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), 

61418 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone (919) 541–5280, fax 

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

pimentel.maria@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. The regulated categories and 

entities affected by the national 

emission standards include: 

Category NAICSa code Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ............................................... 334613, 322222, 325992 ... Operations at major sources that are engaged in the surface coating of 

magnetic tape. 

Federal Government .......................... ............................................. Not affected. 

State, local, tribal government ........... ............................................. Not affected. 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by the magnetic tape national 

emission standards. To determine 

whether your facility would be affected 

by the magnetic tape national emission 

standards, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 

63.701(a) of subpart EE (national 

emission standards for magnetic tape 

manufacturing operations). If you have 

any questions regarding the 

applicability of the magnetic tape 

national emission standards to a 

particular entity, contact Mr. Lynn Dail, 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

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. 

Related Information. We have 

prepared two summary documents 

covering the development of, and the 

rationale for, this proposal and the 

residual risk analysis. These reports are 

entitled: ‘‘Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions from Magnetic Tape 

Manufacturing Operations—Background 

Information for Technology and 

Residual Risk Review’’ and ‘‘Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Magnetic Tape 

Manufacturing Source Category.’’ Both 

documents are available in Docket ID 

No. OAR–2003–0161. See the ‘‘Docket’’

section above for docket information. 

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. 

Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer 

Products Group, Emission Standards 

Division, EPA (C539–03), Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone 

(919) 541–7946. 

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 magnetic tape national 

emission standards accomplish? 

C. What are the conclusions of the residual 

risk assessment? 

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 and 

Advancement Act 

I. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) establishes a two-stage regulatory 

process to address emissions of 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 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. The 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61419 

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 magnetic tape national 

emission standards accomplish? 

On December 15, 1994, we 

promulgated the national emission 

standards for magnetic tape 

manufacturing operations (59 FR 64580) 

and required existing sources to comply 

with the national emission standards by 

December 15, 1996. 

The Magnetic Tape national emission 

standards cover HAP emissions from 

surface coatings used in the 

manufacture of magnetic and optical 

recording media used in audio, video, 

computer and magnetic stripe tape and 

disks. The emission units regulated by 

the Magnetic Tape national emission 

standards are storage tanks, mix 

preparation equipment, coating 

operations, waste handling devices, 

condenser vents in solvent recovery, 

particulate transfer operations, wash 

sinks for cleaning removable parts, 

equipment for flushing fixed lines, and 

wastewater treatment operations. The 

Magnetic Tape national emission 

standards regulates only those sources 

located at major sources. During the 

development of the national emission 

standards, we identified 25 existing 

magnetic recording media and magnetic 

stripe facilities, of which 14 were 

considered major and, therefore, subject 

to the national emission standards. 

Currently, there are only six magnetic 

tape manufacturing facilities remaining 

in the United States, all of which are 

major. 

In general, the current national 

emission standards require an overall 

HAP control efficiency of at least 95 

percent for emissions from each solvent 

storage tank, piece of mix preparation 

equipment, coating operation, waste 

handling device, or condenser vent in 

solvent recovery. If an incinerator is 

used to control these emissions points, 

an outlet HAP concentration of no 

greater than 20 parts per million by 

volume by compound may be met, 

instead of achieving 95 percent control, 

as long as the efficiency of the capture 

system is 100 percent. If a coating with 

a HAP content no greater than 0.18 

kilograms per liter (1.5 pounds per 

gallon) of coatings solids is used, that 

coating operation does not require 

further control. 

Several solvent and particulate HAP 

are used in the magnetic tape 

manufacturing industry. Currently, the 

HAP solvents used to the greatest extent 

are methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and 

toluene, and the particulate HAP are 

cobalt and cobalt compounds, used at 

one facility. One individual facility uses 

0.4 pound per year (lb/yr) of 

acrylonitrile and another facility uses 7 

lbs/yr of lead. At the time of 

promulgation of the national emission 

standards, however, the solvent HAP in 

use included MEK, toluene, methyl 

isobutyl ketone, toluene diisocyanate, 

ethylene glycol, methanol, xylenes, 

ethyl benzene, and acetaldehyde; and 

the particulate HAP included 

chromium, cobalt, and their respective 

compounds. Several of these HAP are 

no longer used in the industry. The 

HAP, MEK and toluene, are used at all 

facilities; however, HAP such as nhexane, methanol, methyl isobutyl 

ketone, xylenes, triethylamine, phenol, 

styrene, hydrogen cloride, ethyl acrylate 

and ethyl benzene are selectively used 

at individual facilities according to their 

coating formulation. At the time of 

promulgation of the Magnetic Tape 

national emission standards, we 

estimated that these HAP emissions, 

including MEK and toluene, would be 

reduced by 2,080 Mg/yr (2,300 tpy) from 

a baseline of 4,060 Mg/yr (4,470 tpy). 

C. What are the conclusions of the 

residual risk assessment? 

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 

magnetic tape manufacturing operations 

after implementation of the national 

emission standards. We compiled a list 

of the six magnetic tape manufacturing 

facilities still in operation in the United 

States based on inventory information 

we gathered from a number of 

manufacturing facilities and State 

environmental program offices (e.g., 

whether these facilities were still 

operating and manufacturing magnetic 

tape). 

Emissions Data 

The major HAP emitted by the 

magnetic tape manufacturing source 

category are MEK and toluene, which 

comprise 97 percent of all emissions in 

the source category. Other HAP such as 

n-hexane, methanol, methyl isobutyl 

ketone, xylenes, triethylamine, phenol, 

styrene, hydrogen chloride, ethyl 

acrylate, and ethyl benzene are used at 

individual facilities in very small 

amounts. The six magnetic tape 

manufacturing facilities have HAP 

emissions ranging from 3.9 to 214 Mg/ 

yr (4.3 to 236 tpy). The total annual 

HAP emissions, nationally, are 

estimated to be 468 Mg/yr (516 tpy). 

The primary sources of emissions and 

parameter data for the residual risk 

assessment were the 1999 National 

Emissions Inventory, 2000 Toxics 

Release Inventory, State offices, and the 

facilities involved. The emissions and 

parameter data used for the residual risk 

assessment have been placed in the 

docket. Using these data, we modeled 

exposure concentrations surrounding 

the six facilities, 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. 

While the emissions data used in the 

residual risk assessment represent 

actual levels of emissions for the base 

year, we believe these levels are not 

substantially different from the 

maximum emission levels allowed 

under the current national emission 

standards. Therefore, the results of the 

risk assessment represent our 

approximation of the maximum risks 

which would be allowed under 

compliance with the national emission 

standards. 

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 multipathway 

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 

Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Source 

Category’’ and the addendum 

memorandum, available in the docket. 

The assessment was peer reviewed by 

EPA scientists and revised, and the peer 

review comments have also been placed 

in the docket. Brief summaries of the 

results follow. 

Cancer. One of the six facilities 

within the magnetic tape manufacturing 

source category was quantitatively 

61420 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

assessed for potential cancer risks due 

to the acrylonitrile emissions from the 

facility. Acrylonitrile is classified as a 

probable human carcinogen by EPA. 

The other five facilities did not emit any 

amount of known, probable, or possible 

carcinogens. The estimated maximum 

lifetime (i.e., 70-year) individual cancer 

risk associated with the facility was 1- 

in-100 million, or 0.01-in-a million. 

This is significantly less than the 

statutory trigger of 1-in-a million in 

section 112(f)(2) of the CAA. 

Chronic noncancer. The maximum 

chronic noncancer hazard indices (HI) 

were calculated for the emissions of all 

the noncarcinogens with published 

health threshold values for all six of the 

existing facilities. The maximum target 

organ-specific HI calculated for any of 

the facilities was 0.3, the major portion 

of the risk stemming from predicted 

exposures to cobalt. Cobalt is a 

respiratory toxicant when inhaled, but 

the chronic inhalation of air 

concentrations below 0.1 microgram per 

cubic meter (μg/m3) is considered to be 

without risk of adverse health effects, as 

stated in the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry’s 

Toxicological Profile. Since all 

noncancer exposures were well below a 

target organ-specific HI of 1, we do not 

believe that chronic exposures from 

these facilities pose a public health 

concern. 

Acute. All maximum predicted 1-hour 

exposure concentrations for the 

pollutants emitted by the six magnetic 

tape manufacturing facilities were 

below all appropriate acute doseresponse values. Therefore, we do not 

believe that acute exposures from these 

facilities pose any potential for a public 

health concern. 

Human health multipathway and 

ecological. Some persistent and 

bioaccumulative (PB) HAP may pose 

human health risks via exposure 

pathways other than inhalation and can 

also pose ecological risks by entering 

the wildlife food chain. Based on 

emissions data obtained for the 

magnetic tape manufacturing source 

category, lead is the only PB HAP 

reported as emitted by magnetic tape 

sources. Lead is a neurotoxicant when 

ingested or inhaled above acceptable 

concentration levels. Therefore, we 

investigated lead for potential human 

health impact via noninhalation 

pathways (e.g., ingestion). 

Lead was reported as emitted by one 

of the six facilities in the magnetic tape 

manufacturing source category. 

Although lead is not typically emitted 

from magnetic tape manufacturing 

processes, we nonetheless included 

those emissions in our analysis in an 

attempt to capture the worst-case impact 

for the facility. 

The maximum annual average air 

concentration of lead associated with 

this facility was estimated at 0.00032 

μg/m3. The maximum soil concentration 

of lead due to deposition over a 30-year 

time period at a census block centroid 

was estimated at 4.6 milligrams per 

gram. All of the predicted blood lead 

levels associated with the one facility 

were estimated at concentrations 

ranging from 2.5 to 4.2 micrograms per 

deciliter (μg/dL) for the various age 

groups evaluated. The reference value 

which represents a level of concern for 

children as specified by EPA and the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention is 10 μg/dL. Thus, no 

significant human health multipathway 

risks are expected. 

We also consider the potential for 

adverse environmental effect as part of 

the assessment. Regarding the 

inhalation exposure to pathway for 

terrestrial mammals, we conclude that 

human toxicity values for the inhalation 

pathway are generally protective of 

terrestrial mammals. Therefore, because 

the maximum predicted cancer risks 

and noncancer hazards to humans from 

inhalation exposure are extremely low, 

we expect there to be no significant or 

widespread adverse effect to terrestrial 

mammals from inhalation exposure to 

HAP emitted from facilities in this 

source category. Further, to ensure that 

the potential for adverse effect to 

wildlife (including birds) resulting from 

noninhalation exposure is low, we 

carried out a screening-level 

multipathway assessment of the 

potential for adverse ecological effect 

due to the deposition of lead. The 

predicted soil lead concentrations from 

the one facility that emits lead are low 

compared to the screening value for lead 

in soil; therefore, we do not expect any 

unacceptable risks to ecological 

receptors. Since our results showed no 

screening-level ecological effect, we do 

not believe that there is any potential for 

an adverse 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 

concluded that a consultation with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service is not 

necessary. 

Assessment Conclusions 

Since our assessment shows that the 

Magnetic Tape national emission 

standards pose maximum lifetime 

excess cancer significantly less than 1- 

in-1 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 

even after MACT standards has been 

implemented. For example, an industry 

may have changed sufficiently in the 

years since the category was listed and 

the MACT standards issued, such that 

even in the absence of the MACT 

standards, emissions from the category 

would be sufficiently low to meet the 

criteria of section 112(c)(9). However, in 

the present case we have not developed 

data to support such an approach. We 

request comment on this approach. We 

also request comment (with supporting 

data) on whether this industry has 

changed such that it would be 

appropriate to delist the source category 

or a distinct subcategory. 

D. What are the conclusions of the 

technology review? 

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

EPA to review and revise, as necessary 

(taking into account developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies), emission standards 

promulgated under section 112 no less 

often than every 8 years. We reviewed 

available information about the 

industry, talked with industry 

representatives, and contacted several 

facilities in the industry to investigate 

available emission control technologies 

and the potential for additional 

emission reductions. We did not 

identify any additional control 

technologies beyond those that are 

already in widespread use within the 

source category (e.g., carbon adsorbers, 

condensers). The only developments 

identified involve improvements in the 

performance of existing technologies or 

increased frequency of inspections and 

testing, which would achieve only small 

incremental emission reductions, as 

indicated in the previous section. The 

only major technical advances we 

discovered were the development of two 

new technologies (optical recording 

media and solid state recording (SSR) 

media), which may eventually supplant 

magnetic tape. However, optical 

recording media and SSR media are not 

considered magnetic tape and would 

not be covered under the Magnetic Tape 

national emission standards. These new 

technologies, along with industry 

consolidation and competition from 

foreign producers, which have lower 

production costs (primarily labor costs) 

than domestic producers, have been 

identified as the primary reasons for the 

overall decline of this industry sector. 

Therefore, our investigation did not 

identify any significant developments in 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61421 

practices, processes, or control 

technologies in the magnetic tape 

manufacturing industry since 

promulgation of the original standards 

in 1994. 

In light of today’s low-risk finding 

under 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-a-million 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 

Because the existing national 

emission standards continues to 

represent the best controls that can be 

implemented nationally, we believe that 

no further revisions to the standards are 

needed under section 112(d)(6) 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. The 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 national 

emission standards. However, OMB has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulation (59 FR 64580, 

December 15, 1994) under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and have 

assigned OMB control number 2060–

0326, ICR No. 1678.05. A copy of the 

OMB approved Information Collection 

Request (ICR) may be obtained from 

Susan Auby, by mail at the Office of 

Environmental Information, Collection 

Strategies Division, EPA (2822T), 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 

Auby.Susan@epa.gov, or by calling 

(202) 566–1672. 

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 impact 

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 (as defined by 

Small Business Administration size 

standards); (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-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impact 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 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. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impact of the proposed action 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impact. 

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 effect 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 

61422 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

The EPA has determined that the 

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. The rule imposes no 

enforceable duty on State, local, or tribal 

governments, or the private sector. 

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 effect 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 the 

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 effect 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 & 

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 effect 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 

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 and 

Advancement Act 

Under section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, sec. 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 by 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 VCS. The 

EPA welcomes comments on this aspect 

of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially applicable VCS and 

to explain why such standards should 

be used in the proposed action. 

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. 05–21186 Filed 10–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P