# _ £
-



# OAR Box 

# 1813 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



# Document

Number: 

# 163 ) F.R

. Jun e 3 , 199 6

Docket Number: 

# A-88-0 2

Printed 11/5/2008 1:25:06

PM Sheet 163 of 166

### P. 2 

# SS-oZ

Federa l Registe r/

Vol

. 61 , No

. 10 7 /

-9 G/ R u Regulation s 2778 5 §14.61 9 [Amended

] 19

. I n§ 14.619 , paragraph s (b j a r ar e amende db y removin g "$40, c eac htim e i ! appear s an dadding , i i place

. "$100,000" ; an dparag i .e r amende db y removin g " i Genera l Counse l an dclaim s i n ex t $100,00 0 ma y b e compromised , settled , o r waive donl y wit hth e prio r approva l of

. [F RDoc

. 9&-1347 6 File d5-31-96:8:4 5 ami BILLIN G COO E S32O-01- P

ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y 4 0 CF R Part 6 3 [AD-FRL-6512-6 ] Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s for : Chromiu m Emission s Fro m Har d an d Decorativ e Chromiu m Electroplatin g an d Chromiu m Anodizin g Tanks ; Ethylen e Oxid e Commercia l Sterilizatio n an d Fumigatio n Operations ; Perchloroethylen e Dr y Cleanin g Facilities ; an d Secondary Lea d Smeltin g AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA)

. ACTION : Fina l rule

. SUMMARY

: Thi s actio n promulgate s final actio n t o amen dcertai n section s ofth e followin g promulgate dstandards : "Nationa l Emissio n Standard s for Chromiu mEmission s fromHar dan d Decorativ e Chromiu mElectroplatin g an dChromiu mAnodizin g Tanks ; Fina l Rule " (subpar t

N) : "Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r

Hazardou s Ai r

Pollutant s for Ethylen e Oxid e Commercia l Sterilizatio n an dFumigatio n Operations " (subpar t

O) ; "Nationa l Emissio n Standard s for Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s for

Sourc e Categories : Perchloroethylen e Dry Cleanin g Facilities " (subpar t

M) ; an d"Nationa l Emissio n Standard s for Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s fromSecondar y Lea d Smelting " (subpar t

X)

. Today' s actio n amend s th e Fina l Rules ' requiremen t tha t nonmajo r

source s (emittin g o r havin g th e potentia l t o emi t les s tha n 1 0 ton s pe r yea r o f an y hazardou s ai r pollutan t o r 2 5 ton s pe r

yea r o f an y combinatio n o f

hazardou s ai r pollutants ) obtai n titl e V operatin g permits

. Th e actio n bein g take n toda y wil l substantiall y reduc e th e unnecessar y an dundu e regulator y burde n for

State s an dloca l agencies , th e EP A Regiona l Offices , an dth e industr y durin g atim e whe n al l availabl e resource s ar e necessar y for th e initia l implementatio n o f th e '' progra mfor

n n stil l require dt o mee t

al l ap e emissio ncon: !

contro l t e (MACT ) standards

. Th e onl y ch ai proposa l t o promulgate ; yea r defe r r h e othe r rules , i s als o i r

for nonmajo r

• smelter s (subpar t

X ) sourc e i DATES: Effective Date : Jun o 3 , 1996
. •ia l Review : Unde ; 307(b)(1 ) o f

th ^ v v o f nationa l emissio n .-••

• hazardou s ai r

pollutant s P

) i s availabl e onl y b y filin g apetitio nfor revie w i nth e U.S

. Cour t of Appei

th e Distric t

o f Colu n i i thi n 6 0 day s o f

tod ; hi s final rule

. Unde r

se < ; ofth e b e requirement s tha t

a n subjec t o f today' s notic e ma y no ! challenge dlate r

i nciv; ' na l proceeding s brough t

b y th e EP A t o enforc e thes e requirements

. ADDRESSES : Docket. Docke t Nn

. A-88

- 02

. containin g th e supportin g informatio nfo r

th e origina l subpar t

N NESHA Pan dthi s a . Jo

. A

88-03

. containin g th e supportin g informatio nfo r

th e origina l subpar t

O NESHAP , Docke t

No

. A-88

- containin g th e supportin g inform ; for th e origina l subpar t

M NESHAP , an d Docke t No

. A-92—43

. containin g th e supportin g informatio nfor th e origina l subpar t X NESHAP , ar e availabl e for publi c inspectio n an dcopyin g betweo n 8:0 0 a.m . an d5:3 0 p.m. . Monda y throug hFriday , at

th e EP A Ai r

an d Radiatio n Docke t

an dInformatio n Center

. Watersid e Mall , roo mM-1500

. first floor

. 40 1 M Stree t

S.W.

. Washington

. D.C

. 20460

. o r b y ca ! (202 ) 260-7548

. Thes e doc k contai n infonnatio n considere db y th e EP A i n developin g thi s final rule

. A reasonabl e fe e ma y b e charge dfor copying

. FO RFURTHE

RINFORMATIO

NCONTACT

: Mr

. Lali t Banker , Emissio n Standard s Divisio n (MD-13)

. Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an dStandards

. U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio nAgen c Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 , telephon e numbe r (919 ) 541

- 5420

. SUPPLEMENTAR

YINFORMATION : I

. Backgroun d Th e proposa l notic e wa s publishe di n th e Federa l Registe r

o nDecembe r 199 5 (6 0 F

R64002)

. N o publi i wa s requested

. Seventee n letter s commentin g o n th e propose drul e wer e lurin g th e publi c come . •*d

. n . Summar y •nmmary i tsal Th e | g author ; th e f i miu mel i

comme n opera ! cleanin g facilit i per n i publi c comm ( EPA , on e chang i rul e sinc e proposal

. T h

1 1 b e ali o ndar y lea dsmi pear s fro n .-rmi t for nonmajo r categorie s Comment s additiona l perma m exemption s for categorie s for exemption s wer e bein g Althoug ham n supporte dpennan t thes e nonmaj o decide dno t

t o gran t perman < exemption s t o an y addi t 

### goriesatti b th e EP A wil l mak e adecisio nregardin g additiona l permanen t

i tim e th e temporar y exemp t i" ; Durin g th e permi t

defe n EPA linu e t o eval u loca l agencie s implementatio nan d 

### enforcement

o f thi ' rce s outsi r permit , th e likel y benefi t o f p suc hsources , an dth u c o burden s o n suc hsource s associate d i obtainin g atitl e V permi t B. Significant

Comments

anti R e Comment s o n th e | receive dfro mth e industr y a o an dloca l regulator y ag on e Stat e . ; 

### line dwit hth e EP A optio nlo all state s t o defe r requirement s fo r

nonn i represent ; disagree dwit hthi s recom n contendin g tha t

permitt* ' nonmajo r

sou i
constitut e a n undu e reg u
exceptionall y

### 2778 6 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 61 , No

. 10 7 /

Monday , Jun e 3 , 199 6 / Rule s an dRegulation s businesse s coveredb y th e sectio n11 2 standards

. Th e State o

f Florid a maintain s tha t

ageneral permi t

i s th e mos t efficient an dcost-effectiv e proces s b y whic hState s ca nimplemen t emissio n standar drequirements

. Th e commente r

articulate dtha t

th e deferral o f permittin g requirement s fo r are asource s i s problemati c fo r th e followin g reasons . First , th e deferral wil l creat e unnecessar y confusio nfo r affecte dsource s tha t

wil l stil l b e subjec t t o th e NESHA

Prequirements

. Second , permit s ar e neede dt o practicall y verif y emissio n limitation s an dwor k practice s t o whic hasourc e i s subject

. Third , th e commente r

question s whethe r

th e enforcemen t

o f NESHA Prequirement s can b e accomplishe db y means othe r tha napermit

. Th e commenter s experienc e ha s bee ntha t

smal l businesse s suppor t

ageneral permi t

tha t state s th e applicabl e NESHA P requirements

. Lastly , th e commente r believe s tha t

th e lac k o f apermi t requiremen t

wil l resul t

i nunequa l enforcemen t

o f emissio nlimitation s b y individua l State s or

loca l ai r pollutio n contro l agencies

. Th e EP A believe s tha t

th e rational e describe di n th e proposa l fo r th e temporary exemptio noption , a s wel l a s supportiv e publi c comments , strongl y suppor t th e deferral o

f permittin g fo

r nonmajo r sources ; therefore , th e EP A ha s no t mad e an y change s t o thi s option

. Nevertheless , th e issue s whic h th e abov e commente r

raise s wil l b e examine ddurin g th e proces s of determinin g whethe r

t o permi t or allo w th e exemptio n of

nonmajo r source s a

t th e conclusio no

f th e 5 yea r deferral

. It shoul db e note dtha t

today s actio ndoe s no t preclud e an y State/loca l permittin g authorit y fromproceedin g t o permi t th e nonmajo r source s discusse di nthi s notic e at thei r discretio ndurin g th e deferral period

. Tw o commenter s specificall y questione dth e EPA' s justificatio ni nno t allowin g th e deferral o

f nonmajo r secondary lea dsmelters

. Th e EP A ha d propose dtha t

requirin g nonmajo r secondary lea dsmelter s t o obtai nPart 7 0 permit s withou t

delay woul dno t

b e impracticabl e o r

infeasibl e fo

r th e State or loca l permittin g authoritie s involve d an dwoul dno t

unnecessaril y burde n thes e companie s since , i ncontrast t o th e hundred s o r

thousand s o

f source s i nth e four othe r sourc e categories , ther e ar e onl y afew secondary lea dsmelter s whic har e nonmajo r

sources . Th e commenter s conten dtha t requirin g nonmajo r secondary lea dsmelter s t o obtai natitl e V permi t

i s als o unnecessar y an dcoul dcaus e undu e burde n bot ht o th e industr y a s wel l a s t o th e Stat e agencie s an dwil l no t enhanc e an y environmenta l benefits

. Upo n consideratio no

f thes e comment s an dfurther

evaluation , th e EP A believe s tha t

th e relativel y few numbe r of source s i nacategor

y i s no t a nimportan t

distinction , an dtiiat

State s should , therefore , als o b e allowe dt o temporaril y exemp t

nonmajo r secondar y lea dsmelter s fro

mpermittin g requirements , alon g withsource s i nth e othe r sourc e categories

. Thi s chang e fro mproposa l i s consisten t

wit hth e EPA' s decisio nfo

r deferral fo

r th e othe r are asourc e categories

. A s explaine d previously , comment s wer e receive do n th e othe r nonmajo r

sourc e categorie s requestin g a noptio nfo

r permanen t permi t exemptions

. Th e EP

A wil l continu e t o evaluat e factor s relate dt o thi s issu e an dmake adecisio nregardin g permanen t

exemption s b y th e tim e th e temporary exemption s expire

. Thi s ongoin g evaluatio nreinforce dth e advisabilit y o

f als o providin g th e opportunit y fo

r th e deferral o

f permit s t o secondary lea dsmelters , s o tha t th e permi t requirement s fo

r al l nonmajo r source s ca nb e addresse da s apackage

. Thes e nonmajo r

source s ar e stil l require dt o compl y wit hth e ^ requirement s o

f th e promulgate d standar dfo

r secondary lea dsmelter s regardles s o

f whethe r the y wil l b e permitte di nth e near

term

. Whil e th e EP A disagree s wit hth e assertio ntha t permittin g unde r

titl e Vdoe s no t

yiel d anenvironmenta l benefit , th e EP A doe s agre e tha t t o requir e th e immediat e permittin g of

nonmajo r secondary lea d smelter s i s unnecessaril y burdiensome durin g th e initia l year s ofth e titl e V program . III . Administrativ e Requirement s A. Paperwork

Reduction Act Th e infonnatio ncollectio n requirement s ofth e previousl y promulgate dNationa l Emissio n Standard s fo

r Hazardou s Ai r

Pollutant s (NESHAP ) wer e submitte dt o an d approve db y th e Office o

f Managemen t an dBudge t

(OMB)

. Today' s change s t o th e NESHAPwoul dno t

increas e th e informatio ncollectio nburde nestimate s mad e previously

. I nfact , the y ar e expecte dt o reduc e th e require d paperwork

b y providin g th e opportunit y fo r delay s fo r som e source s an d exemption s fo

r other s from requirement s t o obtai natitl e V permit

. B. Executive Order

12866 Unde r Executiv e Orde r

12866 , th e Agenc y mus t

determin e whethe r

a regulatory actio ni s "significant " an d therefor e subjec t

t o OM B revie w an dth e requirement s o

f th e Executiv e Order

. Th e Orde r define s "significan t regulatory action " a s on e tha t i s likel y t o resul t i narul e tha t

may : (1 ) Hav e a nannua l effec

t o nth e econom y of

$10 0 millio no r

more , o r adversel y affect

i namateria l wa

y th e economy , asecto r

ofth e economy , productivity , competition , jobs , th e environment , publi c healt ho r safety , o r State , local , o r

triba l government s o r communities ; (2) Create asericu s inconsistenc y o r otherwis e interfer e wit ha nactio ntake n o r planne db y anothe r

agency ; (3 ) Materiall y alte r

th e budgetary impac t of entitlements , grants , use r fees , o r loa nprogram s o r

th e right s an d obligation s of

recipient s thereof; or (4) Rais e nove l legal or

polic y issue s arisin g ou t

o f legal mandates , th e President' s priorities , o

r th e principle s se t fort hi nth e Executiv e Order

. Pursuan t t o th e term s o

f th e Executiv e Order , th e OM

B ha s notifie dth e EP

A tha t i t doe s no t conside r thi s t o b e a "significan t

regulatory action " withi n th e meanin g of

th e Executiv e Order

. Therefore , th e EP

A di dno t submi t thi s actio nt o th e OMB fo

r review

. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Th e Regulatory Flexibility Ac t (5 U.S.C

. 60 1 e t

seq. ) require s th e EP

A t o conside r potentia l impact s o

f regulation s o nsmal l entities

. A regulatory flexibility analysi s (RFA ) i s require dif

preliminar y analysi s indicate s " asignificant

economi c impac t o nasubstantia l numbe r

o f smal l entities"

. A s explaine dearlie r i nthi s rule , thes e amendment s woul dreduc e th e impact s o nsmal l entitie s (specificall y smal l businesses ) b y allowin g State s t o delay som e an d exemp t other s fromth e requiremen t t o obtai natitl e V permit

. Pursuan t t o th e provision s o

f 5 U.S.C

. 605(b) , I hereb y certif

y that thi s rul e wil l no t hav e asignifican t

economi c impac t o nasubstantia l numbe r

o f smal l entities

. D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

of 1996 (SBREFA) Subtitl e Eo

f SBREF A establishe s opportunit y fo

r Congres s t o revie w an d potentiall y disapprov e nonmajo r rule s promulgate do no r

afte r Marc h29,199 6 o r major rule s promulgate dafte

r Marc h 1,1996

. Withlimite dexceptions , i t provide s tha t

n o rul e promulgate do no r after Marc h29,1996 , ma

y take effect unti l i t i s submitte dt o Congres s an dth e Comptrolle r

General alon g wit h specifie dsupportin g documentation

. Different requirement s appl y t o major rules

. Thi s rule , whic hi s nonmajor , i sP. 4



### Register / Vol

. 61 , No

. 107 /

Monday , Jun e 3 , ?29 6 / Rule s an dRegulation s 277m
bsin g submitte dt o Congres s i n accordanc e wit hthes e requirements

. E. Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act Sectio n20 2 o

f th e Unfunde d Mandate s Refor

mAc t o f 199 5 ("unfunde dMandate s Act") , (signe d int o la w o nMarc h22,1995 ) require s tha t th e Agenc y prepar e abudgetary impac t statemen t

t o accompan y any propose dor

fina l rul e tha t include s a Federa l Mandat e tha t

ma y resul t i n expenditur e b y State , local , an dtriba l governments , i nth e aggregate , or b y th e privat e sector , o

f $10 0 millio no r

mor e i n an y 1 year . Sectio n20 3 require s th e Agenc y t o establis hapla nfo r obtainin g inpu t froman dinforming , educating , an dadvisin g an y smal l government s tha t may b e significantl y o r

uniquel y affecte db y th e rule

. A s explaine dearlie r

i nthi s notice , thes e amendment s woul dreduc e th e cos t t o State , local , an dtriba l government s an dth e privat e secto r b y allowin g State s t o delay som e an d exemp t other s fromth e requiremen t t o obtai n atitl e V permit

. Therefore , th e EP A ha s no t prepare dabudgetary impac t statemen t

fo r thes e amendments

. Lis t of Subject s i m4 0 CF RPar t S 3 Environmenta l protection , Ai r pollutio ncontrol , Hazardou s substances , Reportin g an d recordkeepin g requirements

. Dated : Ma y 22,1998

. Caro l M

. Browner, Administrator. Fo r th e reason s se t

ou t i n th e preamble , titl e 40 , chapte r I , part 6 3 o f th e Cod e o

f Federa l Regulation s i s amende da s se t

fort hbelow : PAK TS3—[AMINOIilQiJ " 1

. Th e authorit y citatio n fo r part 6 3 continue s t o rea da s follows : Authority : 4 2 U.S.C

. 740 1 e t seq . 

### Subpar t Kl—[Amss-idledl

] 2

. Sectio n 63.34 0 i s amende db y revisin g paragrap h(e

) t o rea da s follows : § 63.34 0 Applics-Iift yan d tfesignatior a o f sous-ess
.
* A* ft * 

### (e)(1 ) Th e Administrato r

ha s determined , pursuan t

t o th e criteri a unde r sectio n502(e ) c f

th e Act , tha t

a n owne r o r operato r o f th e followin g type s o f operation s tha t

are no t b y themselve s major source s an dtha t

are no t locate d at major sources , a s define dunde r 6.0 CF R70.2 , i s permanentl y exemp t from titl e V permittin g requirement s fo r tha t operation : (i) An y decorativ e chromiu m electroplatin g operatio no r chromiu m anodizin g operatio ntha t

use s fum e suppressant s a s a nemissio nreductio n technology ; an d (ii ) An y decorativ e chromiu m electroplatin g operatio ntha t uss s a trivalen t chromiu mbat htha t incorporate s awettin g agen t a s abat h ingredient

. (2) A nowne r

or operato r o f an y othe r affecte dsourc e subjec t

t o th e provision s o f thi s subpart

i s subjec t t o titl e V permittin g requirements

. Thes e affecte d sources , if

no t major o r locate dat

major source s a s define dunde r

4 0 CF R70.2 , may b e deferre db y th e applicabl e titl e V permittin g authorit y fromtitl e V permittin g requirement s fo r 5 year s afte

r th e dat e o nwhic hth e EP A first approve s apart

7 0 program(i.e. , unti l December 9,1999)

. Al l source s receivin g deferral s shal l submi t

titl e V permi t application s withi n1 2 month s o f suc h dat e (by December

9 , 2000)

. Al l source s receivin g deferral s stil l mus t mee t th e complianc e schedul e a s state di n §63.343

. 3

. Sectio n 63.34 2 i s amende db y revisin g th e first

sentenc e o

f paragrap h (c)(2)(i)(B ) an dintroductor y tex t o f paragrap h(f)(3)(i) t o reada s follows : §63.34 2 SftaK_a?ds

. ft ft

it

ft ft (c ) ft* * ( 2 ) * » * ft (i ) 

### * * * (B ) B y acceptin g aFederally

enforceabl e limi t

o nth e maximu m cumulativ e potentia l rectifie r capacity of ahar dchromiu melectroplatin g facility an db y maintainin g monthl y record s i naccordanc e wit h § 63.346(b)(12 ) t o demonstrat e tha t th e limi t ha s no t bee nexceeded

. *

* * * *

* * A * * 

### (fj * ft 

### * ( 3 ) * * ft 

### (i ) Th e owne r

or operato r o f a n affecte dsourc e subjec t

t o th e wor

k piactice s o

f thi s paragrap h(f

) shal l prepar e a noperatio nan dmaintenanc e pla nt o b e implemente dn o late r tha n th e complianc e date

. Th e pla nshal l b o incorporate db y referenc e int o th o source' s titl e V permit , if

en dwhe na titl e V permi t

i s required

. Th e pla nshal l includ e th e followin g elements :

4

. I n§ 63.344 , paragraph s (e)(3)(v ) en d (e)(4)(iv ) ar e amende db y revisin g tli e wor d"less " t o rea d"more"

. 5

. Sectio n63.34 7 i s amende db y revisin g th e introductor y tex t i n paragrap h(e)(2 ) an dparagrap h(f)(1 ) t o rea da s follows : §33.347 Reporting i-csjulTemojit a * * * * * ( e ) * * <
. 

### (2) I f th e Stat e i nwhic hth e sourc e i s locate dha s no t

bee ndelegate dth e authorit y t o implemen t

th e rule , eac h tim e anotificatio no

f complianc e statu s i s require dunde r

thi s part , th e owne r

or operato r of a naffectedsourc e shal l submi t t o th e Administrato r

a notificatio no

f complianc o status , aignad b y th e responsibl e officia

l (a s define di n § 63.2 ) wh o shal l certif

y it s accurecy , attestin g t o whethe r

th e affecte dsourc e ha s complie dwiththi s subpart

. I f th o State ha s bee ndelegate dth e authority , th e notificatio no

f complianc e statu s shal l b e submitte dt o th e appropriat e authority

. Th e notificatio nshal l lis t fo r eac haffecte dsource : * * * * * (1 ) I f th e Stat e i nwhic hth e sourc e i s locate dha s no t

bee ndelegate dth e authorit y t o implemen t

th e rule , th e owne r or operato r o f anaffecte dsourc e shal l repor t

t o th e Administrato r

th e result s o f an y performanc e tes t conducte da s require db y § 63. 7 or § 63.343(b)

. I

f tli e Stat e ha s bee n delegate dth e authority , Lh e owne r or operato r o f a naffectedsourc e shoul d report performanc e tes t

result s t o th o appropriat e authority

. * * * * * 6

. Tabl e 1 t o subpart

N o f Part 6 3 i s amende db y revisin g th o entry fo r "63.5(a) " t o rea da s foliows : TABL E 1 T O SUBPAR TN O F PAR TS3—GENERA L PROVISIONS APPLICABILIT YT O SUBPAR TN Genera l provision s referenc e Applie s t o subpar t N Commen t

63.5(a ) Ye s Excep t replac s th e ter m "source " an d "stationarysource " i n § 63.5(a ) (1 ) an d (2 ) o f subpart Awit h "affecte d sources. "P. 5



### 2778 8 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 61 , No

. 107 /

Monday , Jun e 3 , 199 6 / Rule s an dRegulation s

TABL E 

### 1 T O SUBPAR T

### N O F PAR T63—GENERA L PROVISIONS APPLICABILIT YT O SUBPAR T

### N—Continue d
Genera l provision s reference 

### * Applies t o subpar t N 

### * Commen t

« * * *

Subpart O—[Amended ] 7

. Sectio n 63.36 0 i s amende db y revisin g paragrap h(f

) t o rea da s follows : §63.36 0 Applicability
. **** * (f ) Th e owne r

o r operato r

o f asource , subjec t t o th e provision s o f

th e titl e 40 , chapte r I , par t 6 3 subpar t

O , usin g 1 to n (se e definition ) i s subjec t t o titl e V permittin g requirements

. Thes e affecte d sources , i f

no t majo r o r locate da t

majo r source s a s define dunde r 4 0 CF R70.2 , ma y b e deferre db y th e appUcabl e titl e V permittin g authorit y fromtitl e V permittin g requirement s fo r 5 year s afte r th e dat e o n whic hth e EP A first approve s apar t

7 0 progra m(i.e. , unti l Decembe r

9,1999)

. Al l source s receivin g deferral s shal l submi t titl e V permi t application s withi n 1 2 month s o f suc hdat e (b y Decembe r 9 , 2000)

. Al l source s receivin g deferral s stil l mus t mee t compUanc e schedul e a s state di n thi s §63.360

. Subpart M—[Amended ] 8

. Sectio n 63.32 0 i s amende db y addin g paragrap h(k ) t o rea da s follows : §63.32 0 Applicability
. * * * * * * (k) Th e owne r

o r operato r

o f an y sourc e subjec t

t o th e provision s o f

thi s subpar t M i s subjec t

t o titl e V permittin g requirements. Thes e affecte dsources , i f no t majo r o r locate da t

majo r source s a s define dunde r

4 0 CF R70.2 , ma y b e deferre db y th e applicabl e titl e V permittin g authorit y fromtitl e V permittin g requirement s fo r 5 year s afte r th e dat e o n whic hth e EP A first approve s apar t

7 0 progra m(i.e. , unti l Decembe r

9,1999)

. Al l source s receivin g deferral s shal l submi t titl e V permi t application s withi n 1 2 month s o f suc hdat e (b y Decembe r 9 , 2000)

. Al l source s receivin g deferral s stil l mus t mee t complianc e schedul e a s state di n thi s §63.320

. Subpart X—[Amended ] 9

. Sectio n 63.54 1 i s amende db y addin g paragrap h(c ) t o rea da s follows : §63.54 1 Applicability
. * * * * * (c ) Th e owne r

o r operato r

o f an y sourc e subjec t

t o th e provision s o f

thi s subpar t

X i s subjec t

t o titl e V permittin g requirements

. Thes e affecte dsources , i f no t majo r o r locate da t

majo r source s a s define dunde r

4 0 CF R70.2 , ma y b e deferre db y th e applicabl e titl e V permittin g authorit y fromtitl e V permittin g requirements fo r 5 year s afte r th e dat e o n whic hth e EP A first approve s apar t

7 0 progra m(i.e. , unti l Decembe r

9,1999)

. Al l source s receiving deferral s shal l submi t titl e V permi t application s withi n 1 2 month s o f suc hdat e (b y Decembe r 9 , 2000)

. Al l source s receiving deferral s stil l mus t mee t complianc e schedul e a s state di n §63.546

. [F RDoc

. 96-1382 5 File d6-3-96 ; 8:4 5 am ] BILUN O COD E 6560-60- P
4 0 CF R Part 30 0 [FRL-5512-1 ] Nationa l Oi l an d Hazardou s Substance s Pollutio n Contingenc y Pla n Nationa l Prioritie s Lis t AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA)

. ACTION : Notic e o f

deletio n o f

Newpor t Dum p Superfun dSite , Wilder , Kentucky , fromth e Nationa l Prioritie s Lis t SUMMARY

: Th e U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) announce s th e deletio n o f

th e Newpor t

Dum p Superfun dSit e i n Wilder , Kentucky , fromth e Nationa l Prioritie s Lis t (NPL) , {Appendi x B ofth e Nationa l Oi l an d Hazardou s Substance s Pollutio n Contingenc y Pla n (NCP)}

. EP A an dth e Commonwealt ho f

Kentuck y hav e determine dtha t

al l appropriat e Fund

financedresponse s unde r th e Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Response , Compensatio n an dLiabilit y Ac t (CERCLA) , a s amended , hav e bee n implemente dan dtha t

n o furthe r cleanu p i s appropriate

. Moreover , EP A an dth e Commonwealt ho f Kentuck y determine dtha t

response action s conducte da t

th e sit e t o dat e hav e bee n protectiv e o f

publi c health , welfare , an d th e environment

. Thi s deletio n doe s no t preclud e futur e actio n unde r Superfund

. EFFECTIV EDATE : Ma y 31 , 1996

. FO RFURTHE

RINFORMATIO

N CONTACT

: Liz a Montalvo , Remedia l Projec t Manager , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Regio n 4 , Nort hSuperfun dRemedia l Branch , 34 5 Courtlan dStree t NE. , Atlanta , G A 30365 , (404 ) 347-7791 , extensio n 2030

. SUPPLEMENTAR

Y INFORMATION

: Th e sit e t o b e delete dfromth e NP Lis : Newpor t Dum p Superfun dSite , Wilder , Kentucky

. A Notic e o f

Inten t T o Delet e for

thi s sit e wa s publishe do n Ma y 16,198 8 (SW-FRI^3380-7)

. A Revise dNotic e o f Inten t T o Delet e wa s publishe do n Marc h8,199 6 (FRl^-5436-5)

. Th e closin g dat e fo r

comment s o n th e Revise dNotic e o f

Inten t T o Delet e wa s Apri l 17,1996

. EP A receivedn o comments

. EP A identifie s site s tha t appea r t o presen t asignifican t

ris k t o publi c health , welfare , o r

th e environmen t

an d i t maintain s th e NP La s th e Us t o f thos e sites

. An y sit e delete dfromth e NP L remain s eligibl e fo r

Fund-finance d remedia l action s i n th e unlikel y even t tha t condition s a t

th e sit e warran t

suc h actio n i n th e future

. Sectio n 300.425(e)(3 ) ofth e NC Pstate s tha t Fund-finance daction s ma y b e take n a t site s delete dfromth e NPL

. Deletio n o f asit e fromth e NP Ldoe s no t affec t responsible part y liabilit y o r imped e agenc y effort s t o recove r cost s associate dwit hrespons e efforts

. Lis t o f Subject s i n 4 0 CF RPar t 30 0 Environmenta l Protection , Ai r PoUutio n Control , Chemicals , Hazardou s Waste , Hazardou s Substances , Intergovernmenta l Relations , Penalties , Reportin g an d Recordkeepin g Requirements , Superfund , Wate r

Pollutio n Control , an dWate r

Supply

. Dated : Ma

y 21,1996

. A

. Stanle y Meiburg , Deputy Regional

Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 4. Fo r th e reason s se t

ou t i n th e preamble , 4 0 CFRpar t 30 0 i s amende d a s follows : PAR T300—[AMENDED ] Th e authorit y citatio n fo r Par t 30 0 continue s t o rea da s follows : Authority : 4 2 U.S.C

. 9601-9657 ; 3 3 U.S.C

. 1321(c)(2) ; E.O

. 12777 , 5 6 F R54757 ; 3 CF

R 199 1 Comp. , p . 351 ; E.O

. 12580 , 5 2 F R2923 ; 3 CFR, 198 7 Comp. , p . 193

.P. 6

Registe r / Vol

. 61 , No

. 10 7 / Monday , Jun e 3 , 199 6 / Rule s an dRegulations ' 2778 S Appendix B to Part

300

— [Amended] 2

. Tabl e 1 o f

Appendi x B t o par t

30 0 i s amende db y removin g th e sit e Newpor t Dump , Newport , Kentucky

. [F RDoc

. 96-1382 6 File d5-31-96 ; 8:4 5 am ) BILUN G COD E 6530-60- P

DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N Research ! an d Specia l Program s
'4 9 CF R Part s 180 , 181 , 19 2 an d 119 3 [Docke t PS-125 ; Notice 2 ] RI M 2137-,ftC2 8 Regulators-

- Reinventio n Initiative : Pipelin e Satfet

wProgra m Procedures ;

AGENCY : Researc han dSpecia l Program s Administratio n (RSPA) , DOT

. ACTION : Fina l rule

. SUMMARY

: Thi s fina l rul e change s variou s administrativ e practice s i n th e pipelin e safet y progra man dmake s mino r modification s t o requirement s fo r ga s detection , protectiv e enclosures , an d pipelin e testin g temperatures

. Thes e change s wil l eliminat e unnecessar y o r overl y burdensom e requirements , an d reduc e cost s i nth e pipelin e industrie s withou t compromisin g safety

. EFFECTIV EDATE : Th e effectiv e dat e o f thi s fina l rul e i s Jul y 3,1996

. However , affecte dpartie s wil l no t hav e t o compl y wit hth e informatio n collectio n . requirement s i n4 9 CF R193

. 2819(f ) an d 193.290 7 (a ) an d(b ) unti l th e DO T publishe s i n th e Federa l Registe r th e Contro l Number s assigne db y th e Offic e o f Managemen t

an dBudge t

(OMB ) t o thes e collectio n o f

informatio n requirements

. Publicatio n o f th e Contro l Number s notifie s th e publi c tha t OM B ha s approve dthes e requirement s unde r th e Paperwor k

Reductio n Ac t

o f 1995

. FO RFURTHE RINFORMATIO

N CONTACT

: L.E

. He-rick , (202 ) 366-552 3 o r onlin e a t herrickl@rspa.dot.go v regardin g th e subjec t matte r o f thi s final rule , o r

th e Docket s Unit , (202 ) 366-5046 , regardin g copie s o f thi s fina l rul e o r

othe r informatio n i nth e docket

. SUPPLEMENTAR YINFORMATION : Backgroun d I n amemorandu mdate dMarc h4 , 1995 , th e Presiden t

provide ddirectio n t o th e head s o f

Department s an d agencie s o n carryin g ou t hi s Regulator y Refor mInitiativ e fo r

reinventin g th e government

. A s par t

o f thi s initiative , RSP A establishe daprogra mt o revie w

existin g pipelin e safet y regulation s i n orde r t o identif

y thes e tha t

wer e outdate do r

i n nee do f

reform

. O n Apri l 5,19S5 , RSP A publishe da notic e i n th e Federa l Registe r solicitin g comment s fromth e pipelin e industr y a s wel l a s othe r

intereste dpartie s (6 0 F R 17295 , Apri l 5,1995)

. RSP A als o conducte dthre e outreac hmeeting s i n 199 5 i n Dallas , TX , Lakawoo dCO , an d Houston , TX

. Man y comment s wer e receive dbot ha t

th e outreac hmeeting s an di n respons e t o th e Federa l Registe r notice

. A s aresul t

o f thes e comments , RSP A revisite dthi s rulemakin g whic hbega n i n 1992

. O n Novembe r

6,1992 , RSP A publishe danotic e o f

propose d rulemakin g (NPRM ) (5 7 F R53085 , Novembe r

6,1992 ) proposin g change s t o part s 190 , 191,19 2 an d193

. Th e commen t

perio dclose do n Decembe r 7 , 1992

. RSP A receive dcomment s from2 2 regulate dpipelin e companies , thre e pipelin e trad e associations , on e consultant , on e technica l committee , an dtw o stat e agencie s (2 9 tota l comment s received)

. RSP A als o requeste darevie w o f th e proposa l affectin g natura l ga s facilitie s b y mai l ballotin g fromth e Technica l Pipelin e Safet y Standard s Committe e (TPSSC)

. Thi s 15-membe r committe e wa s establishe db y statut e t o conside r th e feasibility , reasonableness , an d practicabilit y o f

al l propose dpipelin e safet y regulations

. Afte r initia l balloting , eac hTPSS C membe r revieweddi e ballot s an d comment s o f

eac ho f th e othe r

members , an dha dth e optio n t o chang e hi s o r he r initia l vot e o r

commen t

i f desired

. Althoug hsom e TPSS C member s di dno t vot e o n ever y propose dchange , a majorit y o f

TPSS C member s foun dal l th e change s adopte db y thi s rul e t o b e technicall y feasible , reasonable , an d practicable

. Change s t o Par t

19 0 Requirement s Section 190.203 Inspections Sectio n 190.203(c ) currentl y require s that , afte r

a n Offic e o f

Pipelin e Safet y (OPS ) inspection , a n operato r mus t respon dt o a"Reques t

fo r Specifi c Informatio n withi n 3 0 days. " RSP A propose damendin g mi s sectio n t o increas e th e tim e t o 4 5 days

. Th e increas e woul denabl e th e operato r t o provid e RSP A wit hmor e complet e informatio n t o us e i nevaluatin g inspectio n results

. RSP A receive d1 9 comment s from operators , Stat e regulator y agencie s an d trad e group s i n respons e t o thi s proposal

. Al l commenter s agree dtha t th e tim e perio dshoul db e extended

. I n addition , on e commente r suggeste dtha i afurthe r extensio n b e grante dt o case s involvin g detaile d"specifi c information " tha t

ma y requir e longe r tha n4 5 day s t o gather

. RSPA Response RSP A believe s tha t

4 5 day s wil l usuall y b e adequate

. I nsituation s whe** e mor e tim e i s require dth e Regiona l Directo r ha s th e authorit y t o exton dth o tim e allowe dfo r

aresponse . Therefore , th e revisio ni s adopte da s proposed

. Section 190.209 Response

Options RSP A propose ddeletin g sectio n 190.209(c)

. Sectio n190.209(c ) currentl y allow s aresponden t

t o offer a compromis e t o aNotic e o f Probabl o Violatio n an dPropose dCivi l Penalt y b y submittin g achec k

o r mene y orde r

fo r th e amoun t

offere dt o th e Regiona l Directo r wh o forward s th e offer t o th e Associat e Administrator , OP S fo r action

. I f th e Associat e Administrator , OPS , accept s th e offe r

i n compromise , th e responden t

i s notifie di nwritin g tha t th e acceptanc e i s i nful l settlemen t o f th e civi l penalt y action

. I f a noffo r i n compromis e i s rejected , i t i s returne dt o th e responden t

wit hwritte n notification

. RSP A receive d1 9 comment s fro m operators , Stat e regulator y agencie s an d trad e group s o nth e propose ddelatio no f § 190.209(c)

. Mos t

commenter s agree d wit hth e propose ddeletion

. Tw o commenter s disagre e wit hth e proposo d deletion , preferrin g t o retai n th e optio n an dstatin g that : § 190.209(c ) doe s no t plac e a nundu e regulator y burde n upo n industry

. Al l commenter s observe dtha t th e deletio nals o affect s § 190.209(a)(2 ) an d § § 190.22 7 (a) , (b) , an d(d ) an dtha t thes e section s shoul dals o b e revise dfo r consistency

. RSPA Response Unde r curren t Federa l policy , assessmen t

o f apenalt y i s no t contemplate dunti l afte r afindin g o f violation

. A s aresult , RSP A ha s no t routinel y resolve dcase s withou t suc h findings. Th e submissio n of achec k prio r t o establishin g afindin g o f violatio n unnecessaril y restrict s a company' s cas hflo w durin g th e pendenc y o f

th e enforcemen t

case . Therefore , RSP A i s adoptin g thi s provisio n a s proposed

. I n addition , RSP A i s adoptin g th e commenters ' suggestion s concernin g § § 190.209(a)(2) ; 190.227(a) ; 190.227(b) ; an d190.227(d)

. Section 190.211(b) Sectio n190.211(b ) currentl y provide s tha t i ncircumstance s deeme dP. 7



### 2779 0 Federal Register/ Vol

. 61 , No

. 107 /

Monday , Jun e 3 , 199 6 / Rule s an dRegulation s appiopriat e b y th e Regiona l Director , an donl y i f

th e responden t

concurs , a telephon e conferenc e ma y b e hel di n lie u o f ahearing

. RSP A propose dt o requir e atelephon e hearin g fo r al l probabl e violation s involvin g penalt y amount s unde r

$10,00 0 i n whic ha hearin g i s requested. Fiv e commenter s responde dt o thi s proposa l statin g tha t

the y believ e th e respondent

shoul dhav e th e optio n o f dealin g wit han y probabl e violatio n i n person . Thes e commenter s argu e tha t th e dolla r

amoun t o f th e assessmen t

fo r a n allege dviolatio n ma y no t b e indicativ e o f

th e complexit y o f

th e case . RSPA Response RSP A beleive s tha t

th e curren t practic e o f

conductin g telephon e hearing s wher e th e amoun t i s les s tha n $10,00 0 i s cos t

effective

. However , base dupo n th e comment s received, RSP A wil l allo w respondent s t o reques t in-perso n hearings

. Therefore , th e sectio ni s amende dt o establis h telephon e hearing s a s th e preferre d rathe r tha n require dmetho dfo r amount s les s tha n $10,000

. Section 190.211(c) Sectio n 190.211(c ) currentl y state s tha t ahearin g may , unde r

limite d circumstances , b e conducte db y a representativ e ofth e OP S regio n i n whic hth e facilit y i s located

. RSP A propose di n th e NPR M tha t al l hearing s b e conducte db y a n attorne y fromth e Offic e ofth e Chie f

Counse l o f

RSPA

. Al l commenter s agre e wit hthi s proposal

. RSPA Response Th e sectio n i s amende da s proposed

. Section 190.211(e) Sectio n 190.211(e ) currentl y state s tha t a t th e outse t

o f ahearin g i n respons e t o aNotic e o f Probabl e Violation , th e materia l i n th e cas e file pertinen t t o th e issue s t o b e determine d i s presente db y th e presidin g officia l o f th e hearing

. Th e responden t ma y examin e an drespon dt o o r rebu t thi s material

. RSP A propose dt o revis e thi s regulation t o provid e th e responden t th e opportunit y t o revie w materia l i n th e cas e file pertinen t

t o th e issue s prio r

t o an y hearing

. RSP A receive d2 0 comment s i n response t o th e propose damendment s t o § 190.211

. Th e comment s wer e provide db y a narra y o f trad e organizations , stat e regulator y agencie s an doperators

. Al l commenter s agre e wit hth e propose dlanguage

. However , tw o commenter s recommen dtha t th e cas e file b e automaticall y provide dt o al l respondent s a t

leas t 3 0 day s befor e th e hearing

. The y conclud e tha t an y responden t requestin g ahearin g wil l wan t t o revie w al l materia l i nth e cas e fil e an dtha t

automaticall y providin g th e materia l woul deliminat e unnecessar y correspondenc e betwee nth e responden t an dth e agency . RSPA Response RSP A agree s tha t

acop y o f

th e cas e file shoul db e provide dt o aresponden t prio r t o ahearing

. However , thi s practic e shoul dno t

includ e automati c mailin g o f

acas e file whe n areques t fo r ahearin g i s submitte dt o th e agency . Th e responden t

ma y wis ht o addres s onl y som e o f

th e issue s i nth e Notic e o f Probabl e Violatio ni nth e hearing ; thu s mailin g th e entir e fil e ma y i nsom e instance s resul t

i n unnecessar y expense . Therefore , § 190.21 1 i s amende da s propose di n th e NPRM

. Sectio n 190.211(f ) i s als o amende dt o clarif y tha t th e responden t

wil l continu e t o hav e th e opportunit y t o offer an y relevan t informatio ndurin g th e hearing

. Section 190.215Petitions for Reconsideration Sectio n 190.215(d ) currentl y state s tha t th e filing o f

apetitio nfo r reconsideratio ndoe s no t sta y th e effectivenes s o f

th e final order

. Th e propose drevisio nwoul dautomaticall y sta y paymen t

o f an y civi l penalt y assesse di f

apetitio n for

reconsideratio n i s filed.

. Thi s wil l resul t i ncos t saving s t o th e pipelin e operato r b y delayin g civi l penalt y payment s unti l adecisio n i s mad e o n th e petitio n fo r reconsideration

. RSP A receive d2 0 comment s o n th e propose drul e fro moperators , Stat e regulator y agencie s an dtrad e groups . Al l commenter s suppor t th e propose d amendment

. Tw o commenter s suggeste d tha t al l requirement s o r

action s containe di nafinal orde r b e staye d becaus e th e final orde r ma y require th e responden t

t o mak e significan t

facilit y o r operationa l modification s tha t ma y excee dth e cos t

o f an y civi l penalt y an d thes e expense s shoul db e delayed , unti l final resolutionofth e case , unles s a clea r pubh c safet y ris k

exists

. RSPA Response RSP A agree s tha t

final order s requiring significan t

facilit y o r operationa l modification s shoul d sometime s b e delaye dunti l fina l resolution o f

th e case . However , becaus e a n automati c sta y coul ddela y correctiv e action s relate dt o safet y withou t a n evaluatio no f

an y potentia l impac t

o f th e delay , th e rul e doe s no t provid e fo r

a n automati c sta y i nth e cas e o f order s requiring actio n othe r

tha n th e paymen t o f money . Stay s i ncase s involvin g correctiv e actio n wil l b e considere do n acase-by-cas e basis

. Section 190.227

Payment

of Penalty Sectio n 190.227(a ) currentl y state s tha t paymen t

o f acivi l penalt y mus t

b e mad e b y certifie dchec k o r mone y orde r payabl e t o th e "Departmen t of Transportation. " RSP A propose dt o continu e t o allo w thi s metho dfo r acivi l penalt y o f

les s tha n$10,000

. Unde r ne w § 190.227(b) , RSP A propose dt o requir e tha t payment s o f

$10,00 0 o r

mor e b e mad e b y wir e transfe r

throug hth e Federa l Reserv e Communication s Syste mt o th e accoun t

o f th e U.S

. Treasury

. I nrespons e t o th e propose d amendmen t

o f § 190.227 , RSP A receive d 2 0 comment s fromoperators , Stat e regulator y agencies , an dtrad e groups . Mos t commenter s agre e wit hth e propose damendment

. On e commente r recommend s tha t

th e propose dlanguag e i n§ 190.227(b ) b e modifie dt o read "twent y busines s day s o r thirt y calenda r days. " This , h e suggests , woul dai d smalle r companies

. Fou r commenter s disagre e wit hth e propose dchange s t o th e regulation

. The y questio nRSPA' s nee dt o requir e wir e transfer s o f

civi l penaltie s o f $10,00 0 o r

more . The y argu e tha t

thi s restrictio n serve s n o purpos e an d unnecessaril y limit s th e option s o f payees . RSPA Response RSP A i s require db y Departmenta l regulations (4 9 CF R89.21(b)(3) ) t o collec t amount s ove r

$10,00 0 throug h wir e transfer

. Therefore , th e propose d amendmen t

t o § 190.22 7 wil l b e adopted

. Change s t o Par t19 1 Requirement s Th e followin g discussio n explain s th e change s i n par t

191 : Section 191.1 Scope Currentl y § 191.1(b)(1 ) contain s th e phras e "o nth e Oute r

Continenta l Shel f (OCS)"

. RSP A propose dt o delet e thi s phras e becaus e th e regulatio n doe s no t clearl y specif

y wher e th e applicabilit y o f par t 19 1 begin s o n offshor e gatherin g line s i n stat e waters

. A noperato r recommende dasimila r chang e i n comment s respondin g t o a n NPR M proposin g t o clarif

y th e definitio n o f gatherin g line s (5 6 F R48505 ; Septembe r 25 , 1991 ; Docke t

PS-122)

. RSPA' s revisionwil l clarif y tha t par t 19 1 doe s no t

appl y t o fieldproductio n lines ; i.e. , flo w line s i nstat e offshor e waters , simila r

t o th e presen t

exceptio n o nth e OCS

. N o substantiv e comment s wer e receive di n respons e t o thi s proposal

.