Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Western Area Power Administration

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63

RIN ID: RIN 2060-AJ26

FRL ID: [FRL-7508-8]

NOTICE: Part IV

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Clarifications to Existing National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Delegations' Provisions

EFFECTIVE DATES: This final rule will be effective on August 22, 2003.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: As part of the section 112(l), ``Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities'' rulemaking process, EPA (we) agreed to clarify which portions of the existing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) contain authorities that can be delegated to State, local, and tribal agencies (S/L/Ts) (65 FR 55810, September 14, 2000). Today's rulemaking clarifies which parts of the existing NESHAP can be delegated to S/L/Ts by adding or modifying a section in each NESHAP to describe the authorities that can be delegated to S/L/Ts and those that must be retained by us. In addition, to further clarify which portions of the NESHAP are delegable, some NESHAP standards sections were slightly reorganized or rephrased to separate delegable from nondelegable authorities. These clarifications do not change any substantive NESHAP requirements for industrial sources.

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Regulated Entities. Entities potentially affected by this rule are S/L/Ts that voluntarily request delegation of section 112 rules, emissions standards, or requirements. The procedures and criteria for requesting and receiving delegation are described in Sec. 63.90 through Sec. 63.97, excluding Sec. 63.96, of 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. Facilities that are subject to the individual subparts to be changed should not be affected by the final amendments, which clarify the delegation requirements between EPA and the S/L/Ts.

Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background

A. How Do We Delegate Section 112 Standards to You?

B. When a Standard is Delegated, Can You Approve Changes to Any of the Requirements?

C. What Is the Purpose of This Rulemaking?

D. What Are the Types of Changes We Are Making?

E. Once NESHAP Are Delegated, Does the S/L/Ts' Enforcement Authority Replace EPA's Authority?

F. Does Today's Rulemaking Impact Prior Delegations of These Part 63 NESHAP (Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards)?

G. What Public Comments Were Received on the Proposal? II. Overview of Changes

A. What Categories of Changes Are We Making?

B. What Clarifications Have We Made to Individual Subparts? 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 Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

K. Congressional Review Act
IV. Statutory Authority
V. Judicial Review
I. Background

A. How Do We Delegate Section 112 Standards to You?

The requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart E provide a framework for you, the S/L/Ts, to request and receive delegation of the NESHAP. Once you accept delegation, you are responsible for implementing and enforcing the NESHAP for sources in your jurisdiction.
B. When a Standard Is Delegated, Can You Approve Changes to Any of the Requirements?

In addition to the overall implementation and enforcement authority conferred by the delegation, there are separate parts of each section 112 requirement that we cannot delegate to you. Each individual NESHAP, for example, contains requirements that are considered the ``standards'' and are, therefore, not delegable in terms of your making changes to them. Because the Administrative Procedures Act requires us to approve alternative emission limitations or control requirements through Federal rulemaking, we cannot delegate our rulemaking authority to you. More specifically, any requests by sources for approval of alternative standards must be considered by us and acted upon in a notice and comment rulemaking. Additionally, we cannot delegate authorities that may alter the stringency of the standard, that require Federal oversight for national consistency, or that may require Federal rulemaking. Generally, requests by you to revise standards for a source category (or portions thereof) must be addressed through subpart E or the subpart E rulemaking process for alternative standards. Please note that nothing in the section or this rulemaking usurps your authority to have more a stringent State program or regulatory requirements, such as more stringent emission limitations, that apply to sources subject to NESHAP.

However, the authorities in other sections of the NESHAP, such as testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping, may be delegable and, if delegated, the authority to approve alternatives to these requirements may be exercised by you on a casebycase basis once you have been delegated the NESHAP through subpart E (straight delegation, Sec. 63.91). These delegable authorities are similar to those in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A General Provisions, which are incorporated into the majority of the NESHAP. Because
[[Page 37335]]
only some of the testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements are delegable in subpart A, EPA has identified what authorities can be delegated in the subpart E revisions (65 FR 55810, September 14, 2000). Section 63.91(g)(1)(i) clarifies what ``Category I'' changes, including minor and intermediate changes to testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, may be considered and approved by S/L/Ts if you receive delegation for these authorities from your EPA Regional Office. For more discussion of delegable authorities, see 65 FR 55811 through 55814, September 14, 2000.

There are similar discretionary authorities, as mentioned above, in each NESHAP that may also be delegated to you. Please note, each NESHAP being revised in today's rulemaking will describe those authorities that will be retained by EPA. All other authorities in those NESHAP are delegable to S/L/Ts.

C. What Is the Purpose of This Rulemaking?

As a part of a larger regulatory and policy effort to clarify and streamline delegation of part 63 requirements, we agreed to clarify which portions of the existing 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP contain authorities that can be delegated to you. In order to achieve this objective, we are making slight changes to many of the existing NESHAP. These changes are clarifications that will allow you to approve alternatives to the delegable authorities, including category I authorities listed in Sec. 63.91(g)(i), instead of requiring a rulemaking by the EPA to approve the sitespecific alternatives. Many NESHAP lack a clear delegation section that this final rule remedies. We are also taking this opportunity to make the format of the existing NESHAP more consistent.

D. What Are the Types of Changes We Are Making?

Many of the existing NESHAP were promulgated before we developed a consistent rule format, so each one has slightly different content and order. In addition, the way that the delegable authorities were identified and delegated varies. Due to these variations, each NESHAP in this rulemaking needs one or more clarifications, listed below, to ease delegation:
[sbull] Addition or modification of a section (implementation and enforcement) in each NESHAP describing the authorities that can be delegated to you and those that must be retained by us;
[sbull] Reorganization of the standards sections in NESHAP to separate compliance assurance measures, such as monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting provisions, from actual standards; or [sbull] Minor rephrasing of work practices and other standards developed under the authority of section 112(h) of the Act to allow approval of delegable testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping authorities by S/L/Ts and without rulemaking by us.
E. Once NESHAP Are Delegated, Does the S/L/Ts' Enforcement Authority Replace EPA's Authority?

Throughout this preamble, we state that once NESHAP are delegated to you, then you will have the authority to implement and enforce those rules for sources in your jurisdiction. However, nothing in this preamble is intended to suggest that your enforcement agencies have replaced our Federal authority to enforce and implement those rules. We remain partners with you in enforcing the NESHAP.
F. Does Today's Rulemaking Affect Prior Delegations of These Part 63 NESHAP (MACT Standards)?

In many cases, you already accepted delegation of these NESHAP and, consequently, you are currently implementing and enforcing them. We do not believe that today's rulemaking adversely affects existing delegations of these NESHAP to you. For the most part, today's rulemaking clarifies which of the authorities in each existing NESHAP can, and cannot, be delegated to you.

In all prior delegations, specific authorities in each NESHAP were generally not identified as being delegated. Instead, the NESHAP have been generally delegated in their entirety. For example, when our Regional Offices delegate a NESHAP or MACT standard through straight delegation (see 65 FR 55810, September 14, 2000) to a S/L/T, they reference the whole NESHAP, such as subpart M, National
Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities, in any rulemaking or documents. They usually do not reference a particular authority within the NESHAP, such as Sec. 63.324(d), ``[E]ach owner or operator of a dry cleaning facility shall keep receipts of perchloroethylene purchases ...'' in any delegation. Therefore, we believe that today's rulemaking will not affect your existing part 63 NESHAP delegation.

However, potential issues may have occurred where you have already acted on the authorities you believed you had been delegated. For example, in subpart HH, the delegation of authority paragraph in Sec. 63.776 does not withhold the delegation of any of the standards' sections. Therefore, you may have exercised the authority to approve alternative emissions controls or limitations in this example. As mentioned above, you cannot approve alternatives to NESHAP's emissions controls or limitations because they must be established through national rulemaking. Only we can approve alternatives to emissions controls or limitations through national rulemaking.

If you have inadvertently approved alternatives to NESHAP's emissions controls or limitations for a specific source, then the appropriate EPA Regional Office must be notified of this approval. Our Regional Office will then work with you and our Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Office of General Counsel to reevaluate the alternative through the process in Sec. 63.6 or the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. If you have any questions regarding inadvertent approvals, please contact your appropriate EPA Regional Office.

G. What Public Comments Were Received on the Proposal?

On January 16, 2002 (67 FR 2286), the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register and we requested written comments on the proposal. We received 4 sets of written comments on the package from the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program and Association of Local Air Pollution Control (STAPPA/ALAPCO), State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources Air Pollution Control Program (APCP), South Coast Air Quality Management District, and SafetyKleen Corporation. Although the comments were mostly general in nature, some were specific to certain NESHAP. The Missouri APCP's comments included support for EPA's approach to clarify which authorities can be delegated and noted that the ``APCP had taken a similar approach to rulemaking.'' Copies of the comments are available in the public docket for the regulation (docket A200057).

II. Overview of Changes

The EPA has made a number of changes to the proposed rule in response to the comments we received. The comments on the proposal were limited to a relatively small subset of authorities in a few NESHAP. Accordingly, EPA believes that it is not necessary to repeat the comprehensive discussion contained in the preamble to
[[Page 37336]]
the proposal. See 67 FR 22882298, January 16, 2002, for a more detailed discussion of today's changes to each NESHAP. Instead, EPA has limited the discussion in this preamble to issues raised by commenters, and to discuss changes made to the final rule based on those issues. A. What Categories of Changes Are We Making?

1. Adding an ``Implementation and Enforcement'' Section

The first category of changes involves adding a section that describes nondelegable authorities or changing current delegation sections to conform to a consistent format. The new ``Implementation and enforcement'' sections cite the rule sections or requirements for which you may not approve alternatives (i.e., nondelegable authorities). The authority to make changes to those sections or requirements is retained by us and includes the authority to approve any alternatives to emissions standards; including their applicability requirements. Conversely, any authority, not expressly reserved for us and included in these paragraphs, can be delegated to you.

As part of the subpart E rulemaking (65 FR 55810, September 14, 2000), we clarified which of the specific General Provisions authorities (regarding alternative requirements) could not be delegated to you. We divided the General Provisions discretionary authorities into two groups, based upon the relative significance of each type of decision. Category I contains those authorities which can be delegated. We believe that the EPA Regional Office retains the ability to request review of these decisions, although we expect that this authority will be exercised infrequently. Category II contains those authorities which cannot be delegated. For more discussion on the general provisions' delegable authorities, see 67 FR 2288, January 16, 2002. The changes in the individual subparts in today's rule reference the subpart E classifications to ensure that they conform with this similar framework.
2. Reorganizing Sections To Separate Compliance Assurance Measures From Actual Standards

The NESHAP contain two major types of requirements: standards and compliance assurance requirements. The standards are the essential requirements that implement EPA's authority under the Act to establish hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission standards. These standards may be emission limitations (emission limits, operating limits, opacity limits, and visible emission limits) and/or work practice standards (design, equipment, work practices, and operational standards). The authority to approve alternatives to any of the promulgated standards must be retained by us. Requirements that are essential to ensuring that the standards are achieved as EPA intended, such as applicability requirements and compliance dates, are also retained.

The compliance assurance requirements are also essential, but they offer some flexibility in their implementation. For example, you can approve (or disapprove) minor and intermediate changes to testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions, as long as they are at least as stringent (or disapprove, if they are not as stringent) as EPA requirements.

In other cases, the S/L/T is given authority to make changes in the implementation of a requirement, but not to change the actual requirement itself. For example, some NESHAP require operation and maintenance plans. Here the S/L/T agency is given the authority to approve some changes in the content of the plan, but does not have the authority to waive the requirement that the plan must be created and followed. Additionally, some newlynamed operation and maintenance sections contain provisions which are similar to work practices, in that they can potentially affect emissions, such as the requirement to operate and maintain the source's equipment in keeping with good air pollution control practices, or the requirement to correct malfunctions as soon as practicable. You may not approve alternatives that are less stringent than the criteria outlined in the subpart. However, you may require more stringent provisions, such as not permitting excess emissions at all during malfunctions. Where an operations and maintenance plan is required, it usually allows the source considerable latitude in designing the plan, so long as the plan meets certain criteria. You may approve alternatives to the plan that are more stringent than the criteria listed, but you may not approve elimination of major criteria, such as specifying the process and control system monitoring equipment.

As a second example, most NESHAP include requirements to monitor certain specified control equipment operating parameters and to set enforceable operating limits for these same parameters based on data from the performance test. In this case, the S/L/T may be delegated the authority to approve changes to the ranges for the operating limits based on new performance test data and/or other relevant information submitted by the source. However, we must retain the authority to approve modifications to requirements affecting which parameters are monitored (e.g., EPA would approve appropriate parameters to monitor for a control device not addressed in a NESHAP).

A more detailed discussion and additional examples of changes that may be made to the delegable requirements are presented in the preambles to the proposed and final subpart E rule (64 FR 1880, January 12, 1999) and (65 FR 55822, September 14, 2000).

In most NESHAP, the nondelegable authorities and the delegable authorities are separated into different sections of the rule. However, in a few NESHAP, these authorities are mixed within a single section or are in the standard section in some NESHAP. In this case, we identified and separated out (where possible) the paragraphs that contain requirements for which you may not approve alternatives in the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section.

In other NESHAP, the delegable and nondelegable authorities are not clearly separated into different sections or into different paragraphs within a standards section. In these cases, we restructured the standards sections to separate the delegable and nondelegable authorities. This restructuring was accomplished by moving the delegable authorities to more appropriate sections of the rule, such as ``Monitoring requirements'' or ``Recordkeeping requirements'' sections. As a result, the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section more clearly shows which authorities you may not be delegated by simply listing the sections containing those authorities.
3. Minor Work Practices' Amendments To Allow Approval of Alternatives Without EPA Rulemaking

In some MACTs, provisions for which you could or should have the authority to approve alternatives are written in a way that precludes you from approving alternatives to these practices. Authority to approve alternatives to work practice standards or any other emission limitation established under section 112(d) or (h) of the Act cannot be delegated to you. However, some work practice requirements could be written more broadly to allow alternative practices to be implemented or these work practice requirements could be
[[Page 37337]]
written to expressly state that you may approve alternative practices.

We have rewritten these work practice standards, where possible, to specifically state that you have the authority to approve equivalent or more stringent alternative compliance assurance measures. The sections containing these requirements are not listed as authorities retained by us in the implementation and enforcement section. These kinds of changes are necessary only for a small number of subparts.
B. What Clarifications Have We Made to Individual Subparts?

We did not receive any public comments concerning proposed changes to 37 of the subparts we included in the September 2000 proposal notice. However, upon closer review of the proposed changes, we determined that we had inadvertently and inconsistently delegated some of the standards we should have reserved to the Administrator's authority. For those subparts for which we received no public comments and which were correctly proposed, we have promulgated the final NESHAP amendments as proposed. Following is a list of the unchanged subparts: [sbull] Subpart F, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
[sbull] Subpart I, HON for Certain Processes Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks
[sbull] Subpart M, National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities
[sbull] Subpart O, Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities
[sbull] Subpart Q, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial Process Cooling Towers
[sbull] Subpart U, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
[sbull] Subpart Y, National Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations
[sbull] Subpart AA, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants
[sbull] Subpart BB, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants
[sbull] Subpart CC, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum Refineries
[sbull] Subpart EE, National Emission Standards for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations
[sbull] Subpart II, National Emission Standards for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)
[sbull] Subpart OO, National Emission Standards for TanksLevel 1 [sbull] Subpart PP, National Emission Standards for Containers [sbull] Subpart QQ, National Emission Standards for Surface Impoundments
[sbull] Subpart RR, National Emission Standards for Individual Drain Systems
[sbull] Subpart GGG, National Emission Standards for
Pharmaceuticals Production
[sbull] Subpart JJJ, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins
[sbull] Subpart OOO, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Amino/Phenolic Resins Production
[sbull] Subpart PPP, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions for Polyether Polyols Production
[sbull] Subpart XXX, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and

Silicomanganese

The first correction we must make to the proposal package is to ensure that we consistently reserve the requirements in each of the NESHAP that establish the compliance dates for all new, reconstructed, and existing sources that are subject to the applicable subparts. Upon review of the proposal package, we determined that we did not consistently reserve these requirements, which was an error because they are integral to the overall standards and cannot be delegated. Following is a list of the subparts we need to modify to ensure that the compliance date of the applicable requirements are reserved. Also included is the notation for the compliance date requirements paragraphs and/or sections that are affected by this correction to the proposed amendments.
[sbull] Subpart N, chromium electroplating (Sec. 63.343(a)) [sbull] Subpart W, epoxy resins and nonnylon polyamides (Sec. 63.521)
[sbull] Subpart X, secondary lead smelting (Sec. 63.546) [sbull] Subpart LL, primary aluminum production plants (Sec. 63.847(a))
[sbull] Subpart CCC, steel pickling (Sec. 63.1160(a))
[sbull] Subpart DDD, mineral wool production (Sec. 63.1180) [sbull] Subpart EEE, hazardous waste combustors (Sec. 63.1206(a)) [sbull] Subpart III, flexible polyurethane foam production (Sec. 63.1291)
[sbull] Subpart LLL, portland cement (Sec. 63.1351)
[sbull] Subpart MMM, pesticide active ingredient production (Sec. 63.1364)
[sbull] Subpart NNN, wool fiberglass manufacturing (Sec. 63.1387) [sbull] Subpart RRR, secondary aluminum production (Sec. 63.1501) [sbull] Subpart TTT, primary lead smelting (Sec. 63.1545) [sbull] Subpart VVV, publically owned treatment works (Sec. Sec. 63.1584 and 63.1587).

The second correction we must make to the proposal package is to ensure that we reserve all of the relevant standards in each of the applicable subparts. Upon closer review of the proposal package, we determined that we did not reserve all of the socalled ``general requirements'' sections that we should have. In some cases it was appropriate to delegate these sections, because even though the title indicated they were ``standards'' the content of the sections was clearly related to delegable provisions such as various reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For example, in subpart CC (petroleum refineries), Sec. 63.642, general standards, we correctly retained Sec. Sec. 63.642(g) through (l). These paragraphs require the following:
[sbull] Requires existing sources to control HAP emissions to a level represented by a specified equation;
[sbull] Requires new sources to control HAP emissions to a level represented by a specified equation;
[sbull] Directs source to use specified compliance provisions; [sbull] Describes compliance approach;
[sbull] Describes emissions averaging approach. Note, however, that we correctly delegated Sec. Sec. 63.642(a) through (f) that describe the following requirements:
[sbull] Source must obtain a part 70/71 permit;
[sbull] Cross references General Provisions applicability table; [sbull] Initial performance tests and compliance demonstrations required only as specified in this subpart;
[sbull] Recordkeeping requirements;

[sbull] Reports sent to Administrator.

However, in other subparts, we inadvertently delegated some ``general standards'' requirements. We have corrected this error in today's final rule. The affected subparts and the nowretained general standards requirements are listed below:
[sbull] Subpart DD, offsite waste (Sec. 63.683);
[sbull] Subpart HH, oil and natural gas production facilities (Sec. 63.764);
[sbull] Subpart KK, printing and publishing (Sec. 63.823); [sbull] Subpart HHH, natural gas transmission and storage facilities (Sec. 63.1274);
[sbull] Subpart LLL, portland cement manufacturing (Sec. 63.1342). [[Page 37338]]

We received public comments on only 11 subparts. Following is a brief description of the proposed changes, the public comments, and our response to the comments for each affected subpart. In addition, we are making revisions to the delegation provisions for Subpart LL (Primary Aluminum) based on the results of an internal review.
1. Subpart G, HON Standards for Process Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater

Proposed Rule. To clarify which authorities are delegated, we added the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section for delegation provisions to this subpart in a new section, Sec. 63.153. This section indicates that delegation of authority to approve alternatives cannot be given to S/L/Ts for the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.112 through 63.113, 63.119, 63.126, 63.132 through 63.140, and 63.148 through 63.149. In addition, we retained Sec. 63.110, which contains the applicability requirements for this rule and Sec. 63.150(i)(1) through (4), which contains the emissions averaging provisions. Section 63.121 describes procedures that should be followed to request the use of alternative means of emissions limitation for storage vessels. To retain the intent of the original language of Sec. 63.121, the new delegation paragraph crossreferences the section identifying the procedures to follow in requesting an alternative means of emission limitation for storage vessels. In addition, this rule requires that affected sources meet specific requirements that are contained in other subparts. We clarified that delegation of those requirements will occur according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subparts. Where this subpart requires that affected sources meet specific requirements that are contained in other subparts, but makes certain changes to those provisions, we clarified that those provisions should be changed accordingly and then delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.

Public Comments. One comment pertained to Sec. 63.133(h) which is the requirement that ``first efforts at repair shall be made no later than 5 calendar days after identification and repair shall be completed within 45 calendar days after identification'' of improper work practices or control equipment failure. The commenter believes S/L/Ts should have the authority to approve alternatives to this requirement. The commenter also said that the requirement is vaguely defined.

Final Rule. We disagree with the comment regarding the delegation of the authority to approve alternatives to Sec. 63.133(h). We believe that this provision is a work practice standard, and thus, it cannot be delegated to S/L/Ts. We also believe that the requirement is clear with respect to the responsibility of the source to make a ``first effort at repair'' in a specified time frame. However, the determination of whether the source's response is adequate to meet this requirement is appropriately made by the permitting authority that receives the notifications and potential requests for an extension of time. Therefore, we believe this section already provides adequate flexibility to the S/L/T in implementing the requirements of Sec. 63.133(h).
2. Subpart H, HON for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks

Proposed Rule. To clarify which authorities are delegated, we added the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section in a new section, Sec. 63.183. The section indicates that delegation of authority to approve alternatives cannot be given to S/L/Ts for the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.160, 63.162 through 63.176, and 63.178 through 63.179. These sections contain the applicability provisions, emissions standards, standards for quality improvement programs, and provisions for alternative emission limitations. There are also instructions to follow the requirements of Sec. 63.177 to request an alternative means of emission limitation for batch processes and enclosedvented process units.

This subpart also requires affected sources to meet specific requirements that are contained in other subparts. We clarified in the implementation and enforcement language that delegation of those requirements will occur according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subparts. Where this subpart requires that affected sources meet specific requirements that are contained in other subparts, but makes certain changes to those provisions, we clarified that those provisions should be modified accordingly and then delegated according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.

Public Comments. We received several public comments regarding the proposed changes to this subpart. One commenter requested that we reconsider allowing S/L/Ts to approve alternatives to the provision in Sec. 63.162(f)(1) that requires a weatherproof and readily visible identification number attached to equipment, such as valves and pumps, that have been identified as leaking. Another comment asked us to reconsider delegating the authority to S/L/Ts to make approvals to alternatives to Sec. 63.163(b)(1), the requirement to monitor pumps to detect leaks on a monthly basis.

Final Rule. We agree with the comment to reconsider allowing S/L/Ts to approve alternatives to the provision in Sec. 63.162(f)(1). This section is an implementationrelated requirement and there may be other ways to achieve the intent of the standard, which is to detect and repair equipment leaks on a specified frequency. In order to clarify this distinction, we have revised the language in Sec. 63.162(f)(1) and Sec. 63.181, recordkeeping.

However, regarding the comment to reconsider delegating the authority to S/L/Ts to make approvals to alternatives to Sec. 63.163(b)(1), the requirement to monitor pumps to detect leaks on a monthly basis, we believe that this requirement is an integral part of the work practice standard for subpart H because it addresses the frequency of monitoring efforts. As we said in the proposal package, the collection of subpart H leak detection and repair requirements comprise the work practice standard and cannot be delegated.

3. Subpart L, National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries

Proposed Rule. To clarify which authorities are delegated, we replaced the delegation provisions' language with the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section. In the delegation section, we retained the authorities in Sec. Sec. 63.300 and 63.302 through 63.308. These sections contain the applicability provisions and emissions standards for byproduct and nonrecovery coke oven batteries, compliance date extensions, coke oven doors equipped with sheds, work practice standards, bypass/bleeder stacks, and collecting mains.

The original delegation provisions in Sec. 63.313 contained language addressing failure of delegated agencies to carry out required inspections and tests. We retained this language in the revised delegation provisions, but added language to it and to Sec. 63.309, ``Performance tests and procedures,'' explaining that the Administrator may also withdraw delegation of authority pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 63.96.

Public Comments. We received one comment concerning the proposed revisions to this subpart. The commenter asked for S/L/Ts to be delegated the authority to approve changes to work practice plans required by Sec. 63.306(a), the provision requiring sources subject to this subpart to prepare and submit written emission control work practice plans for each coke oven battery.

Final Rule. While we believe that the requirements to prepare a plan that
[[Page 37339]]
includes specified information and how that plan is implemented is a work practice standard, we agree with the commenter that the authority to request revisions to the plan and approve changes is delegable and is best conducted by the S/L/T. Therefore, we have revised Sec. Sec. 63.306(a) and (d) to clarify that these activities may be conducted by the Administrator or the delegated permitting authority.
4. Subpart R, National Emission Standards for Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations)

Proposed Rule. To clarify which authorities are delegated, we replaced the delegation provisions' language with the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section. This section indicates that delegation of authority to approve alternatives cannot be given to S/L/Ts for the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.420 and 63.422 through 63.424. These sections contain the applicability provisions and emissions standards for loading racks, storage vessels, and equipment leaks.

To retain the intent of the original delegation provisions, the revised delegation section also retains delegation of the authority to approve major alternatives to the monitoring specified in Sec. 63.427(a)(1) through (4) per Sec. 63.427(a)(5), which contains provisions for monitoring an alternative operating parameter. To retain the intent of the original language of Sec. 63.426, the revised delegation paragraph crossreferences that section for procedures to follow in requesting an alternative means of emission limitation for storage vessels.

Public Comments. We received one public comment concerning the proposed changes to this subpart. The commenter asked that S/L/Ts be granted the authority to approve alternative monitoring frequencies based on the compliance history of the source under Sec. 63.423(c) (this requirement is actually promulgated in Sec. 63.424(a)), described as requiring monthly leak inspections for all equipment in gasoline service at gasoline terminals or pipeline breakout stations. The paragraph also says that for these inspections, detection methods incorporating sight, sound, and smell are acceptable. The commenter added that S/L/Ts should be allowed to approve an alternative leak detection method, in their example, the use of a hydrocarbon analyzer.

Final Rule. Our proposal was consistent with our view that the leak detection and repair requirements in Sec. 63.424 constitute an integrated program and that changes to any part of the program could change the effectiveness of the entire program. Therefore, we have not changed the delegation requirements in subpart R.
5. Subpart S, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Pulp and Paper Industry

Proposed Rule. In order to separate delegable authorities from non delegable standards, we removed the monitoring and recording authorities from Sec. 63.450(d)(1) (the Standards for enclosures and closedvent systems section) and placed them in Sec. 63.454(e), ``Recordkeeping requirements.'' We also added a reference in Sec. 63.450(d)(1) that the provisions of Sec. 63.454(e) must be followed.

To clarify which authorities are delegated, we replaced the delegation provisions' language with the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section. This section indicates that delegation of authority to approve alternatives cannot be given to S/L/Ts for the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.440, 63.443 through 63.447, and 63.450. These sections contain the applicability provisions and the emissions standards for pulping systems, bleaching systems, kraft pulping process condensates, clean condensate alternatives, and enclosures and closed vent systems. This subpart also requires that provisions of another subpart be followed. In the implementation and enforcement language, we have clarified that delegation of those requirements will occur according to the delegation provisions of the subpart that is referenced.

Public Comments. We received one comment regarding the proposed revisions to this subpart. The commenter stated that ``State and local agencies should not have to seek individual approvals for the same alternatives.'' The commenter also said that if several facilities make the same request for alternative monitoring, EPA would still have to approve each individually.

Final Rule. The commenter's assessment that EPA still must approve each request for alternative monitoring individually is correct, if the alternative monitoring request is for a major change to monitoring. The S/L/Ts have the authority to approve alternatives to monitoring if the alternatives are considered minor or intermediate. See definitions of minor, intermediate, and major changes to monitoring in Sec. 63.90.

The commenter is also correct that the approvals must be made on individual sources and not for more than one source per approval, unless the S/L/T chooses to approve the changes using the subpart E equivalency by permit mechanism; see Sec. 63.94. The purpose of the delegable authorities is to approve alternatives on a casebycase basis; the circumstances being particular to one source. Conversely, to approve alternative monitoring requirements for more than one source, a S/L/T should use a 40 CFR part 63, subpart E approval mechanism, such as a rule adjustment or rule substitution; Sec. Sec. 63.92 or 63.93 respectively. Subpart E approval usually requires rulemaking (with public comment), which is required for changes to more than one source in a source category.
6. Subpart T, National Emission Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning

Proposed Rule. We amended Sec. 63.460 by removing and reserving paragraph (f). We restructured the work practices in Sec. 63.462 and created paragraph Sec. 63.462(e) to give S/L/Ts greater flexibility to approve alternatives that will continue to meet the intent of the standard. In addition, we amended Sec. 63.463(e)(2)(ix)(B) to restructure the recordkeeping requirements to make it easier to delegate them.

To clarify which authorities are delegated, we added the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section in a new section, Sec. 63.470. This section indicates that delegation of authority to approve alternatives cannot be given to S/L/Ts for the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.460, 63.462(a) through (d), and 63.463 through 63.464.

Section 63.469 describes procedures that must be followed to request the use of alternative equipment or an alternative work practice. Section 63.460(f) also retains the delegation of Sec. Sec. 63.469 and 63.463(d)(9) to the Administrator. The delegation provisions added in Sec. 63.470 crossreference Sec. 63.469 for procedures to follow in requesting an alternative means of emission limitation.

Public Comment. We received two comments regarding the proposed revisions to this subpart. One comment requested that S/L/Ts be delegated the authority to approve alternatives to Sec. 63.463(d)(1), which generally requires sources to control air disturbances across the cleaning machine opening(s). The commenter added that this requirement is extremely vague. We also received a comment requesting us to delegate to S/L/Ts the authority to approve alternatives to Sec. 63.463(d)(9), the requirement that each solvent cleaning machine and associated controls be maintained according to manufacturer's specifications.

Final Rule. We do not agree with the comment regarding Sec. 63.463(d)(1), the
[[Page 37340]]
requirement to control air disturbances across the cleaning machine opening(s). This requirement is a work practice standard whose authority to approve alternatives cannot be delegated to S/L/Ts. However, we believe that the requirement is sufficiently broad to allow several approaches to comply with it. For example, we believe that both (1) covering the openings of cleaning machines with lids when not in use, and (2) operating the cleaning machines in an enclosed room that is vented to a control device comply with this provision. Therefore, we are not delegating this authority to S/L/Ts in the final rule.

We agree with the request to delegate to S/L/Ts the authority to approve alternatives to Sec. 63.463(d)(9), the requirement that each solvent cleaning machine and associated controls be maintained according to manufacturer's specifications. We are revising the proposed changes to this subpart to add the delegation of this authority.
7. Subpart X, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Secondary Lead Smelting

Proposed Rule. We restructured the work practices in Sec. 63.545 to give S/L/Ts greater flexibility in approving alternatives that still meet the intent of the standard by adding a paragraph to explain that either the Administrator or delegated S/L/T authorities may approve alternatives to the fugitive dust reduction practices in Sec. 63.545(c).

To clarify which authorities are delegated, we added the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section for the delegation provisions in a new section, Sec. 63.551. This section indicates that delegation of authority to approve alternatives cannot be given to S/L/ Ts for the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.541, and 63.543 through 63.545(a) through (e). These sections contain the applicability provisions and emissions standards for process sources, process fugitive sources, and fugitive dust sources.

Public Comments. We received one comment regarding the proposed revisions to this subpart. The commenter requested that EPA delegate the authority to approve alternatives to Sec. 63.545(a), the requirement for each owner or operator of a secondary lead smelter to prepare and operate according to a standard operating procedures manual.

Final Rule. We agree with the comment that EPA should delegate the authority to approve alternatives to Sec. 63.545(a), the requirement for each owner or operator of a secondary lead smelter to prepare and operate according to a standard operating procedures manual. In fact, Sec. 63.545(b) already allows the source to submit the standard operating procedure manual to the Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval. We have revised the delegation provisions in new Sec. 63.551 to clarify that this authority is delegable. 8. Subpart DD, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From OffSite Waste and Recovery Operations

Proposed Rule. Section 63.684, ``Standards for offsite material treatment,'' contains monitoring requirements, and Sec. 63.693, ``Standards for closedvent systems and control devices,'' contains monitoring and inspection requirements which are delegable authorities. We rephrased the language of Sec. 63.684(e)(1) to remove the monitoring and reporting requirements from that section. Those requirements were added to Sec. 63.695, ``Inspection and monitoring requirements'' in Sec. 63.695(e), with an introductory paragraph to match the format of the section in Sec. 63.695(a)(4). The continuous monitoring requirements and visual inspection requirements in Sec. 63.693(b)(4)(i) and Sec. 63.693(c)(2)(ii) were also removed and placed in Sec. 63.695(c)(1)(ii)(C) and (D).

To clarify which authorities can be delegated, we replaced the delegation provisions' language with the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section. This section indicates that delegation of authority to approve alternatives cannot be given to S/L/Ts for the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.680, 63.684 through 63.691, and 63.693. These sections contain applicability provisions and the standards for offsite material treatment, tanks, oilwater and organicwater separators, surface impoundments, containers, transfer systems, process vents, equipment leaks, closedvent systems, and control devices. In addition, this rule requires that affected sources meet specific requirements that are contained in other subparts. In the
implementation and enforcement language, we have clarified that delegation of those requirements will occur according to the delegation provisions of the subpart that is referenced.

Public Comments. We received one comment letter regarding the proposed revisions to this subpart. The commenter disagreed with our proposed text changes to this subpart. The commenter pointed out that the proposed changes to this subpart conflict with modifications made to this subpart on July 20, 1999 (64 FR 38970). More specifically, the commenter requested that we correct our proposal to modify Sec. 63.693(b)(4)(i). In the proposal, we moved the continuous monitoring and visual inspection requirements in Sec. 63.693(b)(4)(i) to a new paragraph in Sec. 63.695(c)(1)(ii). The commenter indicated that this proposed revision is problematic because the paragraph following (b)(4)(i) is (b)(4)(ii), which is an alternate process to meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(4)(i) which we proposed to eliminate. Another comment referred to the proposed changes to Sec. 63.695, the Inspection and monitoring requirements. We proposed to add introductory text to Sec. 63.695(e) that had already been added to the July 20, 1999 modifications to this subpart, i.e., Sec. 63.695(e)(1)(i).

Final Rule. We agree with the commenter. We inadvertently used an outdated version of this subpart to formulate our proposed revisions. As a result, our proposed revisions do not agree with the modifications made to this subpart on July 20, 1999.

After evaluating the current version of Sec. 63.693(b)(4)(i), we determined that there is not any confusion remaining between the standards and otherwise delegable requirements. Thus, we are withdrawing our proposed changes to Sec. 63.693(b)(4). We are also withdrawing our proposed changes to Sec. 63.695(e), adding introductory text, because similar language already exists in Sec. 63.695(e)(1)(i). We are retaining the rest of the proposed text changes to this subpart.
9. Subpart GG, National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities

Proposed Rule. We restructured the work practices in Sec. 63.744 to give S/L/Ts greater flexibility in approving alternatives by clarifying that either the Administrator or delegated S/L/Ts may approve alternatives to the cleaning operations measures in Sec. 63.744(a).

To clarify which authorities are delegated, we added the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section for the delegation provisions in a new section, Sec. 63.759. This section indicates that delegation of authority to approve alternatives cannot be given to S/L/ Ts for the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.741, 63.743, 63.744(a)(1) through (3), 63.744(b) through (e), 63.745 through 63.748, and 63.749(a). These sections contain the applicability provisions, cleaning, primer and topcoat application, depainting, chemical milling maskant application, and waste handling and storage standards, and the compliance dates for this rule.

[[Page 37341]]

Public Comments. We received two comments regarding the proposed revisions to this subpart. The commenter asked that S/L/Ts be delegated the authority to approve alternatives to Sec. 63.746(b)(4)(iii)(A), the requirement to maintain the dry particulate filter system in good working order. Another comment requested that we delegate to S/L/Ts the authority to approve alternatives to Sec. 63.744(a)(3), the requirement to conduct the handling and transfer of cleaning solvents to or from enclosed systems * * * in such a manner to minimize spills.

Final Rule. Section 63.746(b)(4)(iii)(A), the requirement to maintain the dry particulate filter system in good working order, is a work practice standard and, as described above, cannot be delegated to S/L/Ts. However, we believe this provision is written broadly enough to allow more than one approach to maintaining the dry particulate filter system in good working order. For example, the S/L/T could specify minimum and maximum pressure drop levels and filter replacement schedule to meet the intent of the ``maintain in good working order'' provision. Similarly, the requirement to conduct the handling and transfer of cleaning solvents to or from enclosed systems * * * in such a manner to minimize spills, Sec. 63.744(a)(3), is a work practice standard and it cannot be delegated to S/L/Ts. However, we believe this provision is written broadly enough to allow more than one approach to minimizing spills from the transfer of cleaning solvents. For example, the S/L/T could require implementation of this requirement in the form of a ``no visible leak'' provision (or numerous other specific requirements). Therefore, we are not revising the proposed changes to this subpart in today's rulemaking.
10. Subpart JJ, National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations

Proposed Rule. We clarified that Sec. 63.803(c), ``Work practice standards,'' contains reasonably separable requirements for an inspection and maintenance plan in Sec. Sec. 63.803(c)(1) through (4), that are not considered part of the standard and, thus, are delegable.

To clarify which authorities are delegated, we replaced the delegation provisions' language with the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section. This section indicates that delegation of authority to approve alternatives cannot be given to S/L/Ts for the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.802 and 63.803(a) through (b), (c) introductory text, and (d) through (l). These sections contain the standards for this rule. This section also shows that delegation of authority to approve alternatives cannot be given to S/L/Ts for the applicability provisions in Sec. 63.800. To retain the intent of the original delegation provisions in Sec. 63.808, the revised delegation section also reserves the monitoring and compliance assurance measures and test methods in Sec. Sec. 63.804(f)(4)(iv)(D) and (E), 63.804(g)(4)(iii)(C), 63.804(g)(4)(vi), 63.804(g)(6)(vi), 63.805(a), 63.805(d)(2)(v), and 63.805(e)(1).

Public Comments. We received numerous public comments concerning the proposed revisions to this subpart. The commenter asked that S/L/Ts be delegated the authority to approve or disapprove alternatives to Sec. 63.803(c), which requires an owner or operator of a facility subject to this subpart to prepare and maintain an inspection and maintenance plan. The same commenter also asked that S/L/Ts be delegated the authority to approve or disapprove proposed alternatives to Sec. 63.803(a), which requires an owner or operator of a facility subject to this subpart to prepare and maintain a work practice implementation plan. The commenter added that ``[a] plan for implementing work practices may be unnecessary.'' Another comment was received concerning Sec. 63.803(l), which requires a formulation assessment plan for finishing operations. The commenter said that S/L/ Ts should have the authority to approve or disapprove alternatives to meet the intent of this provision. The commenter stated that S/L/Ts should be delegated the authority to approve or disapprove alternatives to Sec. 63.803(b), which requires all owners and operators of facilities subject to this subpart to ``train all new and existing personnel, including contract personnel, who are involved in finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations, use of manufacturing equipment, or implementation of the requirements of this subpart.'' Again, the commenter stated that S/L/Ts ``should be allowed to approve alternative mechanism(s) to meet the intent of the requirement.''

Another comment was received concerning Sec. 63.803(d), the requirement for owner or operator of an affected source to develop an organic HAP solvent accounting form to record the quantity and type of organic HAP solvents used and other pertinent information regarding organic HAP solvent use. The commenter said that S/L/Ts ``should be allowed to approve alternative mechanism(s) to meet the intent of the requirement.'' Another comment concerned Sec. 63.803(l)(5), which requires the owner or operator to confer with the permitting authority to discuss the reason for the 15% increase (above the baseline level) of solvent use and whether there are practical and reasonable technologybased resolutions for the increase. Again, the commenter stated that S/L/Ts ``should be allowed to approve alternative mechanism(s) to meet the intent of the requirement.''

Final Rule. The commenter is correct that there are several paragraphs in Sec. 63.803 that require the owner or operator to prepare a plan to implement the work practice standards. We have changed the final rule to clarify that the overall implementation plan in Sec. 63.803(a), the inspection and maintenance plan in Sec. 63.803(c), and the formulation assessment plan in Sec. 63.803(l) are approvable by the S/L/Ts.

We disagree with the commenter that the work practice implementation plan required by Sec. 63.803(a) may be unnecessary. This requirement is a work practice standard that ensures each owner or operator understands, plans for, and adequately implements the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.803(b) through (l). The commenter also suggested several instances where S/L/Ts should have the ability to approve alternatives to the requirements specified in Sec. 63.803. With the exception of Sec. Sec. 63.803(c)(1) through (4), we cannot delegate this authority because the requirements are work practice standards. However, S/L/Ts have the authority to determine whether the criteria in Sec. Sec. 63.803 are met. For example, S/L/Ts cannot eliminate the requirement for operator training in Sec. 63.803(b). However, S/L/Ts approve a range of implementation options to satisfy the operator training requirements, such as (but not limited to) allowing wood furniture manufacturing staff to attend a general, state developed operator course.
11. Subpart LL, National Emission Standards for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants.

Proposed Rule. To clarify which authorities are delegated, we replaced the delegation provisions' language with the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section. This section now shows that delegation of authority to approve alternatives cannot be given to S/L/T agencies for the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.840, 63.843 through 63.844, 63.845(b) through (e), (h) through (i), and 63.846. These sections contain the applicability provisions, emission standards for existing and new or reconstructed sources, standards for incorporation of new source performance standards for potroom groups, and emissions averaging provisions.

[[Page 37342]]

Final Rule. We did not receive any public comments on the proposed changes to this rule. However, subsequent internal review revealed inconsistencies in the proposed delegation provisions compared to the original rule. Because this rule has been implemented in its current form for many years and is working well, we do not want to change the role of the regulatory authority in implementing the rule. Therefore, we have revised the delegation provisions in this final rule to ensure that they are consistent with the intent of the original rule. 12. Subpart VV, National Emission Standards for OilWater Separators and OrganicWater Separators

Proposed Rule. We added the ``Implementation and enforcement'' section for the delegation provisions in a new section, Sec. 63.1050. This section indicates that delegation of authority to approve alternatives cannot be given to S/L/Ts for the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.1040 and 63.1042 through 63.1044. These sections contain the applicability provisions, the emissions standards for separators with fixed and floating roofs, and those vented to a control device. This subpart also requires provisions of subpart DD to be followed. In the implementation and enforcement language, we have clarified that delegation of those requirements will occur according to the delegation provisions of subpart DD.

Public Comments. We received one comment regarding the proposed changes to this subpart. The commenter requested that EPA delegate to S/L/Ts the authority to approve alternatives to Sec. 63.1043(b)(3), the requirement for each opening in a floating roof be equipped with a closure device that when secured, there are no visible cracks, holes, gaps, or other open spaces in the roof or closure device. The commenter added that S/L/Ts ``should be allowed to approve alternative using hydrocarbon analyzer or gap measurement technique.''

Final Rule. We disagree with the comment that S/L/Ts should be delegated the authority to approve alternatives to Sec. 63.1043(b)(3), the requirement for each opening in a floating roof be equipped with a closure device that when secured, there are no visible cracks, holes, gaps, or other open spaces in the roof or closure device and, thus, have not delegated this requirement to S/L/Ts. This requirement is a work practice standard which, as described above, may not be delegated to S/L/Ts. This is also a case where we do not think there is flexibility in the standard to allow different implementation methods. This is because it is not clear that a gap measurement technique or use of a hydrocarbon analyzer or other leak detection technique is equivalent to the requirement to ensure there are no visible cracks, etc. For example, a gap measurement technique may imply that some degree of crack or gap would be acceptable which is counter to our interpretation of this requirement and, therefore, we would not consider this technique to be more stringent. Similarly, without a comparison of leaks expected to occur under a ``no visible crack'' requirement to the leak detection limits of individual equipment and a leak detection schedule, we cannot determine whether the substituted method would be at least equivalent to the current requirement. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the basis of the requirements of the Executive Order, in addition to its normal review requirements. 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.

These rule changes will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, and therefore are not considered economically significant. In addition, we have determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' because it does not contain novel policy issues.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Today's rulemaking contains changes to rules that already have approved information collection requirements and valid OMB control numbers as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The changes in today's rulemaking are clarifications to the relationship between EPA and the S/L/Ts that have chosen to implement and enforce the rules. Therefore, there is no change in the burden that the rules impose on sources or S/ L/Ts.

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 purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information; process and maintain information and disclose and provide information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection of information; search existing 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entity, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration: (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 notforprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, we certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact
[[Page 37343]]
on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. We believe that there will be little or no impact on small entities as a result of these rule revisions. State, local, and tribal governments are the only entities affected by this action and we expect that most or all of the governments which would have the authority to accept delegation under section 112(l) of the Act are those whose populations exceed 50,000 persons and are thus, not considered ``small.'' In the case of tribal jurisdictions where population will not exceed 50,000 persons, we still believe that there will be little or no impact as a result of these revisions because none currently have air toxics programs. Furthermore, these rule revisions add flexibility and clarity to the existing NESHAP that these governments may choose to implement and enforce and, therefore, eases rather than imposes burdens.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 1044, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on S/L

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Mr. Tom Driscoll or Ms. Robin Segall, Emissions, Moitoring Measurement and Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, telephone (919) 5415135 or (919) 5410893, or electronic mail at driscoll.tom@epa.gov or segall.robin@epa.gov.