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

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 private 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 has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

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.

* * * * *

(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 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–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 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 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 42919

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 EPA 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 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 is in the process of obtaining

approval of its rule, including State

MRR requirements, as equivalent to the

Federal rule under section 112(l) of the

CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(l). 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, while 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;
42920 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 for the 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 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

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

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 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).

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 result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate; or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under Section 205, the EPA must select

the 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 million

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 M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out 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)(1)(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 source

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) * * *

(1) * * *

(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 be

completed under § 63.7, except for hard

chromium electroplaters and chromium

anodizing operations in California
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 42921

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 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. * * *

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(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

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 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 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]

RIN 2070–AB78

Glyphosate; Pesticide Tolerances for

Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a

time-limited tolerance for residues of

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(l)(6) of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,

as amended by the Food Quality

Protection Act of 1996. The tolerance

will expire and is revoked on August 30,

1998.

DATES: This regulation is effective

August 11, 1997. Objections and

requests for hearings must be received

by EPA on or before October 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP–300521],

must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M 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, [OPP–

300521], 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 be

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 [OPP–

300521]. 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 at many 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, on

its own initiative, pursuant to section

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

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21

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

a tolerance for residues of the herbicide

N-(Phosphonomethyl)glycine, 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 et seq., and the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

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