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

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