44614 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules

order biodegradation rate constant. An owner

or operator may elect to assume the first

order biodegradation rate constant is zero for

any regulated compound(s) present in the

wastewater. Procedure 4 explains two types

of batch tests which may be used to estimate

the first order biodegradation rate constant.

An owner or operator may elect to assume

the first order biodegradation rate constant is

zero for any regulated compound(s) present

in the wastewater. Procedure 3 would be

used if the facility has, or measures to

determine, data on the inlet and outlet

individual organic compound concentration

for the biological treatment unit. Procedure 3

may only be used on a thoroughly mixed

treatment unit. Procedure 2 is used if a

facility has or obtains performance data on a

biotreatment unit prior to and after addition

of the microbial mass. An example where

Procedure 2 could be used, is an activated

sludge unit where measurements have been

taken on inlet and exit concentration of

organic compounds in the wastewater prior

to seeding with the microbial mass and startup of the unit. The flow chart in Figure 1

outlines the steps to use for each of the

procedures.

* * * * *

Appendix C to Part 63 [Amended]

7. In appendix C of part 63, section III,

in the second sentence of C, the phrase

‘‘uniform well-mixed or completely

mixed system’’ is revised to read

‘‘thoroughly mixed treatment unit.’’

[FR Doc. 97–22367 Filed 8–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–58793]

RIN 2060–AC19

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories; Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule: Amendments.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to amend

the National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories; Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry

(SOCMI) by adding

tetrahydrobenzaldehyde (THBA) and

crotonaldehyde to, and removing

acetaldol from, the list of chemical

production processes. This action also

proposes to establish a separate

compliance date of 3 years from final

action for subparts F and G of part 63

and 1 year from final action for subpart

H of part 63 for THBA and

crotonaldehyde production processes.

The EPA is also proposing a change to

clarify compliance demonstration

requirements for flexible operation

units.

This proposed action would

implement section 112(d) of the Clean

Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act),

which requires the Administrator to

regulate emissions of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) listed in section 112(b)

of the Act. The intended effect of this

proposed rule is to protect the public by

requiring new and existing major

sources to control emissions of HAP to

the level reflecting application of the

maximum achievable control

technology. This action also proposes to

amend the initial list of source

categories of HAP required by section

112 (c) of the Act by removing THBA

production from the list of categories of

major sources.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before September 22,

1997, unless a hearing is requested by

September 22, 1997. If a hearing is

requested, written comments must be

received by October 6, 1997.

Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a

public hearing must contact the EPA no

later than September 2, 1997. If a

hearing is held, it will take place on

September 8, 1997, beginning at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (6102),

Attention Docket Number A–95–30 (see

docket section below), Room M–1500,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

20460. The EPA requests that a separate

copy also be sent to the contact person

listed below.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at the EPA’s Office

of Administration Auditorium, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons

interested in attending the hearing or

wishing to present oral testimony

should notify Marguerite Thweatt, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,

telephone (919) 541–5607.

Docket. Docket No. A–95–30,

containing the supporting information

for the original NESHAP and this action,

are available for public inspection and

copying between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, at the EPA’s

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Waterside Mall,

Room M–1500, first floor, 401 M Street

SW, Washington, DC 20460, or by

calling (202) 260–7548 or 260–7549. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning this action

contact Mr. John Schaefer at (919) 541–

0296, Organic Chemicals Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulated Entities and Background

Information

A. Regulated Entities

The regulated category and entities

affected by this action include:

Category Regulated entities

Industry Facilities that produce

tetrahydrobenzaldehyde; facilities that produce crotonaldehyde

Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) units,

e.g., producers of benzene, toluene, or any other chemical listed

in Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63,

subpart F.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive but, rather, provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

interested in the revisions to the

regulation affected by this action.

Entities potentially regulated by the

HON are those which produce as

primary intended products any of the

chemicals listed in table 1 of 40 CFR

part 63, subpart F or facilities producing

THBA or crotonaldehyde and that are

located at facilities that are major

sources as defined in section 112 of the

Clean Air Act (CAA). To determine

whether your facility is regulated by this

action, you should carefully examine all

of the applicability criteria in 40 CFR

63.100. If you have questions regarding

the applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

With today’s action, EPA is proposing

to make production of THBA and

crotonaldehyde subject to subparts F, G,

and H of 40 CFR part 63. Subparts F, G,

and H of 40 CFR part 63 establish

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for

the Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) (57 FR

62607). This rule is commonly referred

to as the hazardous organic NESHAP or

the HON. The HON rule applies to

SOCMI facilities located at major

sources and affects approximately 310

facilities nationwide. These SOCMI

facilities include those that produce one

or more of the synthetic organic
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44615

chemicals listed in Table 1 of subpart F

and that either (1) use an organic HAP

as a reactant or (2) produce an organic

HAP in the process. Emission points

within these facilities affected by the

rule are process vents, storage vessels,

transfer operations, equipment leaks,

and wastewater collection systems.

Processes producing THBA were not

included on the list of SOCMI processes

to be regulated under the HON.

Crotonaldehyde production was

removed from the list of SOCMI

processes to be regulated by the HON

when the rule was issued in April 1994.

Crotonaldehyde production was deleted

because available information indicated

that this chemical was no longer

produced in the United States. Because

EPA has since learned that

crotonaldehyde is still produced in the

United States, in today’s action EPA is

proposing to add crotonaldehyde

production to the HON.

B. Electronic Submission of Comments

Comments on the proposed changes

to the NESHAP may also be submitted

electronically by sending electronic

mail (e-mail) to: a-and-rdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments will also be accepted on

diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 or ASCII file

format. All comments in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

A–90–19. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic comments

may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries.

II. Summary of Proposed Changes to

Rule

A. Addition of THBA Production

Tetrahydrobenzaldehyde production

was included as a source of HAP

emissions under the source category of

butadiene dimers production on the

initial list of source categories selected

for regulation under section 112(c) of

the Act published on July 16, 1992 (57

FR 31576) and was scheduled for

control by November 1997 on the

section 112(c) source category schedule

(58 FR 63941). Although the initial

source category list clearly identified

THBA production as being included in

the butadiene dimers production source

category, the butadiene dimers name

was a misnomer. Consequently, the

butadiene dimers production source

category was changed to THBA

production by a source category list

maintenance action finalized on June 4,

1996 (61 FR 28197). Today’s action

would add THBA production to the

HON.

The chemical THBA is produced by

reacting 1,3-butadiene and acrolein

together. Both 1,3-butadiene and

acrolein are HAPs and are emitted

during the production process. At this

time, only one facility in the nation

manufactures THBA, and it is not

expected that additional facilities will

begin producing THBA. The THBA

production unit is co-located with other

SOCMI production units to which the

HON is applicable. In addition, the

emissions points and air pollution

control measures applied are identical

to those encountered in these co-located

SOCMI units.

Tetrahydrobenzaldehyde is used in

the manufacture of paint additives. The

product is similar to other SOCMI

products on the list of HON affected

chemicals in that it is an intermediate

organic chemical used in the

manufacture of other organic chemicals.

The production of THBA was not

included in the HON initially, because

EPA was unaware of THBA’s

similarities to other SOCMI chemicals.

Had EPA been aware of these

similarities THBA would have been

included in the list of affected HON

chemicals in the initial HON

rulemaking and subject to the

requirements in the HON.

The EPA considers THBA production

to be a batch process since, the process

operates over only a short operating

cycle before experiencing significant

fouling (plugging) in the reaction

system, requiring the system to be

shutdown and the equipment cleaned.

Due to the frequent shutdown and

equipment cleaning cycle, the process is

classified as a batch process for

purposes of subpart H.

The effect of today’s proposed action

is twofold. First, it potentially subjects

facilities manufacturing THBA to the

provisions of 40 CFR Part 63, subparts

F, G, and H. Although an independent

assessment of the impacts

(environmental, cost, economic, or

other) associated with this action has

not been conducted, the EPA believes

that the impact on the THBA production

unit will be no more or less severe than

those imposed on the other SOCMI

production processes already affected.

Second, it overrides the need to write a

separate regulation for the THBA

production source category.

Consequently, the THBA production

source category is being removed from

the list of HAP-emitting source

categories published pursuant to

Section 112(c) of the Act because it is

being subsumed under the HON rule.

The EPA does not believe that the

development of a separate rule for this

source category is justified or would

result in a different control level than

that required under the HON. Today’s

proposed action is consistent with the

source category schedule, which

requires regulation of THBA production

(originally listed as butadiene dimers

production) by November 1997. Today’s

action is the first step in fulfilling that

requirement.

With respect to the issue of whether

the addition of the THBA production

source category to the population of

SOCMI sources regulated by the HON

would alter the maximum achievable

control technology (MACT)

determinations made for the HON rule,

it has been concluded that since the

emission points and air pollution

control measures at the only facility

known to manufacture THBA are

similar to those at other SOCMI sources,

the HON MACT floor determination

would be unaffected.

The EPA is proposing to establish

compliance dates for THBA production

units of 1 year from the date this action

is final for subpart H of this part and 3

years from the date this action is final

for subparts F and G of this part. The

EPA is proposing a compliance date of

three years from the date this action is

final for compliance with subparts F

and G of this part to allow time for

retrofitting of controls and evaluation of

control requirements in the one known

facility. A compliance date of one year

from the date this action is final is being

proposed for compliance with subpart H

of this part. One year is believed to

provide sufficient time to establish the

equipment leak monitoring program and

recordkeeping system. These time

periods are consistent with the

compliance times provided for sources

originally subject to the HON rule.

B. Addition of Crotonaldehyde

Production and Removal of Acetaldol

Production

Today’s action proposes to add

crotonaldehyde production to the

chemical production processes subject

to the HON and to establish a new

compliance date for crotonaldehyde

chemical manufacturing process units.

In addition, today’s action proposes to

remove acetaldol production processes

from the applicability of the HON by

removing this chemical from table 1 of

subpart F.

In the April 22, 1994 rule, EPA made

several changes to the proposed lists of

chemical products to correct errors and

to remove chemicals no longer

commercially produced in the United

States. One of the chemical products

removed from the list of SOCMI
44616 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules

chemicals in the April 1994 notice,

based upon the belief that it was no

longer commercially produced in the

United States, was crotonaldehyde.

Since April 1994, EPA has learned that

this removal was an error because

crotonaldehyde is produced by at least

one facility in the United States. The

EPA has also learned that acetaldol,

which was retained on table 1 of subpart

F in the April 1994 rule, is an unstable

intermediate which is used to produce

either crotonaldehyde or 1,3—butylene

glycol, and is therefore not itself a

product appropriate for inclusion on

table 1 of subpart F. Based on the

January 17, 1997 amendments to the

HON (62 FR 2721), EPA believes that

acetaldol production operations are

more appropriately considered unit

operations part of crotonaldehyde or

1,3—butylene glycol chemical

manufacturing process units. Therefore,

the EPA is proposing to revise table 1 of

subpart F by removing acetaldol.

Crotonaldehyde production would be

added to subpart F as a regulated

process. No action is needed for 1,3—

butylene glycol because that chemical is

already listed in table 1 of subpart F.

A new compliance date is being

proposed for crotonaldehyde chemical

production process units because of the

confusion caused by listing a

nonisolated intermediate chemical

product instead of the correct final

product. The EPA is proposing a new

compliance date of 3 years from the date

that this action becomes final for

compliance with subparts F and G of

this part to allow time for retrofitting of

controls and evaluation of control

requirements in the one known facility.

A compliance date of 1 year from the

date that this action is final is being

proposed for compliance with subpart H

of this part. One year is believed to

provide sufficient time to establish the

equipment leak monitoring program and

recordkeeping system. These time

periods are consistent with the

compliance times provided for sources

originally subject to the HON rule.

C. Clarification of Compliance

Demonstration Requirements for

Flexible Operation Units

In today’s action, EPA is proposing to

add a new paragraph (b)(6) to § 63.103

of subpart F to clarify the compliance

demonstration requirements for flexible

operation units. This proposed

amendment would revise the rule to

clarify that performance tests and

monitoring parameter ranges are to be

based on operating conditions present

during production of the primary

product. The April 1994 rule was not

clear on this point due to a drafting

oversight. This change is being

proposed because some owners and

operators have expressed concerns that

the rule could be interpreted as

requiring installation of additional

controls for periods when the flexible

operation unit is producing a product

other than the primary product. The

EPA has also recently learned that there

are questions whether the rule requires

owners or operators to develop

parameter monitoring ranges

appropriate for each product produced

by a flexible operation unit or to

develop parameter monitoring ranges

for operating conditions during

production of the primary product of

the flexible operation unit. The need for

clarification of these aspects of

compliance demonstration has become

apparent as facilities are completing

compliance planning and demonstration

activities for the April 1997 compliance

deadline. This proposed revision would

make the rule consistent with the

assumptions that EPA used in deriving

the cost (including the recordkeeping

and reporting burden) estimates used in

support of the April 1994 rule. Based on

conversations with several industry

representatives, EPA believes that

today’s proposed action is generally

consistent with industry’s

understanding of the rule. Today’s

proposed clarification is not expected to

increase the cost or burden of

demonstrating compliance with the

HON.

III. Administrative

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has approved the information

collection requirements contained in the

rule under the Provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB

control number 2060–0282. An

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document was prepared by the EPA

(ICR No. 1414.02) and a copy may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M St., SW., Washington DC

20460 or by calling (202) 260–2740.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for the EPA’s regulations are

listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Ch.

15.

Today’s action neither adds new

respondents nor is it anticipated to

increase the number of responses. The

increase in the number of effected

processing units is less than 2 percent.

Since this action does not substantially

change the information collection, the

ICR has not been revised.

B. Executive Order 12866 Review

Under Executive Order 12866, the

EPA must determine whether the

proposed regulatory action is

‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Order defines

‘‘significant’’ regulatory action as one

that is likely to lead to a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety in

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

This proposed amendment would

apply the rule to one additional process

unit at two facilities. These facilities are

already well controlled. It is not certain

what additional control would be

required as a result of this action.

Regardless of the final assessment of

additional controls at these two

facilities, the EPA believes that

application of the HON to these

facilities will have a negligible impact

on the results of the RIA and the change

will be within the uncertainty of the

analysis. The proposed clarification of

the compliance demonstration

requirements for flexible operation units

is believed to be consistent with

industry understanding of the rule, and

is believed to have a negligible impact

on the results of the RIA. Again, the

change is expected to be within the

uncertainty of the analysis. For these

reasons, the EPA believes that revision

of the Regulatory Impact Analysis is not

necessary. Pursuant to the terms of the

Executive Order 12966, it has been

determined that this rule is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because

none of the listed criteria apply to this

action. Consequently, this action was

not submitted to OMB for review under

Executive Order 12866.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44617

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

requirements unless the agency certified

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and small government

jurisdictions. This proposed amendment

to the rule would not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. This rule would apply the

requirements of the HON rule to an

additional process unit at two facilities

and only imposes negligible

recordkeeping costs on those facilities.

The additional recordkeeping costs are

not expected to create a burden for

either of the regulated entities.

Furthermore, neither of these regulated

entities is a small business. The

amendment to § 63.103(b)(6) is a

clarification of an existing requirement,

and this clarification is not expected to

increase control requirements or burden

of the rule. Therefore, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Unfunded Mandates Act), the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under section 205, the EPA must select

the least costly, most cost-effective or

least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires the

EPA to establish a plan for informing

and advising any small governments

that may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

action proposed today does not include

a Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector. Therefore, the

requirements of the Unfunded Mandates

Act do not apply to this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: August 15, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F—National Emission

Standards for Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry

2. Section 63.100 is amended as

follows:

a. By revising paragraphs (b)(1), (d)

introductory text, (d)(3) introductory

text, the first sentence of paragraph

(g)(2)(iii), the first sentence of paragraph

(h)(2)(iv), the first sentence of paragraph

(i)(2)(iv), (k) introductory text, (l)(1)(ii),

(l)(2)(ii);

b. By adding paragraphs (b)(1)(i),

(b)(1)(ii), (d)(4), (g)(2)(iii)(A),

(g)(2)(iii)(B), (h)(2)(iv)(A), (h)(2)(iv)(B),

(i)(2)(iv)(A), (i)(2)(iv)(B), and (p).

The revisions and additions read as

follows:

§ 63.100 Applicability and designation of

source.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Manufacture as a primary product

one or more of the chemicals listed in

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this

section.

(i) One or more of the chemicals listed

in table 1 of this subpart; or

(ii) One or more of the chemicals

listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) or

(b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section:

(A) Tetrahydrobenzaldehyde (CAS

Number 100–50–5); or

(B) Crotonaldehyde (CAS Number

123–73–9).

* * * * *

(d) The primary product of a chemical

manufacturing process unit shall be

determined according to the procedures

specified in paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2),

(d)(3), and (d)(4) of this section.

* * * * *

(3) For chemical manufacturing

process units that are designed and

operated as flexible operation units

producing one or more chemicals listed

in table 1 of this subpart, the primary

product shall be determined for existing

sources based on the expected

utilization for the five years following

April 22, 1994 and for new sources

based on the expected utilization for the

first five years after initial start-up.

* * * * *

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of

paragraph (d)(3) of this section, for

chemical manufacturing process units

that are designed and operated as

flexible operation units producing a

chemical listed in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of

this section, the primary product shall

be determined for existing sources based

on the expected utilization for the five

years following [Insert date 60 days after

date of publication in the Federal

Register] and for new sources based on

the expected utilization for the first five

years after initial start-up.

(i) The predominant use of the

flexible operation unit shall be

determined according to paragraphs

(d)(3)(i)(A) and (d)(3)(i)(B) of this

section. If the predominant use is to

produce one of the chemicals listed in

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, then

the flexible operation unit shall be

subject to the provisions of this subpart

and subparts G and H of this part.

(ii) The determination of applicability

of this subpart to chemical

manufacturing process units that are

designed and operated as flexible

operation units shall be reported as part

of an operating permit application or as

otherwise specified by the permitting

authority.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(2) * * *

(iii) If the predominant use of a

storage vessel varies from year to year,

then the applicability of this subpart

shall be determined according to the

criteria in paragraphs (g)(2)(iii)(A) and

(g)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, as

applicable. * * *

(A) For chemical manufacturing

process units that produce one or more

of the chemicals listed in table 1 of this

subpart and meet the criteria in

paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this

section, the applicability shall be based

on the utilization that occurred during

the 12-month period preceding April 22,

1994.

(B) For chemical manufacturing

process units that produce one or more

of the chemicals listed in paragraph

(b)(1)(ii) of this section and meet the

criteria in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of

this section, the applicability shall be

based on the utilization that occurred

during the 12-month period preceding

[Insert date 60 days after date of

publication in the Federal Register].

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) If the predominant use of a

loading arm or loading hose varies from
44618 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules

year to year, then the applicability of

this subpart shall be determined

according to the criteria in paragraphs

(h)(2)(iv)(A) and (h)(2)(iv)(B) of this

section, as applicable. * * *

(A) For chemical manufacturing

process units that produce one or more

of the chemicals listed in table 1 of this

subpart and meet the criteria in

paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this

section, the applicability shall be based

on the utilization that occurred during

the 12-month period preceding April 22,

1994.

(B) For chemical manufacturing

process units that produce one or more

of the chemicals listed in paragraph

(b)(1)(ii) of this section and meet the

criteria in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of

this section, the applicability shall be

based on the utilization that occurred

during the year preceding [Insert date

60 days after date of Publication in the

Federal Register].

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) If the predominant use of a

distillation unit varies from year to year,

then the applicability of this subpart

shall be determined according to the

criteria in paragraphs (i)(2)(iv)(A) and

(i)(2)(iv)(B) of this section, as applicable.

* * *

(A) For chemical manufacturing

process units that produce one or more

of the chemicals listed in table 1 of this

subpart and meet the criteria in

paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this

section, the applicability shall be based

on the utilization that occurred during

the year preceding April 22, 1994.

(B) For chemical manufacturing

process units that produce one or more

of the chemicals listed in paragraph

(b)(1)(ii) of this section and meet the

criteria in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of

this section, the applicability shall be

based on the utilization that occurred

during the year preceding [Insert date

60 days after date of publication in the

Federal Register].

* * * * *

(k) Except as provided in paragraphs

(l), (m), and (p) of this section, sources

subject to subparts F, G, or H of this part

are required to achieve compliance on

or before the dates specified in

paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(8) of this

section.

* * * * *

(l)(1) * * *

(ii)(A) Such construction commenced

after December 31, 1992 for chemical

manufacturing process units that

produce as a primary product one or

more of the chemicals listed in table 1

of this subpart;

(B) Such construction commenced

after [Insert date of publication in the

Federal Register] for chemical

manufacturing process units that

produce as a primary product one or

more of the chemicals listed in

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section; and

* * * * *

(2) * * *

(ii)(A) Such reconstruction

commenced after December 31, 1992 for

chemical manufacturing process units

that produce as a primary product one

or more of the chemicals listed in table

1 of this subpart; and

(B) Such construction commenced

after [Insert date of publication in the

Federal Register] for chemical

manufacturing process units that

produce as a primary product one or

more of the chemicals listed in

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.

* * * * *

(p) Compliance dates for chemical

manufacturing process units that

produce crotonaldehyde or

tetrahydrobenzaldehyde.

Notwithstanding the provisions of

paragraph (k) of this section, chemical

manufacturing process units that meet

the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii),

(b)(2), and (b)(3) of this section shall be

in compliance with this subpart and

subparts G and H of this part by the

dates specified in paragraphs (p)(1) and

(p)(2) of this section, as applicable.

(1) If the source consists only of

chemical manufacturing process units

that produce as a primary product one

or more of the chemicals listed in

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, new

sources shall comply by the date

specified in paragraph (p)(1)(i) of this

section and existing sources shall

comply by the dates specified in

paragraphs (p)(1)(ii) and (p)(1)(iii) of

this section.

(i) Upon initial start-up or [Insert date

60 days after date of publication in the

Federal Register], whichever is later.

(ii) This subpart and subpart G of this

part by [Insert date 38 months from the

date of publication in the Federal

Register], unless an extension has been

granted by the Administrator as

provided in § 63.151 (a)(6) or granted by

the permitting authority as provided in

§ 63.6 (i) of subpart A of this part. When

April 22, 1994 is referred to in this

subpart and subpart G of this part,

[Insert date 60 days after date of

publication in the Federal Register]

shall be used as the applicable date for

that provision. When December 31,

1992 is referred to in this subpart and

subpart G of this part, [Insert date of

publication in the Federal Register]

shall be used as the applicable date for

that provision.

(iii) Subpart H of this part by [Insert

date 14 months from the date of

publication in the Federal Register],

unless an extension has been granted by

the Administrator as provided in

§ 63.151 (a)(6) or granted by the

permitting authority as provided in

§ 63.6 (i) of subpart A of this part. When

April 22, 1994 is referred to in subpart

H of this part, [Insert date 60 days after

date of publication in the Federal

Register] shall be used as the applicable

date for that provision. When December

31, 1992 is referred to in subpart H of

this part, [Insert date of publication in

the Federal Register] shall be used as the

applicable date for that provision.

(2) If the source consists of a

combination of chemical manufacturing

process units that produce as a primary

product one or more of the chemicals

listed in paragraph (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii)

of this section, new chemical

manufacturing process units that meet

the criteria in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this

section shall comply by the date

specified in paragraph (p)(1)(i) of this

section and existing chemical

manufacturing process units producing

crotonaldehyde and/or

tetrahydrobenzaldehyde shall comply

by the dates specified in paragraphs

(p)(1)(ii) and (p)(1)(iii) of this section.

3. Section 63.103 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as

follows:

§ 63.103 General compliance, reporting,

and recordkeeping provisions.

(b) * * *

(6) The owner or operator of a flexible

operation unit shall conduct all required

compliance demonstrations during

production of the primary product. The

owner or operator is not required to

conduct compliance demonstrations for

operating conditions during production

of a product other than the primary

product. Except as otherwise provided

in this subpart or in subpart G or

subpart H of this part, as applicable, the

owner or operator shall operate each

control device, recovery device, and/or

recapture device that is required or used

for compliance, and associated

monitoring systems, without regard for

whether the product that is being

produced is the primary product or a

different product. Except as otherwise

provided in this subpart, subpart G and/

or subpart H of this part, as applicable,

operation of a control device, recapture

device and/or recovery device required

or used for compliance such that the

daily average of monitored parameter

values is outside the parameter range

established pursuant to § 63.152(b)(2),
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44619

or such that the monitoring data show

operation inconsistent with the

monitoring plan established pursuant to

§ 63.120(d)(2) or § 63.181(g)(1)(iv), shall

constitute a violation of the required

operating conditions.

* * * * *

Subpart F—[Amended]

4. Table 1 of subpart F is amended by

removing the entry for acetaldol and its

associated CAS number and group

number.

[FR Doc. 97–22366 Filed 8–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5876–4]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan, National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent for partial

deletion of the Saegertown Industrial

Area Site from the National Priorities

List (NPL).

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III (EPA) announces its

intent to delete certain releases on the

Saegertown Industrial Area Site (Site)

from the National Priorities List (NPL)

and requests public comment on this

proposed action. The NPL is published

at 40 CFR part 300, appendix B. Part 300

is the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which the EPA promulgated

pursuant to section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA).

EPA has determined that the Site as

described on the NPL no longer

necessitates remedial measures for the

properties affected by those releases.

This proposal for partial deletion

includes releases on the property

formerly owned by the General

American Transportation Corporation

(GATX) and Spectrum Control, Inc.

(SCI) and property currently owned by

the Saegertown Manufacturing

Corporation (SMC).

EPA bases its proposal to delete the

releases from the former GATX and SCI

properties, and the SMC property

(Deleted Properties) from the Site on the

determination by EPA and the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

through the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection (PADEP), that

all appropriate actions under CERCLA

have been implemented to protect

human health, welfare and the

environment, as defined by CERCLA,

and, therefore, no further remedial

measures pursuant to CERCLA are

deemed necessary for the Deleted

Properties.

This partial deletion pertains only to

releases on the former GATX and SCI

properties and the SMC property at the

Site, and does not include the Lord

Corporation property (Operable Unit—

1) at the Site. Operable Unit—1 (OU–1)

will remain on the NPL, and response

activities will continue for this Operable

Unit.

DATES: Comments concerning this Site

may be submitted on or before

September 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to Steven J. Donohue,

Remedial Project Manager, 3HW22, U.S.

EPA, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107,

(215) 566–3215, Fax (215) 566–3001, email DONOHUE.STEVEN@

EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV.

Comprehensive information on this

Site is available for viewing in the Site

information repositories at the following

locations: U.S. EPA, Region III,

Hazardous Waste Technical Information

Center, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, PA, 19107, (215) 566–

5364; and the Saegertown Area Library,

320 Broad Street, Saegertown, PA

16433, (814) 763–5203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven J. Donohue (3HW22), EPA

Region 3, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, PA, 19107, (215) 566–

3215, Fax (215) 566–3001, e-mail

DONOHUE.STEVEN@

EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

The Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III (EPA) announces its

intent to delete releases on certain

portions of the Saegertown Industrial

Area Site (Site) located in Saegertown,

Crawford County, Pennsylvania from

the National Priorities List (NPL)

published at 40 CFR part 300. These

releases no longer pose a threat to

human health or the environment and

therefore remedial measures according

to CERCLA are no longer necessary on

the Deleted Properties. EPA requests

comments on this partial deletion.

The Deleted Properties at the

Saegertown Industrial Area Site are

those properties, as originally listed on

the NPL in February 1990, located to the

north of Pennsylvania Route 198. The

Deleted Properties are bounded by

Route 198 to the south, generally

bounded by an unnamed intermittent

tributary of Woodcock Creek to the east

and the northern property boundary of

SMC to the north, and bounded by the

former Conrail railroad right of way to

the west. A figure and the exact

coordinates that define the Deleted

Properties at the Site are contained in

the NPL deletion docket.

Section II of this document explains

the criteria for partially deleting

portions of a site from the NPL. Section

III discusses the procedures that EPA is

using for this action. Section IV

discusses the Saegertown Industrial

Area Site and explains how partial

deletion criteria are met for this Site.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP

provides that releases may be deleted

from, or recategorized on, the NPL

where no further response is

appropriate. In making a determination

to delete a release from the NPL, EPA

shall consider, in consultation with the

state, whether any of the following

criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other parties

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Fund-Financed

response under CERCLA has been

implemented, and no further action by

responsible parties is appropriate; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has

shown that the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, taking of

remedial measures is not appropriate.

Site releases may not be deleted from

the NPL until the state in which the site

is located has concurred with the

proposed deletion. EPA is required to

provide the state with 30 working days

for review of the deletion notice prior to

its publication in the Federal Register.

It states in the NCP (40 CFR

300.425(e)(3)) that all sites deleted from

the NPL are eligible for further Fundfinanced remedial action should future

conditions warrant such action.

Whenever there is a significant release

from a site deleted from the NPL, the

site may be restored to the NPL without

the application of the Hazard Ranking

System.