[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 49 (Monday, March 15, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12762-12767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6258]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-6236-9]
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: Final 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
[[Page 12763]]
requirements necessary to qualify for approval. Thus, EPA is hereby
granting California the authority to implement and enforce its Chrome
ATCM in place of the Chrome NESHAP.
DATES: This action is effective on April 14, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Copies of CARB's request for approval are available for
public inspection at the following locations:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Rulemaking Office
(AIR-4), Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California
94105-3901. (docket #A-96-25)
California Air Resources Board, Emissions Assessment Branch, Stationary
Source Division, 2020 ``L'' Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento,
California 95812-2815.
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
On January 25, 1995, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standard
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (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.
On December 16, 1998, EPA proposed approval of CARB's request in
the Federal Register (see 63 FR 69251) and announced the availability
for the public to comment on CARB's application. EPA received no
comments on the proposed approval.
II. EPA Action
A. California's Chrome ATCM
California's Chrome ATCM differs in many ways from the Federal
Chrome NESHAP. Several differences were discussed in the December 16,
1998, proposed rulemaking and the public was afforded an opportunity to
comment on the significance of these differences. By today's action,
the Chrome ATCM will be fully approved as a substitute for the Chrome
NESHAP. The following discussions, however, are being provided for the
purpose of clarifying potentially ambiguous or unclear requirements.
1. Title V 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
Sec. 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).
In addition, both the Chrome NESHAP and the Chrome ATCM require
major sources to submit ongoing compliance status reports (see
Sec. 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. Major sources must comply
with the Title V semi-annual reporting requirement as stated in 40 CFR
63.347(g).
2. Emission Limits for Hard Chromium Electroplating
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 Sec. 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 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
Sec. 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 requirements that must be
followed when a breakdown occurs (see Sec. 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
Sec. 93102(g)(4)), to maintain the specified records of all breakdowns
and excess emissions (see Sec. 93102(h)(5) and (6)), and to include as
part of the ongoing compliance status report a summary of any excess
emissions (see Sec. 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. EPA is making several points of clarification regarding
these breakdown rules. First, only those district breakdown rules that
were submitted to
[[Page 12764]]
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 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 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 are approved only as
prescribed by the Chrome ATCM and only to determine compliance with the
Chrome ATCM. EPA approval of the Chrome ATCM does not result in
approval of these methods as general alternatives to EPA Method 306.
In addition, 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 Sec. 93102(k) of
the Chrome ATCM.
5. 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 is approving these alternative technologies for
use in California according to the requirements of the Chrome ATCM.
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
Sec. 93102(c) are being achieved.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 12765]]
time and that such notice includes at least all of the information
included in Appendix 4 of the Chrome ATCM.
B. EPA 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 hereby approving the Chrome
ATCM as the Federally-enforceable standard for sources in California.
Upon the effective date of this action, the Chrome ATCM will be
enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the Act. Although the local
air pollution control districts in California will have primary
implementation and enforcement responsibility, EPA retains 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 retains 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 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. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
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 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 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. 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 rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal
[[Page 12766]]
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 3(b) of E.O.
13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
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.
This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because 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
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
F. 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 promulgated 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.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 14, 1999. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, 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. Section 7412.
Dated: February 17, 1999.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart E--Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal
Authorities
2. Section 63.99 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(E), to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.99 Delegated Federal authorities.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(E) The material incorporated in Chapter 5 of the California
Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Air Toxics Program
(California Code of Regulations, Title 17, section 93102) pertains to
the chromium electroplating and anodizing source category in the State
of California, and has been approved under the procedures in Sec. 63.93
to be implemented and enforced in place of subpart N--National Emission
Standards for Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks.
(1) Title V requirements. Subpart N affected sources remain subject
to both the Title V permitting requirements of Sec. 63.340(e)(2) and,
for major sources, the semi-annual submission of the ongoing compliance
status reports as required by Sec. 63.347(g).
(2) Limits on maximum cumulative potential rectifier usage. Section
93102(h)(7)(B) of the California Airborne Toxic Control Measure allows
facilities with a maximum cumulative potential rectifier capacity of
greater than 60 million ampere-hours per year to be considered small or
medium by accepting a limit on the maximum cumulative potential
rectifier usage. All such usage limits in non-Title V operating permits
are federally-enforceable for the purpose of this rule substitution.
(3) Permitting Agencies' breakdown/malfunction rules. Section
93102(i)(4) of the California Airborne Toxic Control Measure provides
that the owner or operator shall report breakdowns as required by the
permitting agency's breakdown rule. Under this rule substitution, the
permitting agencies' breakdown rules do not override or supplant the
requirements of section 93102(g)(4), (h)(5), (h)(6), (i)(3)(B), or
Appendix 3; neither expand the scope nor extend the time-frame of a
breakdown beyond the definition of section 93102(b)(7); and do not
grant the permitting agencies the authority to determine whether a
breakdown has occurred, to grant emergency variances, or to decide to
take no enforcement action. Owners or operators must submit written
breakdown reports even if the permitting agency has not formally
requested such reports.
(4) Performance Test Requirements. Section 93102(d)(3)(A) of the
California Airborne Toxic Control Measure allows the use of California
Air Resources Board Method 425, dated July 28, 1997, and South Coast
Air Quality
[[Page 12767]]
Management District Method 205.1, dated August 1991, for determining
chromium emissions. Any alternatives, modifications, or variations to
these test methods must be approved under the procedures in section
93102(k) of the California Airborne Toxic Control Measure.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-6258 Filed 3-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P