[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