Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39543

extension 34 (Voice); (202) 272–5449

(TTY). This document is available in

alternate formats (cassette tape, braille,

large print, or computer disc) upon

request. This document is also available

on the Board’s web site (http://

www.access-board.gov/rules/

outdoor.htm).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June

1997, the Access Board established a

regulatory negotiation committee to

develop a proposed rule on accessibility

guidelines for newly constructed and

altered outdoor developed areas,

including trails, camping and picnic

areas, and beaches, covered by the

Americans With Disabilities Act and the

Architectural Barriers Act. (62 FR

30546, June 4, 1997). The committee

will hold its next meeting on the dates

and at the location announced above.

The meeting is open to the public. The

meeting site is accessible to individuals

with disabilities. Individuals with

hearing impairments who require sign

language interpreters should contact

Peggy Greenwell by August 3, 1998, by

calling (202) 272–5434 extension 34

(voice) or (202) 272–5449 (TTY).

Lawrence W. Roffee,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 98–19642 Filed 7–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–6112–6]

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial

Process Cooling Towers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes to

correct and clarify regulatory text of the

‘‘National Emission Standard for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial

Process Cooling Towers,’’ which was

issued as a final rule on September 8,

1994. This action proposes to allow

sources the alternative of demonstrating

compliance with the standard through

recordkeeping in lieu of a water sample

analysis. The standard itself would not

be changed. Because the proposed

amendments to the rule are minor, the

Agency does not anticipate receiving

adverse comments. Consequently the

revisions are also being issued as a

direct final rule in the final rules section

of this Federal Register. If no adverse

comments are timely 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: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before September 21,

1998, unless a hearing is requested by

August 3, 1998. If a hearing is held,

written comments must be received by

October 6, 1998.

Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a

public hearing must contact the EPA no

later than August 3 , 1998. If a hearing

is held, it will take place on August 7,

1998, beginning at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (6102),

Attention Docket Number A–91–65 (see

docket section below), Room M–1500,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460. EPA also requests that a separate

copy also be sent to the contact person

listed below.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at the EPA’s Office

of Administration Auditorium, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons

interested in attending the hearing or

wishing to present oral testimony

should notify Mr. Phil Mulrine, Metals

Group, Emission Standards Division

(MD–13), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

27711, telephone (919) 541–5289.

Docket. Docket No. A–91–65,

containing the supporting information

for the original standard and this action,

is available for public inspection and

copying between 8:00 a.m. and 3:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA’s

Air Docket Section, Waterside Mall,

room 1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Phil Mulrine, Metals Group, Emission

Standards Division (MD–13), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711; telephone (919) 541–5289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Unless a

hearing is requested (in which case, the

comment period is 75 days from date of

publication), if no significant adverse

comments are received by September

21, 1998 no further activity is

contemplated in relation to this

proposed rule and the direct final rule

in the final rules section of this Federal

Register will automatically go into effect

on October 21, 1998. If significant

adverse comments are timely received,

the direct final rule will be withdrawn

and all public comment received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule.

Because the EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this

proposed rule, any parties interested in

commenting should do so during this

comment period. If no timely adverse

comments are received the direct final

rule will become final October 21, 1998

and no further action is contemplated

on the parallel proposal published

today.

On September 8, 1994 (59 FR 46339),

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) promulgated in the Federal

Register national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants for industrial

process cooling towers. These standards

were promulgated as subpart Q in 40

CFR part 63. This document contains

amendments to clarify the applicability

of the final standard.

I. Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ...................... Industrial Process

Cooling Towers.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

interested in the revisions to the

regulation contained in this action. This

table lists the types of entities that EPA

is now aware could potentially be

regulated by this action. To determine

whether your facility is affected by these

revisions, you should carefully examine

the language of section 63.404 of title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations. If

you have questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Description of the Changes

Section 63.404 is being revised to

clarify that compliance with the

standard can be demonstrated either by

cooling water sampling analysis or by

recordkeeping which shows that the

owner or operator has switched to a

non-chromium water treatment method.

In addition § 63.404(b) is revised to

clarify that a cooling water sample

showing residual hexavalent chromium

of 0.5 parts per million by weight or less

shall be considered compliance with the

standard.

For the detailed rationale for these

proposed changes, see the information

provided in the direct final rule in the

final rules section of this Federal

Register.
39544 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

III. Administrative

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this rule will be

submitted for approval to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An Information Collection

Request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1876.01) and

a copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer by mail at OPPE Regulatory

Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137); 401 M St., SW; Washington, DC

20460, by e-mail at

farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by

calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also

be downloaded off the internet at http:/

/www.epa.gov/icr. The information

requirements are not effective until

OMB approves them.

The information collected will be

used as an alternative means of

compliance under § 63.404. Owners of

IPCT’s are required to maintain a

cooling water concentration of residual

hexavalent chromium equal to or less

than 0.5 parts per million. The owner of

IPCT’s can choose to demonstrate

compliance by maintaining records of

chemical treatment purchases instead of

measuring the cooling water hexavalent

chromium concentration.

The recordkeeping burden is

estimated to be 6 hours annually. The

rule has no reporting requirements so

there is no burden associated with

reporting. Burden means the total time,

effort, or financial resources expended

by persons to generate, maintain, retain,

or disclose or provide information to or

for a Federal agency. This includes the

time needed to review instructions;

develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purposes

of collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137); 401 M St., SW; Washington, DC

20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,

NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’

Comments are requested within August

24, 1998. Include the ICR number in any

correspondence.

B. Executive Order 12866

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 Industrial Process Cooling

Towers rule promulgated on September

8, 1994 was considered ‘‘significant’’

under Executive Order 12866 and a

regulatory impact analysis was

prepared. The amendments proposed

today do not add any additional control

requirements to the rule, but rather

would clarify the rule and add an

alternative means of compliance. It has

been determined that these amendments

are not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under terms of Executive Order 12866

and, therefore, are not subject to review

by the Office of Management and

Budget.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

requirements unless the agency certified

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

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

jurisdictions. This proposed rule would

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The proposed changes to the rule

merely clarify existing requirements,

and increase flexibility by allowing an

alternative means of compliance, and

therefore do not create any additional

burden for any of the regulated entities.

Therefore, I certify that this proposed

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), 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 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 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 proposed today does not include

a Federal mandate that will 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

Act do not apply to this action.

E. Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risk Under Executive Order 13045

The Executive Order 13045 applies to

any rule that (1) OMB determines is

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

EPA determines the environmental

health or safety risk addressed by the

rule has a disproportionate effect on

children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety

aspects 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.

The proposed rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39545

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it does not involve decisions on

environmental health risks or safety

risks that may disproportionately affect

children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental Protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Industrial process cooling

towers, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 12, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–19406 Filed 7–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6128–3]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the

McColl site from the National Priorities

List.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region 9 announces the

intent to delete the McColl Site (‘‘the

site’’) from the National Priorities List

(NPL) and requests public comment on

this proposed action. The NPL

constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part

300 which is the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.

EPA and the State of California

Department of Toxic Substances Control

(DTSC) have determined that the

remedial action for the site has been

successfully executed.

DATES: Comments on this site may be

submitted to EPA on or before August

24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Keith Takata, Director, Superfund

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

Mailstop SFD, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Comprehensive information on this

site is available through the Region 9

public docket, which is available for

viewing by appointment only.

Appointments for copies of the

background information from the

Regional public docket should be

directed to the EPA Regional 9 docket

office at the following address:

SUPERFUND Records Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 95 Hawthorne Street, Suite

403S, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901

(415) 536–2000.

The deletion docket is also available

for viewing at the following location:

Fullerton Public Library, Local History

Room, 353 W. Commonwealth Avenue,

Fullerton, CA 92633, (714) 738–6333.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patti

Collins, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

Mailstop SFD–7–3, San Francisco, CA

94105, (415) 744–2229.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region 9 announces its

intent to delete the McColl site in

Orange County, California, from the

National Priorities List (NPL) and

requests public comment on this

proposed action. The NPL constitutes

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which

is the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.

EPA identifies sites that appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

maintains the NPL as the list of these

sites. EPA and the California

Department of Toxic Substances Control

(DTSC) have determined that the

remedial action for the site has been

successfully executed.

EPA will accept comments on the

proposal to delete this site for thirty (30)

days after publication of this document

in the Federal Register.

Section II of this document explains

the criteria for deleting sites from the

NPL. Section III discusses the

procedures EPA is using for this action.

Section IV discusses the McColl site and

explains how the site meets the deletion

criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425(e)(1) of the NCP

provides that releases may be deleted

from, or recategorized on the NPL where

no further response is appropriate. In

making a determination to delete a

release from the NPL, EPA shall

consider, in consultation with the state,

whether any of the following criteria

have been met:

Responsible parties or other parties have

implemented all appropriate actions

required; All appropriate responses under

CERCLA have been implemented, and no

further action by responsible parties is

appropriate; or

The remedial investigation has shown that

the release poses no significant threat to

public health or the environment and,

therefore, taking remedial measures is not

appropriate.

Even if a site is deleted from the NPL,

where hazardous substances, pollutants,

or contaminants remain at the site above

levels that allow for unlimited use and

restricted exposure, EPA’s policy is that

a subsequent review of the site will be

conducted at least every five years after

the initiation of the remedial action at

the site to ensure that the site remains

protective of public health and the

environment. If at any time, new

information becomes available which

indicates a need for further action, EPA

may initiate additional remedial actions.

Whenever there is a significant release

from a deleted site form the NPL, the

site may be restored to the NPL without

application of the Hazardous Ranking

System.

In the case of this site, the selected

remedy is protective of human health

and the environment. The responsible

parties are currently and will continue

to perform operation and maintenance

of the site, with the oversight of EPA.

EPA will conduct the first five-year

review of the final remedy in 2001, and

will also perform future five-year

reviews.

III. Deletion Procedures

The following procedures were used

for the intended deletion of this site: (1)

all appropriate response under CERCLA

has been implemented and no further

action by EPA is appropriate; (2) DTSC

has concurred with the proposed

deletion decision; (3) a document has

been published in the local newspaper

and has been distributed to appropriate

federal, state, and local officials and

other interested parties announcing the

commencement of a 30-day public

comment period on EPA’s Notice of

Intent to Delete; and (4) all relevant

documents have been made available in

the local site information repository.

Deletion of the site from the NPL does

not itself create, alter, or revoke any

individual’s rights or obligations. The

NPL is designed primarily for

informational purposes and to assist

Agency management. As mentioned in