[Federal Register: April 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 67)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17720-17729]
[DOCID:fr07ap06-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0161, FRL-8054-2]
RIN 2060-AK23

National Emission Standards for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing
Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final action.

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

SUMMARY: On December 15, 1994, we promulgated national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing
Operations. The standards limit and control emissions of hazardous air
pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or have other
serious health or environmental effect.
    Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to assess the
risk remaining (residual risk) after the application of national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants controls and to
promulgate more stringent standards, if necessary, to protect public
health with an ample margin of safety and to prevent adverse
environmental effects. Also, section 112(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act
requires EPA to review and revise the national emission standard for
hazardous air pollutants, as necessary, taking into account
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. On
October 24, 2005, based on the findings from our residual risk and
technology review, we proposed no further action to revise the national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants and requested public
comment. Today's final action responds to public comments received on
the proposed action and announces EPA's final decision not to revise
the standards.

DATES: This final action is effective on April 7, 2006.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0161. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in

the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (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 through http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the HQ EPA Docket Center, Docket

ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0161, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Avenue, 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 HQ EPA Docket Center
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket
materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the final action,
contact Mr. H. Lynn Dail, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and
Commerce Group (C539-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions on the residual risk
analysis, contact Ms. Maria Pimentel, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division,
Sector Based Assessment Group (C404-01), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-0840; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities affected
by the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              NAICS \a\
                  Category                       code                 Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................       334613  Operations at major sources that are engaged in the
                                                  322222   surface coating of magnetic tape.
                                                  325992
Federal government.........................  ...........  Not affected.
State, local, tribal government............  ...........  Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the
Magnetic Tape NESHAP. To determine whether your facility would be
affected by the Magnetic Tape NESHAP, you should examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 63.701(a) of subpart EE (NESHAP
for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations). If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of the Magnetic Tape NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Mr. Leonard Lazarus, U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, Office of Compliance, Air Compliance Branch
(2223A), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's final action will also be available on
the World Wide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of the final 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.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of this final decision is available only by filing a petition
for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by June 6, 2006. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the
CAA, only an objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by the final decision may not be challenged
separately in civil or criminal proceedings brought to enforce these
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``if the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for

Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room
3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail
Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20004.
    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 Magnetic Tape NESHAP Accomplish?
    C. What Were the Conclusions of the Residual Risk Assessment?
    D. What Were the Conclusions of the Technology Review?
    E. What Was the Proposed Action?
II. Today's Action
    A. What Is Today's Final Action?
    B. What Comments Were Received on the 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 and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Action?

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (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 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.
    The 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 that EPA prepare a Report to
Congress describing, among other things, methods of estimating risks
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 risks to persons in proximity to emitting sources,
and recommendations as to legislation regarding such remaining risk.
The 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 stage. Section
112(f)(2) requires us to determine for each section 112(d) source
category, except area source categories for which we issued a generally
available control technology standard, whether the NESHAP protects
public health with an ample margin of safety. If the NESHAP 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,'' we must decide whether additional reductions are
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. As a part of this
decision, we may consider costs, technological feasibility,
uncertainties, or other relevant factors. We must determine whether
more stringent standards are necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect (defined in section 112(a)(7) as ``any significant
and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated to
wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including adverse
impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or
significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas''),
but in making this decision we must consider cost, energy, safety, and
other relevant factors.

B. What Did the Magnetic Tape NESHAP Accomplish?

    On December 15, 1994, we promulgated the NESHAP for Magnetic Tape
Manufacturing Operations (59 FR 64580) and required existing sources to
comply with the NESHAP by December 15, 1996.
    The Magnetic Tape NESHAP covers HAP emissions from surface coatings
used in the manufacture of magnetic and optical recording media used in
audio, video, computer and magnetic stripe tape and disks. The emission
units regulated by the Magnetic Tape NESHAP are storage tanks, mix
preparation equipment, coating operations, waste handling devices,
condenser vents in solvent recovery, particulate transfer operations,
wash sinks for cleaning removable parts, equipment for flushing fixed
lines, and wastewater treatment operations. The Magnetic Tape NESHAP
regulates only those sources located at major sources. During the
development of the NESHAP, we identified 25 existing magnetic recording
media and magnetic stripe facilities, of which 14 were considered major
and, therefore, subject to the NESHAP. Currently, there are only six
magnetic tape manufacturing facilities remaining in the United States,
all of which are major.
    In general, the current NESHAP requires an overall HAP control
efficiency of at least 95 percent for emissions from each solvent
storage tank, piece of mix preparation equipment, coating operation,
waste handling device, or condenser vent in solvent recovery. If an
incinerator is used to control these emissions points, an outlet HAP
concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by volume by
compound may be met, instead of achieving 95 percent control, as long
as the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent. If a coating
with a HAP content no greater than 0.18 kilograms per liter (1.5 pounds
per gallon) of coatings solids is used, that coating operation does not
require further control.
    Several solvents and particulate HAP are used in the magnetic tape
manufacturing industry. Currently, the solvents used to the greatest
extent are methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and the HAP toluene, and the
particulate HAP are

cobalt and cobalt compounds. At the time of promulgation of the NESHAP,
however, the solvents in use included MEK, cyclohexanone, acetone, and
isopropyl alcohol and the HAP toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, toluene
diisocyanate, ethylene glycol, methanol, xylenes, ethyl benzene, and
acetaldehyde; and the particulate HAP included chromium, cobalt, and
their respective compounds. Several of these compounds are no longer
used in the industry. The compound MEK and the HAP toluene are used at
all facilities. At the time of promulgation of the magnetic tape
NESHAP, MEK was a listed HAP, and we estimated that HAP emissions,
including MEK and toluene, would be reduced by 2,080 megagrams per year
(Mg/yr) (2,300 tons per year (tpy)) from a baseline of 4,060 Mg/yr
(4,470 tpy). Methyl ethyl ketone was later delisted by EPA in 70 FR
75047, December 19, 2005.

C. What Were the Conclusions of the Residual Risk Assessment?

    As required by section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, we prepared a risk
assessment to determine the residual risk posed by magnetic tape
manufacturing operations after implementation of the NESHAP. We
compiled a list of the six magnetic tape manufacturing facilities still
in operation in the United States based on inventory information we
gathered from a number of manufacturing facilities and State
environmental program offices (e.g., whether these facilities were
still operating and manufacturing magnetic tape).
    The major compounds emitted by the magnetic tape manufacturing
source category are MEK and the HAP toluene, which comprise 97 percent,
by tpy, of all emissions in the source category. The six magnetic tape
manufacturing facilities have MEK and HAP emissions ranging from 3.9 to
214 Mg/yr (4.3 to 236 tpy). At the time of proposal, MEK was a listed
HAP, and the nationwide annual HAP emissions, including MEK and
toluene, were estimated to be 468 Mg/yr (516 tpy). Methyl ethyl ketone
has since been delisted.
    Using these data, we modeled exposure concentrations surrounding
the six facilities, calculated the risk of possible chronic cancer and
noncancer health effects, evaluated whether acute exposures might
exceed relevant health thresholds, and investigated human health
multipathway and ecological risks.
    The emissions data used in the residual risk assessment represent
actual levels of emissions for the base year. We have no reason to
believe that there is a substantial amount of over control compared to
what is allowed under the MACT standard. Therefore, the results of the
risk assessment represent our approximation of the maximum risks which
would be allowed under compliance with the NESHAP.
    Consistent with the tiered modeling approach described in the
Residual Risk Report to Congress of March 1999 (EPA-453/R-99-001), the
risk assessment for this source category started with a simple
assessment, which used health-protective 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 multipathway 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 Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Source Category,''
available in the docket. Since our assessment shows that sources
subject to the Magnetic Tape Manufacturing NESHAP pose maximum lifetime
excess cancer risks which are significantly less than 1 in 1 million,
EPA concluded that public health is protected with an ample margin of
safety, and since noncancer health risks and ecological risks were also
found to be insignificant for this source category, EPA is not
obligated to adopt standards under section 112(f) of the CAA. Because
risks contributed by MEK are a negligible part of the overall risk, the
delisting of MEK has essentially no effect on the risk assessment
performed for the proposed rule.

D. What Were the Conclusions of the Technology Review?

    Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review, and revise as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies), emission standards promulgated under section
112 no less often than every 8 years. As we stated in the preamble to
the Coke Ovens residual risk rule (70 FR 20009), and as discussed
below, the facts underlying a section 112(f) determination should be
key factors in making any subsequent section 112(d)(6) determinations.
For this and several other source categories, we were under consent
decree deadlines to complete both the section 112(d)(6) technology
review and the section 112(f)(2) residual risk analysis by the same
date. As a result, we conducted the two reviews concurrently and did
not have the results of the section 112(f)(2) analysis before we began
the section 112(d)(6) technology review.
    We reviewed available information about the industry, talked with
industry representatives, and contacted several facilities in the
industry to investigate available emission control technologies and the
potential for additional emission reductions. We did not identify any
additional control technologies beyond those that are already in
widespread use within the source category (e.g., carbon adsorbers,
condensers). The only developments identified involve improvements in
the performance of existing technologies or increased frequency of
inspections and testing, which would achieve only small incremental
emission reductions. However, we did discover that new product
developments (optical recording media and solid state recording media)
may eventually supplant magnetic tape, but these media are not
considered magnetic tape and would not be covered under the Magnetic
Tape NESHAP. Therefore, our investigation did not identify any
significant developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies in the magnetic tape manufacturing industry since
promulgation of the original standards in 1994. We undertook the
technology assessment for this source category consistent with our
policy in the Coke Ovens residual risk rule (70 FR 20008-20009).

E. What Was the Proposed Action?

    On October 24, 2005, based on the findings from our residual risk
and technology review, we proposed no further action to revise the
NESHAP (70 FR 61417) and requested public comment.

II. Today's Action

A. What Is Today's Final Action?

    Today's final action responds to public comments received on the
proposed action and announces our final decision not to revise the
standards.

B. What Comments Were Received on the Proposed Action?

    In the proposed action, we requested public comment on our residual
risk review and our technology review and on issues of delisting the
source category and conducting future technology reviews. By the end of
the public comment period, comments from five entities had been
received. A summary of these comments and EPA's responses are provided
in the sections below.

1. Residual Risk Determination
    Comment: Three commenters supported EPA's decisions for the
magnetic tape source category. The commenters supported EPA's
conclusion that no changes to the existing NESHAP for magnetic tape
manufacturing were required to satisfy the requirements of section
112(f). The commenters noted that EPA correctly reviewed the magnetic
tape sources, followed the tiered risk assessment approach described in
its Residual Risk Report to Congress, and, using a conservative
methodology, determined that no source in the category had a maximum
individual cancer risk exceeding the 1-in-1-million level for
triggering promulgation of a residual risk standard under section
112(f).
    Two of the commenters stated that EPA was correct to focus its
section 112(f) residual risk analysis on the sources in the magnetic
tape source category subject to section 112(d) requirements, and not
consider risk from outside that source category. According to the
commenters, the statutory language and construction of section 112(f)
shows that Congress was directing EPA to perform residual risk analyses
for individual source categories.
    Response: We acknowledge the commenters' support for our health-
protective methodology and our conclusions in the proposed notice.
However, we do not agree that our section 112(f) residual risk analyses
must always focus only on the sources in the category subject to
section 112(d) requirements or that Congress intended to limit all
residual risk analyses to the individual source categories in question.
As we stated in the preamble to the Coke Ovens residual risk rule,
``EPA disagrees that section 112(f) precludes EPA from considering
emissions other than those from the source category or subcategory
entirely.'' Rather, we have concluded that, when the statutory risk
trigger is exceeded, the two-step approach set forward in the Benzene
NESHAP remains the approach that we should follow in determinations
under section 112(f). At the first step, when determining ``acceptable
risk,'' we will consider risks that result from emissions from the
source category only. However, during the second step, we must
determine whether additional reductions should be required to protect
public health with ``an ample margin of safety.'' One of the factors
that we can consider in this second step is environmental levels of HAP
due to emissions from sources outside the source category being
assessed. This could include ambient background concentrations of HAP,
as well as co-location of other emission sources that augment the
identified risks from the source category.
2. Delisting the Source Category
    At proposal, we requested comment on whether it would be
appropriate to delist the magnetic tape source category under section
112(c)(9) based on the possibility that HAP emissions from the source
category would be sufficiently low even in the absence of MACT
standards.
    Comment: One commenter opposed delisting the magnetic tape source
category, stating that if the source category was delisted, there would
be nothing to prevent sources from increasing their HAP emissions
substantially or changing their processes to emit new HAP, resulting in
HAP levels unacceptable to public health and the environment. The
commenter indicated that such an approach ignores the possibility that
HAP emissions were reduced to an acceptable level because of the MACT
requirements and that emissions could increase again without the MACT
standard in place. Furthermore, the commenter believed that Congress
did not intend for the residual risk review to result in delisting of
regulated source categories; if Congress had wanted to make delistings
dependent on or linked to the outcome of the residual risk process, it
would have specifically mandated this in the CAA, which it did not.
    Two commenters argued that delisting a source category does not
affect the applicability of an existing NESHAP and cited the delisting
action following the Asbestos NESHAP as support for their argument.
They also noted that EPA said in its proposal that no further section
112(d)(6) reviews are required unless there is a significant change to
the source category. Consequently, the commenters saw no benefit in
delisting the magnetic tape source category. However, they were not
opposed to such an action.
    One commenter supported delisting the magnetic tape source category
under the authority of section 112(c)(9) based on EPA's finding of
negligible risks (0.01 in 1 million). The commenter stated that EPA's
request for comment implied that it interpreted the CAA to allow
delisting on the basis of low risk only before a MACT standard is
issued; however, section 112(c)(9) provides EPA with the authority to
delist a source category whenever the Administrator makes a
determination that the risks are below the risk criteria in the CAA and
does not limit this authority to sources not yet subject to a MACT or
GACT standard. According to the commenter, limiting EPA's discretion to
delist source categories prior to issuing MACT or GACT standards also
conflicts with the required sequence of duties under section 112, which
does not require EPA to conduct a risk analysis until a residual risk
evaluation is required 8 years after MACT standards are issued;
consequently, EPA is unlikely to have sufficient data on which to base
a delisting decision until many years after MACT standards have been
promulgated. Furthermore, the commenter stated it is possible that
source categories found to be low-risk after MACT standards were
imposed may have been low-risk before the standards were imposed,
especially magnetic tape facilities, where the risk assessment showed
risks two orders of magnitude below the statutory criteria for
delisting under section 112(c)(9). Finally, the commenter noted that if
EPA was concerned that the source category would exceed risk levels if
MACT controls were not applicable, it could use section 112(c)(9) to
keep in place those MACT requirements needed to sustain the low-risk
determination and delisting. According to the commenter, those
requirements could be established as part of the delisting decision and
maintained in the title V permit, as was done in the NESHAP for Plywood
and Composite Wood Products.
    Response: Based on our risk assessment of the magnetic tape source
category, we have concluded that these sources are low-risk and,
therefore, that no further standards are required to protect public
health with an ample margin of safety or to protect the environment.
However, we agree with the commenter who argues that this conclusion is
based, at least in part, on the fact that the MACT requirements for
these sources limit HAP emissions. Further, we disagree with the
comment that delisting will not affect the viability of the existing
NESHAP. The commenter cited the delisting action following the Asbestos
NESHAP as support for their argument, noting that the applicability of
that rule was not affected by delisting. However, the Asbestos NESHAP
was established under part 61, which is not directly relevant in this
situation since the Magnetic Tape NESHAP is a part 63 rule. If we
delist this source category, it is our conclusion that existing
magnetic tape sources would no longer be subject to the NESHAP and,
thus, HAP emissions would no longer be limited by this rule. If sources
begin emitting

HAP at levels exceeding those allowed under the NESHAP, risks could
increase, and the basis for our finding that the source category is
low-risk could be compromised. We have already documented that
emissions from magnetic tape manufacturing operations were
substantially higher at promulgation, compared to more recent emissions
estimates (after the standards were implemented). As noted in the
October 24, 2005 proposal (70 FR 61419) and previously in this action,
HAP emissions at promulgation were estimated to be 4,060 Mg/yr (4,470
tpy), while HAP emissions in 2000 were estimated to be 468 Mg/yr (516
tpy)--a difference of almost 90 percent, some of which is due to
compliance with the MACT standard and some of which is due to 19 plant
closures since 1994. These HAP emissions estimates include MEK, which
has since been delisted as a HAP. More recent information suggests that
the delisting of MEK may result in one plant reducing its emissions to
below the major source levels. If the potential-to-emit limit for this
facility is below the major source threshold due to the delisting of
MEK, it would become an area source and as such would no longer be
subject to the magnetic tape manufacturing NESHAP. Nonetheless, since
compliance with the MACT standard is part of the basis for our low-risk
determination, we believe that our policy objectives are best served if
we do not delist the magnetic tape source category.
    Contrary to one commenter's contention, we did not intend to imply
through our request for comments that we interpret section 112(c)(9) of
the CAA to apply only before a MACT standard has been promulgated. We
were simply seeking comment on the use of section 112(c)(9) after the
MACT standard. However, for the reasons presented above, we have
decided not to use section 112(c)(9) to delist the magnetic tape source
category.
    The Agency would like to remove the burden of the repetitive review
of Section 112 standards for low risk source categories. At the same
time, we think it is appropriate to maintain the MACT controls, in this
case. We plan to further investigate approaches for removing low-risk
source categories from the Section 112 universe while maintaining MACT-
level controls. An example of a similar approach is found in the
Plywood and Composite Wood Products MACT where we allow a subcategory
of facilities to reduce emissions to acceptable risk levels through
Title 5 permits and remove them from the MACT universe.
3. Future Technology Reviews
    At proposal, we requested 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).'' We
suggested this approach because of the low-risk finding for this source
category under section 112(f).
    Comment: One commenter disagreed that low risk from a source
category at this time should absolve EPA of its obligation to conduct
future technology reviews. The commenter stated that, without periodic
reviews of source categories and technology in the future reviews, EPA
would not be aware of any technologies that have been developed or any
``unforeseeable circumstances'' related to the source category to which
EPA refers in the notice. Furthermore, the commenter believed that
Congress did not intend for the residual risk review to result in the
removal of EPA's obligation to conduct future technology reviews under
section 112(d)(6); if Congress had wanted to make technology reviews
dependent on or linked to the outcome of the residual risk process, it
would have specifically mandated this in the CAA, which it did not.
    Three commenters stated that EPA has no obligation to conduct a
technology review in the case of Magnetic Tape. According to the
commenters, because the residual risk provisions of the CAA were not
triggered by the magnetic tape source category's remaining low risk,
even an initial technology review was unnecessary. The commenters noted
that EPA only used the results of the section 112(f)(2) residual risk
analysis to conclude that future section 112(d)(6) technology reviews
would not be required. The commenters stated that EPA's use of a formal
technology review as the basis for its conclusion under section
112(d)(6) that the NESHAP did not need to be revised was inconsistent
with EPA's prior stated position in the Coke Ovens residual risk rule
(70 FR 20009) on determining the need for a technology review under
section 112(d)(6). One commenter stated that if the Coke Ovens criteria
for when a technology review is not ``necessary'' under the CAA are
sound for subsequent technology reviews, then they are also sound for
initial reviews, as in the case of Magnetic Tape. Another commenter
stated that, where the ample margin of safety set in the residual risk
rule is largely based on cost or technical feasibility, then further
future review under section 112(d)(6) may remain viable, and additional
controls may not be precluded if feasible, cost-effective control
measures are identified in the future.
    Response: We stated in the preamble to the Coke Ovens residual risk
rule that if the ample margin of safety analysis for the section 112(f)
standard is not based at all on the availability or cost of particular
control technologies, then advances in air pollution control technology
should not justify revising the MACT standard pursuant to section
112(d)(6) because the section 112(f) standard would continue to assure
an adequate level of safety. We agree that a technology review is
required every 8 years. However, if the ample margin of safety analysis
for a section 112(f) standard shows that remaining risk for non-
threshold pollutants falls below 1 in 1 million and for threshold
pollutants falls below a similar threshold of safety, then further
revision should not be needed because an ample margin of safety has
already been assured. In these situations, it is difficult to conceive
of a case where the development of new technology, or of inexpensive
control strategies, would cause us to require additional requirements
for a source category. If the availability and/or costs of technology
are part of the rationale for the ample margin of safety determination,
it is reasonable to conclude that changes in those costs or in the
availability of technology could alter our conclusions regarding the
ample margin of safety. For this reason, we agree with the comment that
subsequent technology reviews would be appropriate and revisions may
also be appropriate if the ample margin of safety established by the
residual risk process considers cost or technical feasibility.
    We disagree with the comment that we should not have conducted an
initial technology review under section 112(d)(6) for the magnetic tape
source category. As we noted in the preamble to the Coke Ovens residual
risk rule, we believe that the findings that underlie a section 112(f)
determination should be key factors in making any subsequent section
112(d)(6) determinations. As indicated by the inclusion of the word
``subsequent'' in this rationale, we believe that we are obligated to
perform the initial section 112(d)(6) analysis. The timing requirements
for the initial section 112(d)(6) analysis coincide with those for the
residual risk analysis. Thus, it is appropriate for us to conduct both
analyses at the same time and for the results of the risk analysis to
impact future section 112(d)(6) technology reviews, even though these
results do

not negate either the need to perform the initial review or the need to
perform subsequent reviews under section 112(d)(6).
4. General Approach to Technology Reviews
    Comment: Three commenters stated that action is not necessarily
required under section 112(d)(6) even if a residual risk rule does not
reduce cancer risks for all persons to a level below 1 in 1 million.
Two of the commenters noted that EPA had already rejected such a
``bright line'' approach under section 112(f) in the Coke Ovens
residual risk rule; instead, it serves as a trigger point to evaluate
whether additional reductions are necessary to provide an ample margin
of safety. The third commenter cited the legislative history of the
1990 amendments to the CAA as support that Congress had rejected
provisions requiring sources to meet a 1-in-1-million standard.
According to this commenter, EPA's proposed interpretation of section
112(d)(6) of requiring successive reviews unless sources achieve this
risk level implies that sources must meet a 1-in-1-million standard to
avoid future regulation, and if Congress had intended this
``technology-based'' downward revision of the standard, there would
have been no need for section 112(f).
    Noting that EPA's risk estimates are upper bound estimates that
likely overstate risks, the first two commenters stated that a ``bright
line'' approach should not be employed under section 112(d)(6) any more
than it should be employed under section 112(f); instead, they stated
that EPA should make determinations of whether a technology review is
necessary on a case-by-case basis for each category.
    The third commenter stated that section 112(d)(6) should be more
appropriately viewed as a regulatory backstop authority, similar to the
case-by-case ``MACT hammer'' provisions of section 112(j), to ensure
that available advances in technology will be applied in the event EPA
fails to issue residual risk standards under section 112(f). The
commenter stated that once EPA has established a residual risk standard
under section 112(f) that is ``acceptable'' or ``safe'' and protective
with an ``ample margin of safety,'' then it must find that a separate
revision of the MACT standard under section 112(d)(6) is not necessary.
    Response: We agree with the commenters who indicated that it would
be sufficient not to revise MACT standards citing section 112(d)(6)
even if cancer risks are greater than or equal to 1 in 1 million. For
example, it may be the case that a technology review is performed, but
no change in the standard results from that review. In the preamble to
the residual risk rule for Coke Ovens, we have applied a similar logic
to the need for subsequent technology revisions under section
112(d)(6). As we stated in the Coke Ovens rule, if the ample margin of
safety analysis for a section 112(f) standard shows that the remaining
risk for non-threshold pollutants falls below 1 in 1 million and for
threshold pollutants falls below a similar threshold of safety, then
further revision would not be needed because an ample margin of safety
has already been assured.
5. Context of the Residual Risk Program
    Comment: One commenter strongly recommended that EPA carefully lay
out the context and framework of the residual risk program in the
determination for each source category. The commenter stated that this
was especially important because of the unique nature of the program
compared to other EPA programs with which the public is familiar.
    The commenter specifically recommended that EPA mention the two-
stage regulatory process (MACT and residual risk) used to control HAP
emissions from major stationary sources and to determine whether the
MACT technology controls provide an ample margin of safety. The
commenter noted that the residual risk program is different from other
EPA programs, in that additional controls will be necessary for only
some of the listed categories of sources, because in some cases, the
cancer risk will be less than the 1-in-1-million trigger, or, if it is
greater, EPA may determine that the current emission level provides the
public with an ample margin of safety.
    The commenter also recommended that EPA put into the proper context
the relatively small contribution of major stationary sources to the
risks from air toxics--about 11 percent in 1999 and expected to be even
smaller as sources come into compliance with the latest MACT rules.
    Finally, the commenter recommended that EPA present the risks from
air toxics in context with the risks from ambient (criteria) air
pollutants to make clear to the public how the air toxics risk
estimates are much more conservative and to avoid any misperceptions by
the public that the risk estimates for ambient air pollutants are
comparable to the risk estimates for air toxics. Without a program of
public education on this issue, the commenter indicated the public may
incorrectly believe that the ample margin of safety decisions in the
residual risk rules are less stringent than EPA knows them to be,
resulting in public lawsuits against EPA's decisions or overregulation
by EPA to compensate for the gap in public knowledge. The commenter
recommended that EPA include preamble language in future EPA decisions
describing the criteria it used to determine the ample margin of safety
and presenting the incremental risk/incremental cost approach in the
fuller context for the residual risk program.
    Response: We agree that it is important to provide context for any
residual risk rule. In the preamble of the current rule, we describe
the MACT program and its impact on the magnetic tape source category.
We also describe our statutory authority and our obligations to assess
risks to human health and the environment under section 112(f) of the
CAA, as well as the requirement to further regulate categories of
sources if any of the estimated individual cancer risks exceed the
statutory trigger level of 1 in 1 million.
    We agree that our risk assessment for the magnetic tape source
category appropriately contains a number of health-protective
assumptions, resulting in a screening assessment that is designed to
overestimate, rather than underestimate, risks. The results demonstrate
negligible risks for potential chronic cancer, chronic noncancer, and
acute noncancer health endpoints. Also, no significant human health
multipathway 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 conducted. Such an assessment
would be more data-intensive; however, it would also present a more
accurate estimate of risks which could then be used as the basis for
regulatory action. However, since the findings of the screening risk
assessment for the magnetic tape source category were negative (i.e.,
the statutory cancer risk trigger level was not exceeded), it was not
necessary to conduct a more refined risk assessment using more site-
specific data. Since these activities were not relevant to this action,
a complete discussion of them in the context of a full discussion of
the residual risk program was not deemed necessary or appropriate. The
details of our risk assessment can be found in the docket in the memo
titled, ``Residual Risk Assessment for the Magnetic Tape Manufacturing
Source Category.''
6. IRIS Data for Acrylonitrile
    Comment: According to one commenter, EPA should not have relied

on the outdated unit cancer risk value for acrylonitrile contained in
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) in conducting its
residual risk assessment of the magnetic tape manufacturing industry.
Although EPA concluded that there were no issues to be addressed
regarding acrylonitrile because the facility emitting acrylonitrile
presented a potential cancer risk of only 1 in 100 million, the
commenter stated that it was inappropriate for EPA to use the
acrylonitrile value in IRIS in its assessment because EPA was already
aware the value was severely out-of-date. According to the commenter,
the IRIS profile itself indicates that there are one or more
significant new studies based on a screening-level review of the more
recent toxicology literature. The commenter also noted that EPA was
aware that numerous new studies had been conducted on assessing the
cancer risk from acrylonitrile because its staff were briefed on an
assessment of those new studies, received copies of the assessment
report, and attended a peer review meeting on the report. The commenter
also noted that a summary of the cancer assessment was published in
October 2005.
    Response: We agree that our IRIS assessment for acrylonitrile does
not consider studies published after 1991, and we are currently
developing an assessment that includes newer information. Our staff
reviewed the assessment referenced by the commenter and determined that
it has several weaknesses. First, the assessment concludes that the
mode of action (MOA) is nonlinear, but does not provide evidence or
analysis sufficient to demonstrate nonlinearity or to identify a
nonlinear MOA. The independent peer panel that reviewed this assessment
noted that the data do not allow unequivocal determination of
acrylonitrile's MOA(s), and could not rule out a genotoxic MOA. Given
the negligible contribution of the acrolitrile risk estimates in this
assessment, we determined that it was reasonable and protective to
continue to use linear low-dose extrapolation. Second, the assessment
provides a supplemental linear unit risk value but bases it upon animal
data rather than human data, despite the fact that adequate human data
were available. Using these human data would have produced a higher
inhalation unit risk estimate (i.e., closer to the current IRIS
assessment value). Third, the linear unit risk value came from a
reanalysis of animal data already considered in EPA's 1991 IRIS
assessment for inhalation carcinogenicity, and rejected because better
human data were available even then. For these reasons we concluded
that the commentor's study should not be used in lieu of the current
IRIS assessment.

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 a
``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. The 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. However, OMB has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulation (59 FR 64580, December 15, 1994) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0326 (EPA ICR No. 1678.05). A copy
of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be
obtained from Susan Auby, by mail at the Office of Environmental
Information, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy may also be

downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. Include the ICR

or OMB number in any correspondence.
    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 impact of today's final action on
small entities, a 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 (as defined by Small
Business Administration size standards); (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 impact of today's final action on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this final action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The final action will not impose any requirements on small
entities. We are taking no further action at this time to revise the
NESHAP.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law No. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess
the effect 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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by 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.
    The EPA has determined that the final 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 for the
private sector in any 1 year. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on
State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus,
today's final action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that the final
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.
Therefore, the final action is not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA.

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
final 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. None of the affected facilities are
owned or operated by State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to the final action.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, 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 final action does not
have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will
not have substantial direct effect 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 final 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 final 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
disproportionate risk to children.

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

    The final action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 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 EPA does not use available and applicable VCS.
    The final action does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
the final action and other required information to the United States
Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to publication of the final action
in the Federal Register. The final action is not a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The effective date of this final action is
April 7, 2006.

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: March 31, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-3313 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38423-38424]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16398]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0075; FRL-9929-72-Region 5]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Sheboygan County,
Wisconsin 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reasonable Further Progress
Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve an Early Progress Plan and motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs) for volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen for
Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin submitted an Early Progress Plan
for Sheboygan County on January 16, 2015. This submittal was developed
to establish MVEBs for the Sheboygan 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
This approval of the Early Progress Plan for the Sheboygan 8-hour ozone
area is based on EPA's determination that Wisconsin has demonstrated
that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing these
MVEBs, when considered with the emissions from all sources, shows some
progress toward attainment from the 2011 base year through a 2015
target year.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 5, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0075, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Leslie, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule, which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.
If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: June 19, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015-16398 Filed 7-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P