Carol M. Browner, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons cited in the preamble, 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as 

follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart M—[Amended] 

2. Section 63.320 is amended by 

revising paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§63.320 Applicability. 

**** * 

(k) If you are the owner or operator of 

a source subject to the provisions of this 

subpart, you are also subject to title V 

permitting requirements under 40 CFR 

part 70 or part 71, as applicable. Your 

title V permitting authority may defer 

your source from these permitting 

requirements until December 9, 2004, if 

your source is not a major source and 

is not located at a major source as 

defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 

71.2, and is not otherwise required to 

obtain a title V permit. If you receive a 

deferral under this section, you must 

submit a title V permit application by 

December 9, 2005. You must continue to 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart applicable to area sources, even 

if you receive a deferral from title V 

permitting requirements. 

Subpart N—[Amended] 

3'. Section 63.340 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.340 Applicability and designation of 

sources. 

**** * 

(e) * * * 

(2) If you are the owner or operator of 

a source subject to the provisions of this 

subpart, you are also subject to title V 

permitting requirements under 40 CFR 

part 70 or part 71, as applicable. Your 

title V permitting authority may defer 

your source from these permitting 

requirements until December 9, 2004, if 

your source is not a major source and 

is not located at a major source as 

defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 

71.2, and is not otherwise required to 

obtain a title V permit. If you receive a 

deferral, under this section, you must 

submit a title V permit application by 

December 9, 2005. You must continue to 

comply with.the provisions of this 

subpart applicable to area sources, even 

if you receive a deferral from title V 

permitting requirements. 

Subpart O—[Amended] 

V 

4. Section 63.360 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 63.360 Applicability. 

**"** * 

(f) If you are the owner or operator of 

a source subject to the provisions of this 

subpart, you are also subject to title V 

permitting requirements under 40 CFR •. 

part 70 or part 71, as applicable. Your 

title V permitting authority may defer 

your source from these permitting 

requirements until December 9, 2004, if 

your source is not a major source and 

is not located at a major source as 

defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 

71.2, and is not otherwise required to 

obtain a title V permit. If you receive a 

deferral under this section, you must 

submit a title V permit application by 

December 9, 2005. You must continue to 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart applicable to area sources, even 

if you receive a deferral from title V 

permitting requirements. • 

Subpart T—[Amended] 

5. Section 63.468 is amended by 

revising paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§63.468 Reporting requirements, 

**** * 

(j) The Administrator has determined, 

pursuant to section 502(a) of the Act, 

that if you are an owner or operator of 

any batch cold solvent cleaning 

machine that is not a major source and 

is not located at a major source, as 

defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 

71.2, you are exempt from title V 

permitting requirements under 40 CFR 

part 70 or part 71, as applicable, for that 

source, provided you are not otherwise 

required to obtain a title V permit. If you 

own or operate any other solvent 

cleaning machine subject to the 

provisions of this subpart, you are also 

subject to title V permitting 

requirements. Your title V permitting 

authority may defer your source from 

these permitting requirements until 

December 9, 2004, if your source is not 

a major source and is not located at a 

major source as defined under 40 CFR 

63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, and is not otherwise 

required to obtain a title V permit. If you 

receive a deferral under this section, 

you must submit a title V permit 

application by December 9, 2005. You 

must continue to comply with the 

provisions of this subpart applicable to 

area sources, even if you receive a 

deferral from title V permitting 

requirements. 

Subpart X—[Amended] 

6. Section 63.541 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§63.541 Applicability. 

**** * 

(c) If you are the owner or operator of 

a source subject to the provisions of this 

subpart, you are also subject to title V 

permitting requirements under 40 CFR 

part 70 or part 71, as applicable. Your 

title V permitting authority may defer 

your source from these permitting 

requirements until December 9, 2004, if 

your source is not a major source and 

is not located at a major source as 

defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 

71.2, and is not otherwise required to 

obtain a title V permit. If you receive a 

deferral under this section, you must 

submit a title V permit application by 

December 9, 2005. You must continue to 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart applicable to area sources, even 

if you receive a deferral from title V 

permitting requirements. 

[FR Doc. 99-20862 Filed 8-17-99; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 
P.8 

Federal Register/Vol. 64, No^ 160/Thursday,''August 19, 1999/Proposed'Rules' 45221 

RulelOO Analytical Methods'(Adopted.7/ 

• 18/72) -VM,.,' .•...'.••'.•"•'••'-. t-.v,-.- • '••'ii-v:- • 

Rule 101 -rSampling'and Testing Facilities <•. i 

- (Adopted 5/23<(72) ..j th .;M.I- rwi^fz-1 ditvr 

Riile 102^ Source Te^^(Adopted.ll/2l'/,78L-; 

: -"-:y. - Rule 103. Continuous Monitoring SystemsMT 

•->, v/-v[Mp>ted^9/99 ^ 

. 'Rule'rl

,

54^ .'Stage 'fjspisode 'Actions (Adopted", 

• -' - '9757/911y<tyi7~7-i<''S*ZW'-t'

,

y

i

-'

 JV,t'.;',:-'V11't

, 

'- . Rule i55!-

s,i!tage!

2"Episode 'Actions {AHopted^ 

•• -

:

 -'•:• • ;'T.;"g/l'7/9ij-3J?X^S3ftJ.«i'2B Jtt3IS5ifOJ{^*!;*.4idJ. 

i_- T^^vRnle'156'^S^e'4i^is6de~;AcV6ni''ifAdopted': 

:V ,- ;•_-'• •.:

:

\,;9/l"7/gi)'X:otll5$!alsb si .?ji2-^i.?r;v,-?i.:. 

T*! ' -T,'Rule 158 !oSourcerAbatement Plans (Adopted 

z . .. '2-9/17/91): 3.13 fs yiis:\Jft MmjZ.aitoJfie&to 

. Rule 15.9. j Spurce Abatement Procedures, ^ ,••£< 

• (^pted9/i7/91) ^,,'^iT^'tebhjV.."?,'.-

^ Rule 2 20 General Conformity (Adopted 5/9/ 

OO) 

/r. >"o w; ''i-xoo.-iVi-r-i-.io ••<: • .-:•.•• : 

[FRDoc. 99^-21315 Filed 8-18-99; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P; : .->. 'T : -•'. • . ;•;•", 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY ,., 

40 CFR Part 62'.' 

[MO 080-1080b; FRL-6421-5] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans for Designated Facilities and 

Pollutants; Control of Emissions From 

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste 

Incinerators (HMIWIs); State of 

Missouri 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). ' 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the 

state of Missouri's section 111(d) plan 

for controlling emissions from existing 

HMIWIs. The plan was submitted to -

fulfill the requirements of sections 111 

and 129 of the Clean Air Act. The state 

plan establishes emission limits and 

controls for sources constructed on or 

before June 20,1996. 

In the final rules section of the 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

state's submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

action and anticipates no relevant 

adverse comments. A detailed rationale 

for the approval is set forth in the direct 

fined rule. If no relevant adverse , 

comments are received in response to 

that rule, no further activity is 

contemplated, and the direct final rule 

will become effective. If EPA receives 

relevant adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be'withdrawn, and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this document. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this •>'•''>''•'••" 

document should do so at this time.' '• 

DATES: Comments bn thisproposed rule, 

must be received in writing by :; 

Septraa#.2b;i'9'M ^ 

Wayne kaiser, Envkohinentai ; Vr. n 7i 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and .• <.••, 

.^DevelopmentBranch.^Ol^^rtH.'Stlr'."^^ 

Street; _^^^l^^^6^of^':_^"'/ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION cb^CTV-'if,'.; 

.Wayra&idser^ 

SUPPLEMENTARY JNFORMATION: See ti e 'T'," 

information provided, in the .direct .fui.al.-

rule which is located in tne rules ,. 

section of the Federal Register.

 ,: 

Dated: August 4,1999,,. . ,.,. 

William Rice, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VU. 

[FR Doc-99-21310 Filed 8-18-99; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 6 firfeS* 

[AD-FRL-6419-6] 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Halogenated 

Solvent Cleaning 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Thisactiqp proposes 

amendments to the "National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning". ; 

promulgated in the Federal Register on 

December 2,1994 (59 FR 61801). This 

action proposes revisions concerning 

additional compliance options for 

continuous web cleaning machines, as . 

well as clarifications that apply to 

steam-heated vapor cleaning machines . 

and to cleaning machines used to clean 

transformers. Because the proposed 

revisions ensure that all owners or 

operators of solvent cleaning machines 

have appropriate and attainable 

requirements for their cleaning 

machines, we do not anticipate 

receiving adverse comments. 

Consequently, these proposed 

revisions are also being issued as a 

direct final rule in the "Final Rules" 

section of today's Federal Register. If no 

significant and timely comments are 

received, no further action will be taken 

with respect to this proposal and the 

direct final rule will become final on the 

date provided in that action. 

DATES: Written comments on these 

proposed changes must be received by 

September 20) 199$. Anyone requesting 

a public hearing must contact the EPA 

no later than August 30,1999. If a . 

hearirig is held, it_will,take place oiji y r.i-. , 

September. 2,4999, beginning at,io $.m, 

Persons interested in attendhag thp,;;,,,, , 

hearing should call Ms, Janet Eck at 

'(919) 541-7946 to verify tiiat a tearing 

will be held. M ?«^Vt--- <* •••'• 

ADDRESSES: Written cdinmerits should ' 

be's"ubmitted'(in duplicatd.'il possible) 

to: Air and Radiation Docket and'J (. •' •••• 

Information Center (MC-6102), .-• 

Attention Docket Number A-9^-39., ..... 

Room M-1500, U.S. Environmental ' ".';' 

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, &W, ''' 

Washington. DC 20460. Ttie EPA , v . .• 

requests that a separate copy of eacn 

public comment be sent to the contact \ 

person listed below (see FOR FURTHER • 

INFORMATION CONTACT).' . : .r. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning the standards 

and the proposed changes, contact Mr. 

Pgi1 1

 Allfl0(i6varf Coatings and 

Consumer Products Group, Emission 

Standards Division (MD-13); U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

%77ij., telephone number f919l 5^\ -

0283. For information regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, contact Ms. 

Acquahetta Delangy, Manufacturing 

branch, uttice ot Compliance (2223A), 

U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency, 

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 

20460; telephone (202) 564-7061. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Comment Submission 

Comments may be submitted 

electronically via electronic mail (Email) or on diskette. Electronic 

comments on this proposed rule may be 

filed via E-mail at most Federal 

depository libraries. E-mail submittals 

should be sent to: "A-and-Rdocket@epamail.epa.gov." Electronic 

comments must be submitted as an 

American Standard Code for 

Information Interchange (ASCII) file 

avoiding the use of special characters or 

any form of encryption. Comments and 

data will also be accepted on diskette in 

WordPerfect, Version 5.1 or 6.1 file 

format, or ASCII file format. All 

comments and data for this proposal, 

whether in paper form .or electronic 

form such as through E-mail or on 

diskette, must be identified by Docket 

No. A-92-i9. No confidential business 

information should be submitted 

through E-Mail. 

For additio. al information, see the 

direct final rule published in the Final 

Rules section of today's Federal 

Register. 
42918 Federal Register I Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11,-1997 / Rules and-Regulations 

P.9 

I 

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 CAA 

forbids EPA to base its actions 

concerning SIPS on such grounds. 

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

246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2) 

and 7410(k)(3). 

D. Unfunded Mandates. 

Under section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed 

into law on March 22,1995, 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 privat^ sector, of 

. $100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the.objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA lias determined that the approval 

action promulgated does not include a 

Federal mandatethat 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. 

E. Submission to Congress and the 

General Accounting Office 

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,'EPA 

submitted 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 General Accounting 

Office prior to publication of the rule in 

today's Federal Register. This rule is 

not a "major rule" as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

F. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 10, 1997. 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).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. Carbon monoxide, 

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 12,1997. 

John H. Hankinson, Jr., 

Regional Administrator. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of 

Federal Regulations, is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—{AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401-7671q. 

Subpart L—Georgia 

2. Section 52.570 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(50) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * at 

(c) * * * 

(50) Georgia Enhanced Inspection and 

Maintenance submitted to EPA by the 

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources on March 27,1996. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Chapter 391-3-20 Enhanced 

Inspection and Maintenance program 

effective on September 24,1996. 

(ii) Other material. None. 

[FR Doc. 97-20576 Filed 8-8-97; 8:45 am) 

BILLING CODE 6560-60-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY A _ , 

40 CFR Part 63 " 

[AO-FRL-5872-7] 

National Emission Standards for 

Chromium Emissions From Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On January 25,1995, the EPA 

issued national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 

as amended in 1990, for Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks. The 

NESHAP requires existing and new 

major and area sources to control 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants by 

meeting emission limits that are based 

on the use of maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT). On January 

30, 1997, the EPA issued an interim 

final rule that revised the compliance 

date for some provisions for some of the 

sources subject to this standard. 

Specifically, the interim rule extended 

the compliance date for the monitoring, 

reporting, and recordkeeping (MRR) 

requirements for hard chromium 

electroplaters and chromium anodizing 

operations in California from January 

25, 1997 to July 24, 1997. 

Based on the comments received on 

the interim final rule, the EPA has 

reconsidered the extension deadline and 

is promulgating these revisions in 

today's action. Specifically, today's 

action further extends the compliance 

date for performance test requirements 

and all the monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping (MRR) requirements for 

hard chromium electroplaters and 

chromium anodizing operations in 

California to January 25,1998. 

DATES: The final rule will be effective 

August 11,1997. 

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket^ Np^A-SSr02 containing the supporting 

information for the original NESHAP 

and this action, are available for public 

inspection and copying between 8:00 

a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, 

Waterside Mall, room M-1500, first 

floor, 401 M Street SW., Washington, 

DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-7548 

or 260—7549. A reasonable fee may be 

charged for copying, 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Lalit Banker, Emission Standards 

Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541-5420. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities 

The regulated category and entities 

affected by this action include the hard 

chromium electroplating and chromium 

anodizing operations in the State of 

California only. To determine whether 

your facility is regulated by this action, 

you should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in § 63.340 of the 

regulation. If you have questions 
P.10 

Federal Register / Vol: 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 4291 9 

il 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a-particular entity, consult your State/ 

local agency, EPA regional office, or the 

EPA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance. 

I. Basis for Changes to Rule 

In response to two public comments 

received and further consideration by 

the EPA, the following changes have 

been made to the rule since the interim 

final rule. The EPA is extending the 

compliance date for all the MRR 

requirements for hard chromium 

electroplaters and the chromium 

anodizing sources in California from 

January 25,1997, to January 25,1998 

(the interim final rule extended some of 

these up to July 24,1997). Also, the 

performance test completion date is 

extended for all the hard chromium 

electroplaters and the chromium 

anodizing sources in:California for 

which a source test is required from July 

24,1997, to January 25,1998. 

These changes are made primarily to 

allow more time for the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) to establish 

and obtain approval under Subpart E of 

its MRR requirements for these sources 

that would be at least as stringent as the 

Federal NESHAP requirements. It also 

will allow more time for BPA to review 

and approve/disapprove over one 

hundred performance tests for sources 

that performed these tests prior to July 

24,1997. CARB and EPA Region IX 

have developed a source test review 

protocol to use in reviewing these 

performance tests for approval. Those 

sources whose performance tests are 

disapproved will have to perform 

additional performance test(s) following 

the criteria and methods provided in the 

final NESHAP rule. Thus, the extension 

will- give CARB and the sources 

additional time to achieve this. The net 

effect of this compliance extension will 

be that all the hard chromium 

electroplating and chromium anodizing 

sources in California that apply add-on 

emission control devices to reduce 

chromium emissions will continue to 

operate as they do now, while 

complying with the current applicable 

State/district rules. The Federal 

NESHAP continues to require these 

sources to monitor applicable 

parameters on and after the date on 

which the initial performance test is 

required to be completed, which is 

currently July 24,1997. However, for 

chromium anodizing sources that use 

fume suppressants as the control 

technology, the MRR requirements were 

effective January 25,1997, if they 

choose not to do a performance test 

(which is allowed). Today's action 

extends these dates to January 25,1998. 

As stated in the interim final rule, 

there is no adverse environmental 

impact as a result of this extension. The 

sources in California presently are 

required to comply with California's 

"Chrome Platinjg Air Toxics Control 

Measure" (February 1988), which 

specifies the application of control 

technology (already in place) that is 

identical to that required by the 

Chromium NESHAP. The Chromium 

NESHAP requires control technology to 

be installed by January 25, 1997. 

California is in the process of obtaining 

approval of its rule, including State 

MRR requirements, as equivalent to the 

Federal rule under section 112(1) of the 

CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(1). In the event 

that California is unable to obtain 

approval before January 25,1998, the 

requirements of the Chromium NESHAP 

will take effect. In this action, the EPA 

is not extending the date by which 

control technology must be installed, 

only the date by which California 

sources subject to the rule must meet 

the Federal performance testing and 

MRR requirements. This extension is 

not considered for similar sources in 

other States because no other State has 

a pre-existing State regulation that 

requires the installation of equivalent 

control technology by January 25,1997, 

nor is any other State seeking approval 

of an equivalent rule or other authority. 

II. Impacts 

The extension of the performance 

testing and MRR compliance dates for 

some sources in California will not have 

any detrimental environmental effects 

because there is no delay in installation 

of control technology; thus, there is no 

impact on the estimated emissions 

reduction or the control cost for the 

rule. 

III. Public Participation 

The EPA provided 30 days for 

submission of public comments on the 

interim final rule. Two comment letters 

were received during the comment 

period. Both commentors asked for 

more time to allow the regulatory and 

equivalency process to be completed 

thereby ensuring that California sources 

are subject to only one set of 

requirements in the interim and also to 

allow time for EPA to complete its 

review of performance tests that certain 

sources conducted before July 24, 1997. 

These commenters also requested that 

the EPA include in the extension all 

other MRR requirements that were not 

included in the interim final rule. These 

other MRR requirements relate to having 

an operation and maintenance plan, 

reporting and recordkeeping of all 

malfunctions, etc. One commenter 

wanted the extension to be as long as it 

takes for differences between the State 

and Federal rules to be resolved. 

Considering the status of the 

equivalency proposal, and the fact that 

the sources for which the extension 

applies are required to install control 

technology by the NESHAP's 

compliance date of January 25,1997, the 

EPA has decided to extend the date by 

which a source must conduct its 

performance test and comply with the 

MRR requirements until January 25, 

1998. In the event that California is 

unable to submit an approvable rule to 

EPA before January 25,1998, the 

requirements of the Chromium NESHAP 

will take effect. EPA does not intend to 

grant additional extensions beyond 

January 25, 1998 for this source category 

as the current extension has been 

granted in consideration of 

extraordinary circumstances which we 

are committed to resolving prior to this 

date. 

Both the commenters requested 

clarification regarding the compliance 

date and performance test compliance 

date and whether the source'is in 

violation if a performance test 

conducted after January 25,1997 shows 

noncompliance, whil e a subsequent 

performance test conducted before the 

extended performance test compliance 

date shows compliance. As stated 

above, today's action does not extend 

the source's compliance date, which 

was January 25,1997, which is the date 

by which all sources were required to be 

in compliance. Compliance is required 

as of the compliance date, regardless of 

when the performance test is performed. 

If a performance test shows 

noncompliance, then the EPA considers 

the source to be not in compliance from 

the initial compliance date (January 25, 

1997). This provision is not changed in 

the final rule. Moreover, one of the 

premises underlying EPA's decision to 

grant the extension is there is no delay 

in compliance. The extension only 

allows additional time to conduct the 

requisite performance'tests and comply 

with the MRR requirements. 

IV. Administrative Requirements 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements of the previously 

promulgated NESHAP were submitted 

to and approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). A copy 

of this Information Collection Request 

(ICR) document (EPA ICR number 

1611.02) may be obtained from Sandy 

Farmer, Information Policy Branch 

(PM-223Y); U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW; 
4292 0 Federal Register /.Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, i997 / Rules and.Regulations 

P.11 

I i 

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling 

(202)260-2740. 

Today's changes to the NESHAP 

should have no-impact on the 

information collection burden estimates 

made previously. Today's action merely 

extends the date of compliance with the 

source test requirements and the MRR 

requirements in the rule forthe existing 

affected-sources in California. These 

changes do not impose new 

requirements. Consequently, the ICR has 

-not been revised. • 

B. Executive Order 12866 Review 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

.EPA-must determine-whether the 

. proposed regulatory action is 

"significant" and therefore, subject to 

OMB review and the requirements of 

the executive order. The Order defines 

"significant" regulatory action as one 

that is likely to lead to k rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

. economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or-safety in 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or nlanned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user, fees 

- or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

. (4)-Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President's priorities, or the principles 

set forth in.the. executive order. 

The Chrome Electroplating NESHAP 

promulgated on January 25,1995 was 

determined by OMB to be a "significant 

regulatory action"-within the meaning 

bfthe Executive Order. For this reason, 

OMB reviewed the final rule as 

promulgated. However; today's action 

merely extends for certain-sources the 

source-test completion and the -

compliance deadline for MRR 

requirements. These changes do not add 

any-additional control requirements or 

costs. Therefore, this regulatory action 

• does not affect the previous decision 

and is not considered to be significant. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

requires the identification of potentially 

adverse impacts of Federal regulations 

upon small business entities. The Act 

specifically requires the completion of a 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis when 

the regulation will impose a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Because 

today's action imposes no adverse 

economic impacts, a Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis has not been 

prepared. 

D. Submission to Congress and the 

General Accounting Office . 

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the . 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 

as amended by .the Small Business 

Regulatory. Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, EPA submitted a report containing 

this rule andotherrequired information 

to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives and die Comptroller 

General of the-General Accounting 

Office prior to publication of the rule in 

. today's 'Federal Register. This rule is 

not a "major rule" as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

E. Unfunded Mandates .,_ 

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the:EPA 

must-prepare a budgetary impact 

statement to accompany any proposed 

or final rule that includes a Federal 

mandate that may xesult 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 EPAmust select 

the least costly, most cost-effective or 

least burdensome alternative that 

achieves the objectives of the Act 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. 

The EPA has determined that the 

action promulgated today does not 

include a Federal mandate that may 

result in estimated costs of.$100 milhon 

>or more to.either'State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. Therefore, the 

requirements of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act do not apply to this action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

. Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and. 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 4,1997. 

Carol MT Browner, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set oql in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63, of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart N—National Emission 

Standards for Chromium Emissions 

From Hard and Decorative Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium 

Anodizing Tanks 

2. Section 63.342 is amended'by 

revising the first sentence of paragraph 

(f)(3)(i) introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§63.342 Standards. 

* * * * * 

(f)* * * 

(3) * * * (i) The owner or operator of 

an affected source subject to the work 

practices of paragraph (f) of this section 

shall prepare an operation and 

maintenance plan to be implemented no 

later than the compliance date, except 

for hard chromium electroplaters and 

chromium anodizing operations in 

California which have until January 25, 

1998. * * .* 

**** * 

3. Section 63.343 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1) and the first 

sentence of paragraphs (c)(l)(ii), 

(c)(2)(ii), (c)(4)(ii), (c)(5)(ii) introductory 

text, and (c)(6)(ii) introductory text, to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.343 Compliance provisions. 

* * * - * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, an 

owner or operator of an affected sourco 

subject to the requirements of this 

subpart is required to conduct an initial 

performance test as required under 

§ 63.7, except for hard chromium 

electroplaters and chromium anodizing 

•operations in California which have 

until January 25,1998, using the 

procedures and test methods listed in 

§§63.7 and 63.344. 

* • * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(D* * * 

(ii) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is required to be 

completed under § 63.7, except for hard 

chromium electroplaters and chromium 

anodizing operations in California 

which have until January 25,1998, the 

owner or operator of an affected source, 

or group of affected sources under 

common control, shall monitor and 

record the pressure drop across the 

composite mesh-pad system once each 

day that any affected source is 

operating. * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is required to bo 

completed under. § 63.7, except for hard 

chromium electroplaters and chromium 

anodizing operations in California 
P.12 

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations :42921 

i 

which have until January 25,1998, the 

owner or operator of ah affected source, 

or group of affected sources under -

common control, shall monitor and 

record the velocity pressure at the inlet 

to the packed-bed system and the 

pressure drop across the scrubber 

system once each day that any affected 

source is operating. * * .* 

•**** ' 

(ii) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is required to be 

completed under § 63.7, except for hard 

chromium electroplaters and chromium 

anodizing operations in California 

which have until January 25,1998, the 

owner or operator of an affected source, 

or group df affected sources under 

common control, shall-monitor and 

record the pressure drop across the 

fiber-bed mist eliminator, and the 

control device installed upstream of the 

fiber bed to prevent plugging,.once each 

day that any affected source is 

operating. * •* * 

(5) * * .* -

(ii) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is required to be 

completed under § 63.7, except for hard 

chromium .electroplaters and chromium 

anodizing operations in. California 

which have until January 25; 1998, the 

owner or operator of an affected source 

shall monitor the surface tension of the 

electroplating or anodizing bath. * * * 

(6) * * * 

(ii) On and: after the date on which the 

initial performaiice test is required to be 

completed under-§ 63.7, except for hard 

chromium electroplaters and chromium 

anodizing operations in California 

which have until January 25,1998, the 

owner or operator of an affected source 

shall monitor the foam blanket 

thickness of the electroplating or 

anodizing bath. * * * 

* * . * * , * 

4. Section 63.347 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§63.347 Reporting requirements. 

(e) * * * 

(4) For sources that are not required 

to complete a performance test in 

accordance with § 63.343(b), the 

notification of compliance status shall 

be submitted to the Administrator no 

later than 30 days after the compliance 

date specified in § 63.343(a), except the 

date on which sources in California 

shall monitor the surface tension of the 

anodizing bath is extended to January 

25,1998. 

* , * * * * 

[FR Doc. 97-21143 Filed 8-8-97; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[OPP-300521; FRL-5732-7] 

RIN2070-AB78 

Glyphosate; Pesticide Tolerances for 

Emergency Exemptions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a 

tinfe-limited tolerance for residues bf 

glyphosate, per se in or on dry peas, pea 

vines, hay, and silage, lentils, and 

kidney (cattle, goats, horses and sheep). 

This action is in response to EPA's 

granting of emergency exemptions 

under section 18 of the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act authorizing use of the pesticide on' 

dry peas, lentils and chickpeas. This 

regulation-establishes a maximum 

permissible level for residues of 

glyphosate in this food commodity 

pursuant.to section 408(1)(6) of the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 

as amended by the Food Quality 

Protection Act of 1996. Thetolerance 

will expire arid is revoked on August 30, 

1998. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

August 11,1997. Objections and 

requests forhearings must be received 

by EPA on or before October 10,1997. 

ADDRESSES: Written objectiohs^^nd 

hearing requests, identified by the 

docket control number, [OPP^300521], 

must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk 

.,(1900), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Rm. M3708,401M St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Fees 

accompanying objections and hearing 

requests shall be labeled "Tolerance 

Petition Fees" and forwarded to: EPA 

Headquarters Accounting Operations 

Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy 

of any objections and hearing requests 

filed with the Hearing Clerk identified 

by the docket control number, [OPP300521], must also be submitted to: 

Public Information and Records 

Integrity Branch, Information Resources 

and Services Division (7506C), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring 

a copy of objections and hearing 

requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. 

A copy of objections and hearing 

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk 

may also be submitted electronically by 

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of 

objections and hearing requestS'must bo 

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the 

use of special characters and any form 

of encryption. Copies of objections and 

hearing requests will also be accepted 

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format 

or ASCII file format. All copies of 

objections and.hearing requests in 

electronic form must be identified by 

the docket control number [OPP300521]. No Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) should be submitted 

through-e-mail. Electronic copies of 

objections and hearing requests on this 

rule may be filed online atmany Federal 

Depository Libraries. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By 

mail: Virginia Dietrich, Registration 

Division 7505C, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Office location, telephone 

number, and e-mail address: Crystal 

Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., 

Arlington, VA, (703) 308-9359, e-mail: 

dietrich.virginia@epamail.epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA, Oil 

its own initiative, pursuant to section 

408(e) and (1)(6) of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 

U.S.C. 346a(e) and (1)(6), is establishing 

a tolerance for residues of the herbicide 

AHPhosphonomethylJglycine, in or on 

dry peas, pea vines, hay, and silage, , 

lentils, and kidney (cattle, goats, horses 

and sheep) at 5, 60, 200, 90, 5, and 4, 

respectively part per million (ppm). 

These tolerances will expire and are 

revoked on August 30,1998. After 

August 30, 1998, EPA will publish a 

document in the Federal Register to 

remove the-revoked tolerance from the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

I. Background and Statutory Authority 

The Food Quality Protection Act of 

1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104-170) was 

signed into law August 3,1996. FQPA 

amends both the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 

301 ef seq., and the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq . Tho FQPA 

amendments went into effect 

immediately. Among other things, 

FQPA amends FFDCA to bring all EPA 

pesticide tolerance-setting activities 

under a new section 408 with a new 

safety standard and new procedures. 

These activities are described below and 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 446 3 

P.13 

D. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate. . 

circuit by March 31,1997. 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) of the CAA). 

E. Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management arid Budget 

has exempted this rule from the 

requirements of section 6 of Executive 

Order 12866. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Note: Incorporation by reference of the 

State Implementation Plan for the State of 

Colorado was approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register on July 1,1980. 

Dated: December 2, 1996. 

Jack VV. McGraw, 

Acting Regional Administrator. 

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. 7401-7671q. 

Subpart G—Colorado 

2. Section 52.320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(78) to read as 

follows: 

§52.320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * . * 

(c) * * - * 

(78) Revisions to the Colorado State 

Implementation Plan were submitted by 

the Governor of the State of Colorado on 

August 25,1995, and October 16, 1995. 

The revisions consist or amendments to 

Regulation No. 3, "Air Contaminant 

Emissions Notices" and to Regulation 

No. 7, "Regulation To Control Emissions 

of Volatile Organic Compounds." These 

revisions involve source-specific State 

Implementation Plan requirements for 

emission trading for Pioneer Metal 

Finishing Inc. and crossline averaging 

for Lexmark International Inc. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Revisions to Regulation No. 3, 5 

CCR 1001-5, sections V.A. (Purpose), 

V.C.I, V.C.3, V.C.5 (Definitions), V.D.6, 

V.D.7, V.D.9 (Procedure for Certification 

of Emissions Reductions and Approval' 

of Transactions), V.E. (Criteria for 

Certification of Emissions Reductions), 

V.F., V.F.5, V.F.7, V.F.8.1, V.F.14, and 

V.F.15 (Criteria for Approval of all 

Transactions) and Revisions to 

Regulation No. 7, 5 CCR 1001-9, section 

II.D.l.a (Alternative Control Plans and 

Test Methods) became effective on 

December 30,1994. The new section 

IX.L.2.C through LX.L.2.c.xv 

(Manufactured Metal Parts and Metal 

Products) to Regulation No. 7, 5 CCR 

1001-9, applicable to Pioneer Metal *y 

Finishing Inc., became effective on 

April 30,1995. The new section IX.A.12 

through IX.A.12.a.(xi) (General 

Provisions) to Regulation No. 7, 5 CCR 

1001-9, applicable to Lexmark 

International Inc., became effective July 

30,1995 . 

* " * * * * 

[FR Doc. 97-2288 Filed 1-29-97; 8:45 am) 

BILLING CODE S560-50-F 

40 CFR Part 60 

[FRL-5681-5] 

Notice of Determination That the New 

Source Performance Standards 

(Subpart Eb) Apply to Central Wayne 

Energy Recovery, L.P., Dearborn 

Heights, Michigan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of determination of Part 

60 applicability. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) publishes its decision 

that a proposed modification to the 

municipal waste combustor in Dearborn 

Heights, Michigan, will trigger theapplicability of the "Standards of 

Performance for Municipal Waste 

Combustors" (Part 60, Subpart Eb). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This decision takes 

effect on October 11,1996. Petitions for 

review of this determination must be 

filed on or before March 31,1997 in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. 

ADDRESSES: The related material in 

support of this decision may be 

examined during normal business hours 

at the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation 

Division, Air Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance Branch, 17th 

Floor, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey L. Gahris of U.S. EPA Region 5, 

Air Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance Branch (AE-17J), 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604. Telephone (312) 886-6794. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

16,1995, the Director of Wayne County, 

Michigan's Air Quality Management 

Division, requested a determination on 

the applicability of the New Source 

Performance Standards for New 

Stationary Sources (NSPS) to a "wasteto-energy" conversion project proposed 

by the Central Wayne Energy Limited 

Partnership, for the municipal waste 

combustor facility located in Dearborn 

.Heights, Michigan. After requesting and 

receiving additional clarifying 

information, EPA responded to Wayne 

•County's request by means of a letter 

dated October 11,1996. EPA 

determined that each of the MWC units 

at the facility will become subject to the 

NSPS for municipal waste combustors 

(40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Eb, as 

promulgated on^e"cember"l9Tl995). 

This determination was based on the 

NSPS and emissions guidelines that 

were published in the Federal Register 

on December 19,1995, and codified at 

40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Eb and Cb, 

respectively. 

In addition to the publication of this 

action, EPA is placing a copy of this 

determination on its Technology . 

Transfer Network (TTN) bulletin board 

service. . 

(Sec. Ill andSec.129, Clean Air Act (42 

U.S.C. 7411)) 

Dated: January 13,1997. 

Valdas.V. Adamkus, 

Regional Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 97-2325 Filed 1-29-97; 8:45 am| 

BILLING COOE 6560-50-P 

40 CFR Part 63 

[AD-FRL-5682-3] ft Z&-& -

National Emission Standards for 

Chromium Emissions From Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Interim final rule deadline 

extension. 

SUMMARY:'On January 25, 1995, the EPA 

issued national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

as amended by the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, for Hard and 

, * 

tit 
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks. The 

NESHAP requires existing and new 

major and area sources to control 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

using the maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT). Today's action 

revises the compliance date for some of 

the sources subject to this standard. 

Specifically, this action extends the 

monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping (MRR) requirements for 

hard chromium electroplaters and 

chromium anodizing operations in 

California from a January 25,1997 

compliance deadline to a July 24,1997 

compliance date. 

The EPA is promulgating these 

revisions as an interirh final regulation 

and is requesting comments on the 

operations in the State of California 

only. To determine whether your 

facility is regulated by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in section 63.340 of 

the regulation. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult your State/ 

local agency, EPA regional offices, or 

Lalit Banker at the number listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT section. 

I. Additional Information 

The EPA, in association with ti e 

industry participating in the Common 

Sense Initiative, has undertaken 

emission test efforts at existing hard 

chromium electroplating operations to 

explore the applicability and feasibility 

revisions" The revisions will be in .effectFvp°f alternative control techniques that 

during the interim period while EPA _^could be applied to comply with the 

receives, reviews, and responds to any >3 rule and that may have significant . z_ 

comments.. V pollution.prevention opportunities and. 

DATES: The interim final rule will be Ci_ cost savings/The report of this effort has 

effective January 30,1997. Written gi^ 3 recently been completed and shows 

comments on this action musfbe ^^considerabl e promise. The majority of 

received by EPA at the address below on

 har d

 chromium sources could make use 

or before MarchJUL9a7. ( of this technology but need to carefully 

ADDRESSEsTc^nWSlhould be C < explore the applicability of these 

submitted to: Air and Radiation DockeM^ 116TM1 1TM contro 1 techniques to their 

and Inforrriation Center (6102), V " 

Attention Docket Numbei^A^a^Qg^ 

Room M-1500, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, 

Washington, DC 20460. The EPA 

requests that a separate copy also be 

sent to the contact person listed .under . 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically by sending electronic • 

mail (e-mail) to: a-and-rdocket@epamail.epa.gov. 

Docket. Docket No. A-88-02 

containing the supporting information 

for the original NESHAP and this action, 

are available for public inspection and 

copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the 

EPA-s Air, and Radiation Docket and 

Informafiorf Center, Waterside Mall, 

room M-1500, first floor, 401 M Street 

SW., Washington,'DC 20460, or by 

calling (202) 260-7548 or 260-7549; A 

reasonable ,fee may be charged for 

copying. . -• . . 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Lalit Banker, Emission Standards 

Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research ' 

triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, ; 

telephone number (919) 541r5420. . . 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities. .The regulated < 

category and.entities affected by this 

action include the hard chromium 

electroplating, and chromium anodizing 

.respective operations. Contact your 

trade association or Mr. Paul Shapiro of 

EPA at (202) 260-4969 for further 

information on this report. 

II. Basis for Changes to Rule 

In accordance with the provisions of 

the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA), EPA is invoking the good cause 

exception in taking this filial action 

without prior notice and an opportunity 

for comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B); Shell 

Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741.752 (DC. 

Cir.1991). The EPA is extending the . 

compliance date for MRR requirements 

for hard chromium electroplaters and 

the chromium anodizing sources in 

California from January 25,1997, to July 

24,1997, to allow time for the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish 

and get approved MRR requirements fdr 

these sources that would be at least as 

stringent as the Federal NESHAP 

requirements. The net effect of this 

compliance extension will be that all 

the hard chromium electroplaters and 

the chromium anodizing sources in 

California that apply add-on emission 

control devices to reduce chromium 

emissions would continue to operate as 

they do now, while complying with the 

current applicable State/district rules^. 

The Federal NESHAP requires these 

sources to monitor applicable 

parameters on and after the date on' . 

which the initial performance test is 

required to be completed, which is July 

24,1997. However, for chromium 

anodizing sources that use fume 

suppressants as the control technology, 

the MRR requirements were effective 

January 25,1997, if they choose not to . 

do a performance test (which is 

allowed). 

These sources in California are 

presently required to comply with 

California's "Chrome Plating Air Toxics 

Control Measure" (February 1988), 

which specifies the application of 

control technology (already in place), 

that is identical to that required by the 

Chromium NESHAP. The Chromium 

NESHAP requires control technology to 

be installed by January 25,1997. 

California has applied for an 

equivalency determination of its rule 

under section 112(1) of the CAA, 

including State MRR requirements.. The 

EPA is not extending the date by which 

control technology must be installed in 

this action, only the date by which 

California sources subject to the rule 

must meet the Federal MRR 

requirements, this extension is not 

considered for similar sources in other 

States because no other State has a preexisting State regulation that requires 

the installation of equivalent control 

technology by January 25,1997, nor is 

any other State seeking an equivalency 

determination with the Federal rule. 

III. Impacts 

t h e extension on the MRR 

compliance dates for some sources in 

California will not have any detrimental 

environmental effects because there is 

no delay in installation of control 

technology; thus, there is no impact on 

the estimated emissions reduction or the 

- control cost for the rule. 

IV. Public Participation 

EPA is issuing this final rule without 

prior notice and comments. This • 

expedited rulemaking procedure is 

based on the need to act expeditiously 

to ensure that subject California sources 

are not required to meet both the 

Federal and State MRR requirements on 

January 25,1997, provided such sources 

comply with the State regulations. In 

support of this action, EPA has 

contacted and received input from a 

significant number of interested parties. 

EPA believes these circumstances 

provide good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b) and CAA section 307(d)(1) to 

expedite this rulemaking. EPA finds that 

notice and comment procedures under 

section 307(d) are impracticable and 

. contrary to the public interest based on 

the limited time before January 25, 

I997,:anrj the fact that the subject 

California sources will have installed 

the requisite controls as required by the 

Chromium NESHAP. 
P.15 

Federal Register /'Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday/January 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 4465 

At the same time EPA is providing 30 

days for submission of public •'••..' 

comments. EPA will consider all written 

comments submitted in the allotted time 

period to determine if any change to this' 

rule is necessary. 

V. Administrative Requirements 

.-»'•'. ' -f. • '...'-.' • 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act. ' 

The information collection ' '•• 

requirements of the previously 

promulgated NESHAP were submitted 

to and approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). A copy 

of this Information Collection Request 

(ICR) document (OMB number 1611.02) 

may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, 

Information Policy Branch (PM-223Y); 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

401 M Street, SW; Washington, DC 

20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. 

Today's changes to the NESHAP 

should have no impact on the 

information collection burden estimates 

made previously. Today's'action merely 

extends the date of compliance with theMRR requirements in the nile for the 

existing affected sources in California. 

These changes do not impose new . 

requirements. Consequently, the ICR has 

not been revised. . c-.-. 

B. Executive Order 12866 Review 

Under Executive Order 12866, th«j: ' 

EPA must determine whether the 

proposed regulatory action is 

"significant" and therefore, subject to 

OMB review and the requirements, of 

the executive order. The Order defines., 

"significant." regulatory action a^ one,.? 

that is likely to lead to a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or • 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the . , 

environment, public health or safety in 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 7. : 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President's priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the executive order. 

The Chrome Electroplating NESHAP 

promulgated on January 25,1995 was 

determined by OMB to be a "significant 

regulatory action" within the meaning 

of the Executive Order. For this reason 

OMB reviewed the final rule as 

promulgated. However, today's action 

merely extends for certain sources the 

compliance deadline for MRR 

requirements. These changes do not add 

any additional control requirements or 

costs. Therefore, this regulatory action 

does not affect the previous decision 

and is.not considered to be significant, 

C. Submission to Congress and the 

General Accounting Office 

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, EPA submitted 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 General Accounting 

Office prior to publication of the rule in 

today's Federal Register. This rule is 

not a "major rule" as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2) of the APA, asi amended. 

D. Unfunded Mandates 

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 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 milhon or more. 

Under Section 205, the EPA must select 

the least costly, most cost-effective or 

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., » • " 

The EPA has determined that the 

action promulgated today 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, dr. to the 

private sector. Therefore, the 

requirements of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act do not apply to this action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: January 24,1997. 

Carol M. Browner, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63, 

subpart N, of the Code of Federal ~ 

Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows; 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart N—National Emission 

Standards for Chromium Emissions 

From Hard and Decorative Chromium 

Electroplating and Chromium 

Anodizing Tanks 

2. Section 63.347. is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(4) to read as 

follows: . : 

§63.347 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4) For sources that are not required 

to complete a performance test in 

accordance with § 63.343(b), the . 

notification bf compliance status shall 

be submitted to the Administrator no 

later than 30 days after the compliancedate specified in §63.343(a), except, the 

date on which" sources in California 

shall monitor the surface tension of the 

anodizing bath is extended from January 

25,1997, to July 24,1997. 

* '"*'•*. # \ 

(FR Doc. 97-2326 Filed 1-^29-97; 8:45 am] 

. BILUNO COOE 6560-SO-P. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MM Docket No. 95^127; RM-8676; RM8726J • 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Comobabi, Florence, Oracle, and San 

Carlos, AZ 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. . t. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document reallots 

Channel 276C2 from San Carlos to 

Florence, Arizona, as a Class Cl 

channel, and modifies the authorization 

of Desert West Air Ranchers Corporation 

for StationKCDX(FM) to specify 

operation on Channel 276C1 at 

Florence, pursuant to the provisions of 

Section 1.420 (g) and (i) of the 

Commission's Rules, in response to a 

counterproposal filed by Desert West 

Air Ranchers ("Desert West") (RM8726). See 60 FR 40146, August 7,1995. 

The allotment of Channel 276C1 to 

Florence will provide that community 

with its first local aural transmission 

service, and enable Station KCDX(FM) 

to expand its coverage area. Channel 

292A is substituted for Channel 279A at