Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27785

§ 14.619 [Amended]

19. In § 14.619, paragraphs (b) and (c)

are amended by removing ‘‘$40,000’’

each time it appears and adding, in its

place, ‘‘$100,000’’; and paragraph (b) is

further amended by removing ‘‘the

General Counsel and claims in excess of

$100,000 may be compromised, settled,

or waived only with the prior approval

of’’.

[FR Doc. 96–13476 Filed 5–31–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–5512–6]

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for:

Chromium Emissions From Hard and

Decorative Chromium Electroplating

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks;

Ethylene Oxide Commercial

Sterilization and Fumigation

Operations; Perchloroethylene Dry

Cleaning Facilities; and Secondary

Lead Smelting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action promulgates final

action to amend certain sections of the

following promulgated standards:

‘‘National Emission Standards for

Chromium Emissions from Hard and

Decorative Chromium Electroplating

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Final

Rule’’ (subpart N); ‘‘National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Ethylene Oxide Commercial

Sterilization and Fumigation

Operations’’ (subpart O); ‘‘National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Source Categories:

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

Facilities’’ (subpart M); and ‘‘National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants from Secondary Lead

Smelting’’ (subpart X). Today’s action

amends the Final Rules’ requirement

that nonmajor sources (emitting or

having the potential to emit less than 10

tons per year of any hazardous air

pollutant or 25 tons per year of any

combination of hazardous air

pollutants) obtain title V operating

permits. The action being taken today

will substantially reduce the

unnecessary and undue regulatory

burden for States and local agencies, the

EPA Regional Offices, and the industry

during a time when all available

resources are necessary for the initial

implementation of the title V permit

program for major sources. Sources are

still required to meet all applicable

emission control requirements

established by the respective maximum

achievable control technology (MACT)

standards. The only change from

proposal to promulgation is that the 5-

year deferral option, as with the other

rules, is also being provided for

nonmajor sources in the secondary lead

smelters (subpart X) source category.

DATES: Effective Date: June 3, 1996.

Judicial Review: Under section

307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of

national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) is

available only by filing a petition for

review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit within

60 days of today’s publication of this

final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the

Act, the requirements that are the

subject of today’s notice may not be

challenged later in civil or criminal

proceedings brought by the EPA to

enforce these requirements.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A–88–

02, containing the supporting

information for the original subpart N

NESHAP and this action, Docket No. A–

88–03, containing the supporting

information for the original subpart O

NESHAP, Docket No. A–88–11,

containing the supporting information

for the original subpart M NESHAP, and

Docket No. A–92–43, containing the

supporting information for the original

subpart X NESHAP, are available for

public inspection and copying between

8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday, at the EPA Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center, Waterside Mall, room M–1500,

first floor, 401 M Street S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460, or by calling

(202) 260–7548. These dockets also

contain information considered by the

EPA in developing this final rule. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Lalit Banker, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

5420.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The proposal notice was published in

the Federal Register on December 13,

1995 (60 FR 64002). No public hearing

was requested. Seventeen letters

commenting on the proposed rule were

received during the public comment

period.

II. Summary

A. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

The proposed rule offered title V

permitting authorities the option to

defer permitting of nonmajor sources in

the following source categories:

chromium electroplating and chromium

anodizing tanks; ethylene oxide

commercial sterilization and fumigation

operations; and perchloroethylene dry

cleaning facilities. The rule proposed

permitting nonmajor secondary lead

smelters on schedule. In response to

public comments received and

additional analyses performed by the

EPA, one change has been made to the

rule since proposal. The permitting

authorities will be allowed the option to

defer the nonmajor sources in the

secondary lead smelters source category

for 5 years from title V permit

requirements similar to the option for

nonmajor sources in the other source

categories described in the proposal.

Comments were also received on

possible additional permanent

exemptions for any of the source

categories for which temporary

exemptions were being considered.

Although a majority of the comments

supported permanent exemptions for

these nonmajor sources, the EPA has

decided not to grant permanent

exemptions to any additional source

categories at this time. However, the

EPA will make a decision regarding

additional permanent exemptions by the

time the temporary exemptions expire.

During the permit deferral period, the

EPA will continue to evaluate the State/

local agencies implementation and

enforcement of the standards for

nonmajor sources outside of a title V

permit, the likely benefit of permitting

such sources, and the costs and other

burdens on such sources associated

with obtaining a title V permit.

B. Significant Comments and Responses

Comments on the proposed rule were

received from the industry and State

and local regulatory agencies. Except for

one State agency, all commenters

concurred with the EPA option to allow

states to defer title V permit

requirements for nonmajor sources. The

representative for the State of Florida

disagreed with this recommendation by

contending that permitting the subject

nonmajor sources through the use of

title V general permits would not

constitute an undue regulatory burden

for a permitting agency, nor would such

a mechanism be considered

exceptionally onerous for small
27786 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

businesses covered by the section 112

standards. The State of Florida

maintains that a general permit is the

most efficient and cost-effective process

by which States can implement

emission standard requirements.

The commenter articulated that the

deferral of permitting requirements for

area sources is problematic for the

following reasons. First, the deferral

will create unnecessary confusion for

affected sources that will still be subject

to the NESHAP requirements. Second,

permits are needed to practically verify

emission limitations and work practices

to which a source is subject. Third, the

commenter questions whether the

enforcement of NESHAP requirements

can be accomplished by means other

than a permit. The commenters

experience has been that small

businesses support a general permit that

states the applicable NESHAP

requirements. Lastly, the commenter

believes that the lack of a permit

requirement will result in unequal

enforcement of emission limitations by

individual States or local air pollution

control agencies.

The EPA believes that the rationale

described in the proposal for the

temporary exemption option, as well as

supportive public comments, strongly

support the deferral of permitting for

nonmajor sources; therefore, the EPA

has not made any changes to this

option. Nevertheless, the issues which

the above commenter raises will be

examined during the process of

determining whether to permit or allow

the exemption of nonmajor sources at

the conclusion of the 5 year deferral. It

should be noted that todays action does

not preclude any State/local permitting

authority from proceeding to permit the

nonmajor sources discussed in this

notice at their discretion during the

deferral period.

Two commenters specifically

questioned the EPA’s justification in not

allowing the deferral of nonmajor

secondary lead smelters. The EPA had

proposed that requiring nonmajor

secondary lead smelters to obtain Part

70 permits without delay would not be

impracticable or infeasible for the State

or local permitting authorities involved

and would not unnecessarily burden

these companies since, in contrast to the

hundreds or thousands of sources in the

four other source categories, there are

only a few secondary lead smelters

which are nonmajor sources. The

commenters contend that requiring

nonmajor secondary lead smelters to

obtain a title V permit is also

unnecessary and could cause undue

burden both to the industry as well as

to the State agencies and will not

enhance any environmental benefits.

Upon consideration of these

comments and further evaluation, the

EPA believes that the relatively few

number of sources in a category is not

an important distinction, and that States

should, therefore, also be allowed to

temporarily exempt nonmajor secondary

lead smelters from permitting

requirements, along with sources in the

other source categories. This change

from proposal is consistent with the

EPA’s decision for deferral for the other

area source categories. As explained

previously, comments were received on

the other nonmajor source categories

requesting an option for permanent

permit exemptions. The EPA will

continue to evaluate factors related to

this issue and make a decision regarding

permanent exemptions by the time the

temporary exemptions expire. This

ongoing evaluation reinforced the

advisability of also providing the

opportunity for the deferral of permits

to secondary lead smelters, so that the

permit requirements for all nonmajor

sources can be addressed as a package.

These nonmajor sources are still

required to comply with the

requirements of the promulgated

standard for secondary lead smelters

regardless of whether they will be

permitted in the near term. While the

EPA disagrees with the assertion that

permitting under title V does not yield

an environmental benefit, the EPA does

agree that to require the immediate

permitting of nonmajor secondary lead

smelters is unnecessarily burdensome

during the initial years of the title V

program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements of the previously

promulgated National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) were submitted to and

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB). Today’s changes to

the NESHAP would not increase the

information collection burden estimates

made previously. In fact, they are

expected to reduce the required

paperwork by providing the opportunity

for delays for some sources and

exemptions for others from

requirements to obtain a title V permit.

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, the

Agency must determine whether a

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and

therefore subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to 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 the Executive

Order, the OMB has notified the EPA

that it does not consider this to be a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within

the meaning of the Executive Order.

Therefore, the EPA did not submit this

action to the OMB for review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the EPA to

consider potential impacts of

regulations on small entities. A

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) is

required if preliminary analysis

indicates ‘‘a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities’’. As explained earlier in this

rule, these amendments would reduce

the impacts on small entities

(specifically small businesses) by

allowing States to delay some and

exempt others from the requirement to

obtain a title V permit.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

D. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

(SBREFA)

Subtitle E of SBREFA establishes

opportunity for Congress to review and

potentially disapprove nonmajor rules

promulgated on or after March 29, 1996

or major rules promulgated after March

1, 1996. With limited exceptions, it

provides that no rule promulgated on or

after March 29, 1996, may take effect

until it is submitted to Congress and the

Comptroller General along with

specified supporting documentation.

Different requirements apply to major

rules. This rule, which is nonmajor, is
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27787

being submitted to Congress in

accordance with these requirements.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘unfunded Mandates Act’’), (signed

into law on March 22, 1995) requires

that the Agency prepare a budgetary

impact statement to accompany any

proposed or final rule that includes a

Federal Mandate that may result in

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any 1 year. Section 203 requires the

Agency to establish a plan for obtaining

input from and informing, educating,

and advising any small governments

that may be significantly or uniquely

affected by the rule.

As explained earlier in this notice,

these amendments would reduce the

cost to State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector by

allowing States to delay some and

exempt others from the requirement to

obtain a title V permit. Therefore, the

EPA has not prepared a budgetary

impact statement for these amendments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 22, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as set forth below:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart N—[Amended]

2. Section 63.340 is amended by

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 63.340 Applicability and designation of

sources.

* * * * *

(e)(1) The Administrator has

determined, pursuant to the criteria

under section 502(a) of the Act, that an

owner or operator of the following types

of operations that are not by themselves

major sources and that are not located

at major sources, as defined under 40

CFR 70.2, is permanently exempt from

title V permitting requirements for that

operation:

(i) Any decorative chromium

electroplating operation or chromium

anodizing operation that uses fume

suppressants as an emission reduction

technology; and

(ii) Any decorative chromium

electroplating operation that uses a

trivalent chromium bath that

incorporates a wetting agent as a bath

ingredient.

(2) An owner or operator of any other

affected source subject to the provisions

of this subpart is subject to title V

permitting requirements. These affected

sources, if not major or located at major

sources as defined under 40 CFR 70.2,

may be deferred by the applicable title

V permitting authority from title V

permitting requirements for 5 years after

the date on which the EPA first

approves a part 70 program (i.e., until

December 9,1999). All sources receiving

deferrals shall submit title V permit

applications within 12 months of such

date (by December 9, 2000). All sources

receiving deferrals still must meet the

compliance schedule as stated in

§ 63.343.

3. Section 63.342 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraph

(c)(2)(i)(B) and introductory text of

paragraph (f)(3)(i) to read as follows:

§ 63.342 Standards.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) By accepting a Federallyenforceable limit on the maximum

cumulative potential rectifier capacity

of a hard chromium electroplating

facility and by maintaining monthly

records in accordance with

§ 63.346(b)(12) to demonstrate that the

limit has not been exceeded. * * *

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) The owner or operator of an

affected source subject to the work

practices of this paragraph (f) shall

prepare an operation and maintenance

plan to be implemented no later than

the compliance date. The plan shall be

incorporated by reference into the

source’s title V permit, if and when a

title V permit is required. The plan shall

include the following elements:

* * * * *

§ 63.344 [Amended]

4. In § 63.344, paragraphs (e)(3)(v) and

(e)(4)(iv) are amended by revising the

word ‘‘less’’ to read ‘‘more’’.

5. Section 63.347 is amended by

revising the introductory text in

paragraph (e)(2) and paragraph (f)(1) to

read as follows:

§ 63.347 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) If the State in which the source is

located has not been delegated the

authority to implement the rule, each

time a notification of compliance status

is required under this part, the owner or

operator of an affected source shall

submit to the Administrator a

notification of compliance status, signed

by the responsible official (as defined in

§ 63.2) who shall certify its accuracy,

attesting to whether the affected source

has complied with this subpart. If the

State has been delegated the authority,

the notification of compliance status

shall be submitted to the appropriate

authority. The notification shall list for

each affected source:

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(1) If the State in which the source is

located has not been delegated the

authority to implement the rule, the

owner or operator of an affected source

shall report to the Administrator the

results of any performance test

conducted as required by § 63.7 or

§ 63.343(b). If the State has been

delegated the authority, the owner or

operator of an affected source should

report performance test results to the

appropriate authority.

* * * * *

6. Table 1 to subpart N of Part 63 is

amended by revising the entry for

‘‘63.5(a)’’ to read as follows:

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART N OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART N

General provisions

reference Applies to subpart N Comment

* * * * * * *

63.5(a) ..................... Yes .......................... Except replace the term ‘‘source’’ and ‘‘stationary source’’ in § 63.5(a) (1) and (2) of subpart A with

‘‘affected sources.’’
27788 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART N OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART N—Continued

General provisions

reference Applies to subpart N Comment

* * * * * * *

Subpart O—[Amended]

7. Section 63.360 is amended by

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 63.360 Applicability.

* * * * *

(f) The owner or operator of a source,

subject to the provisions of the title 40,

chapter I, part 63 subpart O, using 1 ton

(see definition) is subject to title V

permitting requirements. These affected

sources, if not major or located at major

sources as defined under 40 CFR 70.2,

may be deferred by the applicable title

V permitting authority from title V

permitting requirements for 5 years after

the date on which the EPA first

approves a part 70 program (i.e., until

December 9, 1999). All sources

receiving deferrals shall submit title V

permit applications within 12 months of

such date (by December 9, 2000). All

sources receiving deferrals still must

meet compliance schedule as stated in

this § 63.360.

* * * * *

Subpart M—[Amended]

8. Section 63.320 is amended by

adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:

§ 63.320 Applicability.

* * * * *

(k) The owner or operator of any

source subject to the provisions of this

subpart M is subject to title V permitting

requirements. These affected sources, if

not major or located at major sources as

defined under 40 CFR 70.2, may be

deferred by the applicable title V

permitting authority from title V

permitting requirements for 5 years after

the date on which the EPA first

approves a part 70 program (i.e., until

December 9, 1999). All sources

receiving deferrals shall submit title V

permit applications within 12 months of

such date (by December 9, 2000). All

sources receiving deferrals still must

meet compliance schedule as stated in

this § 63.320.

Subpart X—[Amended]

9. Section 63.541 is amended by

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 63.541 Applicability.

* * * * *

(c) The owner or operator of any

source subject to the provisions of this

subpart X is subject to title V permitting

requirements. These affected sources, if

not major or located at major sources as

defined under 40 CFR 70.2, may be

deferred by the applicable title V

permitting authority from title V

permitting requirements for 5 years after

the date on which the EPA first

approves a part 70 program (i.e., until

December 9, 1999). All sources

receiving deferrals shall submit title V

permit applications within 12 months of

such date (by December 9, 2000). All

sources receiving deferrals still must

meet compliance schedule as stated in

§ 63.546.

[FR Doc. 96–13825 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5512–1]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of deletion of Newport

Dump Superfund Site, Wilder,

Kentucky, from the National Priorities

List

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) announces the

deletion of the Newport Dump

Superfund Site in Wilder, Kentucky,

from the National Priorities List (NPL),

{Appendix B of the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP)}. EPA and the

Commonwealth of Kentucky have

determined that all appropriate Fundfinanced responses under the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA), as amended, have been

implemented and that no further

cleanup is appropriate. Moreover, EPA

and the Commonwealth of Kentucky

determined that response actions

conducted at the site to date have been

protective of public health, welfare, and

the environment. This deletion does not

preclude future action under Superfund.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liza

Montalvo, Remedial Project Manager,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, North Superfund Remedial

Branch, 345 Courtland Street NE.,

Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347–7791,

extension 2030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to

be deleted from the NPL is: Newport

Dump Superfund Site, Wilder,

Kentucky.

A Notice of Intent To Delete for this

site was published on May 16, 1988

(SW–FRL–3380–7). A Revised Notice of

Intent To Delete was published on

March 8, 1996 (FRL–5436–5). The

closing date for comments on the

Revised Notice of Intent To Delete was

April 17, 1996. EPA received no

comments.

EPA identifies sites that appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

it maintains the NPL as the list of those

sites. Any site deleted from the NPL

remains eligible for Fund-financed

remedial actions in the unlikely event

that conditions at the site warrant such

action in the future. Section

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that

Fund-financed actions may be taken at

sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of

a site from the NPL does not affect

responsible party liability or impede

agency efforts to recover costs

associated with response efforts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental Protection, Air

Pollution Control, Chemicals,

Hazardous Waste, Hazardous

Substances, Intergovernmental

Relations, Penalties, Reporting and

Recordkeeping Requirements,

Superfund, Water Pollution Control,

and Water Supply.

Dated: May 21, 1996.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA

Region 4.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended

as follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

The authority citation for Part 300

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; 33 U.S.C.

1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757; 3 CFR

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923;

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.