Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61411 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 

104–113, all Federal agencies are 

required to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in their regulatory and 

procurement activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, 

business practices) developed or 

adopted by one or more voluntary 

consensus bodies. The NTTAA requires 

Federal agencies to provide Congress, 

through annual reports to OMB, with 

explanations when the agency does not 

use available and applicable VCS. 

Today’s proposed decision does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

the requirements of the NTTAA are not 

applicable. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 18, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–21187 Filed 10–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OAR–2004–0004, FRL–7987–4] 

RIN 2060–AK16 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial 

Process Cooling Towers 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed action; request for 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: On September 8, 1994, we 

promulgated national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) from industrial process 

cooling towers (59 FR 46350). The 

NESHAP eliminated the use of 

chromium-based water treatment 

chemicals that are known or suspected 

to cause cancer or have a serious health 

or environmental effect. 

Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) directs EPA to assess the risk 

remaining (residual risk) after the 

application of the NESHAP and 

promulgate additional standards if 

warranted to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health or 

prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. Also, section 112(d)(6) of the 

CAA requires EPA to review and revise 

the NESHAP as necessary at least every 

8 years, taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies. Based on our 

findings from the residual risk review 

and technology review, we are 

proposing no further action at this time 

to revise the NESHAP. This proposed 

action requests public comments on the 

residual risk review and technology 

review for the NESHAP. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before December 8, 2005. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by November 8, 2005, a public 

hearing will be held approximately 20 

days following publication of this action 

in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2004–

0004, by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov and 

mulrine.phil@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741 and (919) 541–

5450. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center 

(6102T), Attention Docket Number 

OAR–2004–0004, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: In person or by 

courier, deliver comments to: EPA 

Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket 

ID Number OAR–2004–0004, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B–

102, Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Please include a total of two copies. We 

request that a separate copy of each 

public comment also be sent to the 

contact person for the proposed action 

listed below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OAR–2004–0004. The 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the Federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. (For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit 

EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal 

Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102.) 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket 

ID Number OAR–2004–0004, EPA West 

Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. A reasonable fee may 

be charged for copying docket materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about the proposed action, 

contact Mr. Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Emission Standards 

Division, Metals Group (C439–02), 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

61412 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

27711, telephone (919) 541–5289, fax 

number (919) 541–5450, e-mail address: 

mulrine.phil@epa.gov. For questions on 

the residual risk analysis, contact Mr. 

Scott Jenkins, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

Emission Standards Division, Risk and 

Exposure Assessment Group (C404–01), 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone (919) 541–1167, fax 

number (919) 541–0840, e-mail address: 

jenkins.scott@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities. The regulated 

categories and entities affected by the 

NESHAP include: 

Category NAICS 

code a SIC code b Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ............................................... 324110 

325181 

325120 

325131 

325188 

325191 

325311 

325312 

325314 

(2911) 

(2812) 

(2813) 

(2816) 

(2819) 

(2861) 

(2873) 

(2874) 

(2875) 

Industrial process cooling towers located at major sources, including petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, primary metals processing plants, glass manufacturing plants, tobacco products manufacturing plants, rubber products manufacturing plants, and textile finishing 

plants. 

325320 (2879) 

325520 (2891) 

325920 (2892) 

325910 (2893) 

325182 (2895) 

325998 (2899) 

331111 (3312) 

331411 (3331) 

331419 (3339) 

327211 (3211) 

327213 (3221) 

327212 (3229) 

312221 (2111) 

312229 (2121) 

312229 (2131) 

326211 (3011) 

313311 (2261) 

313311 (2262) 

313312 (2269) 

Federal/State/local/tribal governments.

a North American Industry Classification System. 

bStandard Industrial Classification. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by the NESHAP. To determine 

whether your facility would be affected 

by the NESHAP, you should examine 

the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 

63.400(a) of subpart Q (NESHAP for 

Industrial Process Cooling Towers). If 

you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of the NESHAP to a 

particular entity, consult either the air 

permit authority for the entity or your 

EPA regional representative as listed in 

40 CFR part 63.13 of subpart A (General 

Provisions). Worldwide Web (WWW). In 

addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of today’s 

proposed action will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of the 

proposed action will be posted on the 

TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will begin at 10 a.m. and will 

be held at EPA’s campus in Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an 

alternate facility nearby. Persons 

interested in presenting oral testimony 

or inquiring as to whether a public 

hearing is to be held should contact Ms. 

Barbara Miles, Risk and Exposure 

Group, Emission Standards Division, 

U.S. EPA (C404–01), Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541–

5648. Outline. The information 

presented in this preamble is organized 

as follows: 

I. Background 

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for This 

Action? 

B. What Did the Industrial Process Cooling 

Tower NESHAP Accomplish? 

C. What Are the Conclusions of the 

Residual Risk Review? 

D. What Are the Conclusions of the 

Technology Review? 

II. Proposed Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

I. Background 

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for 

This Action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) from stationary sources. In the 

first stage, after EPA has identified 

categories of sources emitting one or 

more of the HAP listed in the CAA, 

section 112(d) calls for us to promulgate 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61413 

national technology-based emission 

standards for sources within those 

categories that emit or have the 

potential to emit any single HAP at a 

rate of 10 tons or more per year or any 

combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons 

or more per year (known as ‘‘major 

sources’’), as well as for certain ‘‘area 

sources’’ emitting less than those 

amounts. These technology-based 

standards must reflect the maximum 

reductions of HAP achievable (after 

considering cost, energy requirements, 

and non-air health and environmental 

impacts) and are commonly referred to 

as maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards. For area 

sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) provides 

that in lieu of MACT, the Administrator 

may elect to promulgate standards or 

requirements which provide for the use 

of generally available control 

technologies or management practices 

and such standards are commonly 

referred to as generally available control 

technology (GACT) standards. EPA is 

then required to review these 

technology-based standards and to 

revise them ‘‘as necessary, taking into 

account developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies,’’ no 

less frequently than every 8 years. 

The second stage in standard-setting 

is described in section 112(f) of the 

CAA. This provision requires, first, that 

EPA prepare a Report to Congress 

discussing (among other things) 

methods of calculating risk posed (or 

potentially posed) by sources after 

implementation of the MACT standards, 

the public health significance of those 

risks, the means and costs of controlling 

them, actual health effects to persons in 

proximity to emitting sources, and 

recommendations as to legislation 

regarding such remaining risk. EPA 

prepared and submitted this report 

(‘‘Residual Risk Report to Congress,’’

EPA–453/R–99–001) in March 1999. 

The Congress did not act on any of the 

recommendations in the report, 

triggering the second stage of the 

standard-setting process, the residual 

risk phase. 

Section 112(f)(2) requires us to 

determine for each section 112(d) source 

category whether the MACT standards 

protect public health with an ample 

margin of safety. If the MACT standards 

for HAP ‘‘classified as a known, 

probable, or possible human carcinogen 

do not reduce lifetime excess cancer 

risks to the individual most exposed to 

emissions from a source in the category 

or subcategory to less than one in one 

million,’’ EPA must promulgate residual 

risk standards for the source category (or 

subcategory) as necessary to provide an 

ample margin of safety. EPA must also 

adopt more stringent standards to 

prevent an adverse environmental effect 

(defined in section 112(a)(7) as ‘‘any 

significant and widespread adverse 

effect * * * to wildlife, aquatic life, or 

natural resources * * *.’’), but must 

consider cost, energy, safety, and other 

relevant factors in doing so. 

B. What Did the Industrial Process 

Cooling Tower NESHAP Accomplish? 

On September 8, 1994, we 

promulgated the NESHAP for industrial 

process cooling towers (IPCT) (59 FR 

46350) and required existing sources to 

comply with the NESHAP by March 8, 

1996. 

Cooling towers are devices that are 

used to remove heat from a cooling 

fluid, typically water, by contacting the 

fluid with ambient air. The IPCT source 

category includes cooling towers that 

are used to remove heat that is produced 

as an input or output of chemical or 

industrial processes. The IPCT source 

category also includes cooling towers 

that cool industrial processes in 

combination with heating, ventilation, 

and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. 

The IPCT NESHAP applies specifically 

to IPCT that use chromium-based water 

treatment chemicals and are located at 

major sources of HAP emissions. 

Standards to control chromium 

emissions from cooling towers that cool 

HVAC systems exclusively (comfort 

cooling towers) were promulgated under 

section 6 of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA)(55 FR 222 January 

3, 1990). 

The primary industries that use IPCT 

include petroleum refineries, chemical 

manufacturing plants, primary metals 

processing plants, glass manufacturing 

plants, rubber products manufacturing 

plants, tobacco products manufacturing 

plants, and textile manufacturing plants. 

When the IPCT NESHAP were 

promulgated, we estimated that there 

were approximately 6,945 IPCT located 

at these plants nationwide and that 

approximately 260 of these IPCT used 

chromium-based water treatment 

chemicals. We estimated that the IPCT 

NESHAP would reduce emissions of 

chromium compounds from these 

facilities by 22.7 megagrams per year 

(Mg/yr) (25 tons per year (tpy)) by 

prohibiting the use of chromium-based 

water treatment chemicals in IPCT. In 

addition, we estimated that the 

NESHAP would prevent emissions of 

1.6 Mg/yr (1.8 tpy) of chromium 

compounds from the 870 new IPCT 

projected by the 5th year of the 

standards (1998). 

When the NESHAP were 

promulgated, we had no information 

that indicated that HAP other than 

chromium compounds were emitted 

from IPCT. Consequently, we did not 

address emissions of other HAP in the 

IPCT NESHAP. 

C. What Are the Conclusions of the 

Residual Risk Review? Source Category 

Characterization 

As required by section 112(f)(2) of the 

CAA, we prepared a risk assessment to 

determine the residual risk posed by 

IPCT after implementation of the 

NESHAP. To evaluate the residual risk 

for the IPCT source category, we 

identified the HAP emitted from IPCT 

and, as a discretionary matter in this 

instance, estimated worst-case emission 

rates for each of those HAP. These 

worst-case emission rates were used, 

along with facility parameters 

representing an actual facility, to 

perform the risk assessment. 

Emissions Data 

Because the IPCT NESHAP prohibits 

the use of chromium-based water 

treatment chemicals in IPCT, we believe 

that chromium compound emissions 

from IPCT have been eliminated by the 

NESHAP. In assessing the residual risk 

for the source category, however, we 

have also considered emissions of other 

HAP from IPCT. 

In the absence of process leaks or 

malfunctions, the chemical species that 

are emitted from IPCT consist of the 

naturally-occurring constituents of the 

cooling water and any substances that 

are added to the cooling water. To 

determine what other HAP may be 

emitted from IPCT, we first contacted 

suppliers of cooling water treatment 

chemicals for information on cooling 

water additives that either contain HAP 

or form HAP, which could be emitted 

from IPCT. Then, we conducted a 

literature search for information on 

emissions from cooling towers. 

The majority of IPCT are designed to 

recirculate the cooling water through 

the system to minimize the costs 

associated with wastewater disposal and 

permitting. As the water is recirculated, 

cooling water is lost through 

evaporation and emissions, which is 

referred to as drift. Because of these 

losses, the concentrations of the 

dissolved and suspended chemical 

constituents of the cooling water 

steadily increase, and water treatment 

chemicals must be added to the cooling 

water to ensure continued operation of 

the system. These chemicals generally 

serve to inhibit corrosion, control 

scaling and fouling, limit the growth of 

microorganisms, and control the pH of 

the cooling water. 

To determine which of these water 

treatment chemicals may contain or 

61414 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1We ask for comment on what approach might be 

appropriate when no pre-existing NESHAP level of 

emissions exists. 

form HAP and subsequently be emitted 

from IPCT, we contacted seven 

companies that supply chemicals for 

industrial cooling water system 

treatment. These companies include the 

largest suppliers of cooling water 

treatment chemicals; combined, the 

seven companies account for the major 

share of the cooling water treatment 

chemical market. 

We also conducted a literature search 

of trade journals, conference 

proceedings, EPA publications, and 

other documents for information on 

emissions from IPCT. The results of the 

search were placed in the public docket 

for this proposed action. The 

information collected from the water 

treatment chemical suppliers and 

through the literature search indicated 

that some biocides used to treat 

industrial cooling water either contain 

HAP or form HAP that can be emitted 

from IPCT. These HAP include chlorine, 

chloroform, methanol, and ethylene 

thiourea. However, chlorine emissions 

occur only under acidic conditions (i.e., 

pH of 3.0 or less). Because IPCT water 

treatment programs all operate under 

alkaline conditions, with the pH of the 

cooling water maintained in the range of 

7.5 to 9.0, chlorine emissions from IPCT 

are unlikely under normal operating 

conditions. 

Industrial process cooling towers 

typically use one and not all of the three 

listed HAP at any given time. Therefore, 

IPCT emit no more than one of the three 

listed HAP. We estimated worst-case 

emission rates for chloroform, methanol, 

and ethylene thiourea based on the 

range of concentrations of these 

constituents in cooling water and the 

model plants developed for the IPCT 

NESHAP.1 We used these emission rates 

to model exposure concentrations 

surrounding those sources, calculated 

the risk of possible chronic cancer and 

noncancer health effects, evaluated 

whether acute exposures might exceed 

relevant health thresholds, and 

investigated human health multipathway and ecological risks. 

Results 

Consistent with the tiered modeling 

approach described in the Residual Risk 

Report to Congress, the risk assessment 

for this source category started with a 

simple assessment which used 

conservative assumptions in lieu of sitespecific data. The results demonstrated 

negligible risks for potential chronic 

cancer, chronic noncancer, and acute 

noncancer health endpoints. Also, no 

significant human health multi-pathway 

or ecological risks were identified. Had 

the resulting risks been determined to 

be non-negligible, a more refined 

analysis with site-specific data would 

have been necessary. The assessment is 

described in detail in the memorandum 

‘‘Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Industrial Process Cooling Source 

Category’’ available in the docket. Brief 

summaries of the results follow. 

Cancer. Both ethylene thiourea and 

chloroform are classified as probable 

human carcinogens by EPA. The 

estimated maximum lifetime (i.e., 70- 

year) individual cancer risk due to the 

combined emissions of these two HAP 

from industrial process cooling towers 

was 4 × 10¥7, or 0.4-in-a-million. This 

is less than the statutory trigger of 1-ina-million in section 112(f)(2) of the 

CAA. 

Chronic Noncancer. Chronic 

inhalation exposure to chloroform, 

ethylene thiourea, and methanol have 

been associated with a variety of 

noncancer health effects including 

depression of the central nervous 

system, hepatitis, jaundice, thyroid 

effects, birth defects, blurred vision, 

headache, dizziness, and nausea. Our 

risk assessment demonstrated that 

exposure to these HAP due to emissions 

from IPCT is unlikely to cause adverse 

chronic noncancer health effects. The 

maximum calculated hazard index (HI) 

is 0.002, even when emissions of all 

three HAP are assumed to come from 

the same cooling towers, which is an 

unlikely event. This HI is well below a 

HI of 1, which is the minimum level of 

potential concern. 

Acute. Acute inhalation exposure to 

chloroform and/or methanol has been 

associated with a variety of adverse 

health effects including blurred vision, 

headache, dizziness, nausea, and 

depression of the central nervous 

system. Our risk assessment 

demonstrated that acute exposure to 

these HAP due to worst-case emissions 

from IPCT is unlikely to cause adverse 

health effects. The maximum acute 

hazard quotient (HQ) for any of the HAP 

evaluated with any of the relevant acute 

dose-response values considered is 0.07. 

This is well below a HQ of 1, which is 

the minimum level of potential concern. 

Human Health Multipathway and 

Ecological. None of the HAP considered 

in this risk assessment are believed to 

persist in the environment or to 

bioaccumulate. Therefore, risks to 

human health, resulting from 

multipathway exposure to HAP emitted 

by IPCT, are not believed to be 

significant. 

We are also required to consider 

adverse environmental effect as a part of 

a residual risk assessment. As we stated 

previously, none of the chemicals 

considered in this risk assessment are 

believed to persist in the environment 

or to bioaccumulate. Therefore, we have 

no evidence that suggests adverse 

environmental effect indicating a need 

for further controls. Regarding the 

inhalation exposure pathway for 

terrestrial mammals, we have concluded 

that the human toxicity values for the 

inhalation pathway are generally 

protective of terrestrial mammals. The 

maximum cancer and noncancer 

hazards to humans from inhalation 

exposure are very low, and we expect 

there to be no significant and 

widespread adverse effect to terrestrial 

mammals from inhalation exposure to 

HAP emitted from facilities in this 

source category. Therefore, an adverse 

environmental effect is not a concern for 

emissions from cooling towers. Since 

our analysis shows no significant 

ecological effect, we also do not believe 

that there is any potential for an effect 

on threatened or endangered species or 

on their critical habitat within the 

meaning of 50 CFR 402.14(a). Because of 

these results, EPA has concluded that a 

consultation with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service is not necessary. 

Assessment 

Since our assessment shows that the 

IPCT NESHAP poses maximum lifetime 

excess cancer significantly less than one 

in a million, and since noncancer health 

risks and ecological risks were found to 

be insignificant for this source category, 

EPA is not obligated to adopt standards 

under section 112(f) of the CAA. 

EPA recognizes that there may be 

circumstances where it would be 

appropriate to delist a source category 

or subcategory after MACT standards 

have been promulgated. For example, an 

industry may have changed sufficiently 

in the years since the category was 

listed and the MACT standards 

promulgated, such that even in the 

absence of the MACT standards, 

emissions from the category would be 

sufficiently low to meet the delisting 

criteria of CAA section 112(c)(9). In the 

case of IPCT, EPA promulgated MACT 

standards prohibiting the use of 

chromium-based water treatment 

chemicals. Currently, none of the 

sources in this category are using 

chromium-based water treatment 

chemicals. EPA’s analysis suggests that 

the risks associated with other HAP are 

well below levels of concern. As a 

result, changes with this category, i.e., 

the use of nonchromium-based water 

treatment chemicals, may allow EPA to 

determine that the section 112(c)(9) 

criteria have been met in the absence of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61415 

2We reviewed available information and talked 

with industry representatives to investigate 

available emission control technologies and the 

potential for additional emission reductions for any 

nonchromium HAP emitted from IPCT. Our 

investigation did not identify any significant 

developments in practices, processes, or control 

technologies. 

the MACT standards. In the present 

case, we have not developed data to 

support this conclusion. We request 

comment on EPA’s ability to delist a 

category or subcategory under section 

112(c)(9) after promulgation of section 

112(d) MACT standards. We also 

request comment (and supporting data) 

on whether this industry has changed 

such that it would be appropriate for 

EPA to delist the source category or a 

distinct subcategory. We also solicit 

comment on the possibility of 

subcategorizing source categories for 

purposes of satisfying section 112(f)(2). 

D. What Are the Conclusions of the 

Technology Review? 

Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires 

that the Administrator review and revise 

‘‘the emission standards promulgated 

under this section’’ as necessary. In this 

instance, the emission standards 

imposed an absolute prohibition on the 

use of chromium-based water treatment 

chemicals in IPCT. As the emission 

standards imposed for this particular 

source are already at the most stringent, 

no more stringent standards could be 

imposed. Nor has EPA received any 

evidence which would justify a 

downward revision of the standards. In 

the residual risk analysis discussed 

above, EPA has considered risks for 

HAP emissions that are not currently 

subject to an emission standards but are 

attributable to the source category or 

subcategory. The text of section 

112(d)(6) suggests that the technology 

review is not so extensive. EPA has 

tentatively concluded that the section 

112(d)(6) review should be limited to 

the ‘‘emission standards’’ already issued 

under section 112(d). As the MACT 

emission standards for IPCT are the 

most stringent possible, the Agency has 

concluded that no further controls are 

necessary.2

In light of today’s low-risk finding 

under CAA section 112(f) (i.e., that, 

given compliance with the existing 

MACT standards every source in the 

category poses excess lifetime 

individual cancer risks less than 1-in-amillion and no significant noncancer or 

ecological risks), the Agency seeks 

comment on the notion that, barring any 

unforeseeable circumstances which 

might substantially change this source 

category or its emissions, we would 

have no obligations to conduct future 

technology reviews under CAA section 

112(d)(6). 

II. Proposed Action 

We believe that no further revisions to 

the standards are needed and are 

proposing not to revise the standards 

under section 112(d)(6) or 112(f)(2) of 

the CAA. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must 

determine whether a regulatory action is 

‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) review and the requirements of 

the Executive Order. 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, OMB has notified EPA 

that it considers this a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ within the meaning 

of the Executive Order. EPA has 

submitted this action to OMB for 

review. Changes made in response to 

OMB suggestions or recommendations 

will be documented in the public 

record. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any 

information collection burden. It will 

not change the burden estimates from 

those previously developed and 

approved for the existing NESHAP. 

OMB has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulation (59 

FR 46350, September 8, 1994) under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

this information collection request has 

been discontinued because the 

information requested in the original 

regulation is no longer needed. 

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 in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute 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 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed action on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business whose parent company 

has fewer than 500 to 1,000 employees, 

depending on the size definition for the 

affected NAICS code; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed action on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The proposed action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed action 

61416 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 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, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any 1 year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires 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 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 of why that 

alternative was not adopted. Before 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. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed action 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 to the private sector 

in any 1 year. Thus, today’s proposed 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

In addition, EPA has determined that 

the proposed action 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. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

Today’s proposed action does not 

have federalism implications. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to the 

proposed action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ The proposed action 

does not have tribal implications as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. It 

will not have substantial direct effects 

on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to today’s proposed action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866 and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

EPA 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 EPA. 

The proposed action is not subject to 

the Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866 and because EPA 

does not have reason to believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

significant disproportionate risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Today’s proposed decision is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001), because it is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Further, we have concluded that 

today’s proposed decision is not likely 

to have any adverse energy impacts. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Under section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities, unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. The VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted VCS bodies. 

The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency does not use available 

and applicable VCS. 

The proposed action does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. EPA welcomes 

comments on this aspect of the 

proposed action and, specifically, 

invites the public to identify potentially 

applicable VCS and to explain why such 

standards should be used in the 

proposed action. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61417 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 18, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–21188 Filed 10–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OAR–2003–0161, FRL–7987–6] 

RIN 2060–AK23 

National Emission Standards for 

Magnetic Tape Manufacturing 

Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed action; request for 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: On December 15, 1994, we 

promulgated national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) from magnetic tape 

manufacturing operations (59 FR 

64580). The national emission standards 

limit and control HAP that are known 

or suspected to cause cancer or have 

other serious health or environmental 

effect. 

Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) directs EPA to assess the risk 

remaining (residual risk) after the 

application of national emission 

standards controls and to promulgate 

more stringent standards, if necessary, 

to protect public health with an ample 

margin of safety and to prevent adverse 

environmental effect. Also, section 

112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to 

review and revise the national emission 

standards, as necessary, taking into 

account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies. 

Based on our findings from the residual 

risk and technology review, we are 

proposing no further action at this time 

to revise the national emission 

standards. Today’s proposed action 

requests public comments on the 

residual risk and technology review for 

the national emission standards. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before December 8, 2005. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by November 14, 2005, a public 

hearing will be held approximately 30 

days following publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2003–

0161, by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/edkpub/index.jsp. 

EDOCKET, EPA’s electronic public 

docket and comment system, is EPA’s 

preferred method for receiving 

comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov and 

dail.lynn@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741 and (919) 541–

5689. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center 

(6102T), Attention Docket Number 

OAR–2003–0161, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: In person or by 

courier, deliver comments to: EPA 

Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket 

ID Number OAR–2003–0161, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B–

108, Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Please include a total of two copies. 

We request that you also send a 

separate copy of each comment to the 

contact person for the proposed action 

listed below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0161. The 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.epa.gov/edkpub/index.jsp, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. 

Send or deliver information identified 

as CBI only to the following address: 

Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 

Control Officer, U.S. EPA (C404–02), 

Attention Docket ID No. OAR–2003–

0161, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit 

EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal 

Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edkpub/index.jsp. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA 

Docket Center, Docket ID Number OAR–

2003–0161, EPA West Building, Room 

B–102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566–

1742. A reasonable fee may be charged 

for copying docket materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about the proposed action, 

contact Mr. H. Lynn Dail, EPA, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Emission Standards Division, Coatings 

and Consumer Products Group (C539–

03), Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 

541–2363, fax number (919) 541–5689, 

e-mail address: dail.lynn@epa.gov. For 

questions on the residual risk analysis, 

contact Ms. Maria Pimentel, EPA, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Emission Standards Division, Risk and 

Exposure Assessment Group (C404–01),