Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; State of California

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6236-9]

Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for Hazardous Air

Pollutants; Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium

Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; State of California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) requested approval,

under Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), to implement and

enforce California's ``Hexavalent Chromium Airborne Toxic Control

Measure for Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations''

(Chrome ATCM) in place of the ``National Emission Standards for

Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and

Chromium Anodizing Tanks'' (Chrome NESHAP). EPA has reviewed this

request and has found that it satisfies all of the

[[Page 12763]]

requirements necessary to qualify for approval. Thus, EPA is hereby

granting California the authority to implement and enforce its Chrome

ATCM in place of the Chrome NESHAP.

DATES: This action is effective on April 14, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of CARB's request for approval are available for

public inspection at the following locations:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Rulemaking Office

(AIR-4), Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California

94105-3901. (docket #A-96-25)

California Air Resources Board, Emissions Assessment Branch, Stationary

Source Division, 2020 ``L'' Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento,

California 95812-2815.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Bigos, Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105-3901, (415) 744-1240.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On January 25, 1995, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standard

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for chromium electroplating

facilities (see 60 FR 4963), which was codified in 40 CFR Part 63,

Subpart N, ``National Emission Standards for Chromium Emissions from

Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing

Tanks'' (Chrome NESHAP). On July 17, 1998, EPA received the California

Air Resources Board's (CARB's) request for approval to implement and

enforce Section 93102 of Title 17 of the California Code of

Regulations, ``Hexavalent Chromium Airborne Toxic Control Measure for

Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations'' (Chrome ATCM),

in place of the Chrome NESHAP as the Federally-enforceable standard in

California.

On December 16, 1998, EPA proposed approval of CARB's request in

the Federal Register (see 63 FR 69251) and announced the availability

for the public to comment on CARB's application. EPA received no

comments on the proposed approval.

II. EPA Action

A. California's Chrome ATCM

California's Chrome ATCM differs in many ways from the Federal

Chrome NESHAP. Several differences were discussed in the December 16,

1998, proposed rulemaking and the public was afforded an opportunity to

comment on the significance of these differences. By today's action,

the Chrome ATCM will be fully approved as a substitute for the Chrome

NESHAP. The following discussions, however, are being provided for the

purpose of clarifying potentially ambiguous or unclear requirements.

1. Title V Requirements

The Chrome ATCM requires the owner or operator of a major source

subject to the Chrome ATCM to obtain a Title V permit (see

Sec. 93102(a)(5)). While the Chrome NESHAP includes this requirement,

it also provides that all nonmajor sources, except for those sources

referred to in 40 CFR 63.340(e)(1), are subject to Title V permitting

requirements. While the applicable Title V permitting authority may

defer certain qualifying nonmajor sources from the Title V permitting

requirements until December 9, 1999, currently all sources receiving

such deferrals are required to submit Title V permit applications by

December 9, 2000 (see 40 CFR 63.340(e)(2) and 61 FR 27785).

In addition, both the Chrome NESHAP and the Chrome ATCM require

major sources to submit ongoing compliance status reports (see

Sec. 93102(i)(3) and 40 CFR 63.347(g)). However, the Chrome ATCM

requires these reports to be submitted annually, while the Chrome

NESHAP requires these reports to be submitted semi-annually (quarterly

where the applicable emission limit is being exceeded). Because Section

504(a) of the Act requires major sources that have Title V permits to

submit such reports no less often than every six months, EPA cannot

approve this provision of the Chrome ATCM to operate in lieu of the

comparable provision of the Chrome NESHAP. Major sources must comply

with the Title V semi-annual reporting requirement as stated in 40 CFR

63.347(g).

2. Emission Limits for Hard Chromium Electroplating

Both the Chrome NESHAP and the Chrome ATCM allow facilities with a

maximum cumulative potential rectifier capacity of greater than 60

million ampere-hours per year to be considered small (or medium in the

case of the Chrome ATCM) by accepting a limit on the maximum cumulative

potential rectifier usage (see Sec. 93102(h)(7)(B) and 40 CFR

63.342(c)(2)). EPA wishes to clarify that it considers all such usage

limits in non-Title V operating permits as Federally-enforceable for

purpose of this substitution of the Chrome ATCM for the Chrome NESHAP.

3. Malfunctions

Both the Chrome NESHAP and the Chrome ATCM provide that the

emission limits apply during tank operations, including periods of

startup and shutdown, but do not apply during periods of malfunction,

which the Chrome ATCM refers to as periods of ``breakdown'' (see

Sec. 93102(a)(4) and (b)(7), and 40 CFR 63.2 and 63.342(b)(1)). The

Chrome ATCM both defines the term ``breakdown'' and states that the

emission limits ``do not apply during periods of equipment breakdown,

provided the provisions of the permitting agency's breakdown rule are

met.* * *'' This means that an event does not constitute a breakdown

unless both of the following conditions are met: (1) the event meets

the characteristics of a breakdown as defined in the Chrome ATCM, and

(2) the provisions of the applicable permitting agency's (i.e.,

district's) breakdown rule are met. This two-step analysis is important

because it is the Chrome ATCM definition of ``breakdown'' that first

determines what constitutes a breakdown, not the provisions of the

applicable district's breakdown rule.

Under the Chrome ATCM, the districts' breakdown rules serve only

one function: to establish the reporting requirements that must be

followed when a breakdown occurs (see Sec. 93102(i)(4)). These rules do

not override or supplant the other breakdown or excess emission

requirements of the Chrome ATCM, including the requirements to revise

the operation and maintenance plan to minimize breakdowns (see

Sec. 93102(g)(4)), to maintain the specified records of all breakdowns

and excess emissions (see Sec. 93102(h)(5) and (6)), and to include as

part of the ongoing compliance status report a summary of any excess

emissions (see Sec. 93102(h)(6), (i)(3)(B), and Appendix 3). And, the

districts' breakdown rules neither expand the scope nor extend the

time-frame of a breakdown beyond the definition in Section 93102(b)(7)

of the Chrome ATCM. In other words, while the emission limits do not

apply during a breakdown, what constitutes a breakdown is determined by

the Chrome ATCM's, not a particular district's, definition of

``breakdown.''

As a supplement to its application, CARB submitted copies of the

districts' breakdown rules, which are referenced in Appendix 6 of the

Chrome ATCM. EPA is making several points of clarification regarding

these breakdown rules. First, only those district breakdown rules that

were submitted to

[[Page 12764]]

EPA as part of CARB's Chrome ATCM application are approved as a matter

of Federal law. A source cannot rely on revisions to a district's

breakdown rule until such revisions receive EPA's approval under

Section 112(l) of the Act.

Second, the approval of the districts' breakdown rules, which are

incorporated by reference into the Chrome ATCM, is strictly limited to

the context of approval of the Chrome ATCM under Section 112(l) of the

Act. While the use of these rules may be appropriate in lieu of the

Chrome NESHAP reporting requirements, the use of these rules in other

contexts may be inappropriate (e.g., with regard to other NESHAPs or

State Implementation Plans). Thus, it is possible that a district's

breakdown rule can be Federally-approved as part of the Chrome ATCM but

not Federally-approved as part of the California State Implementation

Plan.

Third, some of the districts' breakdown rules use the term

``malfunction'' rather than ``breakdown.'' For the purpose of the

Chrome ATCM, EPA interprets these terms as interchangeable, provided

that it is understood that the Chrome ATCM definition of ``breakdown''

is controlling, not the districts' definitions of ``breakdown'' or

``malfunction.''

Fourth, some of the districts' breakdown rules include provisions

regarding the district's authority to determine whether a breakdown has

occurred, authority to grant emergency variances, or authority to

decide to take no enforcement action. Like the districts' definitions

of ``breakdown'' or ``malfunction,'' the above-listed provisions go

beyond the function of the districts' breakdown rules in the context of

the Chrome ATCM (such function being limited to establishing the

reporting requirements that must be followed when a breakdown occurs).

Thus, EPA's approval of the Chrome ATCM under Section 112(l) of the Act

does not include such provisions of the districts' breakdown rules

since these provisions go beyond the scope of the Chrome ATCM.

Fifth, some of the districts' breakdown rules require written

breakdown reports only if requested by the district. However, for the

purpose of approval of the Chrome ATCM, EPA will interpret such rules

as requiring the submission of written breakdown reports to the

district even if the district has not formally requested the source to

provide such reports.

Sixth, some of the districts' breakdown rules do not specify the

reporting time period, but merely state that notification shall be

``immediate'' or the written breakdown report shall be filed

``subsequently.'' With respect to such rules, EPA will interpret such

terms by reference to the comparable Chrome NESHAP reporting deadlines

in 40 CFR 63.342(f)(3)(iv).

4. Performance Test Requirements

The Chrome ATCM allows the use of CARB Method 425, dated July 28,

1997, and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Method

205.1, dated August 1991, for determining chromium emissions. By

approving the Chrome ATCM, these methods are approved only as

prescribed by the Chrome ATCM and only to determine compliance with the

Chrome ATCM. EPA approval of the Chrome ATCM does not result in

approval of these methods as general alternatives to EPA Method 306.

In addition, the owner or operator of an affected source cannot

rely on provisions in CARB Method 425 or SCAQMD Method 205.1 allowing

for approval of alternatives, modifications, or variations from the

test method. Any such alternatives, modifications, or variations to the

test methods must be approved under the procedures in Sec. 93102(k) of

the Chrome ATCM.

5. HEPA Filters, Chrome Tank Covers, and Polyballs

Unlike the Chrome NESHAP, the Chrome ATCM specifically includes

requirements for the following alternative emission control

technologies: high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, chrome

tank covers, and polyballs. In approving the Chrome ATCM under Section

112(l) of the Act, EPA is approving these alternative technologies for

use in California according to the requirements of the Chrome ATCM.

However, affected sources using these alternative technologies would

still be required to demonstrate, through compliance testing and

ongoing compliance monitoring, that the emission standards in

Sec. 93102(c) are being achieved.

6. Compliance With the Chrome NESHAP

Under Federal law, until EPA approves the Chrome ATCM (i.e., the

approval becomes effective), all sources subject to the Chrome NESHAP

and located in California must be in compliance with the applicable

requirements of the Chrome NESHAP. Even after such approval becomes

effective, sources remain subject to Federal enforcement for violation

of any Chrome NESHAP provision that the source was required to be in

compliance with prior to the effective date of the Chrome ATCM

approval. Such Chrome NESHAP provisions include, but are not limited

to, the requirements to prepare operation and maintenance plans under

40 CFR 63.342(f)(3), to comply with initial notification deadlines

under 40 CFR 63.347(c) and (i)(1), and to comply with the new and

reconstructed source provisions under 40 CFR 63.5 and 63.345.

7. Changes in Source Status

Unlike the Chrome NESHAP, the Chrome ATCM is not as explicit

regarding compliance deadlines relating to certain changes to a

source's status, such as (1) a change from an area source to a major

source; (2) a change from either a very small, small, medium, or less

than 60 million ampere-hours hard chrome plater to a different size

category; and (3) a change from a decorative chrome plater using a

trivalent chrome bath that incorporates a wetting agent to one that

ceases to use this process. Since the Chrome ATCM does not explicitly

state the compliance deadlines for the changes, EPA interprets the

Chrome ATCM to require immediate compliance with the standard that

applies to the source's new status.

8. Circumvention

Under the Chrome NESHAP, no owner or operator shall build, erect,

install, or use any article, machine, equipment, or process to conceal

an emission that would otherwise constitute noncompliance with a

relevant standard (see 40 CFR 63.4(b)). CARB believes that this

provision is not necessary, presumably because CARB interprets the

Chrome ATCM as implicitly not allowing such activities.

9. Notification of New and Modified Sources

Section 93102(j)(2) of the Chrome ATCM allows facilities to fulfill

the notification of construction or modification requirements in

Sec. 93102(j)(1) by complying with the applicable district's new source

review rule or policy, provided similar information is obtained. Thus,

the district's new source review rules or policy merely serve the

purpose of obviating the need for duplicative reporting. Such rules or

policies, however, do not change the underlying requirement that such

notification must exist and must be generated at least within the time

frame established by Sec. 93102(j)(1). Furthermore, the burden of proof

of compliance rests upon the source to prove that it provided notice of

construction or reconstruction on

[[Page 12765]]

time and that such notice includes at least all of the information

included in Appendix 4 of the Chrome ATCM.

B. EPA Action

After reviewing the request for approval of California's Chrome

ATCM, EPA has determined that this request meets all the requirements

necessary to qualify for approval under Section 112(l) of the Act and

40 CFR 63.91 and 63.93. Accordingly, EPA is hereby approving the Chrome

ATCM as the Federally-enforceable standard for sources in California.

Upon the effective date of this action, the Chrome ATCM will be

enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the Act. Although the local

air pollution control districts in California will have primary

implementation and enforcement responsibility, EPA retains the right,

pursuant to Section 112(l)(7) of the Act, to enforce any applicable

emission standard or requirement under Section 112 of the Act.

C. California's Authorities To Implement and Enforce Section 112

Standards

1. Penalty Authorities

Previously, CARB submitted a finding by California's Attorney

General stating that ``State law provides civil and criminal

enforcement authority consistent with [40 CFR] 63.91(b)(1)(i),

63.91(b)(6)(i), and 70.11, including authority to recover penalties and

fines in a maximum amount of not less than $10,000 per day per

violation * * *'' (emphasis added) (see 61 FR 25397). In accordance

with this finding, EPA understands that the California Attorney General

interprets Section 39674 and the applicable sections of Division 26,

Part 4, Chapter 4, Article 3 (``Penalties'') of the California Health

and Safety Code as allowing the collection of penalties for multiple

violations per day. In addition, EPA also understands that the

California Attorney General interprets Section 42400(c)(2) of the

California Health and Safety Code as allowing for, among other things,

criminal penalties for knowingly rendering inaccurate any monitoring

method required by a toxic air contaminant rule, regulation, or permit.

As stated in section II.B above, EPA retains the right, pursuant to

Section 112(l)(7) of the Act, to enforce any applicable emission

standard or requirement under Section 112 of the Act, including the

authority to seek civil and criminal penalties up to the maximum

amounts specified in Section 113 of the Act.

2. Variances

Division 26, Part 4, Chapter 4, Articles 2 and 2.5 of the

California Health and Safety Code provide for the granting of variances

under certain circumstances. EPA regards these provisions as wholly

external to CARB's request for approval to implement and enforce a

Section 112 program or rule and, consequently, is proposing to take no

action on these provisions of state or local law. EPA does not

recognize the ability of a state or local agency who has received

delegation of a Section 112 program or rule to grant relief from the

duty to comply with such Federally-enforceable program or rule, except

where such relief is granted in accordance with procedures allowed

under Section 112 of the Act. As stated above, EPA retains the right,

pursuant to Section 112(l)(7) of the Act, and citizens retain the

right, pursuant to Section 304 of the Act, to enforce any applicable

emission standard or requirement under Section 112 of the Act.

Similarly, Section 39666(f) of the California Health and Safety

Code allows local agencies to approve alternative methods from those

required in the ATCMs, but only as long as such approvals are

consistent with the Act. A source seeking permission to use an

alternative means of emission limitation under Section 112 of the Act

must also receive approval, after notice and opportunity for comment,

from EPA before using such alternative means of emission limitation for

the purpose of complying with Section 112 of the Act.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled ``Regulatory

Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

Under E.O. 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 Office

of Management and Budget 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, E.O. 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. Accordingly,

the requirements of Section 1(a) of E.O. 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 E.O.

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 E.O. 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 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 Office of Management and Budget, 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, E.O. 13084 requires 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.'' Today's rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian

tribal

[[Page 12766]]

governments. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 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 government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.

This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because approvals under 40 CFR 63.93 do not

create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the

state or local agency is already imposing. Therefore, because this

approval does not impose 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

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 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

Federal requirements. Accordingly, no 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 May 14, 1999. 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

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,

Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Section

112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 7412.

Dated: February 17, 1999.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Title 40, chapter I, part 63 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 E--Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal

Authorities

2. Section 63.99 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(E), to

read as follows:

Sec. 63.99 Delegated Federal authorities.

(a) * * *

(5) * * *

(ii) * * *

(E) The material incorporated in Chapter 5 of the California

Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Air Toxics Program

(California Code of Regulations, Title 17, section 93102) pertains to

the chromium electroplating and anodizing source category in the State

of California, and has been approved under the procedures in Sec. 63.93

to be implemented and enforced in place of subpart N--National Emission

Standards for Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium

Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks.

(1) Title V requirements. Subpart N affected sources remain subject

to both the Title V permitting requirements of Sec. 63.340(e)(2) and,

for major sources, the semi-annual submission of the ongoing compliance

status reports as required by Sec. 63.347(g).

(2) Limits on maximum cumulative potential rectifier usage. Section

93102(h)(7)(B) of the California Airborne Toxic Control Measure allows

facilities with a maximum cumulative potential rectifier capacity of

greater than 60 million ampere-hours per year to be considered small or

medium by accepting a limit on the maximum cumulative potential

rectifier usage. All such usage limits in non-Title V operating permits

are federally-enforceable for the purpose of this rule substitution.

(3) Permitting Agencies' breakdown/malfunction rules. Section

93102(i)(4) of the California Airborne Toxic Control Measure provides

that the owner or operator shall report breakdowns as required by the

permitting agency's breakdown rule. Under this rule substitution, the

permitting agencies' breakdown rules do not override or supplant the

requirements of section 93102(g)(4), (h)(5), (h)(6), (i)(3)(B), or

Appendix 3; neither expand the scope nor extend the time-frame of a

breakdown beyond the definition of section 93102(b)(7); and do not

grant the permitting agencies the authority to determine whether a

breakdown has occurred, to grant emergency variances, or to decide to

take no enforcement action. Owners or operators must submit written

breakdown reports even if the permitting agency has not formally

requested such reports.

(4) Performance Test Requirements. Section 93102(d)(3)(A) of the

California Airborne Toxic Control Measure allows the use of California

Air Resources Board Method 425, dated July 28, 1997, and South Coast

Air Quality

[[Page 12767]]

Management District Method 205.1, dated August 1991, for determining

chromium emissions. Any alternatives, modifications, or variations to

these test methods must be approved under the procedures in section

93102(k) of the California Airborne Toxic Control Measure.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-6258 Filed 3-12-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P