[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69251-69256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33338]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6203-6]


Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants; Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium 
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; State of California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) requested approval, 
under section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), to implement and 
enforce California's ``Hexavalent Chromium Airborne Toxic Control 
Measure for Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations'' 
(Chrome ATCM) in place of the ``National Emission Standards for 
Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and 
Chromium Anodizing Tanks'' (Chrome NESHAP). EPA has reviewed this 
request and has found that it satisfies all of the requirements 
necessary to qualify for approval. Thus, EPA is proposing to grant 
California the authority to implement and enforce its Chrome ATCM in 
place of the Chrome NESHAP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 15, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed concurrently to the 
addresses below:

Ken Bigos, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
Robert Fletcher, Chief, Emissions Assessment Branch, Stationary Source

[[Page 69252]]

Division, California Air Resources Board, 2020 ``L'' Street, P.O. Box 
2815, Sacramento, California 95812-2815.

    Copies of California's request for approval are available for 
public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal business 
hours (air docket #A-96-25).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Bigos, Air Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-3901, (415) 744-1240.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under section 112(l) of the Act, EPA is authorized to delegate to 
state agencies the authority to implement and enforce the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). The Federal 
regulations governing EPA's approval of state rules or programs under 
section 112(l) are located at 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. Under these 
regulations, a State has the option to request EPA's approval to 
substitute a state rule for the comparable NESHAP. Upon approval, the 
State is given the authority to implement and enforce its rule in lieu 
of the NESHAP. This ``rule substitution'' option requires EPA to ``make 
a detailed and thorough evaluation of the State's submittal to ensure 
that it meets the stringency and other requirements'' of 40 CFR 63.93 
(see 58 FR 62274). A rule will be approved if EPA finds: (1) the state 
authorities are ``no less stringent'' than the corresponding federal 
NESHAP, (2) adequate authorities and resources exist, (3) the schedule 
for implementation and compliance is sufficiently expeditious, and (4) 
the state program is otherwise in compliance with Federal guidance.
    On January 25, 1995, EPA promulgated the NESHAP for chromium 
electroplating facilities (see 60 FR 4963), which was codified in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart N, ``National Emission Standards for Chromium 
Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium 
Anodizing Tanks'' (Chrome NESHAP). On July 17, 1998, EPA received the 
California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) request for approval to 
implement and enforce section 93102 of Title 17 of the California Code 
of Regulations, ``Hexavalent Chromium Airborne Toxic Control Measure 
for Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations'' (Chrome 
ATCM), in place of the Chrome NESHAP as the Federally-enforceable 
standard in California.

II. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. California's Chrome ATCM

    California's Chrome ATCM differs in many ways from the Federal 
Chrome NESHAP. While these differences do not appear to warrant a 
finding that the Chrome ATCM is less stringent than the Chrome NESHAP, 
this section discusses these differences so that the public is afforded 
an opportunity to comment on the significance of these differences.
1. Title V Permit Requirements
    The Chrome ATCM requires the owner or operator of a major source 
subject to the Chrome ATCM to obtain a Title V permit (see section 
93102(a)(5)). While the Chrome NESHAP includes this requirement, it 
also provides that all nonmajor sources, except for those sources 
referred to in 40 CFR 63.340(e)(1), are subject to Title V permitting 
requirements. While the applicable Title V permitting authority may 
defer certain qualifying nonmajor sources from the Title V permitting 
requirements until December 9, 1999, currently all sources receiving 
such deferrals are required to submit Title V permit applications by 
December 9, 2000 (see 40 CFR 63.340(e)(2) and 61 FR 27785). Although 
the Chrome ATCM is silent with respect to this requirement, CARB stated 
in its application that it will amend the Chrome ATCM in the future if 
EPA does not permanently exempt all sources receiving such deferrals. 
EPA believes that the approval of the Chrome ATCM at this time does not 
constitute a waiver of this Title V permitting requirement.
2. Emission Limits for Hard Chromium Electroplating
    Under the Chrome NESHAP, emission limits for hard chromium 
electroplating tanks are expressed in the form of milligrams of total 
chromium per dry standard cubic meter. Different emission limits apply 
depending on whether the facility qualifies as large or small, which, 
in turn, is based on the facility's maximum cumulative potential 
rectifier capacity. In contrast, the emission limits in the Chrome ATCM 
are expressed in terms of milligrams of hexavalent chromium per ampere 
hour, and are differentiated between large, medium, and small facility 
sizes dependent on both mass emissions and a capacity or usage limit.
    Since there is no unique conversion between the form of the 
emission limits in the Chrome NESHAP and the Chrome ATCM, CARB took the 
approach of using source test data to demonstrate that facilities 
meeting the emission limits of the Chrome ATCM also meet the emission 
limits of the Chrome NESHAP. After reviewing the results of 
approximately 35 source tests of hard chromium electroplating 
facilities in California of various sizes, CARB found that in every 
case the sources that were in compliance with the applicable Chrome 
ATCM emission limit were also in compliance with the applicable Chrome 
NESHAP emission limit. CARB believes, and EPA concurs, that these 
source test results confirm CARB's position that the Chrome ATCM 
emission limits are at least as stringent as the Chrome NESHAP emission 
limits for every source subject to the Chrome NESHAP.
    Both the Chrome NESHAP and the Chrome ATCM allow facilities with a 
maximum cumulative potential rectifier capacity of greater than 60 
million ampere-hours per year to be considered small (or medium in the 
case of the Chrome ATCM) by accepting a limit on the maximum cumulative 
potential rectifier usage (see section 93102(h)(7)(B) and 40 CFR 
63.342(c)(2)). EPA wishes to clarify that it considers all such usage 
limits in non-Title V operating permits as Federally-enforceable for 
purpose of this proposed substitution of the Chrome ATCM for the Chrome 
NESHAP.
3. Malfunctions
    Both the Chrome NESHAP and the Chrome ATCM provide that the 
emission limits apply during tank operations, including periods of 
startup and shutdown, but do not apply during periods of malfunction, 
which the Chrome ATCM refers to as periods of ``breakdown'' (see 
section 93102(a)(4) and (b)(7), and 40 CFR 63.2 and 63.342(b)(1)). The 
Chrome ATCM both defines the term ``breakdown'' and states that the 
emission limits ``do not apply during periods of equipment breakdown, 
provided the provisions of the permitting agency's breakdown rule are 
met. * * *'' This means that an event does not constitute a breakdown 
unless both of the following conditions are met: (1) the event meets 
the characteristics of a breakdown as defined in the Chrome ATCM, and 
(2) the provisions of the applicable permitting agency's (i.e., 
district's) breakdown rule are met. This two-step analysis is important 
because it is the Chrome ATCM definition of ``breakdown'' that first 
determines what constitutes a breakdown, not the provisions of the 
applicable district's breakdown rule.
    Under the Chrome ATCM, the districts' breakdown rules serve only 
one function: to establish the reporting

[[Page 69253]]

requirements that must be followed when a breakdown occurs (see section 
93102(i)(4)). These rules do not override or supplant the other 
breakdown or excess emission requirements of the Chrome ATCM, including 
the requirements to revise the operation and maintenance plan to 
minimize breakdowns (see section 93102(g)(4)), to maintain the 
specified records of all breakdowns and excess emissions (see section 
93102(h)(5) and (6)), and to include as part of the ongoing compliance 
status report a summary of any excess emissions (see section 
93102(h)(6), (i)(3)(B), and appendix 3). And, the districts' breakdown 
rules neither expand the scope nor extend the time-frame of a breakdown 
beyond the definition in section 93102(b)(7) of the Chrome ATCM. In 
other words, while the emission limits do not apply during a breakdown, 
what constitutes a breakdown is determined by the Chrome ATCM's, not a 
particular district's, definition of ``breakdown.''
    As a supplement to its application, CARB submitted copies of the 
districts' breakdown rules, which are referenced in appendix 6 of the 
Chrome ATCM. These rules raise several issues. First, if the Chrome 
ATCM is approved under section 112(l) of the Act, then only those 
district breakdown rules that were submitted to EPA as part of CARB's 
Chrome ATCM application are approved as a matter of Federal law. A 
source cannot rely on revisions to a district's breakdown rule until 
such revisions receive EPA's approval under section 112(l) of the Act.
    Second, the proposed approval of the districts' breakdown rules, 
which are incorporated by reference into the Chrome ATCM, is strictly 
limited to the context of approval of the Chrome ATCM under section 
112(l) of the Act. While the use of these rules may be appropriate in 
lieu of the Chrome NESHAP reporting requirements, the use of these 
rules in other contexts may be inappropriate (e.g., with regard to 
other NESHAPs or State Implementation Plans). Thus, it is possible that 
a district's breakdown rule can be Federally-approved as part of the 
Chrome ATCM but not Federally-approved as part of the California State 
Implementation Plan.
    Third, some of the districts' breakdown rules use the term 
``malfunction'' rather than ``breakdown.'' For the purpose of the 
Chrome ATCM, EPA interprets these terms as interchangeable, provided 
that it is understood that the Chrome ATCM definition of ``breakdown'' 
is controlling, not the districts' definitions of ``breakdown'' or 
``malfunction.''
    Fourth, some of the districts' breakdown rules include provisions 
regarding the district's authority to determine whether a breakdown has 
occurred, authority to grant emergency variances, or authority to 
decide to take no enforcement action. Like the districts' definitions 
of ``breakdown'' or ``malfunction,'' the above-listed provisions go 
beyond the function of the districts' breakdown rules in the context of 
the Chrome ATCM (such function being limited to establishing the 
reporting requirements that must be followed when a breakdown occurs). 
Thus, EPA's proposed approval of the Chrome ATCM under section 112(l) 
of the Act does not include such provisions of the districts' breakdown 
rules since these provisions go beyond the scope of the Chrome ATCM.
    Fifth, some of the districts' breakdown rules require written 
breakdown reports only if requested by the district. However, for the 
purpose of approval of the Chrome ATCM, EPA will interpret such rules 
as requiring the submission of written breakdown reports to the 
district even if the district has not formally requested the source to 
provide such reports.
    Sixth, some of the districts' breakdown rules do not specify the 
reporting time period, but merely state that notification shall be 
``immediate'' or the written breakdown report shall be filed 
``subsequently.'' With respect to such rules, EPA will interpret such 
terms by reference to the comparable Chrome NESHAP reporting deadlines 
in 40 CFR 63.342(f)(3)(iv).
4. Performance Test Requirements
    The Chrome ATCM allows the use of CARB Method 425, dated July 28, 
1997, and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Method 
205.1, dated August 1991, for determining chromium emissions. By 
approving the Chrome ATCM, these methods would be approved only as 
prescribed by the Chrome ATCM and only to determine compliance with the 
Chrome ATCM. EPA approval of the Chrome ATCM would not result in 
approval of these methods as general alternatives to EPA Method 306.
    In addition, assuming EPA approves the Chrome ATCM, the owner or 
operator of an affected source cannot rely on provisions in CARB Method 
425 or SCAQMD Method 205.1 allowing for approval of alternatives, 
modifications, or variations from the test method. Any such 
alternatives, modifications, or variations to the test methods must be 
approved under the procedures in section 93102(k) of the Chrome ATCM.
5. Monitoring and Recording Frequencies
    In several areas of parameter monitoring, the Chrome ATCM includes 
monitoring or recording frequencies that differ from those required by 
the Chrome NESHAP. For example, the Chrome NESHAP requires measurements 
of velocity pressure and pressure drop across control devices to be 
recorded daily. The Chrome ATCM requires that these parameters be 
monitored continuously with a mechanical gauge that is in clear sight 
of the operation or maintenance personnel, and that the measurements be 
recorded weekly rather than daily. CARB believes that pressure drop 
does not significantly change on a daily basis unless there is a major 
malfunction. Additionally, CARB asserts that, based on their experience 
in implementing the Chrome ATCM, there exists compelling engineering 
evidence to support a recording frequency of once per week as the 
minimum requirement for this source category.
    The Chrome NESHAP also requires surface tension to be measured 
every 4 hours of tank operation. This frequency may be reduced to every 
8 hours of tank operation if there are no exceedances after 40 hours, 
and then further reduced to once every 40 hours if no exceedances occur 
after a second 40 hours of tank operation. In contrast, the Chrome ATCM 
requires daily monitoring of the surface tension, with a possible 
reduction to once a week after 20 days. For facilities using a foam 
blanket-type fume suppressant, the Chrome NESHAP requires foam blanket 
thickness to be measured every hour, and then every 4 hours and then 
every 8 hours if no exceedances occur during a 40-hour period. The 
Chrome ATCM, however, requires hourly monitoring of the foam blanket 
thickness, and then a reduction to daily if no exceedance occurs after 
15 days. Again, CARB asserts that there exists compelling engineering 
evidence to support the monitoring frequencies in the Chrome ATCM as 
the minimum requirements for this source category.
6. Work Practice Standards for Packed-Bed Scrubbers
    Under the Chrome NESHAP, one of the work practice standards 
applicable to packed-bed scrubbers is that fresh makeup water must be 
added to the top of the packed-bed, except it may be added to the 
scrubber basin if greater than 50 percent of the scrubber water is 
drained (see Table 1 to 40 CFR 63.342). By contrast, the Chrome ATCM 
only requires affected sources using

[[Page 69254]]

horizontal packed-bed scrubbers without continuous recirculation to add 
fresh makeup water to the top of the packed-bed.
7. HEPA Filters, Chrome Tank Covers, and Polyballs
    Unlike the Chrome NESHAP, the Chrome ATCM specifically includes 
requirements for the following alternative emission control 
technologies: high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, chrome 
tank covers, and polyballs. In approving the Chrome ATCM under section 
112(l) of the Act, EPA would be approving these alternative 
technologies for use in California. However, affected sources using 
these alternative technologies would still be required to demonstrate, 
through compliance testing and ongoing compliance monitoring, that the 
emission standards in section 93102(c) are being achieved.
8. Ongoing Compliance Status Reports for Major Sources
    Both the Chrome NESHAP and the Chrome ATCM require major sources to 
submit ongoing compliance status reports (see section 93102(i)(3) and 
40 CFR 63.347(g)). However, the Chrome ATCM requires these reports to 
be submitted annually, while the Chrome NESHAP requires these reports 
to be submitted semi-annually (quarterly where the applicable emission 
limit is being exceeded). Because section 504(a) of the Act requires 
major sources that have Title V permits to submit such reports no less 
often than every six months, EPA cannot approve this provision of the 
Chrome ATCM to operate in lieu of the comparable provision of the 
Chrome NESHAP. Since major sources must comply with the Title V semi-
annual reporting requirement independent of the Chrome NESHAP or the 
Chrome ATCM (i.e., regardless of whether the semi-annual reporting 
requirement is included in either the Chrome NESHAP or the Chrome 
ATCM), EPA believes that it has the authority to disapprove this 
provision of the Chrome ATCM as not satisfying the objective of section 
504(a) of the Act.
9. Compliance with the Chrome NESHAP
    Under Federal law, until EPA approves the Chrome ATCM (i.e., the 
approval becomes effective), all sources subject to the Chrome NESHAP 
and located in California must be in compliance with the applicable 
requirements of the Chrome NESHAP. Even after such approval becomes 
effective, sources remain subject to Federal enforcement for violation 
of any Chrome NESHAP provision that the source was required to be in 
compliance with prior to the effective date of the Chrome ATCM 
approval. Such Chrome NESHAP provisions include, but are not limited 
to, the requirements to prepare operation and maintenance plans under 
40 CFR 63.342(f)(3), to comply with initial notification deadlines 
under 40 CFR 63.347(c) and (i)(1), and to comply with the new and 
reconstructed source provisions under 40 CFR 63.5 and 63.345.
10. Changes in Source Status
    Unlike the Chrome NESHAP, the Chrome ATCM is not as explicit 
regarding compliance deadlines relating to certain changes to a 
source's status, such as (1) a change from an area source to a major 
source; (2) a change from either a very small, small, medium, or less 
than 60 million ampere-hours hard chrome plater to a different size 
category; and (3) a change from a decorative chrome plater using a 
trivalent chrome bath that incorporates a wetting agent to one that 
ceases to use this process. Since the Chrome ATCM does not explicitly 
state the compliance deadlines for the changes, EPA interprets the 
Chrome ATCM to require immediate compliance with the standard that 
applies to the source's new status.
11. Circumvention
    Under the Chrome NESHAP, no owner or operator shall build, erect, 
install, or use any article, machine, equipment, or process to conceal 
an emission that would otherwise constitute noncompliance with a 
relevant standard (see 40 CFR 63.4(b)). CARB believes that this 
provision is not necessary, presumably because CARB interprets the 
Chrome ATCM as implicitly not allowing such activities.
12. Notification of New and Modified Sources
    Section 93102(j)(2) of the Chrome ATCM allows facilities to fulfill 
the notification of construction or modification requirements in 
section 93102(j)(1) by complying with the applicable district's new 
source review rule or policy, provided similar information is obtained. 
Thus, the district's new source review rules or policy merely serve the 
purpose of obviating the need for duplicative reporting. Such rules or 
policies, however, do not change the underlying requirement that such 
notification must exist and must be generated at least within the time 
frame established by section 93102(j)(1). Furthermore, the burden of 
proof of compliance rests upon the source to prove that it provided 
notice of construction or reconstruction on time and that such notice 
includes at least all of the information included in appendix 4 of the 
Chrome ATCM.

B. Proposed Action

    After reviewing the request for approval of California's Chrome 
ATCM, EPA has determined that this request meets all the requirements 
necessary to qualify for approval under section 112(l) of the Act and 
40 CFR 63.91 and 63.93. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the 
Chrome ATCM as the Federally-enforceable standard for sources in 
California. If this proposed action is finalized, then the Chrome ATCM 
will be enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the Act. Although the 
local air pollution control districts in California would have primary 
implementation and enforcement responsibility, EPA would retain the 
right, pursuant to section 112(l)(7) of the Act, to enforce any 
applicable emission standard or requirement under section 112 of the 
Act.

C. California's Authorities to Implement and Enforce Section 112 
Standards

1. Penalty Authorities
    Previously, CARB submitted a finding by California's Attorney 
General stating that ``State law provides civil and criminal 
enforcement authority consistent with [40 CFR] 63.91(b)(1)(i), 
63.91(b)(6)(i), and 70.11, including authority to recover penalties and 
fines in a maximum amount of not less than $10,000 per day per 
violation * * *'' (emphasis added) (see 61 FR 25397). In accordance 
with this finding, EPA understands that the California Attorney General 
interprets section 39674 and the applicable sections of Division 26, 
Part 4, Chapter 4, Article 3 (``Penalties'') of the California Health 
and Safety Code as allowing the collection of penalties for multiple 
violations per day. In addition, EPA also understands that the 
California Attorney General interprets section 42400(c)(2) of the 
California Health and Safety Code as allowing for, among other things, 
criminal penalties for knowingly rendering inaccurate any monitoring 
method required by a toxic air contaminant rule, regulation, or permit.
    As stated in section II.B above, EPA would retain the right, 
pursuant to section 112(l)(7) of the Act, to enforce any applicable 
emission standard or requirement under section 112 of the Act, 
including the authority to seek civil and criminal penalties up to the

[[Page 69255]]

maximum amounts specified in section 113 of the Act.
2. Variances
    Division 26, Part 4, Chapter 4, Articles 2 and 2.5 of the 
California Health and Safety Code provide for the granting of variances 
under certain circumstances. EPA regards these provisions as wholly 
external to CARB's request for approval to implement and enforce a 
section 112 program or rule and, consequently, is proposing to take no 
action on these provisions of state or local law. EPA does not 
recognize the ability of a state or local agency who has received 
delegation of a section 112 program or rule to grant relief from the 
duty to comply with such Federally-enforceable program or rule, except 
where such relief is granted in accordance with procedures allowed 
under section 112 of the Act. As stated above, EPA retains the right, 
pursuant to section 112(l)(7) of the Act, and citizens retain the 
right, pursuant to section 304 of the Act, to enforce any applicable 
emission standard or requirement under section 112 of the Act.
    Similarly, section 39666(f) of the California Health and Safety 
Code allows local agencies to approve alternative methods from those 
required in the ATCMs, but only as long as such approvals are 
consistent with the Act. A source seeking permission to use an 
alternative means of emission limitation under section 112 of the Act 
must also receive approval, after notice and opportunity for comment, 
from EPA before using such alternative means of emission limitation for 
the purpose of complying with section 112 of the Act.

III. Public Comment

    EPA is seeking comment on CARB's request for approval of the Chrome 
ATCM as a substitute for the Chrome NESHAP. EPA will consider all 
public comments submitted during the public comment period. Issues 
raised by the comments will be carefully reviewed and considered in the 
decision to approve or disapprove CARB's request. EPA will provide 
notice of its final decision in the Federal Register, including a 
summary of the reasons for the final decision and a summary of all 
major comments.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
    This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks,'' because it is not an ``economically significant'' action under 
E.O. 12866.

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's proposed rule does 
not create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not 
apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects 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. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, 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, E.O. 13084 requires 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.'' Today's 
proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities 
of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 
3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations 
of less than 50,000.
    Approvals under 40 CFR 63.93 do not create any new requirements, 
but simply approve requirements that the state or local agency is 
already imposing. Therefore, because this proposed approval does not 
impose any new requirements, it does not have a significant impact on 
affected small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference,

[[Page 69256]]

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of section 
112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412.

    Dated: December 8, 1998.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 98-33338 Filed 12-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P