Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 86 /Tuesday, May 5, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 24749

the effective date of the rule consistent

with the provisions of the CRA. Section 553 of the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),

provides that, when an agency for good

cause finds that notice and public

procedure are impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to the public

interest, an agency may issue a rule

without providing notice and an

opportunity for public comment. EPA

has determined that there is good cause

for making today’s rule final without

prior proposal and opportunity for

comment because EPA merely is

correcting the effective date of the

promulgated rule to be consistent with

the congressional review requirements

of the Congressional Review Act as a

matter of law and has no discretion in

this matter. Thus, notice and public

procedure are unnecessary. The Agency

finds that this constitutes good cause

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Moreover,

since today’s action does not create any

new regulatory requirements and

affected parties have known of the

underlying rule since July 23, 1997, EPA

finds that good cause exists to provide

for an immediate effective date pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and 808(2).

II. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

is therefore not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. In

addition, this action does not impose

any enforceable duty or contain any

unfunded mandate as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4), or require prior

consultation with State officials as

specified by Executive Order 12875 (58

FR 58093, October 28, 1993), or involve

special consideration of environmental

justice related issues as required by

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994). Because this action

is not subject to notice-and-comment

requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute, it is

not subject to the regulatory flexibility

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). EPA’s

compliance with these statutes and

Executive Orders for the underlying rule

is discussed in the July 23, 1997,

Federal Register document.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as

added by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

will submit a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

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

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office; however, in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 808(2), this rule is effective on

May 5, 1998. This rule is not a ‘‘major

rule’’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This final rule only amends the

effective date of the underlying rule; it

does not amend any substantive

requirements contained in the rule.

Accordingly, to the extent it is available,

judicial review is limited to the

amended effective date.

Dated: April 22, 1998.

Carol Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–11541 Filed 5–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–6007–5]

RIN 2060–A104

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Halogenated

Solvent Cleaning

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; Notice of temporary

stay.

SUMMARY: Today’s action announces a 3-

month stay of certain national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAP) for certain sources. The

effectiveness of the provisions for

‘‘National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Halogenated

Solvent Cleaning,’’ December 2, 1994)

for continuous web cleaning machines

using halogenated hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) solvents is stayed for 3

months for good cause pursuant to

section 553(b)(3)(B) of the

Administrative Procedure Act. Since the

compliance date for existing affected

sources covered by this NESHAP was

December 2, 1997, it is not practical to

propose and take public comment on

this 3-month stay.

This action also revises the definition

of the term ‘‘part’’ and adds a definition

for continuous web cleaning machine to

§ 63.461. A continuous web cleaning

machine is one that cleans parts such as

film, coils, wire, and metal strips at

speeds in excess of 11 feet per minute.

Parts are generally uncoiled, cleaned

such that the same part is

simultaneously entering and exiting the

solvent cleaning machine, and then

recoiled or cut.

Elsewhere in the Proposed Rules

Section of today’s Federal Register, the

EPA proposes to extend the compliance

date for sources affected by today’s stay

for 1 year in order to complete the

rulemaking pertaining to control of

emissions from continuous web

cleaning machines.

This stay affects only those sources

which meet the criteria describing a

continuous web cleaning machine using

halogenated HAP solvents.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Paul Almodo ́var at (919) 541–0283,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711. For information regarding the

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, contact Mrs. Tracy

Back, Manufacturing Branch, Office of

Compliance (2223A), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460;

telephone (202) 564–7076.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are owners or operators of

continuous web cleaning machines

using any solvent containing methylene

chloride, perchloroethylene,

trichloroethylene, 1,1,1 trichloroethane,

carbon tetrachloride, or chloroform, or

any combination of these halogenated

HAP solvents, in a concentration greater

than 5 percent by weight, as a cleaning

or drying agent. Regulated categories

include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry .... Facilities engaging in cleaning

operations using halogenated

solvent cleaning machines.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities that the

EPA is now aware of that potentially

could be regulated by this action. Other

types of entities not listed in the table

also could be regulated. To determine

whether your facility [company,

business, organization, etc.] is regulated

by this action, you should carefully

examine the applicability criteria in

§ 63.460 of the NESHAP for halogenated

solvent cleaning operations that was

promulgated in the Federal Register on

December 2, 1994 (59 FR 61801) and

codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart T.

If you have questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult Mrs. Tracy

Back at the address listed in the

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

I. Background

On December 2, 1994, the EPA

promulgated NESHAP for halogenated

solvent cleaning operations (59 FR
24750 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 86 /Tuesday, May 5, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

61801). These standards were codified

as subpart T in 40 CFR part 63. These

standards established equipment and

work practice standards for individual

batch vapor, in-line vapor, in-line cold,

and batch cold solvent cleaning

machines using any solvent containing

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene,

trichloroethylene, 1,1,1 trichloroethane,

carbon tetrachloride, or chloroform, or

any combination of these halogenated

HAP solvents in a concentration greater

than 5 percent by weight, as a cleaning

or drying agent.

Since promulgation of the

halogenated solvent cleaning NESHAP

on December 2, 1994, the EPA has

become aware of the existence of

various sources cleaning parts such as

film, coils, wire, and metal strips at

speeds in excess of the 11 feet per

minute limit in the NESHAP using

halogenated cleaning solvents. Parts are

generally uncoiled, cleaned such that

the same part is simultaneously entering

and exiting the solvent cleaning

machine, and then recoiled or cut.

These solvent cleaning machines are

typically referred to as continuous web

cleaning machines. The design and

operation, and therefore, the emission

characteristics of these machines are

different from the solvent cleaning

machines (e.g., batch cold cleaners, inline cleaners) that the EPA analyzed

during the NESHAP rule development

process. Therefore, in order for the EPA

to properly address emission

characteristics and controls, and to

better regulate HAP emissions from

continuous web cleaning machines, the

Agency is staying the effectiveness of

the provisions of the NESHAP for

continuous web cleaning machines

using halogenated HAP solvents. The

EPA will take this time to further

evaluate these types of operations, their

emission characteristics, and the

effectiveness of various control

measures in order to determine

equivalent methods of control for them.

In addition, the EPA is also revising

the definition of the term ‘‘part’’ and

adding a definition for continuous web

cleaning machine to § 63.461.

II. Issuance of Stay

The EPA hereby issues a 3-month stay

of the effectiveness of the NESHAP for

halogenated solvent cleaning machines

applicable to continuous web cleaning

machines using halogenated HAP. The

EPA will also reconsider the compliance

dates in the rule and, following the

notice and comment procedures of

section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act, will

take appropriate action.

III. Authority for Stay

The stay announced by this notice is

being issued pursuant to section

553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative

Procedure Act.

The grounds for staying the

requirements of this rule for continuous

web cleaning machines arose after the

public comment period and close to the

compliance date for this rule. The

impracticality of requiring compliance

by continuous web cleaning machines

with the provisions of the NESHAP

became apparent after the final rule had

been promulgated. Therefore, the EPA is

staying the effectiveness of the rule for

3 months in order to allow time to

evaluate equivalent methods of control

for continuous web cleaning machines

using halogenated HAP solvents.

Because the need for a stay was only

realized recently, and the compliance

date for the rule was December 2, 1997,

it is both impracticable and contrary to

the public interest to provide an

opportunity for comment before issuing

the stay. The EPA, therefore, finds that

there is good cause in accordance with

section 553(b)(3)(B) of the

Administrative Procedures Act to

publish this temporary stay without

prior opportunity for public comment.

IV. Proposed Compliance Extension

The EPA may not be able to complete

the equivalent methods of control

determination for continuous web

cleaning machines within the 3-month

period expressly provided for in this

action. Therefore, EPA is proposing to

temporarily extend the applicable

compliance dates. In the Proposed Rule

Section of today’s Federal Register, the

EPA proposes a temporary extension of

the compliance dates beyond 3 months

in order to complete the equivalent

methods of control determinations and

revisions of the rules in question.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

There are no additional information

collection requirements associated with

this temporary stay. Therefore, approval

under the provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.,

is not required. b. Executive Order

12866

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, the

EPA is required to determine whether a

regulation is ‘‘significant,’’ and

therefore, subject to Office of

Management and Budget review and the

requirements of this Executive Order to

prepare a regulatory impact analysis.

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.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this action is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of the Executive Order because this

action provides a temporary stay of the

effectiveness of the rule to allow time to

evaluate equivalent methods of control

for continuous web cleaning machines

using halogenated HAP solvents.

C. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. However, section

808 provides that any rule for which the

issuing agency for good cause finds (and

incorporates the finding and a brief

statement of reasons therefore in the

rule) that notice and public procedure

thereon are impracticable, unnecessary,

or contrary to the public interest, shall

take effect at such time as the agency

promulgating the rule determines. 5

U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, the

EPA has made such a good cause

finding, including the reasons therefore,

and established an effective date of May

5, 1998. The EPA will submit a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the

Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

D. Regulatory Flexibility

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this action
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 86 /Tuesday, May 5, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 24751

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

business entities because the

requirements of the rule are being

stayed for continuous web cleaning

machines.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 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 by State, local,

and tribal governments, in aggregate, or

by the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one 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 cost-effective, 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 this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. Thus,

today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has

determined that this rule contains no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments because it contains no

requirements that apply to such

governments or impose obligations

upon them. Therefore, today’s rule is

not subject to the requirements of

section 203 of the UMRA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 27, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Title 40 chapter I of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart T—[Amended]

2. Section 63.461 is amended by

adding in alphabetical order the

definition for ‘‘continuous web cleaning

machine’’ and by revising the definition

for ‘‘part’’ to read as follows:

§ 63.461 Definitions.

* * * * *

Continuous web cleaning machine

means a solvent cleaning machine in

which parts such as film, coils, wire,

and metal strips are cleaned at speeds

in excess of 11 feet per minute. Parts are

generally uncoiled, cleaned such that

the same part is simultaneously entering

and exiting the solvent cleaning

machine, and then recoiled or cut.

* * * * *

Part means any object that is cleaned

in a solvent cleaning machine. Parts

include, but are not limited to, discrete

parts, assemblies, sets of parts, and parts

cleaned in a continuous web cleaning

machine (i.e., continuous sheets of

metal, film).

* * * * *

3. Section 63.470 is added to Subpart

T to read as follows:

§ 63.470 Stay of effective date.

Notwithstanding any other provision

of this subpart, the effectiveness of

§§ 63.460 thru 63.469 of subpart T is

stayed until August 3, 1998 as applied

to continuous web cleaning machines

using halogenated HAP solvents.

[FR Doc. 98–11753 Filed 5–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 300

[Docket No. 980225048–8099–03; I.D.

021898B]

RIN 0648–AK58

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Retention of

Undersized Halibut in Regulatory Area

4E

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS); National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA);

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule that

would allow the retention of halibut less

than 32 inches (81.3 cm) with the head

on, or less than 24 inches (61 cm) with

the head off (undersized halibut) caught

with setline gear in International Pacific

Halibut Commission (IPHC) Regulatory

Area 4E for personal use. Commercial

sale of undersized halibut would remain

prohibited. This action is necessary to

implement the recommendation of the

North Pacific Fishery Management

Council (Council) to allow the legal

harvest of undersized halibut by persons

using Community Development Quota

(CDQ) in Regulatory Area 4E. This

action is intended to provide for the

continued existence of the customary

and traditional food practices of

indigenous inhabitants by allowing

them to retain all halibut caught with

setline gear in Regulatory Area 4E.

DATES: This final rule is effective June

4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The final Environmental

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review

(EA/RIR) prepared for this action may

be obtained from the Sustainable

Fisheries Division, Alaska Region,

NMFS, 709 West 9th Street, Room 453,

Juneau, AK 99801, or P.O. Box 21668,

Juneau, AK 99802, Attention: Lori J.

Gravel.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Lepore, 907–586–7228

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Northern Pacific Halibut Act (Halibut

Act, 16 U.S.C. 773–773k), in section 5,

provides that the Regional Fishery

Management Council having authority

for the geographical area concerned may

recommend management measures

governing Pacific halibut catch in U.S.

Convention waters that are in addition

to, but not in conflict with, regulations

of the IPHC. The IPHC is the body

authorized by the Convention between

the United States and Canada for the