[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69637-69643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32325]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-6508-7]
RIN 2060-A158
Title V Operating Permit Deferrals for Area Sources: National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chromium
Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium
Anodizing Tanks; Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation
Operations; Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities; Halogenated
Solvent Cleaning Machines; and Secondary Lead Smelting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 69638]]
ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action continues to allow permitting authorities the
discretion to defer Clean Air Act (Act) title V operating permit
requirements until December 9, 2004, for area sources of air pollution
that are subject to five NESHAPs. These amendments continue to relieve
industrial sources, State, local, and tribal agencies, and the EPA
Regional Offices of an undue regulatory burden during a time when
available resources are needed to implement the title V permit program
for major sources. Under these amendments, sources must continue to
meet all applicable requirements, including all applicable emission
control, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
established by the respective NESHAP.
The title V operating permit deferral is an option at the
permitting authority's discretion under EPA-approved State operating
permit programs and not an automatic deferral that the source can
invoke. Thus, State operating permit authorities are free to require
area sources subject to the five NESHAPS to obtain title V permits. In
areas where no State operating permit program is in effect, and the
Federal operating permit program is administered by EPA, we will defer
the requirement for title V permitting for these area sources until
December 9, 2004.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The following dockets, containing supporting information for
the original rulemakings, are available for public inspection between 8
a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal holidays:
Docket No. A-88-11, subpart M NESHAP; Docket No. A-88-02, subpart N
NESHAP; Docket No. A-88-03, subpart O NESHAP; Docket No. A-92-39,
subpart T NESHAP; Docket No. A-92-43, subpart X NESHAP. These dockets
are available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-
7548, Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). We may charge a
reasonable fee for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on today's
action, contact Mr. Rick Colyer, Emission Standards Division (MD-13),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5262, fax number (919) 541-0942, or
e-mail: colyer.rick@epa.gov. For further information regarding
applicability of your source to today's action, contact your title V
permitting authority.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Judicial Review. We proposed these
amendments on August 18, 1999 (64 FR 45116). This action promulgating
these amendments constitutes final administrative action concerning
that proposal. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of
these final amendments is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by
February 14, 2000. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, only an
objection to this rule that was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial
review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements
established by today's final action may not be challenged separately in
any civil or criminal proceeding brought by us to enforce these
requirements.
Technology Transfer Network. The Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
is a network of our electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control. You can access the TTN through the Internet at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/. If you need more information on the TTN, call the
HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
The preamble outline follows.
I. What types of facilities are potentially affected by these
amendments?
II Summary of the Proposed Rule and Description of the Final Rule
III. What has changed since proposal?
IV What comments did we receive on the proposed amendments?
V. What are the administrative requirements for these amendments?
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
D. Congressional Review Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. What types of facilities are potentially affected by these
amendments?
The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
action include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North American
Industry
Category Classification Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities.
System Codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................... 331492.............. Secondary lead smelters.
332, 333, 334, 335, Halogenated solvent cleaning machines at fabricated metal
336, 447. product manufacturing facilities, machinery manufacturing
facilities, computer and electronic product manufacturing
facilities, electrical equipment, appliance, and component
manufacturing facilities, transportation equipment
manufacturing facilities, and gasoline stations.
332, 333, 334, 335, Chromium electroplating machines at fabricated metal product
336. manufacturing facilities, machinery manufacturing
facilities, computer and electronic product manufacturing
facilities, electrical equipment, appliance, and component
manufacturing facilities, and transportation equipment
manufacturing facilities.
8123................ Dry cleaning and laundry facilities.
3391................ Ethylene oxide sterilizers at medical equipment and supplies
manufacturing facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers of the entities likely to be affected by this action.
This table lists the types of entities that we are now aware could be
affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this
table could also be affected. To determine whether your facility,
company, business organization, etc., is affected by this action, you
should carefully examine the applicability criteria in the following
sections of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):
Sec. 63.320, perchloroethylene dry cleaning.
Sec. 63.340, chromium electroplating.
Sec. 63.360, ethylene oxide sterilizers.
Sec. 63.460, halogenated solvent cleaners.
Sec. 63.541, secondary lead smelters.
[[Page 69639]]
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular entity, consult your title V permitting authority.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule and Description of the Final Rule
The purpose of EPA's proposed amendments was to allow title V
permitting authorities to extend the deadline for area sources subject
to five NESHAPs for submitting title V permit applications. The source
categories covered by the proposal were hard and decorative chromium
electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks, ethylene oxide commercial
sterilization and fumigation operations, perchloroethylene dry cleaning
facilities, secondary lead smelting facilities, and halogenated solvent
cleaning machines at area sources. We have previously allowed
permitting authorities to defer permit applications for these area
sources in a series of rulemakings (60 FR 29484, June 5, 1995; 61 FR
27785, June 3, 1996; and 64 FR 37683, July 13, 1999). Those provisions
expire on December 9, 1999. Since the conditions prompting the
allowance for previous deferrals have not changed (see 64 FR 45116,
August 18, 1999), we proposed to extend the deferral provisions for the
five NESHAPs for another 5 years. We also proposed to revise the
relevant regulations in order to improve their understandability, as
directed by President Clinton's June 1, 1998, Executive Memorandum on
Plain Language in Government Writing.
Our authority for establishing the deferrals is section 502(a) of
the Act, which allows us to exempt non-major sources from the
permitting requirement if we find that compliance with title V is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on the sources.
Our General Provisions implementing section 112 of the Act provide that
unless we explicitly exempt or defer area sources subject to a NESHAP
from the title V permitting requirement, they are subject to permitting
(40 CFR 63.1(c)(2)(iii)). As a result, under 40 CFR 70.3(b)(2),
71.3(b)(2) and 63.1(c)(2), we are to determine whether area sources
will be required to obtain title V permits when we adopt the underlying
NESHAP.
When we initially established the ability for permitting
authorities to defer these area sources from title V, we stated that we
would decide whether to adopt permanent exemptions by the time the
deferrals expired, and that we would continue to evaluate the
permitting authorities' implementation and enforcement of the NESHAP
requirements for area sources not covered by title V permits, the
likely benefit of permitting such sources, and the costs and other
burdens on such sources associated with obtaining title V permits.
However, as we explained in the August 18, 1999, proposal, we do not
yet have sufficient information to determine whether permanent
exemptions are warranted for these area sources and are continuing to
evaluate the other considerations. Thus, we are not prepared to make
decisions that either permanently relieve these area sources from title
V or that require them to become immediately subject to the permitting
requirement.
Moreover, we noted that many permitting authorities are struggling
to timely issue initial title V permits to major sources and other
sources that have been subject to the permitting requirement since the
beginning of the program, and that we are concerned about the impact of
subjecting area sources to the permit application deadlines on
permitting authorities. We stated that we believe the most reasonable
approach is to extend the status quo for one more 5-year cycle of
permitting while we obtain necessary information, rather than to decide
by default by allowing the existing deferral to expire.
Today's final amendments adopt the amendments as proposed and
extend the option of approved part 70 permitting authorities to defer
the subject area sources from the part 70 permitting requirements. The
deferral may extend until December 9, 2004. The deferral is not an
automatic benefit provided to the sources. Rather, permitting
authorities may exercise their discretion to either defer the area
sources or to require them to apply for and obtain part 70 permits.
Some permitting authorities may decide that area sources in the subject
source categories warrant permitting based on local considerations or
other factors, or they may have in place streamlined permitting
mechanisms (such as the use of general permits or ``permits by rule'')
that minimize the burden on both the permitting authority and the
source.
For area sources that are not covered by an effective approved part
70 program and are subject to the EPA-administered part 71 permitting
program, today's final rule amendments hereby announce that area
sources subject to the five NESHAPS mentioned above are deferred from
permitting under part 71 until December 9, 2004. For purposes of both
part 70 and part 71, for the reasons discussed in the proposal (64 FR
45116, August 18, 1999) and as explained below, we conclude that
requiring all area sources subject to the NESHAPs that are being
amended by today's rulemaking to obtain title V permits at this time
would constitute an impracticable, infeasible and unnecessary burden on
these area sources, and would be an additional burden on the permitting
authorities that have not yet determined that they are prepared to
begin permitting these sources.
III. What Has Changed Since Proposal?
We received seven comment letters, most of which supported the
proposed deferral extension. We have considered all comments received
(summarized and responded to in the next section) and concluded that no
changes from proposal are necessary.
IV. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Amendments?
The following paragraphs contain summaries of the comments we
received on the proposal and our responses.
Comment: Most commenters supported the proposed deferral of title V
permitting of area sources. Commenters provided numerous reasons for
their support, including assertions that the subject area sources are
already adequately controlled, and that there would be no additional
environmental benefit of requiring them to get permits; that permitting
would impose a significant unnecessary burden on regulatory agencies
and/or sources; that the deferral will allow EPA additional time to
determine whether permanent title V exemptions for area sources are
appropriate; that additional time is necessary for permitting
authorities to review and issue title V permits to sources currently
required to obtain title V permits; and that current rules and
permitting mechanisms already sufficiently address area sources under
State and local programs.
Response: We appreciate the support for the proposed extension of
the deferral. The EPA understands that these area sources are already
required to comply with emissions standards regardless of whether they
are required to obtain permits. However, there are some general
advantages to permitting that should not be overlooked. Requiring
sources to obtain title V permits helps assure that complex
applicability determinations, i.e., which requirements apply and how,
are resolved prior to the issuance of a permit. In addition to
providing clarity for a source, the resolution of a source's
applicability issues facilitates both civil and criminal enforcement of
the source's applicable requirements. In the process of applying for a
title V permit, many sources have discovered that they
[[Page 69640]]
are out of compliance with various applicable requirements. The
regulations at 40 CFR parts 70 and 71 require sources to self-certify
compliance with applicable requirements initially and annually and
provide additional assurance of ongoing emissions reductions.
Permitting provides an opportunity for the public to comment on whether
a source is complying with its applicable requirements. Permits also
require prompt reporting of deviations from the permit. In short, one
of the benefits of title V permitting is that it enhances the
effectiveness of rules.
We are also aware that some States and local agencies subject these
sources to non-title V permitting programs that may serve purposes
similar to those of title V. At this point in the implementation of
title V, we agree that there may be significant undue burden on
permitting authorities not prepared for area source permitting and on
area sources preparing title V permit applications. Some permitting
authorities did not fully anticipate the amount of work necessary to
implement the title V program, and clearly some of these question
whether the additional work of permitting thousands of area sources
provides a commensurate benefit. Moreover, many of these permitting
authorities are currently struggling to issue permits to major sources
and other covered sources, and are not yet prepared to add to this
significant permitting responsibility.
While for some permitting authorities this problem could possibly
be overcome by using more streamlined permitting approaches, e.g.,
general permits (see Secs. 70.6(d) and 71.6(d)), we may use the
deferral period to consider ways to reduce the permitting burden on
area sources and to better accommodate the needs of area source
permitting. We will also use the additional time to assess whether or
not permanent exemptions are appropriate.
We agree that permitting authorities should be allowed to defer, if
necessary, title V permitting for area sources, if additional time is
necessary to issue permits to sources currently required to obtain
title V permits. It is apparent that title V permitting is not at the
stage originally envisioned when the part 70 rules were promulgated. At
this point in time, EPA anticipated that most, if not all, part 70
permits would have been issued to sources subject to the program upon
its effective date, and that permitting authorities would be in a
better position to expand the program to other sources. However, many
permitting authorities need additional time to issue permits to sources
that are currently subject to the program and, therefore, are not at an
implementation stage that allows them to shift their attention to area
sources.
Comment: One commenter claimed that the deferred area sources would
be allowed to continue to emit chemicals unchecked into the air,
exposing employees and the public to uncontrolled levels of the emitted
chemicals during the deferral period. This commenter also felt that
funding of expanding the title V permit program to cover area sources
would be no problem because permit fees would make it unnecessary to
draw upon limited existing resources. This commenter was also concerned
that the permitting deferral would impede public access to
environmental data. The commenter stressed the benefits of the
permitting process, including those involving consistent reporting
procedures, improved measurements of pollution, improved air quality
data, and greater public participation.
Response: The permit program does not directly control emissions to
the air, but as discussed above enhances compliance assurance with all
applicable requirements including emissions limitations. The permit is
essentially a comprehensive document reflecting the regulatory
requirements that the source must already meet. The existing regulatory
requirements that impose emission standards, including these five
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules, irrespective of the
title V permit, provide the air emission reduction requirements, and
most of the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements under
the Act that are needed to determine and enforce compliance. All of
these rules are still in effect, and sources must comply with them.
Therefore, the absence of a title V permit for an area source subject
to a NESHAP will not allow it to emit pollutants ``unchecked'' into the
air.
While EPA agrees that title V permit fees should be set at levels
high enough to allow the permitting authority to hire and retain
qualified permit writers, we are not convinced that the ability to
charge area sources fees alone would enable permitting authorities to
immediately expand their title V programs to cover area sources. This
is because permitting authorities have also faced significant problems
in timely issuance of permits to major sources, which are also covered
by fees. Since area sources are far more numerous than major sources,
we expect that forcing an expansion at this point could raise problems
apart from adequate funding. Many permitting authorities at the
beginning of the title V permit program did not fully anticipate what
was involved in implementing the title V program, have still not caught
up on their backlog of major source permit applications, and may not,
merely through imposing fees, feel prepared to expand title V
permitting to area sources.
Finally, while the presence of a title V permit does enhance public
access to information and facilitates citizen participation in
enforcement, the permit deferral should not deny public access to
environmental information. All non-confidential emissions information
that underlying applicable requirements direct sources to send to
implementing agencies is publically available under the applicable rule
requirements, regardless of the source's permit status (see 40 CFR
63.15).
Comment: One State permitting authority commenter believes that
area source permitting can occur without creating an undue burden by
issuing title V general permits, or ``permits by rule,'' to area
sources. This commenter further recommended establishing a strong
compliance assistance program to enhance the permitting program. In
addition, the commenter supported a strong inspection program and good
recordkeeping requirements. However, the commenter felt that reporting
requirements were an ineffective burden for most area sources. Finally,
the commenter recommended that should EPA decide to continue the
deferral as proposed, it should use the deferral period to review and
revise the title V program to make it more appropriate for area
sources.
Response: The commenter is correct in pointing out that general
permits issued under 40 CFR parts 70 and 71 can be used and can be an
effective way to issue permits to area sources without creating an
undue burden for the source categories being covered by the general
permits. The commenter provides a good example of the discretionary
nature of the deferral. The deferral being promulgated in today's
rulemaking does not automatically apply to every non-Federal title V
permitting authority. Rather, this rulemaking allows non-Federal
permitting authorities to choose whether deferral from title V
permitting for area sources subject to one or more of these five MACT
standards is appropriate for the area sources in question. In this
case, the commenter has been able to structure his permitting program
so that the permitting authority can issue permits to area sources
easily and with little additional burden to the sources themselves. The
commenter has also implemented a strong compliance
[[Page 69641]]
assistance program, coupled with a strong inspection program and good
recordkeeping requirements to complement the general permits being
issued. The EPA applauds the commenter's ability to overcome potential
difficulties in permitting thousands of area sources.
However, there are many permitting authorities that continue to
experience difficulties in issuing title V permits, even to major
sources. This, in turn, would put a burden on the area sources that
would have to get permits if the deferral were to expire because the
permitting authority may not be able to provide much assistance to area
sources in preparing their permit applications. Many permitting
authorities may not be able to simply emulate the permitting approach
taken by the commenter because of legislative or other constraints.
This is evidenced by the other permitting authorities that commented in
support of the deferral.
The EPA will take under advisement the commenter's suggestions that
we review and revise, if necessary, the area source component of the
title V permit program during the deferral period. The EPA is not at
this point prepared to commit to such a revision or even agree that one
is appropriate, but would welcome further comments on this issue.
Comment: Several commenters further recommended a permanent
exemption from title V permitting for area sources subject to these
five MACT standards.
Response: For essentially the same reasons that we are not prepared
to immediately require permits for area sources, we are not
promulgating a permanent exemption for these area sources at this time.
That is, EPA is not in a position to conclude whether these sources
should or should not be required to obtain permits. Several permitting
authorities are currently able to accommodate area source permitting.
The EPA will weigh the burden of title V permitting of area sources
with the advantages of title V permitting in making future decisions
regarding permanent exemptions. The EPA will use this deferral period
to determine if title V permitting is necessary for certain or all area
sources subject to these five MACT standards and deferred as of this
rulemaking from title V permitting until December 9, 2004. As stated in
the first deferral rulemaking for these five MACT source categories, we
will also continue to evaluate State and local agencies' implementation
and enforcement of these five MACT standards for area sources not
covered by title V permits, the likely benefit of permitting such
sources, and the costs and other burdens on such sources associated
with obtaining a title V permit (see 61 FR 27785 (June 3, 1996)).
V. What Are the Administrative Requirements for These Amendments?
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to Office of Management (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.
It has been determined that these amendments do not qualify as a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and, therefore, are not subject to review by OMB.
B. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order
13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified
section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of
EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal
governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive
Order 13084 requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting
elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.''
These amendments do not alter the control standards imposed by 40
CFR part 63, subparts M, N, O, T, or X for any source, including any
that may affect communities of the Indian tribal governments. Under the
amendments, sources must continue to meet all applicable requirements,
including all applicable emission control, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements established by the respective NESHAP. Hence,
today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to these
amendments.
C. 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.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide OMB in a separately identified section of the preamble to
the rule, a
[[Page 69642]]
federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and
local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the
Agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a
statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local
officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule
with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive
Order 12866, EPA must include a certification from the agency's
Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of
Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
These final amendments 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.
These amendments impose no requirements on the States, and simply allow
the States the option to exercise their discretion to defer certain
area sources from title V permitting. These amendments neither preempt
States from requiring these sources to obtain permits, nor impose any
burden on States seeking to do so. Rather, the intent of these
amendments is to continue to allow States and their area sources to
avoid burdens that would befall them if EPA were to allow the current
regulatory provisions to expire. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of
the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
D. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
E. 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, the
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 the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective
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 the 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 why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the 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 these amendments do 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 the
private sector in any 1 year nor do they significantly or uniquely
impact small governments, because they contain no requirements that
apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Thus,
today's amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with these final
amendments. The EPA has also determined that these amendments will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, because they impose no additional regulatory requirements on
owners or operators of affected sources and allow State and federal
permitting authorities to continue to relieve owners or operators of
such sources of regulatory requirements that may otherwise apply if
this action is not taken.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
These amendments do not require the collection of any information.
Therefore, the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act do not
apply.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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 and
environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable too other potentially
effectively and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the
Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. These amendments are not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because they do not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary
consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods,
sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are
[[Page 69643]]
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards
bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary
consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal
agencies like EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations
when an agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
These amendments do not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated December 8, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons cited in the preamble, part 63, title 40, chapter I
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart M--[Amended]
2. Section 63.320 is amended by revising paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.320 Applicability.
* * * * *
(k) If you are the owner or operator of a source subject to the
provisions of this subpart, you are also subject to title V permitting
requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. Your title V
permitting authority may defer your source from these permitting
requirements until December 9, 2004, if your source is not a major
source and is not located at a major source as defined under 40 CFR
63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, and is not otherwise required to obtain a title V
permit. If you receive a deferral under this section, you must submit a
title V permit application by December 9, 2005. You must continue to
comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources,
even if you receive a deferral from title V permitting requirements.
Subpart N--[Amended]
3. Section 63.340 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.340 Applicability and designation of sources.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) If you are the owner or operator of a source subject to the
provisions of this subpart, you are also subject to title V permitting
requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. Your title V
permitting authority may defer your source from these permitting
requirements until December 9, 2004, if your source is not a major
source and is not located at a major source as defined under 40 CFR
63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, and is not otherwise required to obtain a title V
permit. If you receive a deferral under this section, you must submit a
title V permit application by December 9, 2005. You must continue to
comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources,
even if you receive a deferral from title V permitting requirements.
Subpart O--[Amended]
4. Section 63.360 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.360 Applicability.
* * * * *
(f) If you are the owner or operator of a source subject to the
provisions of this subpart, you are also subject to title V permitting
requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. Your title V
permitting authority may defer your source from these permitting
requirements until December 9, 2004, if your source is not a major
source and is not located at a major source as defined under 40 CFR
63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, and is not otherwise required to obtain a title V
permit. If you receive a deferral under this section, you must submit a
title V permit application by December 9, 2005. You must continue to
comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources,
even if you receive a deferral from title V permitting requirements.
* * * * *
Subpart T--[Amended]
5. Section 63.468 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.468 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(j) The Administrator has determined, pursuant to section 502(a) of
the Act, that if you are an owner or operator of any batch cold solvent
cleaning machine that is not a major source and is not located at a
major source, as defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, you are
exempt from title V permitting requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 or
71, as applicable, for that source, provided you are not otherwise
required to obtain a title V permit. If you own or operate any other
solvent cleaning machine subject to the provisions of this subpart, you
are also subject to title V permitting requirements. Your title V
permitting authority may defer your source from these permitting
requirements until December 9, 2004, if your source is not a major
source and is not located at a major source as defined under 40 CFR
63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, and is not otherwise required to obtain a title V
permit. If you receive a deferral under this section, you must submit a
title V permit application by December 9, 2005. You must continue to
comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources,
even if you receive a deferral from title V permitting requirements.
* * * * *
Subpart X--[Amended]
6. Section 63.541 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.541 Applicability.
* * * * *
(c) If you are the owner or operator of a source subject to the
provisions of this subpart, you are also subject to title V permitting
requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. Your title V
permitting authority may defer your source from these permitting
requirements until December 9, 2004, if your source is not a major
source and is not located at a major source as defined under 40 CFR
63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, and is not otherwise required to obtain a title V
permit. If you receive a deferral under this section, you must submit a
title V permit application by December 9, 2005. You must continue to
comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources,
even if you receive a deferral from title V permitting requirements.
[FR Doc. 99-32325 Filed 12-9-99; 3:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
