National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial Process Cooling Towers

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: October 24, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 204)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61411-61417]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24oc05-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2004-0004, FRL-7987-4]
RIN 2060-AK16

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Industrial Process Cooling Towers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed action; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: On September 8, 1994, we promulgated national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) from industrial process
cooling towers (59 FR 46350). The NESHAP eliminated the use of
chromium-based water treatment chemicals that are known or suspected to
cause cancer or have a serious health or environmental effect.
Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to assess
the risk remaining (residual risk) after the application of the NESHAP
and promulgate additional standards if warranted to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Also, section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA
to review and revise the NESHAP as necessary at least every 8 years,
taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies. Based on our findings from the residual risk review and
technology review, we are proposing no further action at this time to
revise the NESHAP. This proposed action requests public comments on the
residual risk review and technology review for the NESHAP.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 8, 2005.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by November 8, 2005, a public hearing will be held
approximately 20 days following publication of this action in the
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2004-
0004, by one of the following methods:
? Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
? Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
? E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov and mulrine.phil@epa.gov
? Fax: (202) 566-1741 and (919) 541-5450.
? Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center (6102T), Attention Docket Number OAR-2004-0004, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
? Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID Number OAR-2004-
0004, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-102, Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. Please include a total of two copies. We request
that a separate copy of each public comment also be sent to the contact
person for the proposed action listed below (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0004.
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://
www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov Web sites are
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. (For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31,
2002 (67 FR 38102.)
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID Number OAR-2004-0004, EPA West
Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposed
action, contact Mr. Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Metals Group
(C439-02), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

[[Page 61412]]

27711, telephone (919) 541-5289, fax number (919) 541-5450, e-mail
address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. For questions on the residual risk
analysis, contact Mr. Scott Jenkins, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Risk and Exposure
Assessment Group (C404-01), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-1167, fax number (919) 541-0840, e-mail
address: jenkins.scott@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities affected
by the NESHAP include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS code
Category a SIC code b Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................... 324110 (2911) Industrial process cooling towers
325181 (2812) located at major sources, including
325120 (2813) petroleum refineries, chemical
325131 (2816) manufacturing plants, primary metals
325188 (2819) processing plants, glass
325191 (2861) manufacturing plants, tobacco
325311 (2873) products manufacturing plants, rubber
325312 (2874) products manufacturing plants, and
325314 (2875) textile finishing plants.
325320 (2879)
325520 (2891)
325920 (2892)
325910 (2893)
325182 (2895)
325998 (2899)
331111 (3312)
331411 (3331)
331419 (3339)
327211 (3211)
327213 (3221)
327212 (3229)
312221 (2111)
312229 (2121)
312229 (2131)
326211 (3011)
313311 (2261)
313311 (2262)
313312 (2269)
Federal/State/local/tribal governments .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a North American Industry Classification System.
b Standard Industrial Classification.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the
NESHAP. To determine whether your facility would be affected by the
NESHAP, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part
63.400(a) of subpart Q (NESHAP for Industrial Process Cooling Towers).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the NESHAP to
a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the
entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR part
63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions). Worldwide Web (WWW). In
addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
today's proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10
a.m. and will be held at EPA's campus in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons interested in
presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing
is to be held should contact Ms. Barbara Miles, Risk and Exposure
Group, Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA (C404-01), Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5648. Outline. The
information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Action?
B. What Did the Industrial Process Cooling Tower NESHAP Accomplish?
C. What Are the Conclusions of the Residual Risk Review?
D. What Are the Conclusions of the Technology Review?
II. Proposed Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Action?

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, after EPA has identified categories of
sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in the CAA, section
112(d) calls for us to promulgate

[[Page 61413]]

national technology-based emission standards for sources within those
categories that emit or have the potential to emit any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of
25 tons or more per year (known as ``major sources''), as well as for
certain ``area sources'' emitting less than those amounts. These
technology-based standards must reflect the maximum reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. For area
sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that in lieu of MACT, the
Administrator may elect to promulgate standards or requirements which
provide for the use of generally available control technologies or
management practices and such standards are commonly referred to as
generally available control technology (GACT) standards. EPA is then
required to review these technology-based standards and to revise them
``as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes
and control technologies,'' no less frequently than every 8 years.
The second stage in standard-setting is described in section 112(f)
of the CAA. This provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report
to Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating risk
posed (or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the
MACT standards, the public health significance of those risks, the
means and costs of controlling them, actual health effects to persons
in proximity to emitting sources, and recommendations as to legislation
regarding such remaining risk. EPA prepared and submitted this report
(``Residual Risk Report to Congress,'' EPA-453/R-99-001) in March 1999.
The Congress did not act on any of the recommendations in the report,
triggering the second stage of the standard-setting process, the
residual risk phase.
Section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine for each section 112(d)
source category whether the MACT standards protect public health with
an ample margin of safety. If the MACT standards for HAP ``classified
as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce
lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to
emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less than one
in one million,'' EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the
source category (or subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample
margin of safety. EPA must also adopt more stringent standards to
prevent an adverse environmental effect (defined in section 112(a)(7)
as ``any significant and widespread adverse effect * * * to wildlife,
aquatic life, or natural resources * * *.''), but must consider cost,
energy, safety, and other relevant factors in doing so.

B. What Did the Industrial Process Cooling Tower NESHAP Accomplish?

On September 8, 1994, we promulgated the NESHAP for industrial
process cooling towers (IPCT) (59 FR 46350) and required existing
sources to comply with the NESHAP by March 8, 1996.
Cooling towers are devices that are used to remove heat from a
cooling fluid, typically water, by contacting the fluid with ambient
air. The IPCT source category includes cooling towers that are used to
remove heat that is produced as an input or output of chemical or
industrial processes. The IPCT source category also includes cooling
towers that cool industrial processes in combination with heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. The IPCT NESHAP
applies specifically to IPCT that use chromium-based water treatment
chemicals and are located at major sources of HAP emissions. Standards
to control chromium emissions from cooling towers that cool HVAC
systems exclusively (comfort cooling towers) were promulgated under
section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)(55 FR 222 January
3, 1990).
The primary industries that use IPCT include petroleum refineries,
chemical manufacturing plants, primary metals processing plants, glass
manufacturing plants, rubber products manufacturing plants, tobacco
products manufacturing plants, and textile manufacturing plants. When
the IPCT NESHAP were promulgated, we estimated that there were
approximately 6,945 IPCT located at these plants nationwide and that
approximately 260 of these IPCT used chromium-based water treatment
chemicals. We estimated that the IPCT NESHAP would reduce emissions of
chromium compounds from these facilities by 22.7 megagrams per year
(Mg/yr) (25 tons per year (tpy)) by prohibiting the use of chromium-
based water treatment chemicals in IPCT. In addition, we estimated that
the NESHAP would prevent emissions of 1.6 Mg/yr (1.8 tpy) of chromium
compounds from the 870 new IPCT projected by the 5th year of the
standards (1998).
When the NESHAP were promulgated, we had no information that
indicated that HAP other than chromium compounds were emitted from
IPCT. Consequently, we did not address emissions of other HAP in the
IPCT NESHAP.

C. What Are the Conclusions of the Residual Risk Review? Source
Category Characterization

As required by section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, we prepared a risk
assessment to determine the residual risk posed by IPCT after
implementation of the NESHAP. To evaluate the residual risk for the
IPCT source category, we identified the HAP emitted from IPCT and, as a
discretionary matter in this instance, estimated worst-case emission
rates for each of those HAP. These worst-case emission rates were used,
along with facility parameters representing an actual facility, to
perform the risk assessment.
Emissions Data
Because the IPCT NESHAP prohibits the use of chromium-based water
treatment chemicals in IPCT, we believe that chromium compound
emissions from IPCT have been eliminated by the NESHAP. In assessing
the residual risk for the source category, however, we have also
considered emissions of other HAP from IPCT.
In the absence of process leaks or malfunctions, the chemical
species that are emitted from IPCT consist of the naturally-occurring
constituents of the cooling water and any substances that are added to
the cooling water. To determine what other HAP may be emitted from
IPCT, we first contacted suppliers of cooling water treatment chemicals
for information on cooling water additives that either contain HAP or
form HAP, which could be emitted from IPCT. Then, we conducted a
literature search for information on emissions from cooling towers.
The majority of IPCT are designed to recirculate the cooling water
through the system to minimize the costs associated with wastewater
disposal and permitting. As the water is recirculated, cooling water is
lost through evaporation and emissions, which is referred to as drift.
Because of these losses, the concentrations of the dissolved and
suspended chemical constituents of the cooling water steadily increase,
and water treatment chemicals must be added to the cooling water to
ensure continued operation of the system. These chemicals generally
serve to inhibit corrosion, control scaling and fouling, limit the
growth of microorganisms, and control the pH of the cooling water.
To determine which of these water treatment chemicals may contain
or

[[Page 61414]]

form HAP and subsequently be emitted from IPCT, we contacted seven
companies that supply chemicals for industrial cooling water system
treatment. These companies include the largest suppliers of cooling
water treatment chemicals; combined, the seven companies account for
the major share of the cooling water treatment chemical market.
We also conducted a literature search of trade journals, conference
proceedings, EPA publications, and other documents for information on
emissions from IPCT. The results of the search were placed in the
public docket for this proposed action. The information collected from
the water treatment chemical suppliers and through the literature
search indicated that some biocides used to treat industrial cooling
water either contain HAP or form HAP that can be emitted from IPCT.
These HAP include chlorine, chloroform, methanol, and ethylene
thiourea. However, chlorine emissions occur only under acidic
conditions (i.e., pH of 3.0 or less). Because IPCT water treatment
programs all operate under alkaline conditions, with the pH of the
cooling water maintained in the range of 7.5 to 9.0, chlorine emissions
from IPCT are unlikely under normal operating conditions.
Industrial process cooling towers typically use one and not all of
the three listed HAP at any given time. Therefore, IPCT emit no more
than one of the three listed HAP. We estimated worst-case emission
rates for chloroform, methanol, and ethylene thiourea based on the
range of concentrations of these constituents in cooling water and the
model plants developed for the IPCT NESHAP.\1\ We used these emission
rates to model exposure concentrations surrounding those sources,
calculated the risk of possible chronic cancer and noncancer health
effects, evaluated whether acute exposures might exceed relevant health
thresholds, and investigated human health multi-pathway and ecological
risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ We ask for comment on what approach might be appropriate
when no pre-existing NESHAP level of emissions exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Results
Consistent with the tiered modeling approach described in the
Residual Risk Report to Congress, the risk assessment for this source
category started with a simple assessment which used conservative
assumptions in lieu of site-specific data. The results demonstrated
negligible risks for potential chronic cancer, chronic noncancer, and
acute noncancer health endpoints. Also, no significant human health
multi-pathway or ecological risks were identified. Had the resulting
risks been determined to be non-negligible, a more refined analysis
with site-specific data would have been necessary. The assessment is
described in detail in the memorandum ``Residual Risk Assessment for
the Industrial Process Cooling Source Category'' available in the
docket. Brief summaries of the results follow.
Cancer. Both ethylene thiourea and chloroform are classified as
probable human carcinogens by EPA. The estimated maximum lifetime
(i.e., 70-year) individual cancer risk due to the combined emissions of
these two HAP from industrial process cooling towers was 4 x
10-7, or 0.4-in-a-million. This is less than the statutory
trigger of 1-in-a-million in section 112(f)(2) of the CAA.
Chronic Noncancer. Chronic inhalation exposure to chloroform,
ethylene thiourea, and methanol have been associated with a variety of
noncancer health effects including depression of the central nervous
system, hepatitis, jaundice, thyroid effects, birth defects, blurred
vision, headache, dizziness, and nausea. Our risk assessment
demonstrated that exposure to these HAP due to emissions from IPCT is
unlikely to cause adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The maximum
calculated hazard index (HI) is 0.002, even when emissions of all three
HAP are assumed to come from the same cooling towers, which is an
unlikely event. This HI is well below a HI of 1, which is the minimum
level of potential concern.
Acute. Acute inhalation exposure to chloroform and/or methanol has
been associated with a variety of adverse health effects including
blurred vision, headache, dizziness, nausea, and depression of the
central nervous system. Our risk assessment demonstrated that acute
exposure to these HAP due to worst-case emissions from IPCT is unlikely
to cause adverse health effects. The maximum acute hazard quotient (HQ)
for any of the HAP evaluated with any of the relevant acute dose-
response values considered is 0.07. This is well below a HQ of 1, which
is the minimum level of potential concern.
Human Health Multipathway and Ecological. None of the HAP
considered in this risk assessment are believed to persist in the
environment or to bioaccumulate. Therefore, risks to human health,
resulting from multipathway exposure to HAP emitted by IPCT, are not
believed to be significant.
We are also required to consider adverse environmental effect as a
part of a residual risk assessment. As we stated previously, none of
the chemicals considered in this risk assessment are believed to
persist in the environment or to bioaccumulate. Therefore, we have no
evidence that suggests adverse environmental effect indicating a need
for further controls. Regarding the inhalation exposure pathway for
terrestrial mammals, we have concluded that the human toxicity values
for the inhalation pathway are generally protective of terrestrial
mammals. The maximum cancer and noncancer hazards to humans from
inhalation exposure are very low, and we expect there to be no
significant and widespread adverse effect to terrestrial mammals from
inhalation exposure to HAP emitted from facilities in this source
category. Therefore, an adverse environmental effect is not a concern
for emissions from cooling towers. Since our analysis shows no
significant ecological effect, we also do not believe that there is any
potential for an effect on threatened or endangered species or on their
critical habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR 402.14(a). Because of
these results, EPA has concluded that a consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service is not necessary.
Assessment
Since our assessment shows that the IPCT NESHAP poses maximum
lifetime excess cancer significantly less than one in a million, and
since noncancer health risks and ecological risks were found to be
insignificant for this source category, EPA is not obligated to adopt
standards under section 112(f) of the CAA.
EPA recognizes that there may be circumstances where it would be
appropriate to delist a source category or subcategory after MACT
standards have been promulgated. For example, an industry may have
changed sufficiently in the years since the category was listed and the
MACT standards promulgated, such that even in the absence of the MACT
standards, emissions from the category would be sufficiently low to
meet the delisting criteria of CAA section 112(c)(9). In the case of
IPCT, EPA promulgated MACT standards prohibiting the use of chromium-
based water treatment chemicals. Currently, none of the sources in this
category are using chromium-based water treatment chemicals. EPA's
analysis suggests that the risks associated with other HAP are well
below levels of concern. As a result, changes with this category, i.e.,
the use of nonchromium-based water treatment chemicals, may allow EPA
to determine that the section 112(c)(9) criteria have been met in the
absence of

[[Page 61415]]

the MACT standards. In the present case, we have not developed data to
support this conclusion. We request comment on EPA's ability to delist
a category or subcategory under section 112(c)(9) after promulgation of
section 112(d) MACT standards. We also request comment (and supporting
data) on whether this industry has changed such that it would be
appropriate for EPA to delist the source category or a distinct
subcategory. We also solicit comment on the possibility of
subcategorizing source categories for purposes of satisfying section
112(f)(2).

D. What Are the Conclusions of the Technology Review?

Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires that the Administrator review
and revise ``the emission standards promulgated under this section'' as
necessary. In this instance, the emission standards imposed an absolute
prohibition on the use of chromium-based water treatment chemicals in
IPCT. As the emission standards imposed for this particular source are
already at the most stringent, no more stringent standards could be
imposed. Nor has EPA received any evidence which would justify a
downward revision of the standards. In the residual risk analysis
discussed above, EPA has considered risks for HAP emissions that are
not currently subject to an emission standards but are attributable to
the source category or subcategory. The text of section 112(d)(6)
suggests that the technology review is not so extensive. EPA has
tentatively concluded that the section 112(d)(6) review should be
limited to the ``emission standards'' already issued under section
112(d). As the MACT emission standards for IPCT are the most stringent
possible, the Agency has concluded that no further controls are
necessary.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ We reviewed available information and talked with industry
representatives to investigate available emission control
technologies and the potential for additional emission reductions
for any nonchromium HAP emitted from IPCT. Our investigation did not
identify any significant developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In light of today's low-risk finding under CAA section 112(f)
(i.e., that, given compliance with the existing MACT standards every
source in the category poses excess lifetime individual cancer risks
less than 1-in-a-million and no significant noncancer or ecological
risks), the Agency seeks comment on the notion that, barring any
unforeseeable circumstances which might substantially change this
source category or its emissions, we would have no obligations to
conduct future technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6).

II. Proposed Action

We believe that no further revisions to the standards are needed
and are proposing not to revise the standards under section 112(d)(6)
or 112(f)(2) of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to
OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any information collection burden. It
will not change the burden estimates from those previously developed
and approved for the existing NESHAP. OMB has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulation (59 FR 46350, September 8, 1994) under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. However, this
information collection request has been discontinued because the
information requested in the original regulation is no longer needed.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed action on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose
parent company has fewer than 500 to 1,000 employees, depending on the
size definition for the affected NAICS code; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000;
and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed action
on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed action

[[Page 61416]]

on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this proposed action does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector in any 1 year. Thus, today's proposed action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In
addition, EPA has determined that the proposed action contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, because it contains no requirements that apply to
such governments or impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Today's proposed action does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' The proposed action does not
have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will
not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to today's proposed action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866 and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
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 EPA.
The proposed action is not subject to the Executive Order because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866
and because EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a significant
disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

Today's proposed decision is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because
it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that today's
proposed decision is not likely to have any adverse energy impacts.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted VCS
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
The proposed action does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed action
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in the
proposed action.

[[Page 61417]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 18, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-21188 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial Process Cooling Towers

Local Navigation