[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72568-72570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33329]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6514-5]


Section 112(l) Approval of the State of Florida's Rule Adjustment 
to the National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry 
Cleaning Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 9, 1999, the State of Florida, through the Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) submitted a request for 
adjustment of the ``National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards 
for Dry Cleaning Facilities,'' (PERC) National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). This Request was submitted through 
the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 63.92 and 63.91 of section 112 of the 
Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990. The requested adjustment by FDEP 
would allow the Periodic Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction reports as 
required in 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) of the General Provisions, to be 
retained on site at PERC NESHAP affected facility instead of submitting 
them to the delegated agency. EPA has reviewed this 112(l) adjustment 
request, and determined that the State has satisfied the necessary 
criteria of a complete submittal as specified in Secs. 63.92 and 63.91. 
EPA believes this 112(l) adjustment request by the State of Florida is 
approvable due to the State's consistent compliance and inspection rate 
of these specific area source PERC NESHAP affected facilities. EPA is 
hereby granting the State of Florida the authority to adjust its 
Periodic Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction reports, to accommodate 
area source PERC NESHAP affected facilities through 40 CFR 
63.92(b)(3)(viii) and 63.10(f)(2). Today's action is taken to modify 
the delegated PERC NESHAP to the State of Florida to accommodate 
sources classified by this PERC NESHAP as affected area sources as 
listed in 58 FR 49345 (September 22, 1993).

DATES: This direct final rule modification is effective February 28, 
2000 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by 
January 27, 2000. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a 
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and 
inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: Leonardo Ceron, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air and Radiation Technology 
Branch, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-3104 ; [email protected]. Copies of Florida's original 
submittal and accompanying documentation are available for public 
review during normal business hours, at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonardo Ceron, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, Air and Radiation Technology Branch, 
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303, 
Phone: (404) 562-9129; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 15, 1996, The State of Florida notified the EPA of its 
adoption by reference of the PERC NESHAP located at 40 CFR 63.320, and 
the applicable sections of 40 CFR 63.1, (the General Provisions) both 
of which were adopted into the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) 62-
213.300(3)(1), and 62-204.800. Subsequently on February 11, 1998, the 
State of Florida, through the FDEP submitted a request for an 
adjustment of the PERC NESHAP through the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 
63.92 and 63.91 of section 112 of the Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990. 
Based on discussions between the EPA Region 4 and FDEP, the State of 
Florida revised its initial request for adjustment and resubmitted a 
request on April 9, 1999. The revised 112(l) request was reviewed and 
deemed complete based on the criteria listed in 40 CFR 63.92 and 63.91. 
This adjustment will allow area source PERC NESHAP affected facilities 
the flexibility of retaining periodic startup, shutdown and malfunction 
reports required in 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5), on site, instead of submitting 
them on a periodic or biannual basis. However, this adjustment does not 
exempt or delay any Title V recordkeeping and compliance reporting 
requirements required of all Title V and general permit sources in the 
State of Florida. This regulatory flexibility for area source PERC 
NESHAP affected facilities is consistent with EPA's requirements for 
area sources subject to 40 CFR 63.340, 63.360, and 63.460. Accordingly, 
this determination is consistent with the applicability of the general 
provisions to 40 CFR 63.340, 63.360, and 63.460 which specifically 
exempt Sec. 63.10(d)(5). EPA's decision to approve this adjustment is 
further supported by FDEP's compliance effectiveness at area source 
PERC NESHAP affected facilities within the State of Florida. The State 
of Florida has provided EPA with a letter submitted on August 20, 1999. 
The letter submitted by FDEP provided evidence of the State wide 
compliance rate for the area source PERC NESHAP affected facilities, of 
at least 82%, based on compliance inspections by FDEP. This compliance 
rate has consistently improved since 1996 from 61%, to 1997 with 77%, 
to 1998 with 82%. The compliance rate is based on the percentage of 
``in-compliance'' inspection reports versa the ``non-compliance'' 
inspection reports by FDEP personnel on a 12 month basis. Compliance 
inspections are the most effective route to assert the requirements of 
NESHAPs as required in 40 CFR 63.320. The physical inspection of 
records and operations at each affected facility permitted by the State 
of Florida has allowed FDEP to achieve the above stated level of 
compliance. According to the State of Florida, inspections of PERC 
NESHAP affected facilities will continue to provide an increasing 
compliance rate and a verification of the periodic reporting which will 
be maintained on site in lieu of the flexibility provided by this 
adjustment today. The NESHAP adjustment provided herein will also 
assist small businesses in the reduction of cost associated with 
submitting biannual reports for the associated regulatory requirements, 
by allowing affected facilities to maintain records on site. Based on 
the review of the above documented request for flexibility to area 
source PERC NESHAP affected facilities, the State of Florida, through 
the FDEP, has satisfied all the requirements of 40 CFR 63.91 and 63.92. 
EPA therefore, is granting approval of this 112(l) request through the 
authority

[[Page 72569]]

listed in Secs. 63.92(b)(3)(viii) and 63.10(f)(2). The approved 112(l) 
adjustment is adopted by the State of Florida in F.A.C. 62-
213.300(3)(1).

II. Final Action

    In this action, EPA is approving modifications to provisions of 
Florida's delegated PERC requirements for dry cleaning facilities as 
they pertain to periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports 
listed in 40 CFR 63.1 for area source PERC NESHAP affected facilities 
within the State of Florida.
    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the 112(l) revision should 
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective February 28, 
2000 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments 
by January 27, 2000.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document 
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will 
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting 
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public 
is advised that this rule will be effective on February 28, 2000 and no 
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 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 OMB 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, Executive Order 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. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 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 
Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 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 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 EPA to develop an effective process permitting 
elected 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 governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 small governmental jurisdictions. 
This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because section 112(l) approvals of the Clean 
Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the 
section 112(l) approval does not create 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 
annual 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 annual 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 
requirements. Accordingly, no

[[Page 72570]]

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 February 28, 2000. 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

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

    Dated: December 3, 1999.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 99-33329 Filed 12-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P