You are on page 1of 13

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.

245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 76603

technical standards (e.g., specifications signal; except that, from 6 p.m. to 6 decision not to impose further controls
of materials, performance, design, or a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at and not to revise the existing standards
operation; test methods; sampling least four hours advance notification is based on the residual risk and
procedures; and related management given. During the advance notification technology review. It also amends the
systems practices) that are developed or period, the draw shall open on less than existing regulations in certain aspects.
adopted by voluntary consensus four hours notice for an emergency and DATES: This final rule is effective on
standards bodies. shall open on demand should a December 21, 2006.
This rule does not use technical temporary surge in water traffic occur.
standards. Therefore, we did not ADDRESSES: Docket: EPA has established
* * * * * a docket for the final rule under Docket
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards. Dated: December 8, 2006. ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0475. All
Joel R. Whitehead, documents in the docket are listed on
Environment Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, the www.regulations.gov Web site.
We have analyzed this rule under Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. Although listed in the index, some
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, [FR Doc. E6–21834 Filed 12–20–06; 8:45 am] information is not publicly available,
and Department of Homeland Security BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
e.g., confidential business information
Management Directive 5100.1, which or other information whose disclosure is
guides the Coast Guard in complying restricted by statute. Certain other
with the National Environmental Policy material, such as copyrighted material,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321– is not placed on the Internet and will be
AGENCY
4370f), and have concluded that there publicly available only in hard copy
are no factors in this case that would 40 CFR Part 63 form. Publicly available docket
limit the use of a categorical exclusion materials are available either
under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. [EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–00475; FRL–8259–6] electronically at http://
Therefore, this rule is categorically RIN 2060–AK14 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA
(32)(e) of the Instruction, from further National Emission Standards for West, Room B–102, 1301 Constitution
environmental documentation. Under Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental Analysis Manufacturing Industry 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical excluding legal holidays. The telephone
Exclusion Determination’’ are not AGENCY: Environmental Protection number for the Public Reading Room is
required for this rule Agency (EPA). (202) 566–1744, and the telephone
ACTION: Final rule. number for the Air and Radiation
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Docket is (202) 566–1742.
Bridges. SUMMARY: In 1994, EPA promulgated
national emission standards for Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered
■ For the reasons discussed in the damage due to flooding during the last week
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
the synthetic organic chemical of June 2006. The Docket Center is
amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: continuing to operate. However, during the
manufacturing industry. This rule is cleanup, there will be temporary changes to
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE commonly known as the hazardous Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses,
OPERATION REGULATIONS organic NESHAP (HON) and established and hours of operation for people who wish
maximum achievable control to make hand deliveries or visit the Public
■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 technology standards to regulate the Reading Room to view documents. Consult
continues to read as follows: emissions of hazardous air pollutants EPA’s Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of from production processes that are (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 located at major sources. http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued The Clean Air Act directs EPA to for current information on docket operations,
under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 locations, and telephone numbers. The
assess the risk remaining (residual risk) Docket Center’s mailing address for U.S. mail
Stat. 5039. after the application of the maximum and the procedure for submitting comments
■ 2. In § 117.465, paragraphs (b), (c), (d), achievable control technology standards to www.regulations.gov are not affected by
(e), and (f) are redesignated paragraphs and to promulgate additional standards the flooding and will remain the same.
(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). A new paragraph if required to provide an ample margin
(b) is added and paragraph (a) of safety to protect public health or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
introductory text is revised to read as prevent an adverse environmental further information contact Mr. Randy
follows: effect. The Clean Air Act also requires McDonald, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
us to review and revise maximum Quality Planning and Standards, Sector
§ 117.465 Lafourche Bayou. achievable control technology Policies and Programs Division,
(a) The draws of the following bridges standards, as necessary, every 8 years, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143–
shall open on signal; except that, from taking into account developments in 01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
August 15 through May 31, the draw practices, processes, and control telephone (919)541–5402, fax (919) 541–
need not open for the passage of vessels technologies that have occurred during 0246, e-mail mcdonald.randy@epa.gov.
Monday through Friday except Federal that time. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES

holidays from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.; from On June 14, 2006, EPA proposed two Entities. Categories and entities
2 p.m. to 4 p.m.; and from 4:30 p.m. to options regarding whether to amend the potentially regulated by the final rule
5:30 p.m.: current emission standards for synthetic are synthetic organic chemical
* * * * * organic chemical manufacturing manufacturing industry (SOCMI)
(b) The draw of the Valentine bridge, industry units. This action finalizes one facilities that are major sources of
mile 44.7 at Valentine, shall open on of those options, and reflects our hazardous air pollutant (HAP)

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM 21DER1
76604 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

emissions. The final rule affects the Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, required to review these technology-
following categories of sources: 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., based standards and to revise them ‘‘as
Washington, DC 20460. necessary, taking into account
Examples of Organization of this Document. This developments in practices, processes,
NAICS*
Category potentially regulated preamble is organized as follows: and control technologies,’’ no less
Code entities
I. Background Information frequently than every 8 years, under
Industry .... 325 Chemical manufac- A. What Is the Statutory Authority for CAA section 112(d)(6).
turing facilities. These Actions? The second stage in standard-setting
B. What Did We Propose? is described in CAA section 112(f). This
* North American Industry Classification II. Risk and Technology Review provision requires, first, that EPA
System.
A. Final Decision prepare a Report to Congress discussing
This table is not intended to be B. Summary of Changes to the Rule (among other things) methods of
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide III. Responses to Significant Comments calculating risk posed (or potentially
for readers regarding entities likely to be A. Data Collection posed) by sources after implementation
regulated by the final rule. B. Risk Determination of the MACT standards, the public
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition C. Administrative Requirements
D. Impacts Estimation
health significance of those risks, the
to being available in the docket, means and costs of controlling them,
E. Clarification Changes
electronic copies of the final rule are actual health effects to persons in
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
available on the WWW through the A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory proximity to emitting sources, and
Technology Transfer Network Web site Planning and Review recommendations as to legislation
(TTN). Following signature, EPA posted B. Paperwork Reduction Act regarding such remaining risk. EPA
a copy of the final rule on the TTN’s C. Regulatory Flexibility prepared and submitted this report
policy and guidance page for newly D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA–
proposed or promulgated rules at http:// E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 453/R–99–001) in March 1999. The
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Congress did not act on any of the
provides information and technology and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
recommendations in the report, thereby
exchange in various areas of air triggering the second stage of the
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
pollution control. standard-setting process, the residual
Children From Environmental Health
Judicial Review. Under Clean Air Act risk phase.
and Safety Risks
(CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That CAA Section 112(f)(2) requires us to
of this final rulemaking is available only Significantly Affect Energy Supply, determine, for each CAA section 112(d)
by filing a petition for review in the Distribution or Use source category, whether the MACT
United States Court of Appeals for the I. National Technology Transfer standards protect public health with an
District of Columbia Circuit by February Advancement Act ample margin of safety. If the MACT
20, 2007. Under CAA section J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions standards for HAP ‘‘classified as a
307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to the To Address Environmental Justice in
known, probable, or possible human
final rulemaking that was raised with Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
carcinogen do not reduce lifetime
reasonable specificity during the period cancer risks to the individual most
K. Congressional Review Act
for public comment may be raised exposed to emissions from a source in
during judicial review. Moreover, under I. Background Information the category or subcategory to less than
CAA section 307(b)(2), the rule’s 1-in-1 million,’’ EPA must promulgate
requirements may not be challenged A. What is the statutory authority for
these actions? residual risk standards for the source
separately in any civil or criminal category (or subcategory) as necessary to
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce Section 112 of the CAA establishes a provide an ample margin of safety to
these requirements. two-stage regulatory process to address protect public health. EPA may also
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA emissions of HAP from stationary adopt more stringent standards, if
further provides a mechanism for us to sources. In the first stage, after EPA has necessary, to prevent an adverse
convene a proceeding for identified categories of sources emitting environmental effect (defined in CAA
reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(a)(7) as ‘‘any significant and
an objection can demonstrate to the EPA section 112(b), CAA section 112(d) calls widespread adverse effect * * * to
that it was impracticable to raise such for us to promulgate national wildlife, aquatic life, or natural
objection within [the period for public performance or technology-based resources * * *.’’), after considering
comment] or if the grounds for such emission standards for those sources. cost, energy, safety, and other relevant
objection arose after the period for For ‘‘major sources’’ that emit or have factors.
public comment (but within the time the potential to emit any single HAP at
specified for judicial review) and if such a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any B. What did we propose?
objection is of central relevance to the combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons On June 14, 2006 (71 FR 34422), we
outcome of the rule.’’ Any person or more per year, these technology- proposed two options regarding whether
seeking to make such a demonstration to based standards must reflect the to revise the current emission standards
us should submit a Petition for maximum reductions of HAP achievable for new and existing SOCMI process
Reconsideration to the Office of the (after considering cost, energy units. The first proposed option would
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, requirements, and non-air quality health have imposed no further controls, based
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania and environmental impacts) and are on a proposed finding that the existing
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, with commonly referred to as maximum standards protect public health with an
a copy to both the person(s) listed in the achievable control technology (MACT) ample margin of safety and prevent
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION standards. We first published the MACT adverse environmental effects.
CONTACT section, and the Associate standard for SOCMI on April 22, 1994, Moreover, under the first option, we
General Counsel for the Air and at 59 FR 19402 (codified at 40 CFR part proposed that no further tightening of
Radiation Law Office, Office of General 63, subparts F, G, H, and I). EPA is then current standards was ‘‘necessary’’ in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM 21DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 76605

light of developments in practices, ample margin of safety. This option was option would have applied additional
processes, and control technologies. also based on a proposed finding that, controls for equipment leaks and
The second proposed option would in order to further reduce risks, controlled some storage vessels and
have required further reductions of tightening of current standards was process vents that are not required to be
organic HAP at certain process units, ‘‘necessary’’ after taking into account controlled under the current rule. The
based on a proposed finding that developments in practices, processes, proposed changes under Option 2 are
additional controls were reasonable in and control technologies. The second summarized in the table below:
order to protect public health with an

Emission source Proposed changes to standards

Storage vessels ......... A Group 1 storage vessel also includes storage vessels that store one or more HAP listed in table 38 to subpart G of
part 63, and has a combined HAP emission rate greater than 4.54 megagrams per year (5.0 tons HAP per year) on a
rolling 12-month average.
Process vents ............ A Group 1 process vent also includes process vents for which the vent stream emits one or more HAP listed in table 38
to subpart G of part 63, and the total resource effectiveness index value is less than or equal to 4.0.
Equipment leaks ........ For chemical manufacturing process units (CMPU) containing at least one HAP listed in table 38 to subpart G of part
63, monthly monitoring of equipment components is required until the process unit has fewer than 0.5 percent leaking
valves in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service.

II. Risk and Technology Review exposed population, total annual cancer maximum individual cancer risk under
incidence is estimated at 0.14 cases per Option 2 would be reduced from 100-in-
A. Final Decision
year. The Hazard Index (HI) values 1 million to 60-in-1 million. The cancer
We conclude in this rulemaking that (representing long-term noncancer risks for 450,000 people would be
there is no need to revise the HON rule public health risks) barely exceed 1, shifted to levels below 1-in-1 million.
under the provisions of either section with only 20 people estimated to be Further, changes in the distribution of
112(f) or 112(d)(6) of the CAA. This exposed to HI levels greater than 1. We risk—that is, the aggregate change in
conclusion essentially reflects our also found minimal concern for risk across the population—reduces risk
decision to select Option 1 from the noncancer effects from short-term by only 0.05 cancer cases per year. This
proposal, except for certain minor inhalation exposures from HAP. The result suggests that Option 2 would
technical amendments we are adopting lifetime cancer risk and noncancer yield very small changes in individual
that are discussed later. adverse health effects estimated from risk for most of the affected population.
We are adopting no changes to the multipathway exposure are also well For this reason, the estimates of the shift
current HON rule under CAA section below levels generally held to be of in risk distribution do not serve as
112(f) because the current level of concern. Finally, after considering costs, particularly effective measures of the
control called for by the existing MACT energy, safety, and other relevant change in health risk. Finally, the
both reduces HAP emissions to levels factors, it is not necessary to tighten maximum HI is barely above 1.0 and
that present an acceptable level of risk HON requirements in order to prevent would be reduced from above 1.0 to
and protects public health with an adverse environmental effects, or to below 1.0 for only 20 people. We
ample margin of safety. The finding account for developments in practices, conclude that this degree of additional
regarding an ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ is processes, and control technologies. public health protection is not
based on a consideration of the In determining that the current HON warranted in light of the costs to
additional costs of further control (as rule protects public health with an industry of compliance with proposed
represented by Option 2) and the ample margin of safety, we have Option 2. Consequently, we have
relatively small reductions in health determined that the estimated annual determined that it is not reasonable to
risks that are achieved by that costs of Option 2 ($6 million per year) impose any additional controls to
alternative. would be unreasonable given the minor provide an ample margin of safety to
As explained at proposal, we judge associated improvements in health protect public health.
that the level of risk from the current risks. Baseline cancer incidence under In the technology review, we did not
HON rule is acceptable for the following the current HON rule is estimated at identify any significant developments in
reasons. The maximum individual 0.14 cases per year. Proposed Option 2 practices, processes, or control
lifetime cancer risk is estimated to be would reduce incidence by about 0.05 technologies since promulgation of the
100-in-1 million, and this level of risk cases per year. Statistically, this level of original standards in 1994. We
occurs at only two facilities. There are risk reduction means that Option 2 concluded that imposing additional
no people with estimated cancer risks would prevent one cancer case every 20 controls under proposed Option 2
greater than 100-in-1 million resulting years. At proposal we estimated costs to would achieve, at best, minimal
from exposure to HON HAP emissions, be $13 million per year for Option 2. emission and risk reductions. Option 2
which is the presumptively acceptable Based on public comments, we revised would reduce organic HAP emissions by
level of maximum individual lifetime one of the Option 2 control 1,700 tons per year, reduce cancer
cancer risk under the 1989 Benzene requirements and the costing procedure incidence by 0.05 cases per year, and
NESHAP criteria. The HON process for equipment leaks and this resulted in reduce HI below 1 for about 20
units at 32 facilities are estimated to a revised cost estimate $6 million per individuals. We estimate that no one is
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES

pose cancer risks greater than 10-in-1 year. Even at the $6 million per year currently exposed to emissions from
million, with 9,000 people estimated to cost, we consider the cost of Option 2 HON sources causing cancer risks
be exposed in this risk range. The HON to be unreasonable given the level of exceeding 100-in-1 million, the
process units at the remaining 206 incidence reduction achieved. The presumptively acceptable level for
facilities are estimated to pose cancer changes in the distribution of risks do individual lifetime cancer risk under the
risks of 10-in-1 million or less. For the not warrant the additional costs. The Benzene NESHAP. (The relationship

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:17 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM 21DER1
76606 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

between residual risk and the CAA 63, subpart F and tables 9, 34, and 36 the risk assessment was to determine
section 112(d)(6) review is explained in of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G. MEK was the residual risk from SOCMI facilities,
our proposal at 72 FR 34436.) Thus, removed from the HAP list on December and that the data EPA used to perform
because of the lack of any significant 19, 2005 (70 FR 75047). At that time, the assessment was not of the type and
developments in practices, processes, or MEK was not removed from various quality to achieve that objective.
technologies, and the limited effect in applicability tables in the HON, 40 CFR Response: The CAA does not specify
reducing public health risk, we find that part 63, subparts F and G. the type of data, or the method of
additional controls are not warranted acquiring it, that EPA must use for
3. Vapor Balancing for Storage Tanks conducting residual risk assessments
under CAA section 112(d)(6).
In the final rule we have decided to under CAA section 112(f). EPA can use
B. Summary of Changes to the Rule waive all notification and reporting data other than those gained through its
While we are making no changes to requirements for owners or operators of CAA section 114 authority, if doing so
the control requirements of the existing facilities where railcars, tank trucks, or enables the agency to determine the
standards based on the residual risk and barges, which are part of the vapor remaining risks presented after
technology review, we are publishing balancing control option, are reloaded application of MACT standards. At the
three technical amendments under CAA or cleaned. We are also allowing off-site time EPA was considering options for
section 112(d)(2) designed to clarify reloading and cleaning operations to data collection, the industry trade
provisions of the existing rule and comply with monitoring, recordkeeping, association (American Chemistry
provide for effective implementation. At and reporting provisions of any other Council) volunteered and prepared
proposal, we solicited comments on a applicable 40 CFR part 63 standards in questionnaires to member companies.
list of rule clarifications. After lieu of the monitoring, recordkeeping, EPA reviewed the questionnaire and
considering public comments, we have and reporting in the HON. These determined that the information
decided not to adopt some of the provisions have been added to other requested by it would greatly facilitate
proposed changes at this time. We may MACT standards because the vapor our conducting a residual risk
consider some of these proposed balancing provisions provide owners assessment. The data received through
changes again in the future, in which and operators flexibility in meeting the the questionnaire represented a
case we intend to provide an additional requirements of the MACT standards significant fraction of the facilities in
opportunity to comment on them. without sacrificing the level of emission the source category (approximately 44
However, we are finalizing one minor reductions being achieved. Further, percent), and include site-specific data
change on which we solicited making these changes provide on emissions sources, locations, and
comments. We are also making two consistency between similar emission release parameters. Where emission
minor changes for which we did not sources being controlled under similar release parameter data were missing,
solicit comments but which were rules. EPA used environmentally protective
recommended by commenters. We are These amendments reflect a logical defaults in the modeling. While it is true
also clarifying in this preamble that outgrowth of our proposed rule, and are that the data are now 7 years old, a
liquid streams generated from control reasonable decisions made in response significant amount of time was needed
devices (e.g., scrubber effluent) are to public comments we received to collect and analyze the data, run the
wastewater. No rule changes are regarding these issues. models, analyze the results, and prepare
necessary for this clarification. the rulemaking package. Moreover, the
III. Responses to Significant Comments
mere age of the data does not
1. Group Status Changes for Wastewater The proposal provided a 60-day necessarily affect its utility for assessing
The revised rule clarifies the comment period ending August 14, whether sources that have achieved
requirement to redetermine Group 2006. We received comments from 34 compliance with MACT continue to
status for wastewater streams if process commenters. Commenters included present risks of concern, given that the
or operational changes occur that could State agencies, industry, industry trade essential question addressed by our
reasonably be expected to change the groups, environmental groups, and assessment is whether the MACT
wastewater stream from a Group 2 to a individuals. We have summarized the controls themselves are adequately
Group 1 stream. Examples of such significant comments below. A protective of public health with an
process changes include, but are not complete summary of comments and ample margin of safety.
limited to, changes in production our responses can be found in the Comment: One commenter stated that
capacity, production rate, feedstock public docket for the promulgated rule, EPA has performed no analysis to
type, or catalyst type; or whenever there EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0475. determine that the industry data used in
is replacement, removal, or addition of the risk assessment are representative of
A. Data Collection the source category as a whole. The
recovery equipment. Although 40 CFR
63.100(m) generally applies to Group 2 Comment: One commenter stated that commenter stated that for EPA to
wastewater streams becoming Group 1, a major flaw in the risk assessment is adequately satisfy CAA section 112(f), it
this change clarifies requirements for that EPA failed to use its CAA section must be able to accurately identify the
redetermining group status for 114 authority to collect data for the risk risk associated with the most exposed
wastewater by including provisions assessment and, instead, used individual and accurately estimate risk
analogous to those in 40 CFR 63.115(e), ‘‘voluntary, fragmentary, 7-year-old more generally from sources within the
which requires redetermination of total industry-submitted data from well source category. The commenter stated
resource effectiveness index value (TRE) under half of the affected facilities.’’ The that, to do this, EPA must have
for process vents due to process or commenter stated that the 1999 sufficient data regarding all of the
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES

operational changes. Residual Risk Report to Congress important factors for estimating risk
emphasizes the need for site-specific (including size, quantity of emissions,
2. Removal of Methyl Ethyl Ketone data for more refined assessments, and the specific characteristics of emission
(MEK) from HON Tables that EPA has not collected such data in points, proximity, and population
In the final rule we have removed the risk assessment for the HON. The density of surrounding communities,
MEK from Tables 2 and 4 of 40 CFR part commenter stated that the purpose of important meteorological and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM 21DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 76607

topological data, co-located emission HON facilities included in the industry NESHAP (see 70 FR 19992, April 15,
sources, ambient background levels, data. An estimated 82.8 million people 2005) and the Residual Risk Report to
etc.). The commenter stated that the live within the 50-kilometer modeling Congress, and our approach here is fully
factor of 2.3 that EPA used to scale up radius of the 226 HON facilities consistent with our prior practice. The
the population risk from the assessed modeled using the NEI data. commenter’s argument that the statute
facilities to the entire source category is Accordingly, the sources in the requires CAA section 112(f) residual
arbitrary and unreasonable because it industry-supplied data are located near risk standards to reduce cancer risk to
assumes constant population density. 75 percent of the total exposed the most exposed individual to less than
Response: The data used in the population, but represent 44 percent of 1-in-1 million lacks a basis in the
assessment were obtained from all the total number of facilities in the statutory text or in policy. CAA Section
responses to the industry questionnaire, industry. This comparison indicates that 112(f)(2)(A), in stating that EPA is to
and include site-specific data on many of the facilities not in the industry conduct residual risk rulemaking if the
emissions sources, locations, and data are located in less densely ‘‘lifetime excess cancer risk to the
release parameters. The data represent a populated areas or in the same areas as individual most exposed to emissions
significant fraction of the category the facilities included in the industry from a source in a category or
(approximately 44 percent), and include data. Therefore, the population densities subcategory’’ is greater than 1-in-1
sources with high and low emissions, around the modeled facilities appear to million, does not establish what the
sources that are geographically be representative. level of the standard must be other than
proportional to the entire source In the risk assessment, EPA showed to require them to ‘‘provide an ample
category, and sources that emit nearly that facilities with overlapping margin of safety to protect public health
all organic HAP thought to be emitted modeling domains (facility ‘‘clusters’’) in accordance with this section (as in
from the category. did not lead to significantly higher effect before the date of enactment of the
While the emissions data obtained estimated risks to the individual most CAA Amendments of 1990) [* * *].’’
through the industry questionnaire exposed because such risks are Read in light of CAA section
cannot be proven to be proportional to generally driven by the nearest facility. 112(f)(2)(B)’s express preservation of
the emissions from the entire source However, facility clusters did increase EPA’s pre-enactment interpretation of
category, EPA does have whole-facility the numbers of individuals within CAA section 112, Congress clearly
emissions data for 226 facilities (the certain cancer risk ranges. Although the preserved EPA’s ability to apply the
entire source category is estimated at total population around all facilities in same two-step formulation established
238 facilities) in the National Emissions the source category is not a factor of 2.3 by the Benzene NESHAP in making
Inventory (NEI), and we performed a greater than the total population around future ‘‘ample margin of safety’’
screening-level risk assessment using the facilities in the industry data, the determinations under CAA section
these data to determine if there were additional facilities would increase the 112(f)(2).
HON facilities posing greater public risks to some of the same segments of
health risks than those included in the the population, resulting in higher risk Under that test, there is no single risk
industry data. Although the NEI data to individuals in the population. level establishing what constitutes an
were for the whole facility (and not just ample margin of safety. Rather, the
the HON emission points), we used NEI B. Risk Determination Benzene NESHAP approach codified in
data codes (MACT codes, Standard Comment: One commenter believed CAA sections 112(f)(2)(A) and (B) is
Industrial Classification codes, and that EPA has misinterpreted the CAA by deliberately flexible, requiring
Source Classification Codes) to judge adopting the 1989 Benzene two-step consideration of a range of factors
whether risks estimated using the NEI framework to set residual risk standards (among them estimates of quantitative
data could be attributed to the HON under the 1990 CAA. The commenter risk, incidence, and numbers of exposed
source category. We found that the concluded that the proper interpretation persons within various risk ranges;
highest risks from using the NEI data is that CAA section 112(f)(2)(A) scientific uncertainties; and weight of
were of the same order of magnitude as specifies 1-in-1 million as a bright line evidence) when determining
those estimated using the industry data. and mandates promulgation of acceptability of risk (the first step in the
Based on this general corroboration with standards to reach at least this level of ample margin of safety determination
the NEI data, we concluded that the health protection. The commenter (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).
industry data were the most detailed believed that CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) Determination of an ample margin of
and comprehensive data available that merely leaves standing, those relevant safety, the second step in the process,
were specific to the source category, and rules that were promulgated under requires further consideration of these
that the data were appropriate for use in section 112 as it existed prior to the factors, plus consideration of technical
conducting the residual risk assessment. 1990 CAA. The commenter disagreed feasibility, cost, economic impact, and
EPA did use a factor of 2.3 to estimate with EPA’s position that Congressional other factors (54 FR 38046, September
population risk associated with facilities inaction ratifies EPA’s interpretation of 14, 1989). As we stated in our ‘‘Residual
not included in the industry data. This CAA section 112(f)(2)(B). The Risk Report to Congress’’ (EPA–453/R–
factor is simply the ratio of the total commenter believed that Congressional 99–001) issued under CAA section
number of HON facilities to the number failure to respond to the EPA Report to 112(f)(1), we do not consider the 1-in-
of facilities in the industry data, and Congress, which provided notification 1 million individual cancer risk level as
reflects our expectation, based on of the intent to utilize the 1989 Benzene a ‘‘bright line’’ mandated level of
further comparison to the NEI data, that two-step approach, does not justify protection for establishing residual risk
on average, the population densities overriding the plain statutory language standards, but rather as a trigger point
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES

around the facilities not in the industry of CAA section 112(f). to evaluate whether additional
data are similar to the densities around Response: We disagree with the reductions are necessary to provide an
the facilities that were in the industry commenter. Our policy on using the ample margin of safety to protect public
data. We estimate that there are 61.6 Benzene NESHAP for implementing health. This interpretation is supported
million people living within the 50- CAA section 112(f) has been fully by the language in the preamble to the
kilometer modeling radius of the 105 explained in the Coke Oven Batteries Benzene NESHAP, which was

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM 21DER1
76608 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

incorporated by Congress in CAA an ample margin of safety. As part of address, nor does it apply (nor could it
sections 112(f)(2)(A) and (B). their argument, the commenter cited the have, as a matter of jurisdiction, since
The Report to Congress was intended, Supreme Court decision in American the court was not faced with an issue
among other things, to explain how EPA Trucking Associations v. Whitman requiring a ruling on an interpretation of
would implement CAA section 112(f) by (2001), which addressed ambient air CAA section 112), to the different
investigating the methods available for quality standards established under statutory requirements for regulating
assessing public health risks after the section 109 of the CAA, as providing HAP under CAA section 112 or to any
technology-based standards were precedent that cost cannot be prior judicial precedent interpreting
applied and explaining any considered in developing regulations to CAA section 112. Also, we do not read
uncertainties in the methods. Congress protect public health with a margin of the 1990 CAA as overturning or
also asked us to make recommendations safety. The commenter claimed that this otherwise disapproving of the court’s
for changes to the CAA section 112(f) as court decision abrogated the District of decision in Vinyl Chloride. By directing
a result of the investigation. A plain Columbia Circuit decision on Vinyl us under CAA sections 112(f)(2)(A) and
reading of the CAA section 112(f)(2)(A) Chloride, upon which the Benzene two- (B) to follow the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
indicates that if, based on the report, step policy is based. They also pointed policy, the 1990 CAA requires the
Congress judged that residual risk out that the 1990 CAA removed the Administrator to use judgment both in
standards were unnecessary or that the statutory language that Vinyl Chloride establishing risk levels that constitute a
analytical methods for implementing relied upon heavily. The commenter safe level of exposure and in balancing
the provisions were inadequate, then pointed out that unlike the previous costs against remaining risks for
Congress would enact revisions to CAA CAA, section 112(f) of the 1990 CAA determining an ample margin of safety.
section 112(f). The choice by Congress does not contain the phrase ‘‘* * * set Therefore, by eliminating the wording
not to respond to the report clearly the standard at the level which in [the in CAA section 112(f)(2)(A) to use
indicates that we should proceed with Administrator’s] judgment provides an ‘‘judgment,’’ Congress eliminated a
our general approach as explained in ample margin of safety to protect public redundant specification and did not
our Report to Congress. health.’’ The commenter claimed that remove the legal basis of the Vinyl
We consequently believe that the exclusion of the specific requirement to Chloride decision.
commenter’s bright line approach is not use judgment invalidates the basis of Comment: Several commenters
supported by the statute, and is Vinyl Chloride. contended that revising the HON
incorrect as a matter of law. It is true Response: The clear reading of CAA pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) is not
that the Senate version of CAA section section 112(f) allows us to take cost into necessary and not justified. The
112(f) mandated elimination of lifetime consideration within the context of the commenters stated that EPA’s Option 2
risks of carcinogenic effects greater than two-step policy of the 1989 Benzene would revise the MACT beyond-the-
1-in-10 thousand to the individual in NESHAP. The stipulation in CAA floor decisions, that emission reductions
the population most exposed to section 112(f)(2)(A) that costs, energy, to be gained from Option 2 are
emissions of a carcinogen. (See ‘‘A safety, and other factors can be taken significantly overstated, and that the
Legislative History of the Clean Air Act into consideration in setting standards emission reduction does not justify the
Amendments of 1990,’’ pages 7598 and to prevent an adverse environmental cost. Several commenters noted that
8518.) However, this version of the effect does not mean that costs cannot Option 2 alternatives do not represent
legislation was not adopted. We believe be taken into consideration in any ‘‘developments in practices,
that the rejected Senate version of CAA determining standards to protect public processes, and control technologies’’ but
section 112(f) shows that Congress health. To the contrary, CAA section rather simply reflect an apparent
considered mandating a level of risk 112(f)(2)(A) states that residual risk decision by EPA that higher cost options
reduction and chose not to do so. standards are to provide an ample that were rejected in the original
In any event, EPA has concluded that margin of safety to protect public health beyond-the-floor analysis are now
the flexible approach to risk ‘‘in accordance with this section (as in somehow acceptable.
acceptability and ample margin of safety effect before the date of enactment of the Response: We do not agree that in
set forth in the Benzene NESHAP is Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990).’’ reviewing a standard under CAA section
reasonable and appropriate in light of This formulation, coupled with CAA 112(d)(6), the CAA mandates that only
the complex judgments EPA must make section 112(f)(2)(B), which states that the question of whether newly
under CAA section 112(f). nothing in CAA section 112(f)(2)(A) or developed emission control measures
Comment: One commenter argued any other part of CAA section 112 shall have been identified since the
that CAA section 112(f)(2)(A) very be construed as affecting the EPA’s publication of the MACT standards be
clearly prohibits using cost as a interpretation of this section as set forth addressed. CAA Section 112(d)(6)
consideration for standards promulgated in the preamble to the 1989 Benzene requires that EPA review and revise
to provide an ample margin of safety to NESHAP, reflects Congress’ standards ‘‘as necessary.’’ As we explain
protect public health. CAA Section endorsement of the Benzene NESHAP later, the instruction to revise ‘‘as
112(f)(2)(A) directs EPA to promulgate approach, including the use of costs in necessary’’ indicates that EPA should
standards in order to provide an ample determining an ample margin of safety. use judgment in this regulatory
margin of safety to protect public health The court decision cited by the decision, and is not precluded from
or to prevent, taking into consideration commenter, American Trucking considering additional relevant factors,
costs, energy, safety, and other relevant Association v. Whitman, has no such as risk and the evolution of costs
factors, an adverse environmental effect. relevance to decisions on ample margin of previously considered measures. At
The commenter maintained that this of safety made under section 112 of the the time of a MACT determination, the
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES

construction allows cost as a CAA. That case addressed the beyond-the-floor decision is made
consideration only for standards consideration of cost in the context of without knowledge of the level of risks
designed to prevent an adverse setting national ambient air quality posed by an industry. In the subsequent
environmental effect where such standards under CAA section 109. The reviews of the standards, we have
standards are more stringent than American Trucking Association v. substantial discretion in weighing all of
necessary to protect human health with Whitman decision does not specifically the relevant factors, including all

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM 21DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 76609

available control measures that are more Rule (71 FR 42727, July 27, 2006) (EPA’s commenter added that the assessment
stringent than that required by the Summary of Public Comments and required in CAA section 112(f)(2)(A) is
current NESHAP, emission reductions, Responses to the Proposed Rule is of the ‘‘standards’’ adopted under CAA
public health risk impacts, costs, and located at docket no. EPA–HQ–OAR– section 112(d). If the current
any other relevant factors to determine 2005–0155). As we explained in our ‘‘standards’’ are not adequate to protect
what further controls, if any, are proposal (see 71 FR 34436, June 14, public health with an ample margin of
necessary. 2006), the findings that underlie a CAA safety, more stringent standards are
Comment: Several commenters section 112(f) risk determination will necessary. The commenter claimed that,
contended that the application of CAA often be key factors in making any if sources are over-controlling, but
section 112(d)(6) should incorporate the subsequent CAA section 112(d)(6) nothing in the CAA section 112(d)
framework of CAA section 112(f)(2) technology review determinations. standards would prevent backsliding,
because this approach would require the While our action today makes no the statute requires EPA to adopt more
Administrator to weigh the potential for changes to control requirements under stringent limits to maintain that over-
future risk reduction under CAA section the HON and it is, therefore, not control. If the over-control occurs
112(d)(6) against the cost of that necessary to respond to their individual because State or local agencies have
reduction in the same manner as set points, we disagree with the adopted tighter limits, the commenter
forth in the second step of the 1989 commenters who state that a concluded that more stringent limits are
Benzene NESHAP rule. One commenter determination under CAA section 112(f) feasible, and EPA must either (a) adopt
added that technology reviews that of an ample margin of safety and no those limits nationally to provide
focus solely on the cost-per-ton of adverse environmental effects alone uniform protection or (b) explain why
additional emission controls and do not will, in all cases, necessarily cause us to such standards would be infeasible.
consider the risk reduction potential determine that a revision is not Several commenters agreed with EPA
could result in the imposition of necessary under CAA section 112(d)(6). that, for this source category, the use of
technology controls that yield very Our decision today should not be 1999 actual emissions data rather than
little, if any, benefit. Another viewed as a departure from our general allowable emissions do not lead to an
commenter stated that when a MACT view, articulated in the proposal, that in underestimating of risk. The
standard achieves protection of public some cases, even if risk factors remain commenters pointed out that the
health with an ample margin of safety the same from one round of CAA conservatism of the health benchmark
and prevents adverse environmental section 112(d)(6) review to another, values and the exposure estimates
effects, as is the case with the HON, no changes in costs of or in the availability outweigh any potential underestimation
further revisions are ‘‘necessary’’ even if of control technology may be sufficient of emission levels based on using actual
there have been developments in to alter a previous conclusion about emissions, and added that EPA emission
control technologies. The commenter whether to impose further controls. data based on actual emissions is
believed that a determination of ample In response to the commenter who conservatively high since the Toxics
margin of safety and no adverse claimed we may not consider risks or Release Inventory shows a reduction in
environmental effects alone is sufficient costs at all under CAA section 112(d)(6), emissions since 1999.
to determine that revision of the we continue to interpret the use of the Response: EPA’s position on the use
standard is not necessary under CAA phrase ‘‘as necessary’’ in that section as of both allowable and actual emissions
section 112(d)(6). The commenter conferring discretion on the agency to is fully discussed in the final Coke Oven
supported EPA’s position that risk exercise its judgment as to what factors Batteries NESHAP (70 FR 19998–19999,
benefits are appropriate to consider may drive an evaluation of available April 15, 2005). There we explained that
under the CAA section 112(d)(6) practices, processes, and control modeling the allowable levels of
decision. technologies. The ambiguous term ‘‘as emissions is inherently reasonable since
Another commenter rejected EPA’s necessary’’ inherently requires an EPA they reflect the maximum level sources
interpretation that the term ‘‘revise as comparison between control measures could emit and still comply with
necessary’’ allows EPA to import into its and some goal or end. As the first national emission standards. But we
8-year evaluation the consideration of rounds of both CAA section 112(f) also explained that it is reasonable to
cost and risk. The commenter residual risk and CAA section 112(d) consider actual emissions, where data
maintained that emission standards technology review occur 8 years on them is available, in both steps of the
adopted under CAA section 112(d)(2) following MACT, it is reasonable to Benzene NESHAP analysis in order to
themselves were the product of a interpret these duties as being avoid overestimating emissions and
technology-driven evaluation that did compatible with and informative of each their risks (including incidence) and to
not incorporate cost as a factor in the other, and for the ultimate goal of account for how sources typically strive
initial stages, and did not permit revising standards as needed to protect to perform better than required by
consideration of risk at all. The public health with an ample margin of standards to allow for process
commenter continued that EPA has safety as influencing what we determine variability and not exceed standards due
illegally substituted a risk/cost analysis is generally ‘‘necessary,’’ in terms of to emissions increases on individual
for the requirement to perform an whether to impose further technological days. Failure to consider these data in
analysis of the technical feasibility of controls under CAA section 112(d)(6). risk assessments, we said, would
emission controls to establish the level Comment: One commenter contended unrealistically inflate risk levels.
of control of the best performing HON that, for residual risk assessments, EPA The preamble to the proposed HON
sources. may not rely on actual emissions, which residual risk standards included a
Response: We have addressed the represents ‘‘over-control’’ of emissions, discussion of actual versus allowable
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES

relationship between CAA sections with no comparison to allowable emissions from HON emission points
112(f) and 112(d) in other recent emissions. The commenter stated that if (71 FR 34428). We explained that, for
rulemakings, as well as in the proposal sources are being over-controlled as this source category, using available
for today’s final rule. See, e.g., our EPA suggests, then EPA’s analysis of data on actual emissions enabled us to
response to comments document for the risk underestimates the risk remaining approximate allowable emissions, and
Dry Cleaning Facilities Residual Risk after implementation of the HON. The that basing the analysis on actual

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM 21DER1
76610 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

emissions here provided an acceptable The commenter argued that EPA cannot C. Administrative Requirements
method for determining the remaining rely on the circular justification that the Comment: One commenter argued
risks to public health and the original HON regulated only organic that EPA has not appropriately
environment after application of the HAP. The commenter argued that the addressed impacts on children and
MACT standards. In the HON proposal residual risk provisions of CAA section other sensitive receptors. The
preamble, we acknowledged that there 112(f) direct EPA to estimate the commenter stated that even though EPA
is some uncertainty regarding the remaining risk for the regulated acknowledged in the risk assessment
differences between actual and categories, whatever chemicals that risk that children face greater exposure and
allowable emissions. For some emission may encompass. The commenter added are more susceptible to the adverse
points, it was not possible to estimate that EPA’s attempt to screen out health effects from airborne
allowable emissions from available inorganic HAP from further risk contaminants, these factors were not
information. A requirement to assessment by looking at these addressed. The commenter stated that
determine the applicability of controls emissions in isolation is invalid. The
for some emission points was EPA determined that ‘‘[t]he proposed
commenter contended that EPA must rule is not subject to the Executive
intentionally not included in the HON look at the combined target organ
because it was seen as an unnecessary Order (13045: Protection of Children
specific HI from all emissions allowed From Environmental Health Risks and
burden for points that would be
under the current standards, including Safety Risks) * * * because the Agency
controlled anyway. For these emission
inorganic emissions, to determine if the does not have reason to believe the
points there is no readily available data
residual risk is acceptable. Moreover, environmental health or safety risks
that can be used to determine the
applicability of control requirements. the commenter stated that EPA cannot addressed by this action present a
Without such data, there is no accurate avoid the consideration of emission disproportionate risk to children.’’ This
way to determine allowable emissions controls for inorganics based only on a commenter contended that this
under the current rule. However, for screening analysis; such control conclusion is based on our assessment
equipment leaks which represent the decisions for both the residual risk and of the information on the effects on
most significant impact on the cancer the CAA section 112(d)(6) human health and exposures associated
risk at the HON facilities, the standards determination must consider other with SOCMI operations. The commenter
are work practice standards and the factors such as costs and feasibility. could not find such an assessment
actual emissions and allowable Response: We acknowledge that referenced in the Risk Assessment. The
emissions are likely the same for inorganic HAP (such as hydrochloric commenter also stated that EPA ignored
equipment in the leak detection and acid and chlorine) are emitted from the effects on other sensitive receptors,
repair program required by the HON. some HON sources and that these e.g., active adults.
More frequent monitoring of equipment pollutants require consideration even Response: First, since this rulemaking
components (for example, monthly though they were not regulated HAP in is not economically significant under
instead of quarterly) could result in the existing NESHAP. We stated in the Executive Order 12866, Executive Order
actual emissions being lower than preamble to the proposed rule that 13045 does not apply to this matter.
allowable emissions, but few, if any, inorganic HAP were not considered in EPA acknowledges that population
sources monitor more frequently than the primary assessment because data subgroups, including children, may
required by the HON. were not available to characterize have the potential for risk greater than
We concluded that there is no reason emissions. However, we conducted an the general population due to greater
to believe that there is either a relative exposure and/or greater
additional analysis using information in
substantial amount of overcontrol of susceptibility to the toxicant. With
the NEI to estimate the risk from the
Group 1 sources or voluntary control of respect to exposure, the risk assessment
entire plant site at which the HON
Group 2 sources such that actual implicitly accounts for this greater
processes are located. The NEI contains
emissions are not a reasonable potential for exposure by assuming
information on both organic and
approximation of allowable emissions. lifetime (rather than simply childhood)
inorganic HAP emitted from each
Rather, actual emissions appear to exposure, which would tend to yield
facility. EPA estimated hazard indices
reflect the results of our prior higher estimates of risks. The exposure
(total, not target organ specific) for each
application of MACT (allowing for assessment described the maximum
process variability), and no evidence in of the 226 HON facilities for which NEI
modeled lifetime exposure of residents
the record suggests that sources could data were available. There were many
near HON facilities. The exposed
make changes that significantly increase instances where inorganic HAP were population was conservatively
their emissions and risks but still responsible for hazard indices presumed to be exposed to airborne
comply with MACT control exceeding 1, but there were no instances concentrations at their residence
requirements. Consequently, basing the where the inorganic HAP were continuously, 24 hours per day for a full
risk analysis on actual emissions in this associated with HON processes. lifetime, including childhood.
case enabled us to determine the Therefore, EPA concluded that not With regard to children’s potentially
remaining risks to public health and the including inorganic HAP in the primary greater susceptibility to non-cancer
environment after application of the risk assessment did not affect the results toxicants emitted by HON facilities, the
specific MACT standards applicable to of the analysis, and that no further assessment relied on Agency (or
HON sources. assessment of inorganic HAP emissions comparable) hazard identification and
Comment: One commenter argued was necessary in order to determine dose-response values which have been
that EPA must address inorganic HAP. whether remaining risks from HON developed to be protective for all
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES

The Risk Assessment acknowledges that sources after application of MACT are at subgroups of the general population,
inorganic HAP, such as hydrochloric acceptable levels. Furthermore, as including children. For example, a
acid and chlorine, may be emitted from discussed earlier in the preamble, it is review 1 of the chronic reference value
HON sources, but that these compounds not reasonable to impose any additional
were not considered because data were controls to provide an ample margin of 1 A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference

not available to characterize emissions. safety to protect public health. Concentration Process. U.S. Environmental

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM 21DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 76611

process concluded that the Agency’s context of the full set of assumptions rule in a manner that inures to the
reference concentration (RfC) derivation used for this risk assessment. For benefit of listed species (see 50 CFR
processes adequately considered example, we used a health-protective 402.03), at least in cases where adverse
potential susceptibility of different assumption of a 70-year exposure environmental effects are of a significant
subgroups with specific consideration of duration in our risk estimates; however, magnitude.
children, such that the resultant RfC using the national average residency However, under section 7(a)(2) of the
values pertain to the full human time of 12 years would reduce the ESA and the implementing regulations
population ‘‘including sensitive estimate of risk by roughly a factor of 6. promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife
subgroups,’’ a phrase which is inclusive Our unit risk estimates for HAP are Service and the National Marine
of childhood. considered a plausible upper-bound Fisheries Service (collectively, the
On the issue of cancer dose-response estimate; actual potency is likely to be Services), an action agency such as EPA
values, our revised cancer guidelines lower and some of which could be as has a duty to initiate consultation with
and new supplemental guidance low as zero. After considering these and the services only where it determines
recommend applying default adjustment other factors, we continue to consider that its action may have an impact
factors to account for exposures the risks from emissions after (either beneficial or adverse) on listed
occurring during early-life exposure to application of the current HON rule to threatened or endangered species or on
those chemicals thought to cause cancer be acceptable (within the meaning of the their designated critical habitat. Where
via a mutagenic mode of action. For Benzene NESHAP decision framework the action agency determines that its
these chemicals, the supplemental discussed at 69 FR 48339–48340, action will have no such effect, the
guidance indicates that, in lieu of 48347–48348, August 9, 2004). As consultation duty is not triggered. For
chemical-specific data on which age or mentioned in the recently published the HON residual risk rulemaking,
life-stage specific risk estimates or cancer guidelines, we will continue to based on the ecological risk analysis we
potencies can be determined, default develop and present, to the extent discuss below, EPA has determined that
‘‘age dependent adjustment factors’’ can practicable, an appropriate central its action has no effect, either adverse or
be applied when assessing cancer risk estimate and appropriate lower and beneficial, on listed species or their
for early-life exposures to chemicals upper-bound estimates of cancer critical habitat.
which cause cancer through a potency. Development of new methods We conducted a screening-level
mutagenic mode.2 However, at the or estimates is a process that will ecological risk analysis to assess the
present time, we have not determined require independent peer review. affects of persistent and
whether any of the HAP emitted by the Comment: One commenter argued bioaccumulative toxic HAP emissions
HON source category cause cancer via a that EPA failed to adequately address on aquatic and terrestrial receptors.
mutagenic mode of action. While environmental effects or to comply with Only two HAP, hexachlorobenzene and
several of the HON pollutants may be the requirements of the Endangered anthracene, were estimated to pose any
carcinogenic by such a mechanism, our Species Act (ESA). The commenter potential for exposures via routes
policy is not to apply these adjustment objected to EPA’s assumption in the beyond direct inhalation. All ecological
factors unless we have completed a ecological assessment that the aquatic hazard quotient (HQ) values are well
peer-reviewed assessment that explicitly and terrestrial communities surrounding below levels of concern, with the
makes this determination after HON sources were healthy and highest HQ being 0.05 from benthic/
consideration of the full scientific unaffected by other stressors. sediment exposure by aquatic life to
literature. Additionally, the commenter claimed anthracene. The highest
Although we are not yet certain that EPA is on record acknowledging its hexachlorobenzene HQ is 0.02 from
whether or not a childhood potency obligation to comply with the ESA surface water exposure by aquatic life.
adjustment is needed, the estimated during the residual risk phase of the air HQ values of equal to or less than 1.0
risks must also be considered in the toxics program, and yet EPA failed to do are indicative of no effect. EPA
so. concluded that these levels are not high
Protection Agency. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/ Response: The commenter is correct enough to constitute ‘‘significant and
630/P–02/002F. December 2002. that EPA has publicly agreed that the widespread’’ adverse environmental
2 The ‘‘Supplemental Guidance for Assessing consultation requirements of the ESA effects as defined in CAA section
Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to potentially apply to CAA section 112(f) 112(a)(7), and that there is not an effect
Carcinogens’’ recommends applying default
adjustment factors to early life stage exposures to
residual risk rulemakings. See Sierra on threatened or endangered species or
carcinogens acting through a mutagenic mode of Club v. EPA. 353 F.3d 976 (District of on their critical habitat within the
action. The Supplemental Guidance recommends Columbia Circuit, 2004). This is because meaning of the ESA, as implemented at
an integrative approach that can be used to assess CAA section 112(f)(2)(A) provides us 50 CFR 402.14(a). Therefore, EPA
total lifetime risk resulting from lifetime or less- with authority to tighten NESHAP, after
than-lifetime exposure during a specific portion of
concluded that a consultation with the
a lifetime. The following adjustments represent the consideration of costs and other relevant Services regarding endangered species
approach suggested in the Supplemental Guidance: factors, to prevent an ‘‘adverse was not necessary. The statement
(1) For exposures before 2 years of age (i.e., environmental effect.’’ CAA section regarding communities being unaffected
spanning a 2-year time interval from the first day 112(a)(7) defines this term to mean ‘‘any
of birth up until a child’s second birthday), a 10-
by other toxic chemicals or
fold adjustment; (2) for exposures between 2 and significant and widespread adverse environmental stressors was meant to
less than 16 years of age (i.e., spanning a 14-year effect, which may reasonably be convey that the assessment considered
time interval from a child’s second birthday up anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or only the contribution of HON emissions
until their sixteenth birthday), a 3-fold adjustment; other natural resources, including
and (3) for exposures after turning 16 years of age,
to media concentrations.
no adjustment. Assuming a constant lifetime
adverse impacts on populations of
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES

endangered or threatened species or D. Impacts Estimation


exposure, incorporation of these adjustment factors
would increase the estimate of lifetime cancer risk significant degradation of Comment: One commenter contended
by roughly 60 percent (factor of 1.6). If exposures environmental quality over broad areas’’ that EPA overestimated the costs for
were from 3 years to 73 years, the adjustment factor
would be less than 1.6. If exposures were from 16
(emphasis added). Therefore, CAA controlling process vents, equipment
years to 86 years, no adjustment would be section 112(f) clearly provides EPA leaks, and storage vessels. The
necessary. discretion to promulgate a residual risk commenter also contended that EPA

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM 21DER1
76612 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

should have selected more stringent of further control still was not justified in response to OMB recommendations
control options for these sources, such considering the small reduction in have been documented in the docket.
as lower leak definitions for equipment health risk resulting from HAP emission
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
leaks. Other commenters expressed their reductions achieved by Option 2.
view that EPA underestimated costs of This action does not impose any new
E. Clarification Changes information collection burden. The
controlling each of the sources by using
outdated costs and inappropriate Comment: Several commenters argued action does not require any further
assumptions. that many of EPA’s proposed control of sources and the amendatory
Response: Cost algorithms and clarifications in the solicitation of changes are estimated to have at most
information used for the cost impacts public comments are significant, will minor costs. However, OMB has
analysis were based on previous EPA result in additional costs and burdens previously approved the information
studies and rulemaking actions and are with no identified environmental collection requirements contained in the
well documented and accepted. Costs benefit, and are inconsistent, in some existing regulations, 40 CFR part 63,
from previous years were scaled to 2001 cases, with current rule language and 12 subparts F, G, and H, under the
dollars using engineering cost indices to years of HON implementation. These provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
account for inflation. We consider the Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and has
commenters maintained these changes
cost information that we used to assigned OMB control number 2060–
must be adopted through a formal
estimate impacts to be appropriate for 0443, EPA ICR number 1854.04. A copy
rulemaking process.
this analysis and are not of the OMB approved Information
underestimated. We would also like to Response: We have decided not to Collection Request (ICR) may be
clarify that we analyzed control options adopt some of the proposed clarifying obtained from Susan Auby, Collection
with more stringent requirements for changes at this time. If we further Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental
each source (e.g., requiring lower consider them, we will provide another Protection Agency (2822T); 1200
equipment leak percent leakers and leak opportunity to collect public comments Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
definitions), but determined the on the specific regulatory language. DC 20460, or by calling (202) 566–1672.
emission reductions and risk reductions However, we have decided that one of Burden means the total time, effort, or
did not warrant the costs. the proposed minor changes will not financial resources expended by persons
However, in response to the have any impact on costs of compliance, to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
comments, we re-evaluated Option 2. and are therefore adopting it in this final or provide information to or for a
Before rejecting the option overall, we rule: Re-determining the group status of Federal agency. This includes the time
decided to modify Option 2 to eliminate wastewater streams whenever process or needed to review instructions; develop,
the high cost sources. We also re- operational changes occur. We are also acquire, install, and utilize technology
evaluated the assumptions used in the making two minor changes not and systems for the purposes of
cost analysis to reflect a range of likely specifically discussed in the proposal collecting, validating, and verifying
costs rather than the most costly results. but for which we received comments information, processing and
At proposal, we estimated that urging their adoption: removal of MEK maintaining information, and disclosing
sources having any amount of Table 38 from tables in subparts F and G to 40 and providing information; adjust the
HAP would be required to meet Option CFR part 63, and waiving recordkeeping existing ways to comply with any
2. We re-analyzed the costs of requirements for off-site reloading or previously applicable instructions and
controlling process vents and cleaning operations that take part in the requirements; train personnel to be able
equipment leaks assuming a trigger level vapor balancing compliance option for to respond to a collection of
of 5 percent Table 38 HAP. storage tanks. These changes are information; search data sources;
Additionally, we analyzed the impacts discussed in Section II.B of this complete and review the collection of
of reducing the TRE from a value of 4 preamble. information; and transmit or otherwise
from proposal to a value of 2. At We are also clarifying in this disclose the information.
proposal we calculated repair costs for preamble that liquid streams generated An agency may not conduct or
leaking valves on a monthly basis. For from control devices (e.g., scrubber sponsor, and a person is not required to
the re-analysis, we assumed there would effluent) are wastewater. We notified the respond to, a collection of information
be no additional costs of repairing public at proposal that we intended to unless it displays a currently valid OMB
leaking valves because the frequency of incorporate this clarification in the rule. control number. The OMB control
repair would not change from the However, commenters affirmed that the numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
current HON when sources successfully regulatory text already clarifies this and CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
repair valves on their existing schedule. additional rule language is unnecessary.
At proposal, we calculated the annual C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Therefore, no rule clarification language
cost of valve monitoring assuming all was added. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
sources would have to monitor monthly. generally requires an agency to prepare
This assumption would provide the IV. Statutory and Executive Order a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
highest cost estimates. For the re- Reviews rule subject to notice and comment
analysis, we calculated the annual cost A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory rulemaking requirements under the
of valve monitoring assuming that half Planning and Review Administrative Procedure Act or any
of the sources would be able to conduct other statute unless the agency certifies
quarterly monitoring and half would Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR that the rule will not have a significant
still conduct monthly monitoring. 51735, October 4, 1993), the Office of economic impact on a substantial
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES

The resulting total annual cost for a Management and Budget (OMB) deems number of small entities. Small entities
re-evaluated Option 2 was estimated to the final rule to be a ‘‘significant include small businesses, small
be $6 million, less than half the $13 regulatory action’’ because it raises organizations, and small governmental
million annual cost of Option 2, as novel legal and policy issues. jurisdictions.
proposed. After considering these lower Accordingly, EPA submitted the final For purposes of assessing the impacts
annual costs, EPA decided that the cost rule to OMB for review. Changes made of the final rule on small entities, small

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM 21DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 76613

entity is defined as: (1) A small business Before EPA establishes any regulatory F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
as defined by the Small Business requirements that may significantly or and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Administration; (2) a small uniquely affect small governments, Governments
governmental jurisdiction that is a including tribal governments, it must
government of a city, county, town, have developed, under section 203 of Executive Order 13175, entitled
school district or special district with a the UMRA, a small government agency ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
population of less than 50,000; and (3) plan. The plan must provide for Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
a small organization that is any not-for- notifying potentially affected small 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
profit enterprise that is independently governments, enabling officials of to develop an accountable process to
owned and operated and is not affected small governments to have ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
dominant in its field. meaningful and timely input in the tribal officials in the development of
For sources subject to the final rule, development of EPA regulatory regulatory policies that have Tribal
the relevant NAICS and associated proposals with significant Federal implications.’’ The final rule does not
employee sizes are as follows: intergovernmental mandates, and have tribal implications, as specified in
NAICS 32511—Petrochemical informing, educating, and advising Executive Order 13175. No tribal
Manufacturing—1,000 employees or small governments on compliance with governments own SOCMI facilities
fewer. the regulatory requirements. subject to the HON. Thus, Executive
NAICS 325192—Cyclic Crudes and EPA has determined that the final rule Order 13175 does not apply to the final
Intermediates Manufacturing—750 does not contain a Federal mandate that rule.
employees or fewer. may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
NAICS 325199—All Other Organic Children From Environmental Health
Chemical Manufacturing—1,000 tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year. Thus, Risks and Safety Risks
employees or fewer.
the final rule is not subject to the
After considering the economic Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
impacts of the final rule on small April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:
the UMRA. This action finalizes our
entities, EPA has determined that this (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
decision not to impose further controls
action will not have a significant and not to revise the existing rule. significant’’ as defined under Executive
economic impact on a substantial Consequently, there are not costs Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
number of small entities. This action associated with this action. In addition, environmental health or safety risk that
finalizes our decision not to impose today’s final decision does not EPA has reason to believe may have a
further controls and not to revise the significantly or uniquely affect small disproportionate effect on children. If
existing rule. Consequently, there are no governments because it contains no the regulatory action meets both criteria,
impacts on any small entities. requirements that apply to such EPA must evaluate the environmental
governments or impose obligations health or safety effects of the planned
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
upon them. Therefore, today’s final rule on children, and explain why the
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates decision is not subject to section 203 of planned regulation is preferable to other
Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public UMRA. potentially effective and reasonably
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for feasible alternatives considered by the
Federal agencies to assess the effects of E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Agency.
their regulatory actions on State, local, Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, The final rule is not subject to the
and tribal governments and the private August 10, 1999), requires EPA to Executive Order because it is not
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, develop an accountable process to economically significant as defined in
EPA generally must prepare a written ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by Executive Order 12866, and because the
statement, including a cost-benefit State and local officials in the Agency does not have reason to believe
analysis, for proposed and final rules development of regulatory policies that the environmental health or safety risks
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies addressed by the final rule present a
result in expenditures by State, local, that have federalism implications’’ is disproportionate risk to children. This
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, defined in the Executive Order to
conclusion is based on our assessment
or to the private sector, of $100 million include regulations that have
or more in any one year. Before of the information on the effects on
‘‘substantial direct effects on States, on
promulgating an EPA rule for which a human health and exposures associated
the relationship between the national
written statement is needed, section 205 with SOCMI operations.
government and the States, or on the
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to distribution of power and H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
identify and consider a reasonable responsibilities among the various Concerning Regulations That
number of regulatory alternatives and levels of government.’’ Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
adopt the least costly, most cost- The final rule does not have Distribution, or Use
effective, or least burdensome federalism implications. It will not have
alternative that achieves the objectives substantial direct effects on the States, The final rule is not subject to
of the rule. The provisions of section on the relationship between the national Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
205 do not apply when they are government and the States, or on the Concerning Regulations That
inconsistent with applicable law. distribution of power and Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to responsibilities among the various Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES

adopt an alternative other than the least levels of government, as specified in 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have
costly, most cost-effective, or least Executive Order 13132. None of the a significant adverse effect on the
burdensome alternative if EPA affected SOCMI facilities are owned or supply, distribution, or use of energy.
publishes with the final rule an operated by State governments. Thus, Further, we have concluded that this
explanation why that alternative was Executive Order 13132 does not apply final decision is not likely to have any
not adopted. to the final rule. adverse energy impacts.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM 21DER1
76614 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

I. National Technology Transfer and K. Congressional Review Act. requirements for closed vent system and
Advancement Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 control device specified in §§ 63.119
U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the through 63.123. The notification and
As noted in the proposed rule, section reporting requirements in § 63.122 do
12(d) of the National Technology Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides not apply to the owner or operator of the
Transfer and Advancement Act offsite cleaning or reloading facility.
(NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104–113; that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must * * * * *
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA (iv) After the compliance dates
to use voluntary consensus standards submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the specified in § 63.100(k) at an offsite
(VCS) in its regulatory activities unless reloading or cleaning facility subject to
to do so would be inconsistent with Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a paragraph (g) of this section, compliance
applicable law or otherwise impractical. with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
VCS are technical standards (e.g., report containing the final rule and
other required information to the United reporting provisions of any other
materials specifications, test methods, subpart of this part 63 constitutes
sampling procedures, and business States Senate, the United States House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller compliance with the monitoring,
practices) that are developed or adopted recordkeeping, and reporting provisions
General of the United States prior to
by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA of paragraph (g)(7)(ii) or paragraph
publication of the final rule in the
to provide Congress, through OMB, (g)(7)(iii) of this section. You must
Federal Register. A major rule cannot
explanations when the Agency does not identify in your Notification of
take effect until 60 days after it is
use available and applicable VCS. Compliance Status report required by
published in the Federal Register. The
The final rule does not involve § 63.152(b), the subpart to the part 63
final rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
technical standards beyond those with which the owner or operator of the
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final
already provided under the current rule. reloading or cleaning facility complies.
rule is effective December 21, 2006.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use ■ 5. Section 63.132 is amended by
of any VCS. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 adding paragraphs (c)(3) and (d)(3) to
Environmental protection, read as follows:
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Administrative practice and procedure, § 63.132 Process wastewater provisions—
Actions To Address Environmental
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental general.
Justice in Minority Populations and relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
Low-Income Populations * * * * *
requirements. (c) * * *
Executive Order 12898, Federal Dated: December 15, 2006. (3) The owner or operator of a Group
Actions to Address Environmental Stephen L. Johnson, 2 wastewater shall re-determine group
Justice in Minority Populations and Administrator. status for each Group 2 stream, as
Low-Income Populations, requires necessary, to determine whether the
■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, stream is Group 1 or Group 2 whenever
Federal agencies to consider the impact
title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal process changes are made that could
of programs, policies, and activities on
Regulations is amended as follows: reasonably be expected to change the
minority populations and low-income
populations. According to EPA stream to a Group 1 stream. Examples of
PART 63—[Amended]
guidance, agencies are to assess whether process changes include, but are not
minority or low-income populations ■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 limited to, changes in production
face risks or a rate of exposure to continues to read as follows: capacity, production rate, feedstock
hazards that are significant and that Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
type, or whenever there is a
‘‘appreciably exceed or is likely to replacement, removal, or addition of
appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the Subpart F—[Amended] recovery or control equipment. For
general population or to the appropriate purposes of this paragraph (c)(3),
Table 2—[Amended] process changes do not include: Process
comparison group’’ (EPA, 1998).
■ 2. Table 2 to subpart F of part 63 is upsets; unintentional, temporary
The Agency has recently reaffirmed process changes; and changes that are
its commitment to ensuring amended by removing the entry for
‘‘Methyl ethyl ketone (2–Butanone).’’ within the range on which the original
environmental justice for all people, determination was based.
regardless of race, color, national origin, Table 4—[Amended] (d) * * *
or income level. To ensure (3) The owner or operator of a Group
environmental justice, we assert that we ■ 3. Table 4 to subpart F of part 63 is 2 wastewater shall re-determine group
shall integrate environmental justice amended by removing the entry for status for each Group 2 stream, as
considerations into all of our programs ‘‘Methyl ethyl ketone (2–Butanone).’’ necessary, to determine whether the
and policies, and, to this end, have stream is Group 1 or Group 2 whenever
identified eight national environmental Subpart G—[Amended]
process changes are made that could
justice priorities. One of the priorities is ■ 4. Section 63.119 is amended by reasonably be expected to change the
to reduce exposure to air toxics. At revising paragraph (g)(7)(ii) and adding stream to a Group 1 stream. Examples of
proposal, EPA requested comment on paragraph (g)(7)(iv) to read as follows: process changes include, but are not
the implications of environmental limited to, changes in production
justice concerns relative to the two § 63.119 Storage vessel provisions— capacity, production rate, feedstock
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES

options proposed since some HON reference control technology. type, or whenever there is a
facilities are located near minority and * * * * * replacement, removal, or addition of
low-income populations. We received (g) * * * recovery or control equipment. For
one comment regarding environmental (7) * * * purposes of this paragraph (d)(3),
justice concerns that is addressed in the (ii) If complying with paragraph process changes do not include: Process
response to comments document. (g)(6)(i) of this section, comply with the upsets; unintentional, temporary

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM 21DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 76615

process changes; and changes that are retention limits for the Atlantic tunas (May 29, 1999; 64 FR 29090), and
within the range on which the original General category should be adjusted to implementing regulations at § 635.27.
determination was based. provide reasonable opportunity to The final initial 2006 BFT specifications
* * * * * harvest the General category January increased the General category retention
time-period subquota. Therefore, NMFS limit to three fish for the June though
Table 9—[Amended] increases the daily BFT retention limits August time-period, as well as
■ 6. Table 9 to subpart G of part 63 is for the entire month of January, established the following General
amended by removing the entry for including previously scheduled category RFD schedule: all Saturday and
‘‘Methyl ethyl ketone (2–Butanone).’’ Restricted Fishing Days (RFDs), to Sundays from November 18, 2006,
provide enhanced commercial General through January 31, 2007, and Thursday
Table 34—[Amended] category fishing opportunities in all November 23, 2006, and Monday
■ 7. Table 34 to subpart G of part 63 is areas while minimizing the risk of an December 25, 2006, inclusive.
amended by removing the entry for overharvest of the General category BFT Due to the large amount of available
‘‘Methyl ethyl ketone (2–Butanone).’’ quota. quota and the low catch rates, NMFS
DATES: The effective dates for the BFT extended the three-fish retention limit
Table 36—[Amended] daily retention limits are provided in through September (71 FR 51529,
Table 1 under SUPPLEMENTARY August 30, 2006), October (71 FR 58287,
■ 8. Table 36 to subpart G of part 63 is
INFORMATION. October 3, 2006), November (71 FR
amended by removing the entry for
64165, November 1, 2006), and
‘‘Methyl ethyl ketone (2–Butanone).’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad December (71 FR 68752, November 28,
[FR Doc. E6–21869 Filed 12–20–06; 8:45 am] McHale, 978–281–9260. 2006) to enhance fishing opportunities
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: while minimizing the risk of exceeding
Regulations implemented under the available quota. On October 2, 2006,
authority of the Atlantic Tunas NMFS published a final rule (71 FR
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) 58058) implementing the Consolidated
and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Highly Migratory Species Fishery
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Conservation and Management Act Management Plan (HMS FMP). The
Administration (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 HMS FMP revised the General category
et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by time-period subquota allocation scheme
50 CFR Part 635 persons and vessels subject to U.S. by dividing the coastwide General
jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part category into the following five distinct
[I.D. 121206B] 635. time-periods; June through August,
The 2006 BFT fishing year began on September, October through November,
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
June 1, 2006, and ends May 31, 2007. December, and January of the following
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries
The final initial 2006 BFT specifications year. The effective date of these time-
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries and General category effort controls periods and their associated subquota
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and were published on May 30, 2006 (71 FR was November 1, 2006.
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 30619). These final specifications
divided the General category quota Daily Retention Limits
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason among three subperiods (June through Pursuant to this action and the final
retention limit adjustment. August, the month of September, and initial 2006 BFT specifications, noted
October through January) in accordance above, the daily BFT retention limits for
SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that with the 1999 Highly Migratory Species Atlantic tunas General category are as
the daily Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) Fishery Management Plan (1999 FMP) follows:

TABLE 1. EFFECTIVE DATES FOR RETENTION LIMIT ADJUSTMENTS


Permit Category Effective Dates Areas BFT Size Class Limit

General December 1 - 31, 2006, inclusive All Three BFT per vessel per day/trip, meas-
uring 73 inches (185 cm) curved fork
length (CFL) or larger

January 1 - 31, 2007, inclusive All Three BFT per vessel per day/trip, meas-
uring 73 inches (185 cm) CFL or larger

February 1 through May 31, 2007, inclu- All CLOSED


sive

Adjustment of General Category Daily BFT. As part of the final specifications limit, which was to remain in effect
Retention Limits on May 30, 2006 (71 FR 30619), NMFS through August 31, 2006, inclusive, was
Under § 635.23(a)(4), NMFS may adjusted the commercial daily BFT extended through September, October,
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES

increase or decrease the General retention limit, in all areas, for those November, and December via separate
category daily retention limit of large vessels fishing under the General actions published in the Federal
medium and giant BFT over a range category quota, to three large medium or Register. From January 1 - 31, 2007,
from zero (on RFDs) to a maximum of giant BFT, measuring 73 inches (185 inclusive, the General category daily
three per vessel to allow for a reasonable cm) or greater curved fork length (CFL), BFT retention limit was scheduled to
opportunity to harvest the quota for per vessel per day/trip. This retention

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DER1.SGM 21DER1

You might also like