28906 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Regional Administrator certifies that it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act 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).

C. 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 private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 27, 1998.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

F. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any

rule that is (1) likely to be

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

the Agency has reason to believe that

the environmental health or safety risk

addressed by the rule may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If a

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 effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045,

‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks’’ because this is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ regulatory

action as defined by E.O. 12866, and

because it does not involve decisions on

environmental health or safety risks that

may disproportionately affect children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 10, 1998.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

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 et seq.

Subpart K—Florida

2. Section 52.520, is amended by

revising paragraph (c)(87) to read as

follows:

§ 52.520 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(87) Revisions to the Florida State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Department of Environmental Protection

on December 10, 1996.

(i) Incorporation by reference. Section

62–210.200(1), (29)(g), (77)(a), (b), (137),

(145)(a)29., (167), (259)(a)3–5 and (b),

(309)(y), and 62–210.220 of the Florida

SIP effective October 15, 1996.

(ii) Other material. None.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–13989 Filed 5–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6014–5]

Delegation of National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Source Categories; State of

Nevada; Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection; Washoe

County District Health Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to delegate the authority to

implement and enforce specific national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAPs) to the Nevada

Division of Environmental Protection

(NDEP) and the Washoe County District

Health Department (WCDHD) in

Nevada. EPA is also approving

WCDHD’s program for receiving

delegation of unchanged NESHAPs

applicable to sources not subject to Title

V of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments. The preamble outlines

the process that NDEP and WCDHD will
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 28907

use to receive delegation of any future

NESHAP, and identifies the NESHAP

categories to be delegated by today’s

action. EPA has reviewed each agency’s

request for delegation and has found

that these requests satisfy all of the

requirements necessary to qualify for

approval. Thus, EPA is hereby granting

NDEP and WCDHD the authority to

implement and enforce the unchanged

NESHAP categories listed in this rule.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 27,

1998 unless EPA receives relevant

adverse comments by June 26, 1998. If

EPA receives such comment, then it will

publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted to Andrew Steckel at the

Region IX office listed below. Copies of

the requests for delegation and other

supporting documentation are available

for public inspection (docket number

A–96–25) at the following location: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4),

Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105–3901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae

Wang, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California 94105–

3901, (415) 744–1200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (CAA), authorizes

EPA to delegate to state or local air

pollution control agencies the authority

to implement and enforce the standards

set out in 40 CFR part 63, National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Source Categories. On

November 26, 1993, EPA promulgated

regulations, codified at 40 CFR part 63,

subpart E (hereinafter referred to as

‘‘subpart E’’), establishing procedures

for EPA’s approval of state rules or

programs under section 112(l) (see 58

FR 62262).

Any request for approval under CAA

section 112(l) must meet the approval

criteria in 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part 63,

subpart E. To streamline the approval

process for future applications, a state or

local agency may submit a one-time

demonstration that it has adequate

authorities and resources to implement

and enforce any CAA section 112

standards. If such demonstration is

approved, then the state or local agency

would no longer need to resubmit a

demonstration of these same authorities

and resources for every subsequent

request for delegation of CAA section

112 standards. However, EPA maintains

the authority to withdraw its approval if

the State does not adequately

implement or enforce an approved rule

or program.

On December 12, 1995, EPA approved

the Nevada Division of Environmental

Protection’s (NDEP’s) program for

accepting delegation of section 112

standards that are unchanged from

Federal standards as promulgated (see

60 FR 63631). The approved program

reflects an adequate demonstration by

NDEP of general resources and

authorities to implement and enforce

section 112 standards. However, formal

delegation for an individual standard

does not occur until NDEP obtains the

necessary regulatory authority to

implement and enforce that particular

standard, and EPA approves NDEP’s

formal delegation request for that

standard.

On January 5, 1995, EPA approved the

Washoe County District Health

Department’s (WCDHD’s) program for

accepting delegation of section 112

standards (see 60 FR 1741). This

approval extended only to sources that

are subject to the CAA Title V operating

permit program. WCDHD subsequently

requested approval for its program to

receive delegation of unchanged section

112 standards applicable to non-Title V

sources (see letter from Brian L.

Jennison, Director, Air Quality

Management Division, WCDHD to

Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator,

U.S. EPA Region IX, dated December 12,

1997). Therefore, today’s action

includes approval under section 112(l)

of WCDHD’s program for accepting

delegation of section 112 standards

applicable to non-Title V sources. The

approved programs reflect an adequate

demonstration by WCDHD of general

resources and authorities to implement

and enforce section 112 standards.

However, formal delegation for an

individual standard does not occur until

WCDHD obtains the necessary

regulatory authority to implement and

enforce that particular standard, and

EPA approves WCHDH’s formal

delegation request for that standard.

Both NDEP and WCDHD informed

EPA that they intend to obtain the

regulatory authority necessary to accept

delegation of section 112 standards by

incorporating section 112 standards into

their respective state and local codes of

regulation by reference to the Federal

regulations; NDEP will be incorporating

the section 112 standards into the

Nevada Administrative Code, and

WCDHD will be incorporating the

standards into the WCDHD District

Board of Health Regulations Governing

Air Quality Management. The details of

these delegation mechanisms are set

forth in Memorandums of Agreement

(MOAs) between each agency and EPA,

and are available for public inspection

at the U.S. EPA Region IX office (docket

No. A–96–25).

On January 30, 1998, NDEP requested

delegation for several individual section

112 standards that have been

incoporated by reference into the

Nevada Administrative Code. On

December 3, 1997, WCDHD requested

delegation for section 112 standards that

have been incorporated by reference

into the WCDHD District Board of

Health Regulations. The standards that

are being delegated by today’s action are

listed in a table at the end of this rule.

II. EPA Action

A. Delegation for Specific Standards

After reviewing NDEP’s and

WCDHD’s requests for delegation of

various national emissions standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs),

EPA has determined that these requests

meet all the requirements necessary to

qualify for approval under CAA section

112(l) and 40 CFR 63.91. Accordingly,

NDEP and WCDHD are granted the

authority to implement and enforce the

requested NESHAPs. These delegations

will be effective on July 27, 1998. A

table of the NESHAP categories that will

be delegated to each agency is shown at

the end of this rule. Although NDEP and

WCDHD will have primary

implementation and enforcement

responsibility, EPA retains the right,

pursuant to CAA section 112(l)(7), to

enforce any applicable emission

standard or requirement under CAA

section 112. In addition, EPA does not

delegate any authorities that require

implementation through rulemaking in

the Federal Register, or where Federal

overview is the only way to ensure

national consistency in the application

of the standards or requirements of CAA

section 112.

After a state or local agency has been

delegated the authority to implement

and enforce a NESHAP, the delegated

agency becomes the primary point of

contact with respect to that NESHAP.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.9(a)(4)(ii) and

63.10(a)(4)(ii), EPA Region IX waives

the requirement that notifications and

reports for delegated standards be

submitted to EPA as well as to NDEP or

WCDHD.

In its December 3, 1997 request,

WCDHD included a request for

delegation of the regulations

implementing CAA sections 112(g) and

112(j), codified at 40 CFR part 63,

subpart B. These requirements apply to

major sources only, and need not be
28908 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

delegated under the section 112(l)

approval process. When promulgating

the regulations implementing section

112(g), EPA stated its view that ‘‘the Act

directly confers on the permitting

authority the obligation to implement

section 112(g) and to adopt a program

which conforms to the requirements of

this rule. Therefore, the permitting

authority need not apply for approval

under section 112(l) in order to use its

own program to implement section

112(g)’’ (see 61 FR 68397). Similarly,

when promulgating the regulations

implementing section 112(j), EPA stated

its belief that ‘‘section 112(l) approvals

do not have a great deal of overlap with

the section 112(j) provision, because

section 112(j) is designed to use the title

V permit process as the primary vehicle

for establishing requirements’’ (see 59

FR 26447). Therefore, state or local

agencies implementing the requirements

under sections 112(g) and 112(j) do not

need approval under section 112(l). As

a result, EPA is not taking action to

delegate 40 CFR part 63, subpart B to

WCDHD.

B. Delegation Mechanism for Future

Standards

Today’s document takes action to

approve WCDHD’s program for

receiving delegation of unchanged

section 112 standards applicable to nonTitle V sources, and serves to notify the

public of the details of NDEP’s and

WCDHD’s procedure for receiving

delegation of future NESHAP. As set

forth in the MOAs, NDEP and WCDHD

intend to incorporate by reference, into

their respective state and local codes of

regulation, each newly promulgated

NESHAP for which they intend to seek

delegation. The agencies will then

submit a letter to EPA Region IX, along

with proof of regulatory authority,

requesting delegation for each

individual NESHAP. Region IX will

respond in writing that delegation is

either granted or denied. If a request is

approved, the delegation of authorities

will be considered effective upon the

date of the response letter from Region

IX. Periodically, EPA will publish in the

Federal Register a listing of the

standards that have been delegated.

Although EPA reserves its right,

pursuant to 40 CFR 63.96, to review the

appropriateness of any future delegation

request, EPA will not institute any

additional comment periods on these

future delegation actions. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

procedure for delegating future

unchanged NESHAPs should do so at

this time.

C. Opportunity for Public Comment

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial action

and anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in the Proposed Rules section

of this Federal Register publication,

EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal for this

action should relevant adverse

comments be filed. This action will be

effective July 27, 1998 without further

notice unless the Agency receives

relevant adverse comments by June 26,

1998.

If EPA receives such comments, then

EPA will publish a document

withdrawing this final rule and

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on the

proposed rule. Any parties interested in

commenting on the proposed rule

should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is

advised that this rule will be effective

on July 27, 1998 and no further action

will be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

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

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

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

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

Delegations of authority to implement

and enforce unchanged Federal

standards under section 112(l) of the

Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply transfer

primary implementation authorities to

the State. Therefore, because this action

does not impose any new requirements,

I certify that it does not have a

significant impact on any small entities

affected.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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 private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires 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

delegation 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 Federal requirements. Accordingly,

no additional costs to state, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private

sector, result from this action.

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. 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. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 27, 1998.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements (see section

307(b)(2)).

E. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 27, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 28909

from review under Executive Order

12866.

F. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any

rule that is (1) likely to be

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

the Agency has reason to believe that

the environmental health or safety risk

addressed by the rule may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If a

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 effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045,

‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks’’ because this is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ regulatory

action as defined by E.O. 12866, and

because it does not involve decisions on

environmental health or safety risks that

may disproportionately affect children.

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.

Authority: This action is issued under the

authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412.

Dated: May 4, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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 E—Approval of State

Programs and Delegation of Federal

Authorities

2. Section 63.99 is amended by

adding and reserving paragraphs (a)(6)

through (a)(27), and adding paragraph

(a)(28) to read as follows:

§ 63.99 Delegated Federal authorities.

(a) * * *

(6)–(27) (Reserved)

(28) Nevada.

(i) The following table lists the

specific part 63 standards that have

been delegated unchanged to the air

pollution control agencies in the State of

Nevada. The (X) symbol is used to

indicate each category that has been

delegated.

DELEGATION STATUS FOR PART 63 STANDARDS—NEVADA

Subpart Description NDEP1 WCDHD 2 CCHD 3

A ............ General Provisions ............................................................................................................................... X X

M ............ Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning .......................................................................................................... X X

N ............ Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks .............................. X X

O ............ Ethylene Oxide Sterilization Facilities .................................................................................................. .............. X

Q ............ Industrial Process Cooling Towers ...................................................................................................... X

R ............ Gasoline Distribution Facilities ............................................................................................................. .............. X

T ............ Halogenated Solvent Cleaning ............................................................................................................. X X

JJ ........... Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations .......................................................................................... X

KK .......... Printing and Publishing Industry .......................................................................................................... X X

OO ......... Tanks—Level 1 .................................................................................................................................... X

PP .......... Containers ............................................................................................................................................ X

QQ ......... Surface Impoundments ........................................................................................................................ X

RR ......... Individual Drain Systems ...................................................................................................................... X

VV .......... Oil-Water Separators and Organic-Water Separators ......................................................................... X

1 Nevada Department of Environmental Protection.

2Washoe County District Health Department.

3 Clark County Health Department.

(ii) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 98–13986 Filed 5–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–30114; FRL–5775–4]

Tolerance Processing Fees

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule increases fees

charged for processing tolerance

petitions for pesticides under the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(FFDCA). The change in fees reflects a

2.45 percent increase in locality pay for

civilian Federal General Schedule (GS)

employees working in the Washington,

DC/Baltimore, MD metropolitan area in

1998.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning this rule: By

mail: Ed Setren, Immediate Office,

Resources Management Staff (7501C),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location, telephone number and

e-mail address: Rm. 101E, CM#2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA

(703) 305–5927, e-mail:

setren.edward@epamail.epa.gov. For

further information concerning

tolerance petitions and individual fees

contact: Sonya Brooks at the same

address, telephone (703) 308–6428, email: brooks.sonya@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA

is charged with administration of

section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Section 408

authorizes the Agency to establish

tolerance levels and exemptions from

the requirements for tolerances for food

commodities. Section 408(o) requires

that the Agency collect fees as will, in

the aggregate, be sufficient to cover the

costs of processing petitions for

pesticide products, i.e., that the

tolerance process be as self-supporting

as possible.

The current fee schedule for tolerance

petitions (40 CFR 180.33) was published

in the Federal Register on May 9, 1997

(62 FR 25524) (FRL–5714–1) and