[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69637-69643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32325]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-6508-7]
RIN 2060-A158


Title V Operating Permit Deferrals for Area Sources: National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chromium 
Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium 
Anodizing Tanks; Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation 
Operations; Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities; Halogenated 
Solvent Cleaning Machines; and Secondary Lead Smelting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).


[[Page 69638]]


ACTION: Final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This action continues to allow permitting authorities the 
discretion to defer Clean Air Act (Act) title V operating permit 
requirements until December 9, 2004, for area sources of air pollution 
that are subject to five NESHAPs. These amendments continue to relieve 
industrial sources, State, local, and tribal agencies, and the EPA 
Regional Offices of an undue regulatory burden during a time when 
available resources are needed to implement the title V permit program 
for major sources. Under these amendments, sources must continue to 
meet all applicable requirements, including all applicable emission 
control, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements 
established by the respective NESHAP.
    The title V operating permit deferral is an option at the 
permitting authority's discretion under EPA-approved State operating 
permit programs and not an automatic deferral that the source can 
invoke. Thus, State operating permit authorities are free to require 
area sources subject to the five NESHAPS to obtain title V permits. In 
areas where no State operating permit program is in effect, and the 
Federal operating permit program is administered by EPA, we will defer 
the requirement for title V permitting for these area sources until 
December 9, 2004.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The following dockets, containing supporting information for 
the original rulemakings, are available for public inspection between 8 
a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal holidays: 
Docket No. A-88-11, subpart M NESHAP; Docket No. A-88-02, subpart N 
NESHAP; Docket No. A-88-03, subpart O NESHAP; Docket No. A-92-39, 
subpart T NESHAP; Docket No. A-92-43, subpart X NESHAP. These dockets 
are available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 
(6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-
7548, Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). We may charge a 
reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on today's 
action, contact Mr. Rick Colyer, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5262, fax number (919) 541-0942, or 
e-mail: [email protected]. For further information regarding 
applicability of your source to today's action, contact your title V 
permitting authority.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Judicial Review. We proposed these 
amendments on August 18, 1999 (64 FR 45116). This action promulgating 
these amendments constitutes final administrative action concerning 
that proposal. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of 
these final amendments is available only by filing a petition for 
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by 
February 14, 2000. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, only an 
objection to this rule that was raised with reasonable specificity 
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial 
review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements 
established by today's final action may not be challenged separately in 
any civil or criminal proceeding brought by us to enforce these 
requirements.
    Technology Transfer Network. The Technology Transfer Network (TTN) 
is a network of our electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control. You can access the TTN through the Internet at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/. If you need more information on the TTN, call the 
HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    The preamble outline follows.

I. What types of facilities are potentially affected by these 
amendments?
II Summary of the Proposed Rule and Description of the Final Rule
III. What has changed since proposal?
IV What comments did we receive on the proposed amendments?
V. What are the administrative requirements for these amendments?
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments
C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
D. Congressional Review Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. What types of facilities are potentially affected by these 
amendments?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this 
action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 North American
                                    Industry
          Category               Classification              Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities.
                                  System Codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................  331492..............  Secondary lead smelters.
                              332, 333, 334, 335,   Halogenated solvent cleaning machines at fabricated metal
                               336, 447.             product manufacturing facilities, machinery manufacturing
                                                     facilities, computer and electronic product manufacturing
                                                     facilities, electrical equipment, appliance, and component
                                                     manufacturing facilities, transportation equipment
                                                     manufacturing facilities, and gasoline stations.
                              332, 333, 334, 335,   Chromium electroplating machines at fabricated metal product
                               336.                  manufacturing facilities, machinery manufacturing
                                                     facilities, computer and electronic product manufacturing
                                                     facilities, electrical equipment, appliance, and component
                                                     manufacturing facilities, and transportation equipment
                                                     manufacturing facilities.
                              8123................  Dry cleaning and laundry facilities.
                              3391................  Ethylene oxide sterilizers at medical equipment and supplies
                                                     manufacturing facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers of the entities likely to be affected by this action. 
This table lists the types of entities that we are now aware could be 
affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this 
table could also be affected. To determine whether your facility, 
company, business organization, etc., is affected by this action, you 
should carefully examine the applicability criteria in the following 
sections of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):
     Sec. 63.320, perchloroethylene dry cleaning.
     Sec. 63.340, chromium electroplating.
     Sec. 63.360, ethylene oxide sterilizers.
     Sec. 63.460, halogenated solvent cleaners.
     Sec. 63.541, secondary lead smelters.

[[Page 69639]]

    If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to 
a particular entity, consult your title V permitting authority.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule and Description of the Final Rule

    The purpose of EPA's proposed amendments was to allow title V 
permitting authorities to extend the deadline for area sources subject 
to five NESHAPs for submitting title V permit applications. The source 
categories covered by the proposal were hard and decorative chromium 
electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks, ethylene oxide commercial 
sterilization and fumigation operations, perchloroethylene dry cleaning 
facilities, secondary lead smelting facilities, and halogenated solvent 
cleaning machines at area sources. We have previously allowed 
permitting authorities to defer permit applications for these area 
sources in a series of rulemakings (60 FR 29484, June 5, 1995; 61 FR 
27785, June 3, 1996; and 64 FR 37683, July 13, 1999). Those provisions 
expire on December 9, 1999. Since the conditions prompting the 
allowance for previous deferrals have not changed (see 64 FR 45116, 
August 18, 1999), we proposed to extend the deferral provisions for the 
five NESHAPs for another 5 years. We also proposed to revise the 
relevant regulations in order to improve their understandability, as 
directed by President Clinton's June 1, 1998, Executive Memorandum on 
Plain Language in Government Writing.
    Our authority for establishing the deferrals is section 502(a) of 
the Act, which allows us to exempt non-major sources from the 
permitting requirement if we find that compliance with title V is 
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on the sources. 
Our General Provisions implementing section 112 of the Act provide that 
unless we explicitly exempt or defer area sources subject to a NESHAP 
from the title V permitting requirement, they are subject to permitting 
(40 CFR 63.1(c)(2)(iii)). As a result, under 40 CFR 70.3(b)(2), 
71.3(b)(2) and 63.1(c)(2), we are to determine whether area sources 
will be required to obtain title V permits when we adopt the underlying 
NESHAP.
    When we initially established the ability for permitting 
authorities to defer these area sources from title V, we stated that we 
would decide whether to adopt permanent exemptions by the time the 
deferrals expired, and that we would continue to evaluate the 
permitting authorities' implementation and enforcement of the NESHAP 
requirements for area sources not covered by title V permits, the 
likely benefit of permitting such sources, and the costs and other 
burdens on such sources associated with obtaining title V permits. 
However, as we explained in the August 18, 1999, proposal, we do not 
yet have sufficient information to determine whether permanent 
exemptions are warranted for these area sources and are continuing to 
evaluate the other considerations. Thus, we are not prepared to make 
decisions that either permanently relieve these area sources from title 
V or that require them to become immediately subject to the permitting 
requirement.
    Moreover, we noted that many permitting authorities are struggling 
to timely issue initial title V permits to major sources and other 
sources that have been subject to the permitting requirement since the 
beginning of the program, and that we are concerned about the impact of 
subjecting area sources to the permit application deadlines on 
permitting authorities. We stated that we believe the most reasonable 
approach is to extend the status quo for one more 5-year cycle of 
permitting while we obtain necessary information, rather than to decide 
by default by allowing the existing deferral to expire.
    Today's final amendments adopt the amendments as proposed and 
extend the option of approved part 70 permitting authorities to defer 
the subject area sources from the part 70 permitting requirements. The 
deferral may extend until December 9, 2004. The deferral is not an 
automatic benefit provided to the sources. Rather, permitting 
authorities may exercise their discretion to either defer the area 
sources or to require them to apply for and obtain part 70 permits. 
Some permitting authorities may decide that area sources in the subject 
source categories warrant permitting based on local considerations or 
other factors, or they may have in place streamlined permitting 
mechanisms (such as the use of general permits or ``permits by rule'') 
that minimize the burden on both the permitting authority and the 
source.
    For area sources that are not covered by an effective approved part 
70 program and are subject to the EPA-administered part 71 permitting 
program, today's final rule amendments hereby announce that area 
sources subject to the five NESHAPS mentioned above are deferred from 
permitting under part 71 until December 9, 2004. For purposes of both 
part 70 and part 71, for the reasons discussed in the proposal (64 FR 
45116, August 18, 1999) and as explained below, we conclude that 
requiring all area sources subject to the NESHAPs that are being 
amended by today's rulemaking to obtain title V permits at this time 
would constitute an impracticable, infeasible and unnecessary burden on 
these area sources, and would be an additional burden on the permitting 
authorities that have not yet determined that they are prepared to 
begin permitting these sources.

III. What Has Changed Since Proposal?

    We received seven comment letters, most of which supported the 
proposed deferral extension. We have considered all comments received 
(summarized and responded to in the next section) and concluded that no 
changes from proposal are necessary.

IV. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Amendments?

    The following paragraphs contain summaries of the comments we 
received on the proposal and our responses.
    Comment: Most commenters supported the proposed deferral of title V 
permitting of area sources. Commenters provided numerous reasons for 
their support, including assertions that the subject area sources are 
already adequately controlled, and that there would be no additional 
environmental benefit of requiring them to get permits; that permitting 
would impose a significant unnecessary burden on regulatory agencies 
and/or sources; that the deferral will allow EPA additional time to 
determine whether permanent title V exemptions for area sources are 
appropriate; that additional time is necessary for permitting 
authorities to review and issue title V permits to sources currently 
required to obtain title V permits; and that current rules and 
permitting mechanisms already sufficiently address area sources under 
State and local programs.
    Response: We appreciate the support for the proposed extension of 
the deferral. The EPA understands that these area sources are already 
required to comply with emissions standards regardless of whether they 
are required to obtain permits. However, there are some general 
advantages to permitting that should not be overlooked. Requiring 
sources to obtain title V permits helps assure that complex 
applicability determinations, i.e., which requirements apply and how, 
are resolved prior to the issuance of a permit. In addition to 
providing clarity for a source, the resolution of a source's 
applicability issues facilitates both civil and criminal enforcement of 
the source's applicable requirements. In the process of applying for a 
title V permit, many sources have discovered that they

[[Page 69640]]

are out of compliance with various applicable requirements. The 
regulations at 40 CFR parts 70 and 71 require sources to self-certify 
compliance with applicable requirements initially and annually and 
provide additional assurance of ongoing emissions reductions. 
Permitting provides an opportunity for the public to comment on whether 
a source is complying with its applicable requirements. Permits also 
require prompt reporting of deviations from the permit. In short, one 
of the benefits of title V permitting is that it enhances the 
effectiveness of rules.
    We are also aware that some States and local agencies subject these 
sources to non-title V permitting programs that may serve purposes 
similar to those of title V. At this point in the implementation of 
title V, we agree that there may be significant undue burden on 
permitting authorities not prepared for area source permitting and on 
area sources preparing title V permit applications. Some permitting 
authorities did not fully anticipate the amount of work necessary to 
implement the title V program, and clearly some of these question 
whether the additional work of permitting thousands of area sources 
provides a commensurate benefit. Moreover, many of these permitting 
authorities are currently struggling to issue permits to major sources 
and other covered sources, and are not yet prepared to add to this 
significant permitting responsibility.
    While for some permitting authorities this problem could possibly 
be overcome by using more streamlined permitting approaches, e.g., 
general permits (see Secs. 70.6(d) and 71.6(d)), we may use the 
deferral period to consider ways to reduce the permitting burden on 
area sources and to better accommodate the needs of area source 
permitting. We will also use the additional time to assess whether or 
not permanent exemptions are appropriate.
    We agree that permitting authorities should be allowed to defer, if 
necessary, title V permitting for area sources, if additional time is 
necessary to issue permits to sources currently required to obtain 
title V permits. It is apparent that title V permitting is not at the 
stage originally envisioned when the part 70 rules were promulgated. At 
this point in time, EPA anticipated that most, if not all, part 70 
permits would have been issued to sources subject to the program upon 
its effective date, and that permitting authorities would be in a 
better position to expand the program to other sources. However, many 
permitting authorities need additional time to issue permits to sources 
that are currently subject to the program and, therefore, are not at an 
implementation stage that allows them to shift their attention to area 
sources.
    Comment: One commenter claimed that the deferred area sources would 
be allowed to continue to emit chemicals unchecked into the air, 
exposing employees and the public to uncontrolled levels of the emitted 
chemicals during the deferral period. This commenter also felt that 
funding of expanding the title V permit program to cover area sources 
would be no problem because permit fees would make it unnecessary to 
draw upon limited existing resources. This commenter was also concerned 
that the permitting deferral would impede public access to 
environmental data. The commenter stressed the benefits of the 
permitting process, including those involving consistent reporting 
procedures, improved measurements of pollution, improved air quality 
data, and greater public participation.
    Response: The permit program does not directly control emissions to 
the air, but as discussed above enhances compliance assurance with all 
applicable requirements including emissions limitations. The permit is 
essentially a comprehensive document reflecting the regulatory 
requirements that the source must already meet. The existing regulatory 
requirements that impose emission standards, including these five 
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules, irrespective of the 
title V permit, provide the air emission reduction requirements, and 
most of the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements under 
the Act that are needed to determine and enforce compliance. All of 
these rules are still in effect, and sources must comply with them. 
Therefore, the absence of a title V permit for an area source subject 
to a NESHAP will not allow it to emit pollutants ``unchecked'' into the 
air.
    While EPA agrees that title V permit fees should be set at levels 
high enough to allow the permitting authority to hire and retain 
qualified permit writers, we are not convinced that the ability to 
charge area sources fees alone would enable permitting authorities to 
immediately expand their title V programs to cover area sources. This 
is because permitting authorities have also faced significant problems 
in timely issuance of permits to major sources, which are also covered 
by fees. Since area sources are far more numerous than major sources, 
we expect that forcing an expansion at this point could raise problems 
apart from adequate funding. Many permitting authorities at the 
beginning of the title V permit program did not fully anticipate what 
was involved in implementing the title V program, have still not caught 
up on their backlog of major source permit applications, and may not, 
merely through imposing fees, feel prepared to expand title V 
permitting to area sources.
    Finally, while the presence of a title V permit does enhance public 
access to information and facilitates citizen participation in 
enforcement, the permit deferral should not deny public access to 
environmental information. All non-confidential emissions information 
that underlying applicable requirements direct sources to send to 
implementing agencies is publically available under the applicable rule 
requirements, regardless of the source's permit status (see 40 CFR 
63.15).
    Comment: One State permitting authority commenter believes that 
area source permitting can occur without creating an undue burden by 
issuing title V general permits, or ``permits by rule,'' to area 
sources. This commenter further recommended establishing a strong 
compliance assistance program to enhance the permitting program. In 
addition, the commenter supported a strong inspection program and good 
recordkeeping requirements. However, the commenter felt that reporting 
requirements were an ineffective burden for most area sources. Finally, 
the commenter recommended that should EPA decide to continue the 
deferral as proposed, it should use the deferral period to review and 
revise the title V program to make it more appropriate for area 
sources.
    Response: The commenter is correct in pointing out that general 
permits issued under 40 CFR parts 70 and 71 can be used and can be an 
effective way to issue permits to area sources without creating an 
undue burden for the source categories being covered by the general 
permits. The commenter provides a good example of the discretionary 
nature of the deferral. The deferral being promulgated in today's 
rulemaking does not automatically apply to every non-Federal title V 
permitting authority. Rather, this rulemaking allows non-Federal 
permitting authorities to choose whether deferral from title V 
permitting for area sources subject to one or more of these five MACT 
standards is appropriate for the area sources in question. In this 
case, the commenter has been able to structure his permitting program 
so that the permitting authority can issue permits to area sources 
easily and with little additional burden to the sources themselves. The 
commenter has also implemented a strong compliance

[[Page 69641]]

assistance program, coupled with a strong inspection program and good 
recordkeeping requirements to complement the general permits being 
issued. The EPA applauds the commenter's ability to overcome potential 
difficulties in permitting thousands of area sources.
    However, there are many permitting authorities that continue to 
experience difficulties in issuing title V permits, even to major 
sources. This, in turn, would put a burden on the area sources that 
would have to get permits if the deferral were to expire because the 
permitting authority may not be able to provide much assistance to area 
sources in preparing their permit applications. Many permitting 
authorities may not be able to simply emulate the permitting approach 
taken by the commenter because of legislative or other constraints. 
This is evidenced by the other permitting authorities that commented in 
support of the deferral.
    The EPA will take under advisement the commenter's suggestions that 
we review and revise, if necessary, the area source component of the 
title V permit program during the deferral period. The EPA is not at 
this point prepared to commit to such a revision or even agree that one 
is appropriate, but would welcome further comments on this issue.
    Comment: Several commenters further recommended a permanent 
exemption from title V permitting for area sources subject to these 
five MACT standards.
    Response: For essentially the same reasons that we are not prepared 
to immediately require permits for area sources, we are not 
promulgating a permanent exemption for these area sources at this time. 
That is, EPA is not in a position to conclude whether these sources 
should or should not be required to obtain permits. Several permitting 
authorities are currently able to accommodate area source permitting. 
The EPA will weigh the burden of title V permitting of area sources 
with the advantages of title V permitting in making future decisions 
regarding permanent exemptions. The EPA will use this deferral period 
to determine if title V permitting is necessary for certain or all area 
sources subject to these five MACT standards and deferred as of this 
rulemaking from title V permitting until December 9, 2004. As stated in 
the first deferral rulemaking for these five MACT source categories, we 
will also continue to evaluate State and local agencies' implementation 
and enforcement of these five MACT standards for area sources not 
covered by title V permits, the likely benefit of permitting such 
sources, and the costs and other burdens on such sources associated 
with obtaining a title V permit (see 61 FR 27785 (June 3, 1996)).

V. What Are the Administrative Requirements for These Amendments?

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and, therefore, subject to Office of Management (OMB) review and the 
requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that these amendments do not qualify as a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and, therefore, are not subject to review by OMB.

B. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation 
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults 
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 
13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified 
section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of 
EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal 
governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement 
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive 
Order 13084 requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting 
elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.''
    These amendments do not alter the control standards imposed by 40 
CFR part 63, subparts M, N, O, T, or X for any source, including any 
that may affect communities of the Indian tribal governments. Under the 
amendments, sources must continue to meet all applicable requirements, 
including all applicable emission control, monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements established by the respective NESHAP. Hence, 
today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to these 
amendments.

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have Federalism implications'' are defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide OMB in a separately identified section of the preamble to 
the rule, a

[[Page 69642]]

federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and 
local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the 
Agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a 
statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local 
officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule 
with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive 
Order 12866, EPA must include a certification from the agency's 
Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of 
Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
    These final amendments will not have substantial direct effects on 
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 
These amendments impose no requirements on the States, and simply allow 
the States the option to exercise their discretion to defer certain 
area sources from title V permitting. These amendments neither preempt 
States from requiring these sources to obtain permits, nor impose any 
burden on States seeking to do so. Rather, the intent of these 
amendments is to continue to allow States and their area sources to 
avoid burdens that would befall them if EPA were to allow the current 
regulatory provisions to expire. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 
the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

D. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that these amendments do not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year nor do they significantly or uniquely 
impact small governments, because they contain no requirements that 
apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Thus, 
today's amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 
and 205 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with these final 
amendments. The EPA has also determined that these amendments will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, because they impose no additional regulatory requirements on 
owners or operators of affected sources and allow State and federal 
permitting authorities to continue to relieve owners or operators of 
such sources of regulatory requirements that may otherwise apply if 
this action is not taken.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    These amendments do not require the collection of any information. 
Therefore, the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act do not 
apply.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns and 
environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable too other potentially 
effectively and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the 
Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. These amendments are not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because they do not establish an 
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary 
consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, 
sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are

[[Page 69643]]

developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards 
bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary 
consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal 
agencies like EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations 
when an agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary 
consensus standards.
    These amendments do not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated December 8, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons cited in the preamble, part 63, title 40, chapter I 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart M--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.320 is amended by revising paragraph (k) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.320  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (k) If you are the owner or operator of a source subject to the 
provisions of this subpart, you are also subject to title V permitting 
requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. Your title V 
permitting authority may defer your source from these permitting 
requirements until December 9, 2004, if your source is not a major 
source and is not located at a major source as defined under 40 CFR 
63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, and is not otherwise required to obtain a title V 
permit. If you receive a deferral under this section, you must submit a 
title V permit application by December 9, 2005. You must continue to 
comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources, 
even if you receive a deferral from title V permitting requirements.

Subpart N--[Amended]

    3. Section 63.340 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 63.340  Applicability and designation of sources.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) If you are the owner or operator of a source subject to the 
provisions of this subpart, you are also subject to title V permitting 
requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. Your title V 
permitting authority may defer your source from these permitting 
requirements until December 9, 2004, if your source is not a major 
source and is not located at a major source as defined under 40 CFR 
63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, and is not otherwise required to obtain a title V 
permit. If you receive a deferral under this section, you must submit a 
title V permit application by December 9, 2005. You must continue to 
comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources, 
even if you receive a deferral from title V permitting requirements.

Subpart O--[Amended]

    4. Section 63.360 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.360  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (f) If you are the owner or operator of a source subject to the 
provisions of this subpart, you are also subject to title V permitting 
requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. Your title V 
permitting authority may defer your source from these permitting 
requirements until December 9, 2004, if your source is not a major 
source and is not located at a major source as defined under 40 CFR 
63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, and is not otherwise required to obtain a title V 
permit. If you receive a deferral under this section, you must submit a 
title V permit application by December 9, 2005. You must continue to 
comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources, 
even if you receive a deferral from title V permitting requirements.
* * * * *

Subpart T--[Amended]

    5. Section 63.468 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.468  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (j) The Administrator has determined, pursuant to section 502(a) of 
the Act, that if you are an owner or operator of any batch cold solvent 
cleaning machine that is not a major source and is not located at a 
major source, as defined under 40 CFR 63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, you are 
exempt from title V permitting requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 or 
71, as applicable, for that source, provided you are not otherwise 
required to obtain a title V permit. If you own or operate any other 
solvent cleaning machine subject to the provisions of this subpart, you 
are also subject to title V permitting requirements. Your title V 
permitting authority may defer your source from these permitting 
requirements until December 9, 2004, if your source is not a major 
source and is not located at a major source as defined under 40 CFR 
63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, and is not otherwise required to obtain a title V 
permit. If you receive a deferral under this section, you must submit a 
title V permit application by December 9, 2005. You must continue to 
comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources, 
even if you receive a deferral from title V permitting requirements.
* * * * *

Subpart X--[Amended]

    6. Section 63.541 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.541  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) If you are the owner or operator of a source subject to the 
provisions of this subpart, you are also subject to title V permitting 
requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. Your title V 
permitting authority may defer your source from these permitting 
requirements until December 9, 2004, if your source is not a major 
source and is not located at a major source as defined under 40 CFR 
63.2, 70.2, or 71.2, and is not otherwise required to obtain a title V 
permit. If you receive a deferral under this section, you must submit a 
title V permit application by December 9, 2005. You must continue to 
comply with the provisions of this subpart applicable to area sources, 
even if you receive a deferral from title V permitting requirements.

[FR Doc. 99-32325 Filed 12-9-99; 3:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P