39516 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

in Waukesha. The SIP revision was

submitted by the Wisconsin Department

of Natural Resources (WDNR) on

February 21, 1997, and would exempt

the facility from the volatile organic

compound (VOC) emission limits

applicable to miscellaneous metal

coating operations. The EPA proposed

to disapprove this request on April 28,

1998. No negative comments were

submitted during the comment period.

DATES: This disapproval is effective

August 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (Please telephone

Kathleen D’Agostino at (312) 886–1767

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental

Engineer, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)

886–1767.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On April 28, 1998, EPA proposed to

disapprove the site-specific SIP revision

for Amron Corporation (63 FR 23239).

This proposed disapproval was based

on numerous factors which are

discussed in detail in the proposed

disapproval. EPA received no negative

comments during the public comment

period. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the

disapproval proposed on April 28, 1998.

II. Miscellaneous

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. The EPA

shall consider each request for revision

to the SIP in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

review.

The final rule is not subject to E.O.

13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children

from Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks,’’ because it is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ action under

E.O. 12866.

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

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because this disapproval only

affects one source, Amron Corporation.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. Furthermore, as explained in

this document, the request does not

meet the requirements of the Clean Air

Act and EPA cannot approve the

request. EPA has no option but to

disapprove the submittal.

EPA’s disapproval of the State request

under section 110 and subchapter I, part

D of the Clean Air Act does not affect

any existing requirements applicable to

small entities. Any pre-existing Federal

requirements remain in place after this

disapproval. Federal disapproval of the

State submittal does not affect Stateenforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new Federal requirements.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 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 this

disapproval 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 disapproval action imposes no

new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result.

E. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

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. Section 804,

however, exempts from section 891 the

following types of rules: rules of

particular applicability; rules relating to

agency management or personnel; and

rules of agency organization, procedure,

or practice that do not substantially

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is

not required to submit a rule report

regarding this action under section 801

because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q

Dated: July 9, 1998.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–19656 Filed 7–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–6112–7]

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial

Process Cooling Towers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This action corrects and

clarifies 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. The rule is

being revised to clarify that the owner

or operator of a source that ceases use

of chromium-based chemicals may

demonstrate compliance with the

standard through recordkeeping.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 39517

Because the rule merely clarifies the

intent and coverage of the September 8,

1994 final rule, it has no impact on the

environment beyond that of the original

rule.

DATES: Effective Date. The direct final

rule will be effective October 21, 1998

if no timely adverse comments are

received by September 21, 1998.

If a hearing is requested, the comment

period will end October 6, 1998. Should

the EPA receive such comments, it will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

Direct Final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that the rule will

not take effect.

Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a

public hearing must contact EPA no

later than August 3, 1998. If a hearing

is held, it will take place on August 7,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:

Air and Radiation Docket (6102),

Attention Docket Number A–91–65,

Room M–1500, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460.

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.

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:

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 the

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. Comments

If significant adverse comments are

timely received on the direct final rule,

all such comments will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule contained in the

Proposed Rules Section of this Federal

Register that is identical to this direct

final rule. The direct final rule will be

withdrawn.

This rule will become effective

without further notice unless the

Agency receives relevant adverse

comment within 60 days of the

publication of this document. Should

the Agency receive such comments, it

will publish a timely withdrawal and

inform the public that this rule will not

take effect.

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.

Subpart Q limits the discharge of

chromium from industrial process

cooling towers (IPCTs) located at major

sources by prohibiting the use of

chromium-based water treatment

chemicals in those IPCTs. As authorized

by section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act

(the Act) this standard is a work practice

standard. The standard specifies that

owners and operators may not use

chromium-based water treatment

chemicals in IPCTs and that on or after

3 months after the compliance date a

cooling water sample residual

hexavalent chromium concentration in

excess of 0.5 ppm shall indicate a

violation of the standard. This

document contains amendments to

clarify the applicability of the final

standard.

III. 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.

At the time the final standard was

promulgated in September of 1994, EPA

believed that once an owner or operator

ceased adding chromium-based

chemicals to the IPCT water the residual

chromium would fall below 0.5 ppm in

all cases in less than 3 months. As a

result, § 63.404(b) was drafted to allow

3 months for sources to reach a residual

chromium reading of less than 0.5 ppm.

On or after 3 months after the

compliance date the Administrator (or

delegated authority) could require

cooling water to be analyzed to

determine whether the residual

hexavalent chromium concentration

exceeds 0.5 ppm by weight. A reading

in excess of 0.5 ppm would indicate a

violation of the standard.

Since promulgation of the final rule

EPA has learned that there are some

IPCTs for which residual chromium

remains higher than 0.5 ppm beyond 3

months after chromium-based chemicals

cease to be added to the IPCT water.

EPA has therefore concluded that

sampling of cooling water to measure

residual chromium may not always be

an accurate measure of whether an

owner or operator has ceased using

chromium-based chemicals. Today’s

revisions to the September 1994 final

rule provide that an owner or operator

may demonstrate through recordkeeping

that the chemicals used in the IPCT are

not chromium-based. This revision does

not change the underlying standard

contained in 40 CFR 63.402 which

provides that ‘‘no owner or operator of

an IPCT shall use chromium-based

water treatment chemicals in any

affected IPCT.’’

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. This change does not alter the

standard but rather rephrases it for

clarity.

IV. 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
39518 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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 owners

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 by September

21, 1998. Include the ICR number in any

correspondence.

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, the

EPA must determine whether a

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 was promulgated on

September 8, 1994. The amendments

issued 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

EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this final rule. EPA has also determined

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it

imposes no additional requirements,

and adds compliance flexibility.

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 promulgated 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. 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).

F. Protection of Children From

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks 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 direct final rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

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.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 39519

subpart Q 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 Q—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Industrial Process Cooling Towers

2. Section 63.404 is amended by

revising the introductory language and

paragraph (b), and by adding new

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:

§ 63.404 Compliance demonstrations.

No routine monitoring, sampling, or

analysis is required. In accordance with

section 114 of the Act, the

Administrator or delegated authority

can require cooling water sample

analysis of an IPCT if there is

information to indicate that the IPCT is

not in compliance with the

requirements of § 63.402 of this subpart.

The owner or operator of an IPCT may

demonstrate compliance through

recordkeeping in accordance with

paragraph (c) of this section in lieu of

a water sample analysis. If cooling water

sample analysis is required:

(a) * * *

(b) On or after 3 months after the

compliance date, a cooling water sample

residual hexavalent chromium

concentration equal to or less than 0.5

parts per million by weight shall

indicate compliance with § 63.402.

Alternatively, an owner or operator may

demonstrate compliance through record

keeping in accordance with paragraph

(c).

(c) To demonstrate compliance with

§ 63.402, in lieu of the water sample

analysis provided for in paragraph (a) of

this section, the owner or operator of

each IPCT may maintain records of

water treatment chemical purchases,

including invoices and other

documentation that includes invoices

and other documentation that includes

date(s) of purchase or shipment, trade

name or other information to identify

composition of the product, and

quantity of the product.

(d) Following a request, by the

Administrator or delegated authority,

under paragraph (a) for a water sample

analysis, failure to either meet the

concentration level specified in

paragraph (b) or provide the records

specified in paragraph (c) shall indicate

a violation of § 63.402.

[FR Doc. 98–19407 Filed 7–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300422A; FRL–5799–7]

RIN 2070–AB78

Capsaicin; Exemption from the

Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document establishes an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of Capsaicin in or

on all food commodities, when applied

in accordance with approved product

labeling and good agricultural practice.

This exemption from requirement of a

tolerance is being established by the

Agency on its own initiative, under the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(FFDCA) as amended by the Food

Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.

DATES: This regulation becomes

effective July 23, 1998. Written

objections and requests for hearings

must be received by September 21,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number [OPP–300422A],

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–

300422A], must also be submitted to:

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division (7502C), 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. 119, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may be submitted electronically by

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

electronic objections and hearing

requests must be submitted as an ASCII

file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 or

ASCII file format. All copies of

electronic objections and hearing

requests must be identified by the

docket number [OPP–300422A]. No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through e-mail.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests on this rule may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Richard W. King, Biopesticides

and Pollution Prevention Division

(7511W), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location, telephone number, and

e-mail address: 9th Floor (902W38), CM

#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA; (703) 308–8052, e-mail:

king.richard@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of May 1, 1996 (61 FR

19233) [OPP–300422; FRL–5362–9],

EPA proposed, pursuant to section

408(e) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)

to amend 40 CFR part 180 by

establishing an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance for Capsaicin

in or on all food commodities, when

applied in accordance with approved

product labeling and with good

agricultural practice. There were no

comments received in response to the

proposed rule. Since the date of this

proposal, FFDCA section 408 has been

significantly amended by the Food

Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

The FQPA amended the safety standard

that applies to both tolerances and

exemptions from the requirement for

tolerance. Nonetheless, the legislative

history indicates that the same rigorous

safety standard EPA had always

imposed as to tolerance exemptions

should be the Agency’s guide in

implementing the new provision. On

this specific point, the House Commerce

Committee Report states:

The Committee understands that EPA

currently issues exemptions only for the

pesticide chemical residues that do not pose

a dietary risk under reasonably foreseeable

circumstances. The Committee intends that

EPA retain its current practice. H.Rep. 104-

669 part 2, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 45 (1996).

Capsaicin clearly meets this standard.

Capsaicin and related capsaicinoids are

the ingredients that produce the

‘‘hotness’’ in certain species of peppers

in the Genus Capsicum. As noted in the

proposal, there are no known

toxicological concerns from the

ingestion of capsaicin and related

capsaicinoids. Residues of capsaicin on

food will not pose a dietary risk. Thus,

EPA concludes that, consistent with the

amended section 408, exempting