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

Federal RegisterDec 14, 1999

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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

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