[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61417-61422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21186]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2003-0161, FRL-7987-6]
RIN 2060-AK23
National Emission Standards for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing
Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed action; request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 15, 1994, we promulgated national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from magnetic tape
manufacturing operations (59 FR 64580). The national emission standards
limit and control HAP that are known or suspected to cause cancer or
have other serious health or environmental effect.
Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to assess
the risk remaining (residual risk) after the application of national
emission standards controls and to promulgate more stringent standards,
if necessary, to protect public health with an ample margin of safety
and to prevent adverse environmental effect. Also, section 112(d)(6) of
the CAA requires EPA to review and revise the national emission
standards, as necessary, taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies. Based on our findings from the
residual risk and technology review, we are proposing no further action
at this time to revise the national emission standards. Today's
proposed action requests public comments on the residual risk and
technology review for the national emission standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 8,
2005.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by November 14, 2005, a public hearing will be held
approximately 30 days following publication of this notice in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0161, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edkpub/index.jsp.
EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's
preferred method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected].
Fax: (202) 566-1741 and (919) 541-5689.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center (6102T), Attention Docket Number OAR-2003-0161, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of
two copies.
Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID Number OAR-2003-
0161, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-108, Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to
the contact person for the proposed action listed below (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0161.
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edkpub/index.jsp, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as
CBI only to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer, U.S. EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0161, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. The EPA EDOCKET and the
Federal regulations.gov Web sites are ``anonymous access'' systems,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET on-line
or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102).
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edkpub/index.jsp. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID Number OAR-
2003-0161, EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposed
action, contact Mr. H. Lynn Dail, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Coatings and Consumer
Products Group (C539-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-2363, fax number (919) 541-5689, e-mail
address: [email protected]. For questions on the residual risk
analysis, contact Ms. Maria Pimentel, EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Risk and Exposure
Assessment Group (C404-01),
[[Page 61418]]
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-5280,
fax number (919) 541-0840, e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The regulated categories
and entities affected by the national emission standards include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS a code entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................. 334613, 322222, 325992.................... Operations at major sources
that are engaged in the
surface coating of magnetic
tape.
Federal Government................... .......................................... Not affected.
State, local, tribal government...... .......................................... Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the
magnetic tape national emission standards. To determine whether your
facility would be affected by the magnetic tape national emission
standards, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part
63.701(a) of subpart EE (national emission standards for magnetic tape
manufacturing operations). If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of the magnetic tape national emission standards to a
particular entity, contact Mr. Lynn Dail, listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposed action will also be available on
the Worldwide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated
rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
Related Information. We have prepared two summary documents
covering the development of, and the rationale for, this proposal and
the residual risk analysis. These reports are entitled: ``Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions from Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations--
Background Information for Technology and Residual Risk Review'' and
``Residual Risk Assessment for the Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Source
Category.'' Both documents are available in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0161. See the ``Docket'' section above for docket information.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10
a.m. and will be held at EPA's campus in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons interested in
presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing
is to be held should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer
Products Group, Emission Standards Division, EPA (C539-03), Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-7946.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What did the magnetic tape national emission standards
accomplish?
C. What are the conclusions of the residual risk assessment?
D. What are the conclusions of the technology review?
II. Proposed Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage
regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources.
In the first stage, after EPA has identified categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in the CAA, section 112(d) calls
for us to promulgate national technology-based emission standards for
sources within those categories that emit or have the potential to emit
any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination
of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year (known as major sources),
as well as for certain area sources emitting less than those amounts.
These technology-based standards must reflect the maximum reductions of
HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-
air health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
For area sources, CAA Section 112(d)(5) provides that in lieu of
MACT, the Administrator may elect to promulgate standards or
requirements which provide for the use of generally available control
technologies or management practices and such standards are commonly
referred to as generally available control technology (GACT) standards.
EPA is then required to review these technology-based standards and
to revise them ``as necessary, taking into account developments in
practices, processes and control technologies,'' no less frequently
than every 8 years.
The second stage in standard-setting is described in section 112(f)
of the CAA. This provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report
to Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating risk
posed (or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the
MACT standards, the public health significance of those risks, the
means and costs of controlling them, actual health effects to persons
in proximity to emitting sources, and recommendations as to legislation
regarding such remaining risk. The EPA prepared and submitted this
report (``Residual Risk Report to Congress,'' EPA-453/R-99-001) in
March 1999. The Congress did not act on any of the recommendations in
the report, triggering the second stage of the standard-setting
process, the residual risk phase.
Section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine for each section 112(d)
source category whether the MACT standards protect public health with
an ample margin of safety. If the MACT standards for HAP ``classified
as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce
lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to
[[Page 61419]]
emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less than one
in one million,'' EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the
source category (or subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample
margin of safety. EPA must also adopt more stringent standards to
prevent an adverse environmental effect (defined in section 112(a)(7)
as ``any significant and widespread adverse effect * * * to wildlife,
aquatic life, or natural resources * * *.''), but must consider cost,
energy, safety, and other relevant factors in doing so.
B. What did the magnetic tape national emission standards accomplish?
On December 15, 1994, we promulgated the national emission
standards for magnetic tape manufacturing operations (59 FR 64580) and
required existing sources to comply with the national emission
standards by December 15, 1996.
The Magnetic Tape national emission standards cover HAP emissions
from surface coatings used in the manufacture of magnetic and optical
recording media used in audio, video, computer and magnetic stripe tape
and disks. The emission units regulated by the Magnetic Tape national
emission standards are storage tanks, mix preparation equipment,
coating operations, waste handling devices, condenser vents in solvent
recovery, particulate transfer operations, wash sinks for cleaning
removable parts, equipment for flushing fixed lines, and wastewater
treatment operations. The Magnetic Tape national emission standards
regulates only those sources located at major sources. During the
development of the national emission standards, we identified 25
existing magnetic recording media and magnetic stripe facilities, of
which 14 were considered major and, therefore, subject to the national
emission standards. Currently, there are only six magnetic tape
manufacturing facilities remaining in the United States, all of which
are major.
In general, the current national emission standards require an
overall HAP control efficiency of at least 95 percent for emissions
from each solvent storage tank, piece of mix preparation equipment,
coating operation, waste handling device, or condenser vent in solvent
recovery. If an incinerator is used to control these emissions points,
an outlet HAP concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by
volume by compound may be met, instead of achieving 95 percent control,
as long as the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent. If a
coating with a HAP content no greater than 0.18 kilograms per liter
(1.5 pounds per gallon) of coatings solids is used, that coating
operation does not require further control.
Several solvent and particulate HAP are used in the magnetic tape
manufacturing industry. Currently, the HAP solvents used to the
greatest extent are methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and toluene, and the
particulate HAP are cobalt and cobalt compounds, used at one facility.
One individual facility uses 0.4 pound per year (lb/yr) of
acrylonitrile and another facility uses 7 lbs/yr of lead. At the time
of promulgation of the national emission standards, however, the
solvent HAP in use included MEK, toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone,
toluene diisocyanate, ethylene glycol, methanol, xylenes, ethyl
benzene, and acetaldehyde; and the particulate HAP included chromium,
cobalt, and their respective compounds. Several of these HAP are no
longer used in the industry. The HAP, MEK and toluene, are used at all
facilities; however, HAP such as n-hexane, methanol, methyl isobutyl
ketone, xylenes, triethylamine, phenol, styrene, hydrogen cloride,
ethyl acrylate and ethyl benzene are selectively used at individual
facilities according to their coating formulation. At the time of
promulgation of the Magnetic Tape national emission standards, we
estimated that these HAP emissions, including MEK and toluene, would be
reduced by 2,080 Mg/yr (2,300 tpy) from a baseline of 4,060 Mg/yr
(4,470 tpy).
C. What are the conclusions of the residual risk assessment?
Source Category Characterization
As required by section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, we prepared a risk
assessment to determine the residual risk posed by magnetic tape
manufacturing operations after implementation of the national emission
standards. We compiled a list of the six magnetic tape manufacturing
facilities still in operation in the United States based on inventory
information we gathered from a number of manufacturing facilities and
State environmental program offices (e.g., whether these facilities
were still operating and manufacturing magnetic tape).
Emissions Data
The major HAP emitted by the magnetic tape manufacturing source
category are MEK and toluene, which comprise 97 percent of all
emissions in the source category. Other HAP such as n-hexane, methanol,
methyl isobutyl ketone, xylenes, triethylamine, phenol, styrene,
hydrogen chloride, ethyl acrylate, and ethyl benzene are used at
individual facilities in very small amounts. The six magnetic tape
manufacturing facilities have HAP emissions ranging from 3.9 to 214 Mg/
yr (4.3 to 236 tpy). The total annual HAP emissions, nationally, are
estimated to be 468 Mg/yr (516 tpy).
The primary sources of emissions and parameter data for the
residual risk assessment were the 1999 National Emissions Inventory,
2000 Toxics Release Inventory, State offices, and the facilities
involved. The emissions and parameter data used for the residual risk
assessment have been placed in the docket. Using these data, we modeled
exposure concentrations surrounding the six facilities, calculated the
risk of possible chronic cancer and noncancer health effects, evaluated
whether acute exposures might exceed relevant health thresholds, and
investigated human health multipathway and ecological risks.
While the emissions data used in the residual risk assessment
represent actual levels of emissions for the base year, we believe
these levels are not substantially different from the maximum emission
levels allowed under the current national emission standards.
Therefore, the results of the risk assessment represent our
approximation of the maximum risks which would be allowed under
compliance with the national emission standards.
Results
Consistent with the tiered modeling approach described in the
Residual Risk Report to Congress, the risk assessment for this source
category started with a simple assessment which used conservative
assumptions in lieu of site-specific data. The results demonstrated
negligible risks for potential chronic cancer, chronic noncancer, and
acute noncancer health endpoints. Also, no significant human health
multipathway or ecological risks were identified. Had the resulting
risks been determined to be non-negligible, a more refined analysis
with site-specific data would have been necessary. The assessment is
described in detail in the memorandum ``Residual Risk Assessment for
the Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Source Category'' and the addendum
memorandum, available in the docket. The assessment was peer reviewed
by EPA scientists and revised, and the peer review comments have also
been placed in the docket. Brief summaries of the results follow.
Cancer. One of the six facilities within the magnetic tape
manufacturing source category was quantitatively
[[Page 61420]]
assessed for potential cancer risks due to the acrylonitrile emissions
from the facility. Acrylonitrile is classified as a probable human
carcinogen by EPA. The other five facilities did not emit any amount of
known, probable, or possible carcinogens. The estimated maximum
lifetime (i.e., 70-year) individual cancer risk associated with the
facility was 1-in-100 million, or 0.01-in-a million. This is
significantly less than the statutory trigger of 1-in-a million in
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA.
Chronic noncancer. The maximum chronic noncancer hazard indices
(HI) were calculated for the emissions of all the noncarcinogens with
published health threshold values for all six of the existing
facilities. The maximum target organ-specific HI calculated for any of
the facilities was 0.3, the major portion of the risk stemming from
predicted exposures to cobalt. Cobalt is a respiratory toxicant when
inhaled, but the chronic inhalation of air concentrations below 0.1
microgram per cubic meter ([mu]g/m3) is considered to be
without risk of adverse health effects, as stated in the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's Toxicological Profile. Since
all noncancer exposures were well below a target organ-specific HI of
1, we do not believe that chronic exposures from these facilities pose
a public health concern.
Acute. All maximum predicted 1-hour exposure concentrations for the
pollutants emitted by the six magnetic tape manufacturing facilities
were below all appropriate acute dose-response values. Therefore, we do
not believe that acute exposures from these facilities pose any
potential for a public health concern.
Human health multipathway and ecological. Some persistent and
bioaccumulative (PB) HAP may pose human health risks via exposure
pathways other than inhalation and can also pose ecological risks by
entering the wildlife food chain. Based on emissions data obtained for
the magnetic tape manufacturing source category, lead is the only PB
HAP reported as emitted by magnetic tape sources. Lead is a
neurotoxicant when ingested or inhaled above acceptable concentration
levels. Therefore, we investigated lead for potential human health
impact via noninhalation pathways (e.g., ingestion).
Lead was reported as emitted by one of the six facilities in the
magnetic tape manufacturing source category. Although lead is not
typically emitted from magnetic tape manufacturing processes, we
nonetheless included those emissions in our analysis in an attempt to
capture the worst-case impact for the facility.
The maximum annual average air concentration of lead associated
with this facility was estimated at 0.00032 [mu]g/m3. The
maximum soil concentration of lead due to deposition over a 30-year
time period at a census block centroid was estimated at 4.6 milligrams
per gram. All of the predicted blood lead levels associated with the
one facility were estimated at concentrations ranging from 2.5 to 4.2
micrograms per deciliter ([mu]g/dL) for the various age groups
evaluated. The reference value which represents a level of concern for
children as specified by EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention is 10 [mu]g/dL. Thus, no significant human health
multipathway risks are expected.
We also consider the potential for adverse environmental effect as
part of the assessment. Regarding the inhalation exposure to pathway
for terrestrial mammals, we conclude that human toxicity values for the
inhalation pathway are generally protective of terrestrial mammals.
Therefore, because the maximum predicted cancer risks and noncancer
hazards to humans from inhalation exposure are extremely low, we expect
there to be no significant or widespread adverse effect to terrestrial
mammals from inhalation exposure to HAP emitted from facilities in this
source category. Further, to ensure that the potential for adverse
effect to wildlife (including birds) resulting from noninhalation
exposure is low, we carried out a screening-level multipathway
assessment of the potential for adverse ecological effect due to the
deposition of lead. The predicted soil lead concentrations from the one
facility that emits lead are low compared to the screening value for
lead in soil; therefore, we do not expect any unacceptable risks to
ecological receptors. Since our results showed no screening-level
ecological effect, we do not believe that there is any potential for an
adverse effect on threatened or endangered species or on their critical
habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR 402.14(a). Because of these
results, EPA concluded that a consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Service is not necessary.
Assessment Conclusions
Since our assessment shows that the Magnetic Tape national emission
standards pose maximum lifetime excess cancer significantly less than
1-in-1 million, and since noncancer health risks and ecological risks
were found to be insignificant for this source category, EPA is not
obligated to adopt standards under section 112(f) of the CAA.
EPA recognizes that there may be circumstances where it would be
appropriate to delist a source category even after MACT standards has
been implemented. For example, an industry may have changed
sufficiently in the years since the category was listed and the MACT
standards issued, such that even in the absence of the MACT standards,
emissions from the category would be sufficiently low to meet the
criteria of section 112(c)(9). However, in the present case we have not
developed data to support such an approach. We request comment on this
approach. We also request comment (with supporting data) on whether
this industry has changed such that it would be appropriate to delist
the source category or a distinct subcategory.
D. What are the conclusions of the technology review?
Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise, as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies), emission standards promulgated under section
112 no less often than every 8 years. We reviewed available information
about the industry, talked with industry representatives, and contacted
several facilities in the industry to investigate available emission
control technologies and the potential for additional emission
reductions. We did not identify any additional control technologies
beyond those that are already in widespread use within the source
category (e.g., carbon adsorbers, condensers). The only developments
identified involve improvements in the performance of existing
technologies or increased frequency of inspections and testing, which
would achieve only small incremental emission reductions, as indicated
in the previous section. The only major technical advances we
discovered were the development of two new technologies (optical
recording media and solid state recording (SSR) media), which may
eventually supplant magnetic tape. However, optical recording media and
SSR media are not considered magnetic tape and would not be covered
under the Magnetic Tape national emission standards. These new
technologies, along with industry consolidation and competition from
foreign producers, which have lower production costs (primarily labor
costs) than domestic producers, have been identified as the primary
reasons for the overall decline of this industry sector. Therefore, our
investigation did not identify any significant developments in
[[Page 61421]]
practices, processes, or control technologies in the magnetic tape
manufacturing industry since promulgation of the original standards in
1994.
In light of today's low-risk finding under section 112(f) (i.e.,
that, given compliance with the existing MACT standards, every source
in the category poses excess lifetime individual cancer risks less than
1-in-a-million and no significant noncancer or ecological risks), the
Agency seeks comment on the notion that, barring any unforeseeable
circumstances which might substantially change this source category or
its emissions, we would have no obligations to conduct future
technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6).
II. Proposed Action
Because the existing national emission standards continues to
represent the best controls that can be implemented nationally, we
believe that no further revisions to the standards are needed under
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this action
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any information collection burden. It
will not change the burden estimates from those previously developed
and approved for the existing national emission standards. However, OMB
has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulation (59 FR 64580, December 15, 1994)
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq., and have assigned OMB control number 2060-0326, ICR No. 1678.05.
A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be
obtained from Susan Auby, by mail at the Office of Environmental
Information, Collection Strategies Division, EPA (2822T), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact of today's proposed action on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose
parent company has fewer than 500 to 1,000 employees, depending on the
size definition for the affected NAICS code (as defined by Small
Business Administration size standards); (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000;
and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.
After considering the economic impact of today's proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. We are
proposing no further action at this time to revise the national
emission standards. Today's proposed action requests public comments on
the residual risk and technology review.
We continue to be interested in the potential impact of the
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impact.
D. 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
effect of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 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 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 EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
[[Page 61422]]
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before 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 the proposed action does 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 to the
private sector in any 1 year. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on
State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus,
today's proposed action is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that the
proposed action contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them.
E. 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.''
Today's proposed action does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effect 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. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed action
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' The proposed action does not
have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will
not have substantial direct effect on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to today's proposed action.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (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, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effect of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
The proposed action is not subject to the Executive Order because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Today's proposed decision is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because
it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that today's
proposed decision is not likely to have any adverse energy impacts.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, sec. 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
The proposed action does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS. The EPA welcomes
comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically,
invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS and to
explain why such standards should be used in the proposed action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 18, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-21186 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P