P.1 

OAR Box 1338 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

16) ll-F-1 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 6/17/2008 1:48:06 PM Sheet 16 of 105 
P.2 

m 

Tuesday 

April 25, 1989 

B ffi B D W ft 

I JUL » T1989 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

.-•.•.,* • * . .'*:*.. . 

Part X 

Environmental —. 

Protection Agency 

Intent to Form an Advisory Committee to 

Negotiate a New Approach for Control of 

Volatile Organic Chemical Equipment 

Leaks; Notice 
P.3 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY j 

[FRL 3562-61 

Intent to Form an Advisory Committee 

to Negotiate a New Approach for 

Control of Volatile Organic Chemical 

Equipment Leaks 

SUMMARY: EPA is considering 

establishing an Advisary Committee 

under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (FACA). The Committee's purpose 

would be to negotiate issues leading to a 

new approach for regulation of 

equipment leaks under Sections Ul and 

112 of the Clean Air Act as amended. 

The Committee would consist of 

representatives of parties that are 

substantially affected by the outcome of 

the proposed rule. 

EPA requests public comment on 

whether 

• It should establish a Federal Advisory 

Committee; 

• It has properly identified interests it 

believes are affected by the key issues 

listed above; 

• Regulatory negotiation is appropriate 

for this rulemaking, and the extent to 

which the issues, and procedures are 

adequate and appropriate. 

This notice also announces that an 

informational meeting will be held on 

May 15 from 10 am to 4 pm at the Hall of 

States, 444 N. Capitol St, room 337, 

Washington, DC to discuss tiie issues 

involved in the regulation of equipment 

leaks, and whether the Committee , 

should be formed and negotiations * v 

proceed.* ''". ."

 ,; 

This meeting is open and any parties 

interested in the negotiation are ,-.:- .•• 

encouraged to attend. ~ 

DATE EPA must receive comments and 

suggestions by May 10,1989. - %:, r.; 

AOORESS : Comments should be 

submitted (in duplicate, if possible ) to 

Air Docke t (LE-131) Room M-1500, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Attention Docket #A89-10,401M Stree t 

S W„ Washington. DC 20460. A copy 

should also be sent to Boy Ajax, MD-13, 

VS. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711. Docke t #A89-10 . containing . 

materials relevant to this rulemaking 

(PM-223). 401M Street SW.. iWashington. DC. 20460 (202) 332-5495. 

For information pertaining to the 

regulation of equipment leaks and the 

regulatory issues to be addressed in the 

negotiation, contact Bob Ajax, MD-13, 

U.S. EPA. Research Triangle Park. NC 

27711 (919) 541-5579. . S H T 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: "'" 

Outline of Notice ^; 5 ^ 

L EPA's Regulatory Negotiation Project ""'.J.. 

IL Volatile Organic Chemical Equipment \ 

Leak Fugitive Emissions : v;'/ 

A. Need for Rule Revision ••-.'%?' 

B. Selection as a Negotiation Item *'•<••.-. 

C Key Issues for Negotiation 

D. Potential Interests and Participants ;il % 

DL Formation of the Committee ' --•'••••"-•• 

•A. Procedure for Establishing an Advisory -

Committee %- j?~,r. 

B. Participants . :';4 £ " 

C Requests for Representation \'- .?'• '•«: *-.. 

D. Final Notice ;..'.: A^-s,- ^ 

E. Tentative Schedule '^T;'.:-' '~ "**?•. 

IV. Negotiation Procedures ~ ^>;:- sL: 

A Facilitator £?"•'"* •&? 

R Good Faith Negotiation =•;! 

C Administrative Support and Meetings .. 

D. Committee Procedures' • '^;S.:i4j;. 

& Defining Consensus ^iiiS.-i 

F. Failure of the Committee to Reach 

Consensus ..... S^<S55-: 

tJ.Recota of Meetings i:^S:i-j7r 

L EPA's Regulatory Negotiation Project 

EPA established the Regulatory 

. ,v .Negotiation Project in 1983 to explore ; 

f and demonstrate the value of ^'...: . .::

;

: 

negotiation and other consensus^ '-'•"'•• 

Y ^buildingtechniques for developing ••j;-.**-.-? 

•'* ''•better regulations which could be . C 

implemented in a less adversarial 

ru... setting. .*•.•.-.. : ..:•/-'.: 

.'~ Negotiations are conducted through 

-' Advisory Committees chartered under 

:•-- -the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

* (FACA). the goal of the Committee is to 

^-reach consensus on the language or -

issues involved in a role. If consensus is 

reached, it is used as the basis of the _:. 

Agency's proposal All procedural "; ~ 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act and other applicable".'" 

statutes continue to apply. 

EPA has developed criteria for: ! : "_ 

evaluation of potential items for ; • - TM;' 

negotiation. Tp qualify under EPA's 

may be inspected at UA EPA b*v^en> ^^7^? . an item must 

aon. and 4 p.m. on weekdays, andl j Vfleplanned for proposal; •• 

reasonable fee may be charged for C v Have a relatively slmall number of 

copy**1* } •>' " J identifiable parties, in an appropriate 

R>R FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: balance and mix, who have a gbod faith 

For information pertaining to thaiVy, J interest in negotiating; 

"'"L""v .-*.*- »•-*-•— - f • Present a limited number of related 

«^4s8ues, for which sufficient information 

is available for resolution; and * - -

• Have a time factor that lends some 

urgency to reaching consensus. 

The seven negotiations conducted to 

establishment of the negotiation 

committee and associated \ 

administrative matters contact:-D-sSorah 

Dalton. Deputy Diroctor,*ifegulafbry 

Negotiation Project^ Iraoi-a-nation and 

Regulatory System Division. U.S. EPA 

date have aided the Agency in better 

defining the issues end in crafting better 

approaches. The seven regulatory 

. negotiations were: 

- ** Nonconformance Penalties under 

the Clean Air Ac t a s amended; Pinal 

. rule: August 30,1985 

•• Emergency Pesticide Exemptions 

. under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 

a nd Rodenticide Ac t (FIFRA); Final rule: 

. January 15.1986 

- * Farmworker Protection Standards 

for Agricultural Pesticides under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

••• Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Proposed rule: 

July 8,1988 

- • Asbestos Containing Materials in 

Schools under the Asbestos Hazard 

Emergency Responsibility Act of 1988 

(AHERA); Final rule: October 30.1987 

".•':. • New Source Performance Standards 

for Woodbuming Stoves under the 

dean Air Act Final rule: February 28, 

'M988 

^•Underground Injection of 

/Hazardous Wast e under the Hazardous 

...and Solid Wast e Amendments of 1984. 

1 Final rule: July 28,1988 

'"•-•' • Minor Permit Modifications under 

t he Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Ac t (RCRA); Final rule: 

September 28,1988 

In Decembe r 1986, the Program 

-Evaluation Division of EPA's Office of 

:

 Policy Planning and Evaluation " 

.... completed an assessment of the 

^regulatory negotiations program. The 

study confirmed that negotiation is 

especially appropriate in situations 

-which involve the resolution of a limited 

. number of related issues, none of which 

involve fundamental questions of value 

:

 or extremely controversial national 

- policy. The study further concluded tha t 

• Negotiated rulemaking can produce 

. rules that are more pragmatic with -

better environmental results whil e still 

.. meeting statutory requirements. 

• Negotiated rules are also more 

• likely to be acceptable to the affected 

•A industries, the public interest sector, and 

stat e and local governments involved in 

developing them. 

• Negotiation may also result in 

earlier implementation of a rule by 

•reducing the time it takes to proceed 

from proposed to final rulemaking. 

-: EPA believes that the benefits to all 

parties of regulatory negotiation are 

substantial, and Is committed to 

. continued use of regulatory negotiation 

' end other consensus-based processe s 

for rulemaking when appropriate. 
P.4 

Federal Renter / VoL 54, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 25. TO89 / Notices 17945 

IL Volatile Organic Chemical Equipment 

Leak Fugitive Kadssions 

A. Need for Rule Revision 

Fugitive emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) from equipment 

leaks (valves, etc) contribute 

significantiy to air quality problems. 

Current regulations adopted under 

sections 111 and XIX of the Clean Air 

Act and in State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs) have been effective bx heightening 

awareness of the significance of (Us 

source and la ethnntsting control efforts. 

The rules basically require mat ; 

equipment in place be JBBpectod 

quarterly far leeks with a portable -

hydrocarbon detectoc. If ooaoentetioas 

in excess of 10.000 ppm are found, tha ' 

~coBopooeaib identified as a leaker aad 

maintenance is required. EPA stadies la 

the eady 1980s showed that typical 

refineries and chemical plants have an 

uncontrolled leak frequency ef 11 lo 12 

percent Maintenance studtes indicate: -

this can be reduced by about 60-70 

percent with the cunent leak detection 

and repair program. However, the actual 

frequency rate, and associated 

emissions in particular, vary widely and' 

are bettered to be a foncHoa of original 

design (e ^ number of valves) and age -*.' 

of the process unit equipment selected, * 

nnnlity frf wfflrnf ffp***^***, standard 

operating procedures used by the 

company, training provided to 

employees, and motivation. Recent data 

for highly toodc chemicals demonstrate : 

that frequencies te the OO lo X percent 

' range can be achieved In aoma 

situations. Howevet, ao one is sure what 

combination of {actors guarantees such 

results nor how to require them through 

enforceable regulations. . 

More importantly,regulatory.''•..'. 

approaches currently being used do not 

provide for quantification of emissions. 

I Specified quantified emission estimates 

' levels are necessary to establish a baseline and EPA needs residual emissions 

and risk assessments to make regulatory 

decisions. For example, the analyses of 

EPA proposed rules that would limit 

benzene emissions (FR VoL 53, Na 145, 

July 28,1988) are based on eiursskm 

estimates from leak frequencies typical -

of the refinery industry. These may 

significantiy overestimate emissions of 

benezene. • '•••••'••••••.•. 

EPA sees 1be seed for a «0w •-'•••'**•'""• 

regulatory approach, based on - ^ : ..-r' 

perfonnance and/or emissions, that-vriH 

result in quantifiable emission levels. *._; 

give credit for original plant design aad 

motivate innovation. Develaiqg such an 

approachusing EPA's traditional data 

gathering and analysis approach would 

be very difficult costly, time consuming 

and controversial. Initial contacts 

suggest that the major Industrial 

organizations, environmental groups 

snd state government associations wfll 

be receptive, end mere is good potential 

for Identifying ite^v approaches thiuiqpi 

negotiation mat are compatible with onr 

needs and the complexity of the . 

problems. 

The negotiation would address 

primarily technical issues and would not 

be policy oriented. The specific goal of 

the negotiation would be to develop a 

new regulatory approach that could be 

an alternative to or replacement for the 

current 40 CFR 61. Subpart V equipment 

leak tides. The negotiation would 

address the form of the approach and 

die relationship between It and actual 

emissions but would not address 

stringency. Depending upon die timing 

aadt iegree of success, the results comd 

be used to implement the Agency's 

upcoming decision on benzene 

equipment leaks. 5 this is not possrole. ••' 

the results would be used in the next 

equipment leak standard, which win 

probably be the hazardous organic 

National Emission Standards for : 

Haxaidoos Air Pollutants (NBSHAFs). 

B^Selecticsmas*mNegoticdiomUem .••..•;-. 

EPA believes that the equpment leak 

regulations nay be appropriate for 

development through tiie regulatory 

negotiation process. EPA has made a 

prefiminaiy toqidry of potential parties 

and representatives of identified 

interests to determine ff this Item 

satisfies EPA's selection criteria for 

' negotiated ndemaldng. On the basis of 

this preliminary inquiry, EPA believes 

that this item meets its selection criteria 

and that negotiations can be successfuL 

Affected interests are small in number, 

and EPA's initial contacts indicate tiiat . 

an appropriate balance and mix of 

groups will be wilting to participate in 

good faith. EPA's lead program office 

has identified a number of bask issues 

for which sufficient information is in 

hand (or wfB be developed dnring the 

neogltetions) for resolution. 

C Key Issues for Negotiation 

EPA anticipates the key negotiation 

questions wffl focus on how to establish 

a regidatoiy approach that will: 

1. Achieve predictable, quantifiable 

emission results 

2. Result in the application of the best 

available technology •...*•-•. ..*-'. 

3. Be enforceable 

4. Exhibit maximum regulatory 

consistent^ (e.g., with state permitting 

requirements.-SARA reporting 

requirements) 

5. Provide Incentives Jar better 

designs (e.g.. designs that involve fewer 

components that have the potential to 

leak) 

6. Provide maximum flexibility In 

achieving specified results 

7. Minimize admlnlstative burdens 

8. Provide for predictable compliance 

9. Provide time that may be needed to 

identify, assess, and implement work 

practices, equipment and designs that 

•will meet emission goals. 

EPA expects to address the following 

specific questions: 

1. Is leak detection and repair an 

appropriate approach? If so, how can 

the results be quantified? Should the 

definition of a leak be lowered? 

Z Should leak detection and repair ba 

required for flanges and. if ao, what 

frequency and leak defintion should be 

applied? 

3. Is aa emission Umit (or a limit on 

the number of leaking components) an 

appropriate approach? How should such 

an approach be implemented? 

4. Is aa emission limit on a per 

component basis (or a limit on percent 

leaking components) an appropriate 

approach? Ifow shorrM strcb an .. . 

approach be implemented? .< 

. S.js there an effective approach dial 

1B a cassbination of the above? 

D. Potential Interests and Participants 

EPA has tentatively identified die 

following list of possible interests and 

parties: 

—Chemical manufacturing industry .. 

—Petroleum refining industry 

—iodnstries out handle organic - • 

chemicals In equipment that includes 

valves, pump*, compressions, flanges or 

open-ended lines 

—Environmental.Interest Croups 

—State and local air pollution control 

agencies 

—Manufacturers of pumps and valves 

—Consorting firms involved in plant 

design and equipment specification 

—Contractors involved in 

construction of chemical plants and 

petroleum refineries . 

—Labor tmlohs 

—Other Federal agendes 

m. Formation of Ifaa Negotiating 

Comaoittee 

A. Procedure for Establishing an 

. Adrieoty Committee 

As a general rule, aa agency of the 

Federal government is required to 

comply with the requirements of FACA 

when It establishes or uses a group 

which includes non-federal members as 

a sosxee of advice. Under FACA. an 

Advisory ConmrfUee is established only 

:

 after both consultation with GSA end 

receipt of a charter. EPA has prepared a 
P.5 

17946 Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 76 / Tuesday. April 25. 1989 / Notices 

charter and has initiated the requisite 

consultation process. Only upon the 

successful completion of this process 

and the receipt of the approved charter 

will EPA form the Committee and . 

commence negotiations. ......:... , •_ 

B. Participants 

The number of participants in the 

group is estimated to be about 15 and 

should not exceed 25 participants. A 

number larger than this could make it 

difficult to conduct effective 

negotiations. One purpose of tiiis notice 

is to help detenninme whether the 

standard diat EPA is developing would ~ 

substantially affect interests not 

adequately represented by the proposed 

participants. We do not believe that 

each potentially affected organization or 

individual must necessarily have its 

own representative. However, we firmly 

believe that each interest must be 

adequately represented. Moreover, we -

must be satisfied that the group as a •• •" 

whole reflects a proper balance and mix 

of interests. <:-

C Requests for Representation 

If, in response to this Notice, an 

additional individual or representative 

of an interest requests membership or 

representation in the negotiating group, 

the Agency, in consultation with the 

facilitator, will determine whether that 

individual or representative should be 

added to the group. EPA will make diat 

decision based on whether the ~ 

individual or interest " - -

• Would be substantially affected by 

the rule; 

• Is already adequately represented 

in the negotiating group. u 

D. Final Notice 

After evaluating the results of the 

informational and organizational 

meetings, and reviewing any comments 

on this Notice and requests for 

representation, EPA will issue a final 

notice. That notice will announce the 

establishment of a Federal Advisory 

Committee and the date of the first 

meeting, unless (1) EPA decides, based 

on comments and other relevant 

considerations, that such action is ' -

inappropriate, or (2) in the event EPA's 

charter request is disapproved. The 

negotiation process will begin once the 

Committee is appropriately chartered 

and notice is published in the Federal 

Register. 

E. tentative Schedule ,':. 

•EPA will hold an informational 

meeting on May 16,1989 (10 am) until 

completion, at The Hall of States. 444 N. 

Capitol St, Washington, DC This 

meeting is open, and potential 

participants are encouraged to attend. 

The purpose of this meeting is to: 

discuss whether negotiations should 

proceed, and if so, consider what issues 

and topics should and should not be 

covered, answer questions, and address 

any other procedural issues which may 

arise. .•..*.• : 

If an adequate mix and balance of 

parties attending the informational 

meeting are interested in participating in 

a negotiation, EPA will host an 

organizational meeting within two 

weeks to discuss how the negotiations 

would proceed and how the Committee 

would function. If the organizational 

meeting is successful and charter . 

approved, EPA would hold die first 

meeting of the Advisory Committee 

within three weeks of the organizational 

meeting. At this meeting, participants 

would complete action on any 

procedural matters outstanding from the 

organizational meeting, determine how 

best to address the principal issues, and 

begin to address them. •-..._;..;.. 

Subsequent meetings of the * 

Committee would be held once or twice; 

a month either in Washington, DC, or in 

Research Triangle Park. NC, as 

determined by die Committee, r . .'•'•. r ".;:.•' 

Though EPA has not set a final 

deadline for completion of the 

negotiation, it expects die negotiations 

may last up to six months. The Agency . 

intends to terminate the activities of the 

Committee if it does not appear likely to 

reach consensus on a schedule tiiat is 

consistent with Agency rulemaking

 :•-. 

needs.. ••/ 

IV. Negotiation Procedures 

The following procedures and 

guidelines will apply to tiie Committee, 

if formed, unless they are modified as a * 

result of comments received on tiiis 

Notice or during the negotiating process. 

A. Facilitator 

EPA will use a neutral facilitator. Hie 

facilitator will not be involved with the 

substantive development or enforcement 

of the regulation. The facilitator's role is 

-.-to: -o. •. . • *-V' .,.:. 

• Chair negotiating sessions; 

• Help the negotiation process run 

smoothly; and 

• Help participants define and reach 

consensus. 

B. Good Faith Negotiation 

Since participants must be willing to 

negotiate in good faith and be 

authorized to do sa each organization 

must designate a senior official to 

represent its Interests. This applies to 

EPA as weU. and Bob Ajax. Chief. 

Standards Development Branch. Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

will be EPA's representative. 

C Administrative Support and Meetings 

EPA's Information and Regulatory 

Systems Division will supply logistical, 

administrative and management 

support Meetings will be held in the 

Washington area or in Research 

Triangle Park. NC at the convenience of 

the Committee. To support the 

negotiations, EPA has pledged funds to 

a resource pool which die National 

Institute for Dispute Resolution will 

administer. EPA expects diat funds from 

private foundations might also be 

available. The parties may use die funds 

for such activities as training, technical 

support, and other assistance which the 

Committee deems usefuL To give 

committee members maximum freedom, 

subject to any applicable legal 

constraints, diey will determine die 

procedures under which requests for 

funds will be made and approved. 

D. Committee Procedures . , 

Under the general guidance and -. 

direction of the facilitator, and subject 

to any applicable legal requirements, the 

members will establish die detailed. 

procedures for Committee meeting 

which they consider most appropriate. 

K Defining Consensus . . . 

The goal of the negotiating process is 

consensus. In th$.negotiations . 

completed to-date, consensus has meant 

that each interest concurs in die result 

We expect the participants to fashion 

their own working definition of tiiis 

term. 

F. Failure of Advisory Committee to '. 

Reach Consensus 

In the event the Committee is unable 

to reach consensus, EPA will proceed to ' 

develop its own approach. Parties to the 

negotiation may withdraw at any time, if 

this happens, the remaining Committee 

should continue. 

G. RecordofMeetings 

In accordance with FACA's 

. requirements, EPA will keep a record of 

all Advisory Committee meetings. This 

record will be placed in the public 

docket for this rulemaking. EPA will 

announce Committee meetings in the 

Federal Register. Such meetings will be 

open to the public. 

Dated* April 21,1089. 

Robert HWayiand, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Policy, Planning and Evaluation. 

(FR Doc. 89-10063 Filed 4-24-89; 10:17 am] 

saiaw coos tese so-« 
P.6 

>» f .* 

I 

S3 

I 

Tuesday 

April 25, 1989 

•o.iO .»' J? j 

•trie 

«•>• III 

'•^"A^iD.QCKfv 

Part X 

Environmental ^ 

Protection Agency 

Intent to Form an Advisory Committee to 

Negotiate a New Approach for Control of 

Volaffle Organic Chemical Equipment 

Leaks; Notice 
P.7 

17944 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 25, 1989 / Notices 

P." 

l»f"* 

•»•--•! 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY i 

[FRLS562-S] 

Intent t o Form an Advisory Committee 

to Negotiate a New Approach for 

Control of Volatile Organic Chemical 

Equipment Leaks 

SUMMARY: EPA is considering 

establishing an Advissry Committee 

under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (FACA). The Committee's purpose 

would be to negotiate issues leading to a 

new approach for regulation of 

equipment leaks under Sections 111 and 

112 of the Clean Air Act as amended 

The Committee would consist of 

representatives of parties that are 

substantially affected by the outcome of 

the proposed rule. 

EPA requests public comment on 

whether 

• It should establish a Federal Advisory 

Committee; 

• It has properly identified interests it 

believes are affected by the key issues 

listed above: 

• Regulatory negotiation is appropriate 

for this rulemaking, and the extent to 

which the issues, and procedures are 

adequate and appropriate. 

This notice also announces that an 

informational meeting will be held on 

M a y 15 from 10 am to 4 pm at die Hall of 

States, 444 N. Capitol St . room 337. 

Washington, DC to discuss die issue s •.-

involved in the regulation o f equipment 

leaks, and whether the Committee , . 

should be formed and negotiations * -. 

proceed.; .;; -•... — ...•' 

This meeting is open and any parties 

interested in die negotiation are r.:- --. 

encouraged tp attend. '.. '" 

DAT E EPA most receive comments and 

suggestions by May 10,1989.". -.-: v '.•*.'.-V 

ADDRESS: Comments should be * 

submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to 

Air Docket (LE-131) Room M-1500, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Attention Docket #A89-10,401M Street 

SW„ Washington, DC 20460. A copy 

should also be sent to Boy Ajax, MD-13, 

US. EPA. Research Triangle Park. NC 

27711. Docket #A89-10, containing . 

materials relevant to this rulemaking \ A 

may be inspected at UA EPA bdtw^en 8 SK2taEffi"« . item must 

tun. and 4 pjn. on wwkdays^nrfa j V Baplanned for proposal; * 

reasonable fee may be charged for C . Have a relatively srnall number of 

town*- } ay"\\ identifiable parties, in an appropriate 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: balance and mix. who have a good faith 

For information pertaining to the\ ^ J interest in negotiating; 

establishment of the negotiation -v. f • Present a limited number of related 

committee and associated \ v ^ /.^issues, for which sufficient information 

administrative matters'contactUaborah u available for resolution; and *"'" 

Dalton. Deputy Directof.ifegulap>ry • Have a time factor that lends some 

Negotiation Project^ Iniorination and urgency to reaching consensus. •' - • • 

Regulatory System Division, VS. EPA The seven negotiations conducted to 

(PM-223). 401M Street 8W„ L 

Washington, D C 20460 (202) 382-5495. 

For information pertaining to die 

regulation of equipment leaks and die 

regulatory issues to be addressed in die 

negotiation, contact Bob Ajax. MD-13, 

U.S. EPA. Research Triangle Park. NC ' 

27711(919)541-6579. j£'%%":" 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline of Notice -*?"f ^ 

L EPA's Regulatory Negotiation Project 

H. Volatile Organic Chemical Equipment 

Leak Fugitive Emissions v:'/' 

A. Need for Rule Revision --%'•'" 

B. Selection as a Negotiation Item 

C. Key Issues for Negotiation 

D. Potential Interests and Participants v*.^.-* 

DL Formation of the Committee ' 

A. Procedure for Establishing an Advisory. 

Committee »• jf '.._•.' 

B. Participants ;\ 

C Requests for Representation ;'•'.'-

D. Final Notice ..*£s&;-i...::'.::-

E. Tentative Schedule ':Cr: - ??*•• 

IV. Negotiation Procedures " ;•*?••;.•-* &-'•'-

A Facilitator £r':" s? ^ 

a Good Faith Negotiation - b;, 

C Administrative Support and Meetings ... 

D. Committee Procedures "'ai«jj.*i>i>';*v 

E. Defining Consensus ' ~M:.;£*~>v 

F. Failure of the Committee to Reach 

Consensus ...^ V'.^f&sZ.ZC 

G. Record of Meetings til^^f?-'-

L EPA's Regulatory Negotiation Project 

EPA established the Regulatory 

Negotiation Project in 1983 to explore . 

and demonstrate the value of '.'iV.:.::.'.'VI 

negotiation and other consensus^ 

/•buildingtechniques for developing ;-- ,*;• 

''-better regulations which could be 

implemented in a less adversarial 

setting. y : 

' Negotiations are conducted through 

Advisory Committees chartered under ; 

,•• die Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA). The goal of the Committee is to 

--reach consensus on the language or : 

issues involved in a rule. If consensus is 

reached, it is used as the basis of die _•:. 

Agency's proposal All procedural I•'•' 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act and other applicable'.'" 

. statutes continue to apply. 

EPA has developed criteria for . 

'evaluation of potential items for ••'•?:••?": 

negotiation. To qualify under EPA's 

date have aided die Agency in better 

defining die issues and in crafting better 

approaches. The seven regulatory 

negotiations were: 

•". • Nonconformance Penalties under 

the Clean Air Ac t as amended; Final 

. rule: August 30,1985 

•• Emergency Pesticide Exemptions 

. under die Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Final rule: 

. January 15.1988 

••'*-.• • Farmworker Protection Standards 

for Agricultural Pesticides under the 

Federal Insecticide. Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Proposed rule: 

July 8.1988 

• Asbestos Containing Materials in 

Schools under the Asbestos Hazard 

Emergency Responsibility Act of 1988 

(AHERA); Final rule: October 30,1987 

•'•'. • New Source Performance Standards 

for Woodbuming Stoves under die 

Clean Air Ac t Final rule: February 28, 

01988 

' » Underground Injection of 

Hazardous Waste under the Hazardous 

and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. 

:

 ••; Final rule: July 28,1988 

''••* •"• Minor Permit Modifications under 

d i e Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Ac t (RCRA); Final rule: 

September 28,1988 

In Decembe r 1988, the Program 

"Evaluation Division of EPA's Office of 

:

 Policy Planning and Evaluation 

completed an assessment of die 

regulatory negotiations program. The 

study confirmed diat negotiation is 

especially appropriate in situations 

which involve the resolution of a limited 

number of related issues, none of which 

-Involve fundamental questions of value 

or extremely controversial national 

• policy. The study further concluded that 

• Negotiated rulemaking can produce 

, rules that are more pragmatic with * 

better environmental results whil e still 

- meeting statutory requirements. 

• Negotiated rules are also more 

likely to be acceptable to the affected 

- .industries, the public interest sector, and 

stat e and local governments involved in 

developing them. 

• Negotiation ma y also result in 

" earlier implementation of a ride by 

reducing the time it takes to proceed 

from proposed to final rulemaking. 

: EPA believe s that the benefits to all 

parties of regulatory negotiation are 

. substantial, and Is committed to 

continued use of regulatory negotiation 

a nd otha-jr consensus-based processe s 

for rulemaking when appropriate. 
P.8 

17946 Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 78 / Tuesday, April 25, 1989 / Notices 

charter and has Initiated die requisite 

consultation process. Only upon the 

successful completion of this process 

and the receipt of the approved charter 

will EPA form die Committee and . 

commence negotiations. u'• _ 

B. Participants 

The number of participants in the 

group is estimated to be about 15 and 

should not exceed 25 participants. A 

number larger than this could make it 

difficult to conduct effective 

negotiations. One purpose of this notice 

is to help determinme whether the 

standard mat EPA is developing would ' 

substantially affect interests not 

adequately represented by the proposed 

participants. We do not believe that 

each potentially affected organization or 

individual must necessarily have its 

own representative. However, we firmly 

believe tiiat each Interest must be 

adequately represented. Moreover, we 

must be satisfied that thegroup as a 

whole reflects a proper balance and mix 

of interests. 

C Requests for Representation 

If, in response to this Notice, an 

additional individual or representative 

of an interest requests membership or 

representation in the negotiating group, 

the Agency, in consultation with die 

facilitator, will determine whether that 

individual or representative should be 

added to the group. EPA will make that 

decision based on whether the 

individual or interest ' * 

•Would be substantially affected by 

the rule; 

• Is already adequately represented 

in the negotiating group. y 

D. Final Notice 

After evaluating the results of the 

informational and organizational 

meetings, and reviewing any comments 

on this Notice and requests for 

representation. EPA will issue a final 

notice. That notice will announce die 

establishment of a Federal Advisory 

Committee and the date of the first 

meeting, unless (1) EPA decides, based 

on comments and other relevant 

considerations, that such action Is 

inappropriate, or (2) in the event EPA's 

charter request is disapproved. The 

negotiation process wul begin once die 

Committee is appropriately chartered 

and notice is published in me Federal 

Register. 

E. Tentative Schedule 

EPA will hold an informational 

meeting on May 15,1989 (10 am) until 

completion, at The Hall of States. 444 N. 

Capitol St, Washington. DC This 

meeting is open, and potential 

participants are encouraged to attend. 

The purpose of this meeting Is to: 

discuss whether negotiations should 

proceed, and if so, consider what issues 

and topics should and should not be 

covered, answer questions, and address 

any other procedural issues which may 

arise. 

- If aa adequate mix and balance of 

parties attending die informational 

meeting are interested in participating in 

a negotiation. EPA will host an 

organizational meeting within two 

weeks to discuss how the negotiations 

would proceed and how die Committee 

would function. If the organizational 

meeting is successful and charter . 

approved, EPA would hold the first 

meeting of the Advisory Committee 

within three weeks of the organizational 

meeting. At tins meeting, participants 

would complete action on any 

procedural matters outstanding from the 

organizational meeting, determine how 

best to address the principal issues, and 

begin to address them. . ; 

Subsequent meetings of the : • 

Committee would be held once or twice; 

a month either in Washington, DC, or in . 

Research Triangle Park, NC, as -

determined by the Committee.: ,'•'• - ':: 

Though EPA has not set a final 

deadline for completion of the 

negotiation, it expects the negotiations 

may last up to six months. The Agency 

intends to terminate the activities of the 

Committee if it does not appear likely to 

reach consensus on a schedule that is 

consistent with Agency rulemaking ••-

needs.. .••'•..•••.. 

IV. Negotiation Procedures 

The following procedures and 

guidelines will apply to the Committee, 

ff formed, unless they are modified as a ~ 

result of comments received on this 

Notice or during the negotiating process. 

A. Facilitator 

EPA will use a neutral facilitator. The 

facilitator will not be involved with the 

substantive development or enforcement 

of the regulation. The facilitator's role is 

--to : :*. • -.I.*' ..... 

• Chair negotiating sessions; . 

• Help the negotiation process ran 

smoothly; and 

• Help participants define and reach 

consensus. 

; B. Good Faith Negotiation 

Since participants must be willing to 

negotiate in good faith and be 

authorized to do so, each organization 

must designate a senior official to 

represent its Interests. This applies to 

EPA as weU. and Bob Ajax. Chief. 

Standards Development Branch. Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

will be EPA's representative. 

C Administrative Support and Meetings 

EPA's Information and Regulatory 

Systems Division will supply logistical, 

administrative and management 

support Meetings will be held in the 

Washington area or in Research 

Triangle Park, NC, at the convenience of 

the Committee. To support the 

negotiations, EPA has pledged funds to 

a resource pool which die National 

Institute for Dispute Resolution will 

administer. EPA expects diat funds from 

private foundations might also be 

available. The parties may use die funds 

for such activities as training, technical 

support, and odier assistance which the 

Committee deems useful To give 

committee members maximum freedom, 

subject to any applicable legal 

constrainto, they will determine the 

procedures under which requests for 

funds will be made and approved. 

D. Committee Procedures 

Under die general guidance and •*•.* 

direction of die facilitator, and subject 

to any applicable legal requirements, the 

members will establish the detaded. 

procedures for Committee meeting 

which diey consider most appropriate. 

E. Defining Consensus . . 

The goal of die negotiating process is 

consensus. In the negotiations ' 

completed to-date, consensus has meant 

that each interest concurs in die result 

We expect die participants to fashion 

their own working definition of this 

term. 

F. Failure of Advisory Committee to . 

Reach Consensus 

In die event the Committee is unable 

to reach consensus, EPA will proceed to 

develop its own approach. Parties to die 

negotiation may withdraw at any time, if 

this happens, die remaining Committee 

should continue. 

G. RecordofMeetings 

In accordance widi FACA's 

. requirements. EPA wUl keep a record of 

all Advisory Committee meetings. This 

record -will be placed in the public 

docket for this rulemaking. EPA will 

announce Committee meetings in the 

Federal Register. Such meetings will be 

open to the public. 

Dated; April 21,1989. 

Robert RWayUnd. 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Policy, Planning and Evaluation. 

(FR Doc. 80-10003 Filed 4-34-89; 10:17 am] 

SMJJNO COOS I 
P.9 

Federal Relator / VoL 54. No. 78 / Tuesday, April 25. 1969 / Notices 17945 

iti 

f-r*-

£EU.^T* 

FL Volatile Organic Chenucal Eqtdpmeaft 

Leak Fugtttvs Baissfons 

A. Need for Rule Revision 

Fugitive emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) from equipment 

leaks (valves, etc) contribute 

significantiy to air quatity problems. 

Current regulations adopted oader 

sections 111 and li t of the dean Air 

Act and m State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs) have been effective fat heightening 

awareness of rbe significance of this 

source aad la attenuating control efiorta. 

The rules basically require that 

eqatpment in place ba inspected 

quarterly for leaks with a portable -

hydrocarbon detector. If concentrations 

in excess of 10,000 ppm are fooad, tha '" 

compooeti is identified as a leaker and 

maintenance is required. EPA stadias sa 

tha early 1980s showed mat typical 

refineries and chemical plants havaaa 

uncontrolled leak frequency of t l lo 12 

percent Maintsnnnrs studtes indicate -

this can be reduced by about SO-70 

percent with the current leak detection 

and repair program. However, the actual 

frequency rale, and associated 

emissions in particular, vary widely and' 

are befeered to be a functica of origami 

design (eg^ number of vahree) aad aga 

of the proress unit, equipment selected, 

quahty of maintenance, standard 

operating procedures used by the 

company, training provided to 

employees, and raotivadoB. Recent date 

for highly toadc chemicals demonstrate : 

thai frequencies ta the 0J0 tot percent 

; range can be achieved tn some 

situations. However, no one is sure what 

combination of factors guarantees such 

results nor how to require them through 

enforceable regulations. . 

More importantly, regulatory ' 

approaches currently being used do not 

provide for quantification of emissions. 

Specified quantified endssion estimates 

levels are necessary to establish a baseline and EPA needs residual emisetoas 

and risk assessments to make regulatory 

decisions. For example, tha analyses of 

EPA proposed rules that would limit 

benzene emissions (FR VoL 53, Na 145, 

July 28,1988) are based en emission 

estimates from leak frequencies typical -

of the refinery industry. These any 

significantiy overestimate emissions of 

benezeae. .. 

EPA seas the need fere new •-''- ^ " 

regulatory approach, based on -

performance and/or emissions, that waHi 

result in quantifiable emission levels. . 

give credit for original plant dfsjga and 

motivate innovation. Develoiqg such an 

approachuslng EPA's traditional data 

gathering and analysis approach would 

be very* difficult costly, time consuming 

and controversial, initial contacts 

suggest that the major Industrial 

organizations, environmental groups 

and state government associations wnl 

be receptive, and (here is good potential 

for identifying new approaches through 

negotiation mat are compatible wttii our 

needs and dw complexity of the 

problems. 

The negotiation would address 

primarily technical issues and would not 

be policy oriented. The specific god of 

the negotiation would be to develop a 

new regulatory approach tiiat could be 

an alternative to or replacement for tha 

current 40 CFR 61, Subpart V equipment 

leak ndes. The negotiation would 

address die fonn of the approach and 

die relationship between n and eutiia" 

emissions bat woold not address 

stringency. Depending upon 1fae timing 

andd egree of success, die results could 

be used to implement the Agencya 

upcoming derision on benzene 

equlpmmt leeks. B this is not possible, 

die results would be used in BIB next 

equipment leak standard, which wfu 

probably be the hazardous organic 

National Emission Standards for -

HazarrjoraAfrPirfhitanta-tf'-raSHAPs'). 

B-Selectioaas a Negotiation Item ..-

EPA believes that tire equpment leak 

regulations nay be appropriate for 

development through the regulatory 

negotiation process. EPA has made a 

prefinanaiy inquiry of potential parlies 

and representatives of identified 

interests to determine ff tiiis item 

satisfies EPA's selection criteria for 

negotiated rulemaking. On the basis ot 

this preliminary inquiry, EPA believes 

that this item meets its selection criteria 

and that negotiations can be successful. 

Affected interests are small in number, 

and EPA's initial contacts indicate that 

an appropriate balance and mix of 

groups wfll be wffimg to participate in 

good farm. EPA's lead program office 

has Identified a number of basic issues 

for which sufficient information is in 

hand (or wffl be developed during tha 

neogitations) for resolution. 

CLKey Issues for Negotiation 

EPA anticipates the key negotiation 

questions wffl focus on how to establish 

a regirratory approach that wflh 

1. Achieve predictable, quantifiable 

emission results 

2. Result in the application of (he best 

available technology •. 

a. Be enforceable 

4. Exhibit maximum regulatory 

consistency (e.g., with slate permitting 

requirements; SARA reporting . 

requirements) 

5. Provide Incentives for better 

designs (e.g.. designs that involve fewer 

components diat have die potential to 

leak) 

6. Provide maximum flexibility In 

achieving specified results 

7. Minimize adminlstative burdens 

8. Provide for predictable compliance 

9. Provide time that may be needed to 

Identify, assess, and Implement work 

practices, equipment and designs that 

will meet emission goals. 

EPA expects to address die following 

specific questions: 

X. Is leak detection and repair an 

appropriate approach? If so. how caa 

the resulU be quantified? Should UM 

definition of a leak be lowered? 

Z Should leak detection and repair be 

required for flanges and. if ao, what 

frequency and leak deflation should be 

applied? 

A. Is aa amission Umlt (or a limit on 

the number of leaking components) an 

appropriate approach? How should audi 

an approach be implemented? 

4. Is aa amission limit oa a per 

component basis (or a limit on percent 

leaking components) an appropriate 

' approach? Haw shoidd such an .. . 

approach be impforaented? .<'•'. 

. &Js tiiere. an effective approach chat 

toacoatbinatianoftiMabove? * 

D. Potential Interests and Participants 

BPA has tentatively identified die 

following Ust of possible interests and 

parties: 

—Chemical manufacturing hjflitslry 

—Petroleum refining industry 

—Indastrieedtetliandfo organic • -

chemicals in equipment that includes 

valves, pampa. compressions, flanges or 

open-ended lines 

—Environmental .Interest Groups 

—State and focal air pollution control 

agencies 

—Manafactarcrs of pumps and valves 

—Consorting firms involved in plant 

design and eqirfpment specification 

—Contractors involved tn 

construction of chemical plants and 

o petroleum refineries . 

—Labor lmfohs 

—Odier Federal agendes 

DL Formation of dw Negotiating 

nouiaiitiee • 

A. Procechirv for Establishing an 

Adfievty Committee 

As a general rute. aa agency of the 

Federal government is required to 

comply with the requirements of FACA 

when it establishes or uses a group 

which includes non-federal uxmoers as 

a some of advice. Under FACA. an 

Advisory Committee is established oaiy 

after both consultation with GSA end 

receipt of a charter. EPA has prepared a