[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21957]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 8, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[AD-FRL-5052-3]
RIN 2060-AC 12

 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Industrial Process Cooling Towers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action promulgates final standards that limit the 
discharge of chromium compound air emissions from industrial process 
cooling towers (IPCT's) pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act as 
amended in 1990 (the Act). Chromium compounds are among the 189 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) listed for regulation under section 
112 of the Act. Industrial process cooling towers that use chromium-
based water treatment programs have been identified by the EPA as 
significant emitters of chromium compounds to the atmosphere. The 
purpose of the final rule is to effectively eliminate chromium compound 
air emissions from IPCT's through the prohibition of chromium-based 
water treatment chemicals in affected new and existing IPCT's.

DATES: These regulations are effective September 8, 1994.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications in this 
standard is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal 
Register as of September 8, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-91-65, containing information 
considered by the EPA in developing the promulgated IPCT NESHAP is 
available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays, at the EPA's Air 
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room M1500, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying.

Background Information Document

    A background information document (BID) for the promulgated ITCT 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) may 
be obtained from the docket; the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2777; or from 
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, Virginia 22161; telephone (703) 487-4650. Please refer to 
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants for Industrial 
Process Cooling Towers--Background Information for Promulgated 
Standards'' (EPA-453/R-94-041b). The BID contains a summary of the 
public comments made on the proposed IPCT standard and EPA responses to 
the comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Phil Mulrine of the Industrial Studies Branch, Emissions Standards 
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone (919) 541-5289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial 
review of NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
within 60 days of today's publication of this 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.
    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background
II. Summary
    A. Summary of Promulgated Standards
    B. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
    A. Environmental Impacts
    B. Energy Impacts
    C. Cost Impacts
    D. Economic Impacts
IV. Public Participation
V. Significant Comments and Responses
    A. Selection of Regulatory Authority
    B. Selection of Pollutant to be Regulated
    C. Selection of Sources to be Regulated
    D. Compliance Dates
    E. Notification Requirements
    F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    G. Interaction of the IPCT NESHAP and the General Provisions
    H. Selection of Control Technology
    I. Cost Impact
    J. Wording of the Regulation
    K. De Minimis Cooling Water Chromium Concentration
IV. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Executive Order 12286
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    E. Miscellaneous

I. Background

    Section 112(b) of the Act lists 189 HAP's and requires the EPA to 
establish national emission standards for all major sources and some 
area sources of those HAP's. Among the listed pollutants are chromium 
compounds. On July 16, 1992 ( (57 FR 31576), EPA published a list of 
major and area sources for which NESHAP are to be promulgated and on 
December 3, 1993 (58 FR 83941), EPA published a schedule for 
promulgation of those standards. The IPCT source category is included 
in the list of major sources to be regulated for which the EPA is to 
establish national emission standards by November 1994.
    The IPCT rule was proposed in the Federal Register on August 12, 
1993 (58 FR 43028). No public hearing on this rule was requested, but 
41 comment letters were received.

II. Summary

A. Summary of Promulgated Standards

    The standard being promulgated today will eliminate emissions of 
chromium compounds from new and existing IPCT's that are major sources 
or are integral parts of major sources by prohibiting the use of 
chromium-based water treatment chemicals in those IPCT's.
1. Affected Sources
    Cooling towers are devices that are used to remove heat from a 
cooling fluid, typically water, by contacting the fluid with ambient 
air. The IPCT source category includes cooling towers that are used to 
remove heat that is produced as an input or output of chemical or 
industrial processes. The IPCT source category also includes cooling 
towers that cool industrial processes in combination with heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Standards to control 
chromium emissions from cooling towers that cool HVAC systems 
exclusively (comfort cooling towers (CCT)) were promulgated on January 
3, 1990, under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 
(55 FR 222).
    This rule is applicable only to those IPCT's in which chromium-
based water treatment chemicals are used on or after [Insert date of 
publication of this final rule] and which are major sources or are 
integral parts of major sources as defined in Sec. 112(a)(1) of the 
Act. A major source is any stationary source or group of stationary 
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that 
emits or has the potential to emit, considering controls, 10 tons per 
year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination 
of HAP's.
    This rule is not applicable to area source IPCT's, which are IPCT's 
that are neither major sources nor integral parts of major sources. 
However, owners or operators of area source IPCT's should take note of 
two specific requirements of the General Provisions to part 63 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that are applicable to area sources. 
First, Sec. 63.6(a) of the General Provisions states that if an area 
source increases its emissions of HAP's (or its potential to emit 
HAP's) such that the source now qualifies as a major source, that 
source would then become subject to any relevant standards promulgated 
under part 63 for major sources. Thus, any area source IPCT that is 
operated with chromium-based water treatment chemicals and that later 
becomes a major source or becomes an integral part of a major source is 
subject to this subpart. Second, as required by Sec. 63.10(b)(3) of the 
General Provisions, owners or operators of area source IPCT's that use 
chromium water treatment chemicals on or after September 8, 1994, must 
keep on file a record of the determination that the IPCT is an area 
source IPCT.
2. Format of the Standard
    As authorized under section 112(h) of the Act, this standard is a 
work practice standard rather than an emission standard. The standard 
regulates emissions of chromium from affected IPCT's by prohibiting the 
use of chromium-based water treatment chemicals in those IPCT's.
3. Compliance Date
    The compliance date of this rule for existing IPCT's is March 8, 
1996. All affected existing IPCT's must discontinue the use of 
chromium-based water treatment chemicals by that date. The compliance 
date for new IPCT's that are placed into operation before September 8, 
1994 is September 8, 1994. The compliance date for new IPCT's that are 
placed into operation after September 8, 1994 is the date that 
circulation of water through the IPCT is initiated.
    In accordance with Sec. 63.6(c)(5) of the General Provisions, the 
compliance date for existing area source IPCT's that become major 
sources or integral parts of major sources is 18 months from the date 
on which the IPCT becomes a major source or integral part of a major 
source. In accordance with Sec. 63.6(b)(7) of the General Provisions, 
the compliance date for new area source IPCT's that become major 
sources or integral parts of major sources is the date that the IPCT 
becomes a major source or integral part of a major source.
4. Compliance Demonstrations
    This rule contains no requirements for performance testing or for 
monitoring IPCT emissions or any other parameter. However, regulatory 
agencies have the option of requiring cooling water sampling for 
residual hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) if warranted. This rule 
specifies methods for sampling and analyzing cooling water for 
Cr+6 and a de minimis Cr+6 concentration of 0.5 parts per 
million (ppm) by weight. Any affected IPCT with a cooling water 
Cr+6 concentration in excess of 0.5 ppm would be considered in 
violation of this standard. Because it may require several weeks for 
the concentration of Cr+6 in cooling water to decline below 0.5 
ppm, the final rule allows a 3 month time period following the 
compliance date before a Cr+6 concentration in excess of 0.5 ppm 
is considered to be a violation of the standard.
5. Notification Requirements
    Owners or operators of affected IPCT's are required to submit two 
notifications: an initial notification and a notification of compliance 
status. The initial notification will enable enforcement personnel to 
identify the population of IPCT's subject to the standard. This 
notification must include the name and address of the owner or 
operator, the address of the affected IPCT, and information on the 
types of water treatment chemicals used in the IPCT. For existing 
IPCT's or new IPCT's that are in operation on the effective date of 
this rule, the initial notification must be submitted by September 8, 
1995. Owners or operators of new IPCT's that are not yet in operation 
are required to submit the initial notification within 12 months of 
initial startup of the IPCT. This rule overrides the requirement of 
Sec. 63.9(b) of the General Provisions which requires that the initial 
notification be submitted 120 days later than the compliance date.
    The notification of compliance status is a one-time certification 
that must be submitted no later than 60 days after the compliance date. 
This rule overrides the requirement of Sec. 63.9(h) of the General 
Provisions that requires owners or operators of affected sources to 
submit annual notifications of compliance status. The notification of 
compliance status must state that the source is in compliance with this 
standard and must be signed by a responsible official. In addition, the 
notification of compliance status must include information on the type 
of cooling water treatment chemicals used in the affected IPCT.
6. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    This rule requires no routine or periodic reporting by owners or 
operators of affected IPCT's. The only records that owners or operators 
of affected IPCT's are required to keep under this rule are the initial 
notification and the notification of compliance status. These records 
must be retained for a minimum of 5 years onsite. In addition, as 
stated previously, owners or operators of area source IPCT's that use 
chromium water treatment on or after September 8, 1994 must keep on 
file for a minimum of 5 years the documentation that substantiates that 
the IPCT is an area source IPCT and is not subject to this rule.

B. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

1. Applicability
    The final rule is applicable only to those IPCT's that are major 
sources or are integral parts of major sources and are operated with 
chromium-based water treatment chemicals on or after the effective date 
of the rule. Under the proposed rule, all IPCT's that are major sources 
or are integral parts of major sources would have been subject to the 
standard, regardless of the type of water treatment program used in 
those IPCT's.
2. Definitions
    In the final rule, several definitions were modified or added to 
clarify the rule and to eliminate the need to reference the Act or the 
General Provisions to part 63.
3. Compliance Date
    In the proposed rule, Sec. 63.403(a) specified a compliance date 
for existing IPCT's of 6 months after promulgation. In the final rule, 
the compliance date for existing IPCT's was changed to 18 months 
following promulgation of the rule.
4. Compliance Demonstrations
    Section 63.404 of the proposed rule was titled ``Monitoring 
requirements.'' In the final rule, Sec. 63.404 is titled ``Compliance 
demonstrations'' to more accurately reflect the content of the section. 
The final rule also includes a second approved method for sampling and 
analyzing cooling water samples for Cr+6: Method 3500-Cr D, 
Colorimetric Method, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and 
Wastewater, American Public Health Association. The second approved 
method is based on the same analytical procedure as Method 7196, which 
was the only EPA-approved method specified in the proposed rule. In 
addition, the final rule specifies a de minimis concentration of 0.5 
ppm by weight Cr+6 in IPCT cooling water; the proposed rule did 
not specify a de minimis level for chromium. Furthermore, the final 
rule allows a 3 month time period following the compliance date before 
a Cr+6 concentration in excess of 0.5 ppm is considered to be a 
violation of the standard.
5. Notification Requirements
    In the proposed rule, recordkeeping requirements were addressed in 
Sec. 63.405 and notification requirements were addressed in 
Sec. 63.406, which was titled ``Reporting.'' In the final rule, these 
sections have been reorganized to conform with the organization of the 
General Provisions to part 63: notification requirements are addressed 
in Sec. 63.405, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 
addressed in Sec. 63.406.
    The final rule requires two one-time notifications for each 
affected IPCT: One initial notification and one notification of 
compliance status. The proposed rule referenced Sec. 63.9 of the 
General Provisions to part 63 regarding the requirements of the initial 
notification and notification of compliance status but did not list the 
specific requirements of the notifications. The final rule specifies 
the types of information required in each notification and specifies 
deadlines for submittals of both notifications. The initial 
notification must be submitted by owners or operators of existing 
IPCT's by September 8, 1995 and by owners or operators of new IPCT's 
within 12 months of the initial startup of the affected IPCT. The 
notification of compliance status must be submitted within 60 days of 
the date of the IPCT is brought into compliance with this subpart. The 
proposed rule required annual submissions of the notification of 
compliance status.
6. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    As stated previously, recordkeeping requirements were moved from 
Sec. 63.405 in the proposed rule to Sec. 63.406 in the final rule. The 
proposed rule required IPCT owners or operators to maintain records of 
water treatment chemical purchases. Owners or operators of IPCT's that 
were operated with chromium-based water treatment chemicals also were 
required to maintain an inventory of the chromium chemicals that are 
onsite and to document the disposition of those chromium chemicals. In 
the final rule, these recordkeeping requirements have been eliminated. 
However, the final rule still requires IPCT owners or operators to keep 
copies of the initial notifications and the notifications of compliance 
status in accordance with Sec. 63.10 of the General Provisions.
    The proposed rule did not specify a minimum record retention 
period, but referenced Sec. 63.10 of the General Provisions to part 63 
regarding general requirements for recordkeeping. The final rule 
specifies a minimum record retention period of 5 years.

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

    The environmental impacts for this rule were not affected by 
changes made to the rule between proposal and promulgation. These 
impacts are summarized below.
1. Air
    This standard prohibits the use of chromium-based water treatment 
programs in affected IPCT's. The total baseline Cr+6 emissions 
from all existing IPCT's are estimated to be 23 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr) (25 tons/yr). The standard will achieve a 99 percent reduction of 
Cr+6 emissions nationwide by eliminating all Cr+6 emissions 
from existing IPCT's that are major sources or are integral parts of 
major sources. None of the nonchromium chemicals that are used as 
substitutes for chromium chemicals in cooling water are listed as HAP's 
under Sec. 112(b) of the Act.
    The standard will also prevent emission of 1.6 Mg/yr (1.8 tons/yr) 
of Cr+6 from the 870 new IPCT's projected by 1998 (the fifth year 
of the standards). This estimate is based on the assumption that, in 
the absence of a standard, chromium use would remain at current levels 
(i.e., 10 percent or 87 of new IPCT's would be placed on chromium-based 
programs).
    Substitute nonchromium-based treatment programs typically require 
higher levels of phosphates and polymeric dispersants than do chromium-
based treatment programs. Nonchromium treatment programs may also 
contain molybdates. Thus, emissions of these compounds would increase 
under the standard. However, none of these compounds are listed HAP's. 
Total baseline emissions of phosphates for all existing IPCT's are 
estimated to be 104 Mg/yr (114 tons/yr). Under the standard, phosphate 
emissions from existing IPCT's would increase by 46 Mg/yr (50 tons/yr) 
to approximately 150 Mg/yr (165 tons/yr).
    Zinc, which is not a listed HAP, is a common corrosion inhibitor 
present in many cooling water treatment programs. Almost all current 
chromium-based programs contain zinc because the two metals act 
synergistically to inhibit corrosion. Nonchromium treatments may also 
contain zinc at levels similar to those in the chromium/zinc programs 
that they replace. As chromium/zinc treatments are replaced by 
nonchromium treatments, zinc emissions are not expected to change 
significantly.
    Molybdate-based programs currently have a very small share (less 
than 1 percent) of the water treatment market. Although the market for 
molybdate programs is expected to grow modestly under the standard, 
molybdate usage is expected to remain limited because these programs 
are more expensive than other treatment programs. Consequently, 
molybdate emissions are not expected to increase significantly.
    Under the standard, particulate matter (PM) emissions from existing 
IPCT's will not change from baseline levels of approximately 10,000 Mg/
yr (11,000 tons/yr). New source PM levels will also be unaffected by 
these standards.
    In the absence of the standard, phosphate emissions from new 
sources in 1998 would be approximately 4 Mg/yr (4.4 tons/yr). Under the 
standard, phosphate emissions from new IPCT's in the fifth year will 
increase to 5.8 Mg/yr (6.4 tons/yr), and total nationwide phosphate 
emissions for new and existing IPCT's in the fifth year of the standard 
will be 156 Mg/yr (172 tons/yr).
2. Water
    Blowdown from existing IPCT's is pretreated to remove Cr+6 
before discharge. Any Cr+6 removed from treated IPCT blowdown is 
handled as solid waste. The standard will eliminate any accidental 
water discharges of Cr+6 from IPCT blowdown pretreatment programs.
    Under the standard, nationwide phosphate discharges from existing 
IPCT's will increase by as much as 830 Mg/yr (910 tons/yr), and new 
sources that will go into operation by 1998 will discharge an 
additional 610 Mg/yr (670 tons/yr). As a result, total phosphate 
discharges will increase from the baseline level of 7,700 Mg/yr (8,470 
tons/yr) to 9,140 Mg/yr (10,050 tons/yr). In the absence of the 
standard, new sources that will go into operation by 1998 would 
increase nationwide phosphate water discharges by 550 Mg/yr (610 tons/
yr). As a result, total phosphate discharges will increase from the 
baseline of 7,700 Mg/yr (8,470 tons/yr) to 8,250 Mg/yr (9,075 tons/yr). 
These increases in phosphate discharges are extremely small in 
comparison to phosphate discharges from cropland and pastureland 
runoff. Consequently, there are no significant impacts associated with 
these increased phosphate discharges.
    Nonchromium treatments contain levels of zinc similar to those in 
baseline chromium programs. Therefore, zinc discharges are not expected 
to increase under the standard. Although data are limited, increases in 
the amount of molybdate discharged under the standard are expected to 
be negligible.
3. Solid Waste
    The only impacts of the standard on solid waste will result from 
eliminating all Cr+6 in the solid waste from IPCT blowdown 
treatment processes. Disposal of all other forms of solid waste removed 
from IPCT blowdown would remain at current levels.
    Blowdown from cooling towers may be treated to reduce the 
concentrations of corrosion inhibitors (e.g., chromium, zinc, 
phosphates, and molybdenum). The concentration of these elements in the 
resulting sludge is likely to be higher than the concentrations in the 
blowdown before treatment. Chromium-containing solid waste (i.e., the 
treatment sludge) is sometimes identified as a hazardous waste, the EPA 
hazardous waste No. D007, under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA) part 261, subpart C--Characteristics of Hazardous Waste; it is 
considered a hazardous waste if its leachate contains greater than 5 
milligrams per liter (mg/L) total chromium as determined by the 
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. Chromium-containing waste 
is also subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions in RCRA part 268, 
which allows land disposal only if the hazardous waste is treated in 
accordance with subpart D--Treatment Standards. Land disposal of the 
waste is allowed if the chromium concentration in the waste does not 
exceed 5 mg/L total chromium. Hazardous wastes also must be handled and 
stored according to specific RCRA procedures.
    Baseline blowdown discharges are estimated to contain a maximum of 
400 mg/yr (440 tons/yr) of Cr+6. Consequently, the standard will 
eliminate solid waste disposal of a maximum of 400 Mg/yr (440 tons/yr) 
of Cr+6 by eliminating all Cr+6 from IPCT's. Zinc-, 
molybedenum-, and phosphate-containing wastes are not identified as 
hazardous wastes and, therefore, do not have the same solid waste 
disposal requirements as chromium-containing wastes. Under the 
standard, the solid waste impacts due to zinc-, molybdenum-, and 
phosphate-containing wastes will be negligible.

B. Energy Impacts

    The energy impacts, which are described below, were not affected by 
changes made to the rule between proposal and promulgation. The only 
energy impacts for the standard over baseline will result from the 
energy required to operate the additional chemical feed and regulation 
equipment that is required for nonchromium-based water treatment 
programs. The nationwide energy impacts associated with the standard 
are small.
    Nonchromium-based water treatment programs typically require 
tighter control of chemical feed and recirculating water quality 
parameters than do chromium-based programs. The components required for 
a basic nonchromium-based chemical feed and regulation system include a 
pH controller, conductivity controller, and metering chemical feed 
pumps.
    For existing sources, a nationwide increase of up to 3,500 
megawatt-hours per year (MWh/yr) (12,000 million British thermal units 
per year (Btu/yr)) will result from the use of additional automated 
instrumentation/controller equipment under the standard. This 
represents an increase of approximately 0.01 percent of the energy 
required to operate these IPCT's. For new sources, a nationwide 
increase of up to 370 MWh/yr (1,300 million Btu/yr) will result under 
the standard.
    Typical baseline automated instrumentation/controllers for an IPCT 
currently on a chromium-based water treatment program consume 
approximately 1.5 MWh/yr (50 million Btu/yr). Energy consumption for 
instrumentation/controllers for this IPCT will increase to 4.4 MWh/yr 
(150 million btu/yr) under the standard.

C. Cost Impacts

    The cost impacts, which are described below, were not affected by 
changes made to the rule between proposal and promulgation. Cost 
components of the nonchromium control measure include the increased 
cost of nonchromium chemicals over the cost for chromium chemicals and 
the cost to install, operate, and maintain automated chemical feed and 
regulation equipment. When properly controlled, nonchromium-based water 
treatment programs perform comparably to chromium-based programs. 
Therefore, it is assumed that corrosion rates, heat exchanger 
lifetimes, cleaning frequencies and costs, and other maintenance 
requirements are similar for both types of water treatment programs, 
and no significant cost result from conversion.
    Total annualized baseline costs for model towers range from $5,100 
to $485,000 respectively for model towers with recirculation rates of 
1,000 gallons per minute (gal/min) to 105,000 gal/min. These costs 
include annualized capital costs for the cooling tower and baseline 
instrumentation/controller equipment and annual operating costs for the 
instrumentation/controller equipment and chromium-based water treatment 
chemicals.
    Nationwide annualized incremental cost for the standard is $14 
million. This corresponds to a projected increase of about 6 percent 
over the annualized costs to operate all IPCT's nationwide. To comply 
with the standard, the total incremental annualized costs above 
baseline for model towers range from $4,270 to $144,000 for model 
towers with recirculation rates of 1,000 gal/min to 105,000 gal/min, 
respectively. These costs include the incremental annualized capital 
costs for additional instrumentation/controller equipment and the 
incremental annual operating costs for the additional equipment and the 
nonchromium-based water treatment chemicals. The total nationwide 
increase in annual chemical costs to switch existing IPCT's on 
chromium-based treatment programs to nonchromium-based programs is 
$12.5 million. This corresponds to an increase of only 2.5 percent 
above the total nationwide annual cost of water treatment programs for 
all IPCT's and CCT's, which is about $500 million.
    Under the standard, the estimated nationwide annualized cost in 
1998 of prohibiting new sources from using chromium is $1.2 million. 
This corresponds to a projected increase of about 0.5 percent over the 
nationwide annualized costs in the absence of regulation.

D. Economic Impacts

    The economic impacts, which are described below, were not affected 
by changes made to the rule between proposal and promulgation. Economic 
impacts were assessed by examining the effect of the elimination of 
chromium-based water treatment programs on the final end product prices 
for each affected industry. The results of this assessment indicate 
that there are no significant economic impacts on the industries to be 
affected by this regulation.
    Typical price increases range from 0.001 percent to 0.04 percent 
for the affected industries. The industries that have the highest 
percentage of IPCT's using chromium corrosion inhibitors will bear 
higher control costs and experience greater economic impacts than 
relatively minor users of chromium chemical programs. The chemical 
manufacturing industry, a relatively major user of chromium, will bear 
the highest compliance cost and, therefore, is the industry that will 
experience the greatest economic impact with a typical price increase 
of 0.011 percent and a projected worst-case scenario price increase of 
0.33 percent. All other affected industries will experience maximum 
price increases less than those predicted for the chemical 
manufacturing industry.
    The following criteria are used to determine what constitutes a 
significant adverse economic impact for small businesses: (1) 
Annualized compliance costs increase total cost of production by more 
than 5 percent; (2) capital costs of compliance represent a significant 
portion of capital available to small entities; (3) requirements of the 
regulation are likely to result in closures of small entities; and (4) 
compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small polants are at 
least 10 percent higher than for large plants. The standard will not 
have any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities 
since none of the above criteria are triggered by this regulation.

IV. Publication Participation

    Prior to proposal of the IPCT rule, interested parties were advised 
by public notice in the Federal Register (56 FR 54576, October 22, 
1991) of a meeting of the National Air Pollution Control Techniques 
Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC) to discuss the draft IPCT rule recommended 
for proposal. That meeting was held on November 19-21, 1991. This 
meeting was open to the public and each attendee was given an 
opportunity to comment on the draft IPCT rule.
    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 
12, 1993 (58 FR 43028). The preamble to the proposal discussed the 
availability of the proposal BID (Chromium Emissions from Industrial 
Process Cooling Towers--Background Information for Proposed Standards'' 
(EPA-450/R-93-022)), which describes in detail the regulatory 
alternatives considered and the impacts associated with those 
alternatives. Public comments were solicited at the time of proposal, 
and copies of the proposal BID were made available to interested 
parties.
    The public comment period officially ended on October 12, 1993. A 
public hearing was not requested; however, 41 comment letters were 
received. The comments were carefully considered, and where determined 
to be appropriate by the Administrator, changes were made in the final 
IPCT rule.

V. Significant Comments and Responses

    Comments on the proposed rule were received from IPCT users, 
industry trade groups, the U.S. Department of Energy, a chromium 
chemical supplier, and two air pollution control agencies. A detailed 
discussion of these comments and responses can be found in the 
promulgation BID (see ADDRESSES section). The summary of comments and 
responses in the promulgation BID serves as the basis for the revisions 
that have been made to the rule between proposal and promulgation.

A. Selection of Regulatory Authority

    Several commenters stated that the EPA should have regulated IPCT's 
under TSCA, which was the authority used for the CCT rule promulgated 
in 1990 (55 FR 222). Most of these commenters noted that part of the 
rationale for selecting TSCA as the authority for the CCT rule was that 
it was more efficient to place the regulatory burden on a small number 
of chemical distributors than on the large number of cooling tower 
owners and operators. These commenters suggested that this same 
rationale is even more appropriate in the case of IPCT's because the 
impacted vendor population is even smaller than it was at the time the 
CCT rule was promulgated, and the enforcement system under TSCA is 
already in place. In addition, prohibiting sales of chromium water 
treatment chemicals for use in IPCT's under TSCA would result in the 
elimination of chromium emissions from all IPCT's, not just those at 
major sources.
    The primary reason the EPA regulated CCT's under TSCA was to 
simplify enforcement. At the time the CCT rule was promulgated, there 
were an estimated 250,000 CCT's in operation and fewer than 200 water 
treatment chemical distributors. By banning the sale and distribution 
of chromium water treatment chemicals for CCT use under TSCA, the focus 
of enforcement was directed at the relatively small number of 
distributors rather than the very large number of potential chromium 
water treatment chemical users. In the case of IPCT's, the number of 
affected sources is much smaller, numbering fewer than 800.
    The TSCA is an alternative regulatory authority in that, before a 
standard can be promulgated under TSCA, section 9(b) of TSCA requires 
the EPA to determine if the risk associated with the action can be 
prevented or sufficiently reduced under another (primary) regulatory 
authority. If the risk can be prevented or adequately reduced under 
another authority, the regulation can be promulgated under TSCA only if 
the Administrator determines that it is in the ``public interest'' to 
protect against that risk under TSCA rather than under the primary 
regulatory authority.
    In the case of IPCT's, the risk associated with emissions of 
chromium from IPCT's can be eliminated under the authority of the Act; 
therefore, the Administrator would have to find that regulation of 
IPCT's under TSCA would satisfy other public interest factors. The 
primary reason to consider regulating IPCT's under TSCA would be 
regulatory efficiency. As was the case with CCT's, the number of 
vendors is much smaller than the population of sources. Thus, it might 
appear to be more efficient to regulate IPCT's in a fashion similar to 
CCT's. However, because IPCT's will be permitted under title V of the 
Act, a permitting system is or will be established for sources with 
affected IPCT's. Thus, regulating IPCT's under the authority of the Act 
provides a simple mechanism for enforcement that does not involve 
significant additional burden on either the regulated sources or 
enforcement personnel. Although the population of IPCT's is relatively 
large, the fact that the affected IPCT's are located at permitted 
facilities is in sharp contrast to the case of CCT's, which are 
predominantly located at facilities that are not permitted. For these 
reasons, the Administrator determined that the advantages for 
regulating IPCT's under TSCA were not compelling enough to satisfy the 
public interest criteria of section 9(b) of TSCA.
    The Administrator acknowledges that not all IPCT's are regulated 
under this rule. However, the number of IPCT's that use chromium-based 
water treatment chemicals and are not covered by this regulation is 
estimated to be less than 1 percent of all IPCT's, and chromium 
emissions from these area source IPCT's constitute no more than 1 
percent of total nationwide chromium emissions from IPCT's.

B. Selection of Pollutant to be Regulated

    One commenter suggested that the EPA should regulate other HAP's 
from IPCT's in addition to Cr+6. This commenter states that 
cooling towers that use chlorine to prevent biological growth are also 
sources of chloroform, dioxin, and other chlorinated organic compounds, 
which may be emitted in sufficient quantities to pose a health risk. 
However, the commenter provided no supporting information or 
documentation.
    Currently, the EPA has no information other than this comment that 
indicates that other listed HAP's are emitted from IPCT's. If, at a 
later date, however, the regulation of emissions of other HAP's from 
IPCT's is determined to be warranted, this regulation on IPCT's could 
be amended to include additional standards that limit other HAP 
emissions from IPCT's.

C. Selection of Sources to be Regulated

    Fourteen commenters suggested that the standard should apply only 
to IPCT's that are using chromium-based water treatment chemicals at 
the time the standard was proposed or is promulgated because these are 
the only IPCT's that emit HAP's. Several commenters noted that the Act 
only authorizes the EPA to develop NESHAP for sources of HAP's, which 
could not include IPCT's using nonchromium water treatment programs. 
One commenter stated that by making the NESHAP applicable to all 
IPCT's, even those that have never used or no longer use chromium-based 
water treatment chemicals, the EPA would put complying sources in the 
position of possibly incurring a violation of the standard simply for 
failure to maintain records to prove that chromium had not been used. 
The commenters believed that there is no balance between the burden of 
the recordkeeping proposed and the benefits that supposedly would flow 
from those requirements.
    Two commenters noted that the applicability statement in the 
recently promulgated NESHAP for perchloroethylene emissions from dry 
cleaning facilities states that the standard applies to owners or 
operators of each dry cleaning facility that uses perchloroethylene. 
Narrowing the applicability of the IPCT NESHAP in a similar fashion 
would not affect the environmental benefit to be obtained.
    After reviewing the comments received and considering other 
factors, the EPA has concluded that the applicability of the IPCT rule 
should be limited to those IPCT's that are operated with chromium-based 
water treatment chemicals. No environmental benefit would be gained by 
making the rule applicable to IPCT's that are not operated with 
chromium-based water treatment chemicals because those IPCT's do not 
emit chromium compounds. In addition, if the rule were applicable to 
all major source IPCT's as proposed, owners and operators of IPCT's 
that have stopped using or have never used chromium-based water 
treatment chemicals could be subject to fines and penalties despite 
being in compliance with the standard. For these reasons, the EPA has 
decided to limit the applicability of the IPCT rule to those major 
source IPCT's that are operated with chromium-based water treatment 
chemicals on or after the effective date of the rule.
    One commenter believes that the applicability of the standard 
should be limited to IPCT's operating at or below 65  deg.C (149 
deg.F). The commenter suggested that all high-temperature IPCT's should 
be placed in a separate subcategory because of the technical problems 
that accompany switching high-temperature IPCT's using high-solids 
makeup water to nonchromium water treatment programs. The commenter has 
been told by vendors of settling agents that at about 70  deg.C (158 
deg.F), polymeric dispersants will decompose and cause fouling of 
systems and increased corrosion. In addition, as the cooling water 
fouls, the process must operate at higher temperatures, which results 
in higher emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from the reactor.
    Between the period 1989 and 1992, the EPA conducted an 
investigation specifically targeted at evaluating the feasibility of 
using nonchromium-based water treatment programs in IPCT's that serve 
high temperature processes. Based on information obtained from water 
treatment chemical vendors, manufacturers of high-temperature-process 
chemicals, and petroleum refineries, the overwhelming body of evidence 
indicates that nonchromium water treatment programs are comparable to 
chromium water treatment programs in overall performance. Therefore, 
the EPA concluded and continues to believe that there is no basis for 
exempting IPCT's serving high temperature processes from the rule or to 
subcategorize the IPCT source category for high temperature processes.
    Several commenters suggested that the applicability of the standard 
be extended to all IPCT's, including area source IPCT's. One commenter 
stated that South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 
1404, which was adopted in April 1990, is applicable to all cooling 
towers.
    Section 112 of the Act allows the EPA to regulate emissions from 
both major and area sources of HAP emissions. However, prior to 
regulating area sources, Sec. 112(c) of the Act requires the EPA to 
make a finding of a threat of adverse effects to human health or the 
environment due to HAP emissions from those area sources. The EPA has 
made no such finding for area source IPCT's. Area source IPCT's are 
estimated to contribute less than 1 percent of nationwide emissions of 
chromium from all IPCT's. Therefore, the final rule applies only to 
IPCT's that are major sources or are integral parts of major sources.

D. Compliance Dates

    Seven commenters suggested alternative compliance dates ranging 
from 18 months to 5 years after the effective date for a number of 
reasons. Owners or operators of IPCT's will need time to work with 
vendors of nonchromium treatment programs to determine the range of 
acceptable operating conditions that would accomplish the objectives of 
water treatment and process cooling. Testing regimes could include 
numerous changeouts of heat exchanger surfaces over periods of several 
months to determine rates of corrosion under varying conditions of 
temperature and quality of makeup water. Potential construction or 
reconstruction could involve unit shutdown and maintenance and would 
warrant more time for compliance. Chromium may have soaked into the 
wooden components of the IPCT's and may be present in the sediment in 
the recirculating basins. Facilities using makeup water with a high 
iron concentration may have difficulty switching to nonchromium water 
treatment programs because iron removal equipment may be required on 
each cooling tower.
    The proposed 6-month compliance period is not long enough to allow 
for the extensive modifications to IPCT systems, such as the 
installation of new chemical feed and water quality monitoring 
equipment, that may be required to switch to nonchromium water 
treatment systems. Six months may not provide enough time for large 
industrial complexes with numerous cooling towers to convert to 
nonchromium-based water treatment chemicals.
    To respond to these comments, the Agency reviewed the available 
information and contacted industry representatives about the length of 
time required to convert IPCT's that are operating with chromium-based 
water treatment to nonchromium water treatment. The available 
information indicates that the actual conversion from chromium to 
nonchromium-based water treatment chemicals generally requires a period 
of less than 1 month. However, under worst case conditions, conversion 
may take as much as 18 months to allow adequate time for reconstruction 
of the cooling system, installation of chemical feed and control 
equipment, and other modifications. In addition, some facilities may 
have to convert as many as 20 IPCT's to nonchromium water treatment 
programs. The approach taken in such cases is to convert the IPCT's 
sequentially in groups of two to four IPCT's, and the entire process 
may take several months to complete.
    The EPA recognizes that, to bring some facilities into compliance 
with the IPCT rule, IPCT owners or operators may need to redesign 
existing cooling towers systems; install additional pretreatment 
systems, chemical feed control equipment, and peripheral equipment; 
convert multiple IPCT's; and establish contracts with vendors for 
nonchromium water treatment programs. Therefore, the Agency has revised 
Sec. 63.403 of the final rule to specify a compliance date of 18 months 
after the effective date for existing IPCT's.
    In addition, the EPA recognizes that chromium may continue to leach 
out of wooden cooling tower components for a period of months or even 
years following the discontinuation of chromium-based water treatment. 
For that reason, the final IPCT rule specifies a de minimis level of 
0.5 ppm for residual chromium in cooling water.

E. Notification Requirements

    Thirty-one commenters addressed the notification requirements of 
the proposed IPCT rule. The majority of the commenters objected to the 
requirement for annual certification of compliance status and suggested 
reducing or eliminating notification requirements altogether.
    Several commenters suggested that a one-time notification from all 
affected IPCT owners and operators would be sufficient to document 
compliance with the NESHAP. Other commenters stated that notification 
requirements should be limited to a one-time notification from sources 
using chromium-based water treatment programs as of the effective date 
of the standard. Commenters also suggested limiting notification 
requirements to an initial notification and a one-time submission when 
compliance is achieved. One commenter stated that the requirement for 
annual compliance status reports is redundant and provides no 
protection of air quality.
    Several commenters noted that the proposed notification 
requirements were especially unwarranted because they subject sources 
already in compliance with the standard (sources that have never used 
chromium-based water treatment programs and those that have suspended 
use) to the possibility of fines and penalties merely for violations of 
notification requirements that the source may have overlooked.
    As discussed previously, the Agency has decided to limit the 
applicability of the IPCT rule to only those IPCT's in which chromium 
water treatment chemicals are used. Therefore, owners and operators of 
IPCT's that are not using chromium-based water treatment as of the 
effective date of the IPCT rule are not subject to the notification 
requirements.
    The EPA has reviewed the arguments presented for eliminating the 
requirement for annual notification of compliance status and has 
concluded that annual certifications are not necessary for enforcement 
purposes and produce no environmental benefit. Therefore, the Agency 
has decided to eliminate the requirement for owners or operators of 
affected IPCT's to submit annual compliance status reports. However, 
owners or operators of IPCT's that use chromium-based water treatment 
are required to submit an initial notification and, when the use of 
chromium-based water treatment is discontinued, a notification of 
compliance status.
    Two commenters noted that the proposed notification requirements 
were redundant with the title V operating permit requirements because 
the title V operating permit rules also will require an annual 
compliance certification by a responsible official stating that the 
source is in compliance with all applicable requirements.
    In accordance with Sec. 63.9(b)(3) of the General Provisions to 
part 63, notifications required under title V that contain all of the 
information required for part 63 notifications can serve as the part 63 
notification. Therefore, owners or operators of affected IPCT's need to 
submit the required information once; there is no need to submit 
redundant notifications.
    One commenter stated that if an initial notification is required, 
only the data necessary to demonstrate compliance should be required. 
The commenter noted that Sec. 63.406(a) of the proposed rule refers 
sources to Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of the General Provisions, which could be 
interpreted to require much more information than is required to 
demonstrate compliance with the IPCT NESHAP.
    The Agency recognizes that much of the information specified in 
Sec. 63.9 of the General Provisions that is to be included in the 
initial notification is not relevant to IPCT's. For this reason, the 
EPA has revised Sec. 63.405 of the final IPCT rule to specify the types 
of information that must be included in both the initial notification 
and the notification of compliance status for IPCT's.
    In addition, the proposed rule did not specify a deadline for 
submitting the initial notification, but referenced Sec. 63.9(b) of 
subpart A. The final rule requires that owners or operators of affected 
IPCT's that have an initial startup before September 8, 1994 submit the 
initial notification no later than September 8, 1994, and that owners 
or operators of affected IPCT's that have an initial startup on or 
after September 8, 1994 submit the initial notification no later than 
12 months following the initial startup of the IPCT. Section 63.9(b) of 
subpart A requires a deadline of 120 days for submitting the initial 
notification. However, in the case of this rule, the submittal deadline 
for the initial notification was extended to allow States adequate time 
to establish and implement title V permit programs.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    Nineteen commenters objected to the amount of recordkeeping 
required by the proposed rule. Although some commenters suggested 
deleting all recordkeeping requirements for some or all IPCT owners and 
operators, the majority of commenters objected to the requirement that 
IPCT owners or operators maintain records of water treatment chemical 
purchases. Several of the commenters stated that maintaining records of 
water treatment chemical purchases is unduly burdensome and would not 
aid enforcement; other records, such as material safety data sheets 
(MSDS), already maintained by facilities are adequate to demonstrate 
compliance with the IPCT regulation. A number of commenters suggested 
limiting chemical purchase recordkeeping requirements to purchases of 
chromium chemicals only or to purchases of corrosion control chemicals 
only. Two commenters suggested allowing water sample analysis as the 
enforcement mechanism instead of maintaining records of water treatment 
chemical purchases. Several commenters suggested exempting from all 
recordkeeping those IPCT owners or operators that do not use chromium 
water treatment chemicals.
    Three commenters stated that maintaining records onsite or at the 
same file location is burdensome, time consuming, and prone to error. 
One commenter stated that all purchasing records are kept in a central 
location at each production site but are not separated for specific 
pieces of equipment such as IPCT's. Another stated that purchasing or 
invoice records are rarely kept in the same file location as 
environmental records or MSDS. Another commenter stated that many 
plants do not have onsite storage space sufficient to maintain 5 years 
of data. Also, in many cases, water treatment chemicals are purchased 
centrally, not by individual plants.
    As mentioned previously, the final IPCT rule applies only to owners 
or operators of IPCT's that operate with chromium-based water 
treatment. After reviewing the comments on recordkeeping requirements 
for the IPCT rule, EPA has reevaluated the need to require IPCT owners 
or operators to maintain records of water treatment chemical purchases 
and has concluded that these requirements are overly burdensome and 
generally unjustified for this rule. Therefore, the final rule contains 
no requirements for owners or operators of affected IPCT's to maintain 
records of water treatment chemical purchases.
    The only records that the final IPCT rule requires owners and 
operators to keep are the initial notification and the notification of 
compliance status. In cases in which enforcement personnel suspect that 
chromium water treatment chemicals have been used in violation of the 
IPCT rule, IPCT owners or operators ultimately are responsible for 
demonstrating compliance. This demonstration could be through the use 
of records or other means including sampling and analysis of the IPCT 
recirculating water in accordance with Method 7196 or Method 3500-Cr D 
as specified in Sec. 63.404 of the rule.
    By eliminating the requirement for maintaining records of water 
treatment chemical purchases, the recordkeeping requirements for the 
IPCT rule have been greatly simplified. The Agency believes that the 
remaining recordkeeping requirements--that IPCT owners or operators 
maintain copies of the initial notification and the notification of 
compliance status--are minimal and the burden associated with 
maintaining these records in the same file location is not significant. 
Furthermore, the final IPCT rule requires that these records be 
maintained onsite for a minimum period of 5 years.

G. Interaction of the IPCT NESHAP and the General Provisions

    Seven commenters objected to the references to the General 
Provisions included in the IPCT NESHAP. Six commenters stated that the 
IPCT NESHAP should specifically identify which sections of the General 
Provisions are applicable to IPCT sources and should specifically 
override those not applicable. The commenters believe that it is 
unreasonable to require sources to search through the lengthy and 
complex General Provisions to identify applicable requirements when the 
EPA is in a much better position to do this easily. The commenters 
noted that the length and complexity of the General Provisions, 
especially compared to the relative simplicity of the IPCT NESHAP, 
could result in unintended noncompliance if a source misses an 
applicable General Provisions requirement.
    One of the commenters specifically identified Secs. 63.5 
(construction and reconstruction), 63.6 (startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plans), 63.7 (performance testing), and 63.10 
(recordkeeping) as sections of the General Provisions that should be 
specifically excluded from applicability to IPCT sources because they 
contain requirements that are meaningless and unnecessary when applied 
to IPCT's.
    One of the commenters stated that all requirements of the IPCT 
NESHAP should be presented without reference to the General Provisions. 
The commenter suggested that the IPCT standard specifically state that 
the General Provisions do not apply to the IPCT NESHAP.
    The EPA recognized that many of the requirements of the General 
Provisions are not relevant to this rule because they pertain to 
emission standards rather than to work practice standards. In 
consideration of the length and complexity of the General Provisions, 
the EPA has decided to include in the final IPCT rule a table that 
indicates which sections of the General Provisions are and are not 
applicable to IPCT's. The EPA did consider repeating relevant General 
Provisions in the IPCT rule, as suggested by some of the commenters to 
eliminate the need for owners or operators of affected IPCT's to 
reference the General Provisions. However, this approach would have a 
major disadvantage in that it would greatly increase the length of the 
IPCT rule by requiring the repetition of generally relevant 
requirements. In addition, if this approach were adopted for all 
NESHAP, part 63 of the CFR would consist largely of numerous 
repetitions of the same generally relevant requirements, thus defeating 
the purpose of the General Provisions.

H. Selection of Control Technology

    One commenter suggested that the EPA allow high-efficiency drift 
eliminators (HEDE's) or other techniques to control emissions from 
high-temperature IPCT's using chromium water treatment programs. This 
commenter states that with a chromium concentration of 3 ppm in the 
cooling tower water, an HEDE can reduce emissions from the tower to a 
level that would not be harmful to human health during the extended 
period that would be required for conversion to nonchromium-based water 
treatment programs.
    The feasibility of using nonchromium-based water treatment programs 
in IPCT's that serve high-temperature processes was investigated by the 
EPA. The investigation concluded that the percentage of high-
temperature-process IPCT's that operate without chromium-based water 
treatment chemicals far exceeds the 12 percent required for 
establishing the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor 
under Sec. 112(d) of the Act. Therefore, there is no basis for 
subcategorizing the IPCT source category by process temperature. In 
addition, using nonchromium water treatment is a pollution prevention 
measure.
    Regarding the use of HEDE's in combination with low-chromium water 
treatment to reduce the risk associated with chromium emissions to a 
reasonable level, section 112(d) of the Act requires the EPA to set 
standards for emissions of HAP's that are no less stringent than the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent 
of sources. The EPA has found MACT to be more stringent than the use of 
HEDE's. Further, the EPA estimates that HEDE's are used in no more than 
5 percent of IPCT's nationwide, use of HEDE's and low-chromium water 
treatment programs would not eliminate chromium emissions as will 
nonchromium water treatment, and retrofitting HEDE's does not 
constitute a pollution prevention measure as defined in the Pollution 
Prevention Act.

I. Cost Impact

    One commenter stated that the EPA did not fully address the impact 
on individual regulated facilities of the high capital cost associated 
with the equipment upgrade required to switch from chromium-based to 
nonchromium-based treatment programs. This commenter states that at one 
refinery, for example, the conversion to nonchromium water treatment 
will include adding air coolers, redesigning heat exchangers, and 
upgrading cooling water headers, which will result in a capital cost of 
more than $10 million. Production losses also are anticipated due to 
increases in fouling of the cooling water system. Another commenter 
stated that at his facility where the existing chromium systems use a 
single chromium storage tank and a small pump to add the chromium to 
the system, conversion to nonchromium treatment programs would require 
installation of five additional tanks with associated pumps, valves, 
and control systems at a capital cost of $750,000. The commenter 
estimated that the annual cost for several IPCT's would increase by 
about $200,000 per year and that the estimated annual costs associated 
with increased fouling when operating with nonchromium water treatment 
would be $600,000 at one location.
    To estimate the cost of compliance for this standard, the EPA 
conducted an extensive investigation into the costs associated with 
various types of cooling water treatment programs. The information 
collected included comparative data on the performance of both 
chromium-based and nonchromium-based water treatment programs, 
information on costs to convert IPCT's from chromium-based water 
treatment programs to nonchromium-based water treatment programs, and 
information on costs associated with operating nonchromium-based 
programs in IPCT's. The estimated cost of compliance of this rule was 
based on the information compiled from these investigations. 
Information obtained from four water treatment vendors that account for 
more than 60 percent of all IPCT water treatment chemical sales was 
used by EPA as the basis for estimating the cost of compliance with 
this rule.
    The annualized costs to convert and operate IPCT's on nonchromium-
based water treatment chemicals consists of chemical and equipment cost 
components. The chemical cost component represents the difference in 
annual chemical costs between chromium-based and nonchromium based 
chemicals. An average annual cost of nonchromium-based water treatment 
chemicals supplied by the vendors was determined to be $126 per million 
pounds of blowdown. The average annual chromium-based water treatment 
chemical cost was estimated to be $72 per million pounds of blowdown. 
The increase in annual chemical costs range from $1,314 for an IPCT 
with a recirculation rate of 1,000 gallon per minute (gal/min) to 
$140,937 for an IPCT with a recirculation rate of 105,000 gal/min.
    The equipment cost component consists of the equipment capital cost 
and the annual cost of maintenance and of energy. The equipment 
requirements to achieve adequate control of nonchromium-based water 
treatment programs, as indicated by water treatment chemical vendors, 
include a pH controller, conductivity/blowdown controller, and some 
(typically two) metering chemical feed pumps. Based on the information 
compiled by EPA, these are the only additional types of equipment that 
are mandatory for operating an IPCT on nonchromium-based water 
treatment after conversion from chromium-based water treatment. Capital 
costs for this equipment are $2,000, $2,000, and $600 for a basic pH 
controller, conductivity controller, and metering pump, respectively. 
The EPA also obtained actual plant-specific information on the costs to 
convert from chromium-based to nonchromium-based water treatment. Some 
facilities indicated that no costs were incurred when IPCT's were 
converted to nonchromium water treatment chemicals. Other plants 
incurred costs that far exceeded the average equipment costs described 
above. However, in such cases, the conversion to nonchromium-based 
water treatment coincided with several other improvements to the IPCT 
systems and process equipment that were not requisite for the 
successful operation of the IPCT systems on nonchromium-based water 
treatment chemicals.
    The equipment cost component of the average annual control costs 
for the IPCT rule was estimated to be $2,954. This estimate was made 
based on the assumption that 50 percent of IPCT's nationwide would 
require all three types of control equipment and 50 percent of IPCT's 
nationwide would require two of the three types of control equipment. 
Therefore, the annualized costs for nonchromium-based water treatment 
range from $4,300 for an IPCT with a recirculation rate of 1,000 gal/
min to $144,000 for an IPCT with a recirculation rate of 105,000 gal/
min. However, the EPA recognizes that the compliance costs at some 
facilities may be higher or lower than the average cost per IPCT system 
used by EPA to estimate the nationwide costs.
    It should also be noted that the selection of the regulatory 
alternative for the IPCT standard was based on MACT. Because more than 
90 percent of all IPCT's are operated with nonchromium water treatment, 
the MACT floor for IPCT's clearly is nonchromium water treatment. 
Although the Act requires the EPA to consider control costs in 
determining what level of control beyond the floor is achievable, 
selection of the standard is technology-based.

J. Wording of the Regulation

    Two commenters suggested a change to the definition of ``chromium-
based water treatment chemicals'' to clarify that chromium that appears 
only as an impurity in the water treatment chemicals is not included in 
definition. The commenters note that many chemicals contain trace 
amounts of chromium from natural impurities or from trace dissolution 
of steels, and that, as written, the definition does not distinguish 
between chromium-based water treatment chemicals and other chemicals 
used in IPCT's that may contain chromium at only trace concentrations. 
The commenter suggests that any water treatment chemical should not 
contain more than 1 percent nonhexavalent chromium and 0.1 percent 
Cr+6 by weight. According to the commenter, the 1 percent level is 
appropriate because, under the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) hazard communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), 
and regulations implementing the Superfund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), section 313 (40 CFR part 372), the 
presence of chromium compounds at those concentrations must be noted on 
the MSDS for the product. In contrast, chromium compounds present at 
concentrations below these levels will not necessarily be listed, and 
the purchaser will likely be unaware of them.
    The EPA acknowledges that chromium may be present in trace amounts 
in water treatment chemicals. However, the specification of a minimum 
chromium impurity level in water treatment chemicals has no relevance 
to the application or enforcement of this rule. Furthermore, even if an 
impurity level was relevant, the commenter's suggested level of 0.1 
percent Cr+6, which is equivalent to 1,000 ppm, and 1.0 percent 
nonhexavalent chromium, which corresponds to 10,000 ppm, are hardly 
appropriate levels when one considers that the Cr+6 concentration 
of the recirculating water treated with a typical chromium-based 
program is 10 to 15 ppm.

K. De Minimis Cooling Water Chromium Concentration

    Two commenters suggested that the EPA add a de minimis cooling 
water chromium concentration to the standard because the recirculating 
water in an IPCT that is not using chromium-based water treatment 
chemicals might contain very low but detectable levels of chromium if 
the components of the IPCT are wooden and chromium chemicals had been 
used in the tower in the past or if the fresh makeup water to the IPCT 
contains chromium. Including a de minimis chromium level would prevent 
potential enforcement actions against owners or operators who are 
actually in compliance with the standard. In addition, one commenter 
stated that although the proposed rule states that enforcement 
personnel could require water sample analysis on a case-by-case basis 
if they suspect a violation, no compliance concentration level is 
proposed. The commenter suggested that the EPA set a chromium 
compliance concentration of 0.15 mg/liter.
    The EPA recognizes that some residual chromium may be present in 
IPCT cooling water that is not treated with chromium-based water 
treatment chemicals. Raw water supplies may contain trace quantities of 
chromium; in IPCT's in which chromium water treatment was used, 
chromium may leach out of wooden components following the 
discontinuation of chromium use; and chromium is a constituent of some 
types of wood preservatives and may contribute to cooling water 
residual chromium concentrations in IPCT's with wooden components. 
Therefore, the EPA has concluded that there is justification for 
specifying a de minimis chromium concentration in cooling water.
    To determine an appropriate de minimis level, the EPA gathered 
available data and consulted with industry experts. The recommended 
useable range for Reference Method 7196, ``Hexavalent Chromium, 
Colorimetric,'' which is the analytical method specified in Sec. 63.404 
for measuring the residual chromium concentration in cooling water, is 
0.5 to 50 ppm Cr+6 by weight. The available information on the 
decline of residual chromium in cooling water indicates that residual 
chromium concentrations are likely to be well below 0.5 ppm within a 
few months of the discontinuation of chromium water treatment.
    Chromium-based water treatment programs can achieve acceptable 
results in controlling corrosion with chromate concentrations as low as 
4 to 6 ppm (1.8 to 2.7 ppm as chromium). Therefore, the residual 
concentrations of chromium in cooling water in which these low-chromium 
treatment programs are used are significantly higher than the 
recommended lower limit of 0.5 ppm for Method 7196. The EPA concludes 
that a de minimis concentration of residual Cr+6 in cooling water 
of 0.5 ppm is reasonable, and this de minimis level has been 
incorporated into Sec. 63.404 of the final IPCT regulation. This de 
minimis Cr+6 level is high enough to account for residual chromium 
concentrations that would result from the leaching of chromium from 
wooden IPCT components, but is well below any level at which chromium 
would provide effective corrosion control. Furthermore, to allow 
adequate time for the residual Cr+6 concentration in the cooling 
water to decline below the de minimis level, the final rule allows a 3 
month time period following the compliance date before a Cr+6 
concentration in excess of 0.5 ppm is considered to be a violation of 
the standard. The EPA does not believe that a de minimis level of 0.15 
ppm chromium is reasonable because this concentration is below the 
recommended range of chromium concentrations for Reference Method 7196 
and because residual chromium concentrations may be as high as 0.15 ppm 
for many months following the discontinuation of chromium water 
treatment.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket for this rulemaking is A-91-95. The docket is an 
organized and complete file of all the information submitted to or 
otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. 
The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested 
parties a means to identify and locate documents so that they can 
effectively participate in the rulemaking process; and (2) to serve as 
the record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review 
materials) (section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act). The docket is available 
for public inspection at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, the location of which is given in the ADDRESSES 
section of this notice.

B. Executive Order 12286

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the 
Agency must determine whether the 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 12866, it has been 
determined that this is a ``significant regulatory action.'' As such, 
this action was submitted to OMB for review.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection requirements associated with this rule have 
been approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and have been assigned OMB control 
number 2060-0268. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has 
been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1625.02) and a copy may be obtained from 
Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA 2136, Washington, DC 
20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The public reporting burden for this collection of information is 
estimated to average 21 hours per respondent in the first year and 6 
hours per respondent in the subsequent 2 years. This includes the time 
required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for 
EPA.''

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be performed for all 
rules that have ``significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed 
regulation would have a significant economic impact on 20 percent or 
more of small entities, then a regulatory flexibility analysis must be 
prepared.
    Present Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines defined an economic 
impact as significant if it meets one of the following criteria:
    (1) Compliance increases annual production costs by more than 5 
percent, assuming costs are passed on to consumers;
    (2) Compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities 
are at least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of 
sales for large entities;
    (3) Capital costs of compliance represent a ``significant'' portion 
of capital available to small entities, considering internal cash flow 
plus external financial capabilities; or
    (4) Regulatory requirements are likely to result in closures of 
small entities. The results of an economic assessment indicated that 
compliance costs as a percentage of production costs or as a percentage 
of sales are both less than 5 percent. Also, capital availability will 
not be constrained because total control costs are relatively small and 
would not require extensive financing. Because capital availability is 
not a constraint, the standard is not likely to result in closure of 
small entities.
    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 business entities because the number of 
small business entities that would be affected is not significant.

E. Miscellaneous

    In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this 
promulgated rule was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory 
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
    This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of 
promulgation. This review will include an assessment of such factors as 
evaluation of the residual health risks, any overlap with other 
programs, the existence of alternative methods, enforceability, 
improvements in emission control technology and health data, and the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

    Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 29, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 135-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344, 1345 
(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. 
p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 
300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 
11023, 11048.

    2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry to the table under 
the indicated heading to read as follows:


Sec. 9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             OMB control
                      40 CFR citation                            No.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                                  *****                                 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants                
 for Source Categories:                                                 
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                  *****                                 
63.403-63.406..............................................    2060-0268
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                  *****                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. By adding a new subpart Q consisting of Secs. 63.400 through 
63.405 to read as follows:
Subpart Q--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Industrial Process Cooling Towers
Sec.
63.400  Applicability.
63.401  Definitions.
63.402  Standard.
63.403  Compliance dates.
63.404  Compliance demonstrations.
63.405  Notification requirements.
63.406  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Subpart Q--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Industrial Process Cooling Towers


Sec. 63.400  Applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to all new and existing 
industrial process cooling towers that are operated with chromium-based 
water treatment chemicals on or after September 8, 1994 and are either 
major sources or are integral parts of facilities that are major 
sources as defined in Sec. 63.401.
    (b) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A 
that apply and those that do not apply to owners and operators of 
IPCT's subject to this subpart.


Sec. 63.401  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Act, in subpart A of 
this part, or in this section as follows:
    Chromium-based water treatment chemicals means any combination of 
chemical substances containing chromium used to treat water.
    Commenced means, with respect to construction or reconstruction of 
an IPCT, that an owner or operator has undertaken a continuous program 
of construction or reconstruction or that an owner or operator has 
entered into a contractual obligation to undertake and complete, within 
a reasonable time, a continuous program of construction or 
reconstruction.
    Compliance date means the date by which an affected IPCT is 
required to be in compliance with this subpart.
    Construction means the on-site fabrication, erection, or 
installation of an IPCT.
    Cooling tower means an open water recirculating device that uses 
fans or natural draft to draw or force ambient air through the device 
to cool warm water by direct contact.
    Effective date means September 8, 1994 for this subpart.
    Existing IPCT means any affected IPCT that is not a new IPCT.
    Industrial process cooling tower, also written as ``IPCT,'' means 
any cooling tower that is used to remove heat that is produced as an 
input or output of a chemical or industrial process(es), as well as any 
cooling tower that cools industrial processes in combination with any 
heating, ventilation, or air conditioning system.
    Initial startup means the initiation of recirculation water flow 
within the cooling tower.
    Major source means any stationary source or group of stationary 
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that 
emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the 
aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 
25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air 
pollutants.
    New IPCT means any affected IPCT the construction or reconstruction 
of which commenced after August 12, 1993.
    Owner or operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, 
controls, or supervises an IPCT.
    Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source 
to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any 
physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the stationary 
source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment 
and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of 
material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of 
its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions 
is federally enforceable.
    Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an affected 
or a previously unaffected IPCT to such an extent that the fixed 
capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed 
capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable new IPCT.
    Responsible official means one of the following:
    (1) For a corporation: a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice 
president of the corporation in charge of a principal business 
function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-
making functions for the corporation, or a duly authorized 
representative of such person if the representative is responsible for 
the overall operation of one or more manufacturing, production, or 
operating facilities and either:
    (i) The facilities employ more than 250 persons or have gross 
annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 
1980 dollars); or
    (ii) The delegation of authority to such representative is approved 
in advance by the Administrator.
    (2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: a general partner or 
the proprietor, respectively.
    (3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: 
either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. For 
the purposes of this part, a principal executive officer of a Federal 
agency includes the chief executive officer having responsibility for 
the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency 
(e.g., a Regional Administrator of the EPA).
    (4) For affected sources (as defined in this part) applying for or 
subject to a title V permit: ``responsible official'' shall have the 
same meaning as defined in part 70 of this chapter or Federal title V 
regulations (42 U.S.C. 7661), whichever is applicable.
    Water treatment chemicals means any combination of chemical 
substances used to treat water in cooling towers, including corrosion 
inhibitors, antiscalants, dispersants, and any other chemical 
substances used to treat water.


Sec. 63.402  Standard.

    No owner or operator of an IPCT shall use chromium-based water 
treatment chemicals in any affected IPCT.


Sec. 63.403  Compliance dates.

    The requirements of Sec. 63.402 of this subpart shall be applied on 
the following schedule:
    (a) For existing IPCT's, the compliance date shall be 18 months 
after September 8, 1994.
    (b) For new IPCT's that have an initial startup before September 8, 
1994, the compliance date shall be September 8, 1994.
    (c) For new IPCT's that have an initial startup on or after 
September 8, 1994, the compliance date shall be the date of the initial 
startup.


Sec. 63.404  Compliance demonstrations.

    No routine monitoring, sampling, or analysis is required. In 
accordance with section 114 of the Act, the Administrator or delegated 
authority can require cooling water sample analysis of an IPCT if there 
is information to indicate that the IPCT is not in compliance with the 
requirements of Sec. 63.402 of this subpart. If cooling water sample 
analysis is required:
    (a) The water sample analysis shall be conducted in accordance with 
Method 7196, Chromium, Hexavalent (Colorimetric), contained in the 
Third Edition of ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication SW-846, (November 1986) and its 
Revision I, (December 1987), which are available for the cost of 
$110.00 from the Government Printing Office, Superintendent of 
Documents, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 783-3238 (document number 955-
001-00000-1; or Method 3500-Cr D, Colorimetric Method, contained in the 
18th Edition of ``Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and 
Wastewaster'' (1992), which is available from the American Public 
Health Association, 1015 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. These 
methods were approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of 
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 
51. Copies may be inspected as a part of Docket A-91-65, located at the 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, room M1500, EPA 
Central Docket Section, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC. Copies may 
be inspected at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (b) On or after 3 months after the compliance date, a cooling water 
sample residual hexavalent chromium concentration in excess of 0.5 
parts per million by weight shall indicate a violation of Sec. 63.402.


Sec. 63.405  Notification requirements.

    (a) Initial notification. (1) In accordance with Sec. 63.9(b) of 
subpart A, owners or operators of all affected IPCT's that have an 
initial startup before September 8, 1994 shall notify the Administrator 
in writing. The notification, which shall be submitted not later than 
12 months after September 8, 1994, shall provide the following 
information:
    (i) The name and address of the IPCT owner or operator;
    (ii) The address (i.e., physical location) of the affected IPCT;
    (iii) A statement that the notification is being submitted as 
required by this subpart; and
    (iv) A description of the type of water treatment program used in 
the affected IPCT, including the chemical name of each corrosion 
inhibitor ingredient used; the average concentration of those corrosion 
inhibitor ingredients maintained in the cooling water; and the material 
safety data sheet for each water treatment chemical or chemical 
compound used in the IPCT.
    (2) In accordance with Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A, owners or 
operators of all affected IPCT's that have an initial startup on or 
after September 8, 1994 shall notify the Administrator in writing that 
the source is subject to the relevant standard no later than 12 months 
after initial startup. The notification shall provide all the 
information required in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) of this 
section.
    (b) Notification of compliance status. (1) In accordance with 
Sec. 63.9(h) of subpart A, owners or operators of affected IPCT's shall 
submit to the Administrator a notification of compliance status within 
60 days of the date on which the IPCT is brought into compliance with 
Sec. 63.402 of this subpart and not later than 18 months after 
September 8, 1994.
    (2) The notification of compliance status must:
    (i) Be signed by a responsible official who also certifies the 
accuracy of the report;
    (ii) Certify that source has complied with Sec. 63.402 of this 
subpart; and
    (iii) Include the information required in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of 
this section.
    (iv) Include the following statement: ``I certify that no chromium-
based water treatment chemicals have been introduced since (the initial 
compliance date) into any IPCT located within the facility for any 
purpose.''


Sec. 63.406  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    To demonstrate continuing compliance with Sec. 63.402 of this 
subpart, the owner or operator of each affected IPCT shall maintain 
copies of the initial notification and the notification of compliance 
status as required by Sec. 63.405 of this subpart for a period of at 
least 5 years onsite.

   Table 1 to Subpart Q--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart Q  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Applies to                                    
       Reference          Subpart Q                 Comment             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1...................  Yes.........                                   
63.2...................  Yes.........                                   
63.3...................  No..........                                   
63.4...................  Yes.........                                   
63.5...................  No..........                                   
63.6 (a), (b), (c), and  Yes.........                                   
 (j).                                                                   
63.6 (d), (e), (f),      No..........                                   
 (g), (h), and (i).                                                     
63.7...................  No..........                                   
63.8...................  No..........                                   
63.9 (a), (b)(1),        Yes.........                                   
 (b)(3), (c), (h)(1),                                                   
 (h)(3), (h)(6), and                                                    
 (j).                                                                   
63.9 (b)(2), (b)(4),     No..........  Requirements for initial         
 (b)(5), (b)(6), (d),                   notifications and notifications 
 (e), (f), (g), (h)(2),                 of compliance status are        
 (h)(4), (h)(5).                        specified in Sec. 63.405(a) and 
                                        Sec. 63.405(b), respectively, of
                                        subpart Q; other provisions of  
                                        subpart A are not relevant to   
                                        IPCT's.                         
63.10 (a), (b)(1),       Yes.........  Section 63.406 requires an onsite
 (b)(2)(xii),                           record retention of 5 years.    
 (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3),                                                   
 (d), and (f).                                                          
63.10 (b)(2) (i) to      No..........                                   
 (xi), (c), and (e).                                                    
63.11..................  No..........                                   
63.12 to 63.15.........  Yes.........                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 94-21957 Filed 9-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M