44608 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(202) 622–4970; concerning submissions

and the hearing, Michael Slaughter,

(202) 622–7190 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Temporary regulations in the Rules

and Regulations section of this issue of

the Federal Register amend Regulations

on Income Taxes (26 CFR part 1). The

regulations provide guidance with

respect to the application of section

263A to property produced in a farming

business.

The text of those temporary

regulations also serves as the text of

these proposed regulations. The

preamble to the temporary regulations

explains the temporary regulations.

Special Analyses

It has been determined that this notice

of proposed rulemaking is not a

significant regulatory action as defined

in EO 12866. Therefore, a regulatory

assessment is not required. It has also

been determined that section 553(b) of

the Administrative Procedure Act (5

U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these

regulations, and because the regulations

do not impose a collection of

information on small entities, the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to

section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue

Code, this notice of proposed

rulemaking will be submitted to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration for comment

on its impact on small business.

Comments and Public Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are

adopted as final regulations,

consideration will be given to any

written (a signed original and eight (8)

copies) or electronic comments that are

submitted timely to the IRS. All

comments will be available for public

inspection and copying.

A public hearing has been scheduled

for Wednesday, November 19, 1997, at

10 a.m., at the Internal Revenue

Building, 1111 Constitution Ave., N.W.,

Washington, DC, 20224. Because of

access restrictions, visitors will not be

admitted beyond the building lobby

more than 15 minutes before the hearing

starts.

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3)

apply to the hearing.

Persons that wish to present oral

comments at the hearing must submit

written comments by November 20,

1997 and submit an outline of the topics

to be discussed and the time to be

devoted to each topic (signed original

and eight (8) copies) by October 29,

1997.

A period of ten minutes will be

allotted to each person for making

comments.

An agenda showing the scheduling of

the speakers will be prepared after the

deadline for receiving outlines has

passed. Copies of the agenda will be

available free of charge at the hearing.

Drafting Information: The principal

author of these regulations is Jan

Skelton of the Office of Assistant Chief

Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting).

However, other personnel from the IRS

and Treasury Department participated

in their development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Proposed Amendments to the

Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES

Paragraph 1. The authority citation

for part 1 continues to read in part as

follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.263A–0 is amended

by:

1. Revising the introductory text.

2. Adding the entries for § 1.263A–4.

The addition and revision read as

follows:

§ 1.263A–0 Outline of regulations under

section 263A.

This section lists the paragraphs in

§§ 1.263A–1 through 1.263A–4 and

§§ 1.263A–8 through 1.263A–15.

* * * * *

§ 1.263A–4 Rules for property produced in

a farming business.

[The text of the proposed entries for

§ 1.263A–4 in § 1.263A–0 is the same as the

text of the entries for § 1.263A–4T in

§ 1.263A–0T published elsewhere in this

issue of the Federal Register].

* * * * *

Par. 3. Section 1.263A–4 is amended

by revising the section heading and

adding new text to read as follows:

§ 1.263A–4 Rules for property produced in

a farming business.

[The proposed text of § 1.263A–4 is the

same as the text in § 1.263A–4T

published elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register].

Michael P. Dolan,

Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 97–21770 Filed 8–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–5879–1]

RIN 2060–AC19

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories: Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry and

Other Processes Subject to the

Negotiated Regulation for Equipment

Leaks; Proposed Rule Clarifications;

Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule: Correction.

SUMMARY: On January 17, 1997, the EPA

amended certain portions of the

‘‘National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories: Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry and

Other Processes Subject to the

Negotiated Regulation for Equipment

Leaks.’’ This rule is commonly known

as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP or

the HON. Among the changes made to

the rule in that action, the EPA added

a definition for ‘‘enhanced biological

treatment systems or enhanced

biological treatment processes’’ to the

rule and made clarifying revisions to

appendix C of part 63. This action

proposes to revise this definition in

order to clarify its meaning and

proposes revisions to appendix C of part

63 to reflect the clarification of the

definition for ‘‘enhanced biological

treatment systems or enhanced

biological treatment processes.’’ This

action also proposes to revise the

compliance demonstration procedures

for biological treatment units to remove

restrictions on the use of the batch test

procedure.

These proposed amendments to the

rule would not change the basic control

requirements of the rule or the level of

health protection it provides. The rule

requires new and existing major sources

to control emissions of hazardous air

pollutants to the level reflecting

application of the maximum achievable

control technology.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before September 22,

1997, unless a hearing is requested by

September 2, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44609

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–90–23 (see

docket section below), Room M–1500,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460.

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 Kim Teal, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone (919) 541–5580.

Docket. Docket No. A–90–23,

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

general questions, contact Dr. Janet S.

Meyer, Coatings and Consumer Products

Group, at (919) 541–5254. For technical

questions on appendix C and

wastewater provisions, contact Elaine

Manning, Waste and Chemical

Processes Group, telephone number

(919) 541–5499. The mailing address for

the contacts is Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, NC 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 6.1 or ASCII file

format. All comments in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

A–90–23. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic comments

may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries.

I. Regulated Entities and Background

Information

A. Regulated Entities

The regulated category and entities

affected by this action include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry 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. This

action is expected to be of interest to

owners and operators subject to this rule

who plan to use biological treatment to

comply with control requirements for

wastewater streams. 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 and are

located at facilities that are major

sources as defined in section 112 of the

Clean Air Act. 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.

B. Background on the Rule

On April 22, 1994 (59 FR 19402), and

June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29196), the EPA

published in the Federal Register the

NESHAP for the SOCMI, and for several

other processes subject to the equipment

leaks portion of the rule. These

regulations were promulgated as

subparts F, G, H, and I in 40 CFR part

63, and are commonly referred to as the

hazardous organic NESHAP, or the

HON. Since the April 22, 1994 notice,

there have been several amendments to

clarify various aspects of the rule.

Readers should see the following

Federal Register documents for more

information: September 20, 1994 (59 FR

48175); October 24, 1994 (59 FR 53359);

October 28, 1994 (59 FR 54131); January

27, 1995 (60 FR 5321); April 10, 1995

(60 FR 18020); April 10, 1995 (60 FR

18026); December 12, 1995 (60 FR

63624); February 29, 1996 (61 FR 7716);

June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31435); August 26,

1996 (61 FR 43698); December 5, 1996

(61 FR 64571); and January 17, 1997 (62

FR 2721).

In June 1994, the Chemical

Manufacturers Association (CMA) and

Dow Chemical Company (Dow) filed

petitions for review of the promulgated

rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit, Chemical

Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 94–

1463 and 94–1464 (D.C. Cir.) and Dow

Chemical Company v. EPA, 94–1465

(D.C. Cir). The petitioners raised over 75

technical issues on the rule’s structure

and applicability. Issues were raised

regarding details of the technical

requirements, drafting clarity, and

structural errors in the drafting of

certain sections of the rule. On August

26, 1996, the EPA proposed clarifying

and correcting amendments to subparts

F, G, H, and I of part 63 to address the

issues raised by CMA and Dow on the

April 1994 rule. On December 5, 1996

and January 17, 1997, EPA took final

action on the amendments proposed on

August 26, 1996.

II. Proposed Clarification of Definition

of Enhanced Biological Treatment

System or Enhanced Biological

Treatment Process

The August 26, 1996 proposed

changes to the wastewater treatment

provisions included provisions that

provided easier compliance

demonstration options for well-mixed

activated sludge systems that are used to

control readily biodegraded compounds.

In that proposed change to the April

1994 final rule, the compounds listed in

table 9 of subpart G were divided into

three lists; these lists were presented in

table 36 of subpart G. In the proposal,

a performance evaluation would not be

required for an activated sludge system

if it met the definition of ‘‘enhanced

biological treatment system or enhanced

biological treatment process’’ and if the

unit was controlling wastewater streams

that contained only list 1 compounds.

The August 1996 proposed revisions to

the rule also required a performance

demonstration for activated sludge

systems used to treat a combination of

list 1 and list 2 and/or list 3 compounds.

The August 1996 proposal defined an

enhanced biological treatment system as

an aerated treatment unit(s) that contains

biomass suspended in water followed by a

clarifier that removes biomass from the

treated water and recycles recovered biomass

to the aeration unit. The mixed liquor

volatile suspended solids (biomass) is greater

than 1 kilogram per cubic meter throughout

each aeration unit. The biomass is suspended

and aerated in the water of the aeration

unit(s) by either submerged air flow or

mechanical agitation.

This definition of ‘‘enhanced biological

treatment system or enhanced biological

treatment process’’ was intended to
44610 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules

reflect the basis for the simplified

compliance approach for some systems.

The 3 lists of compounds in table 36 of

subpart G were developed by modeling

performance of an activated sludge

system that was a thoroughly mixed

biological treatment unit. (A thoroughly

mixed or completely mixed system is a

biological treatment unit where biomass

and wastewater entering the tank are

dispersed quickly throughout the tank

such that the system achieves or

approaches uniform characteristics

throughout the tank (Docket number A–

90–23, item VII-B–8).) After the August

1996 proposal, the EPA learned that

some people were interpreting the

proposed definition of ‘‘enhanced

biological treatment system or biological

treatment process’’ to apply more

broadly than intended. In the January

17, 1997 final rule, the phrase

‘‘homogeneously distributed’’ was

added to the second sentence of the

definition to clarify the EPA’s intent to

define a uniformly well-mixed

biological treatment unit. The EPA

thought that this revision would better

reflect the modeling and clarify the

EPA’s intent to limit the types of

biological treatment units that could use

the simplified compliance option to

systems that were similar to the

modeled case. The EPA also believed

that this change did not alter the

meaning of the term.

Since January 17, 1997, the EPA has

learned that industry representatives

were concerned that the revised

definition could be read to require

absolute uniformity in the biomass

concentration. These industry

representatives have pointed out that

they believe that such a reading of the

definition could preclude any system

from using the simplified compliance

approach and the performance

evaluation exemption. It was not the

EPA’s intent that the phrase

‘‘homogeneously distributed’’ be

interpreted in this way. Therefore, the

EPA is proposing clarifying changes to

the definition of ‘‘enhanced biological

treatment system or enhanced biological

treatment process’’ and proposing

parallel conforming changes to

appendix C to part 63.

Today’s action would revise the

definition of ‘‘enhanced biological

treatment system or enhanced biological

treatment process’’ to read:

Enhanced biological treatment system or

enhanced biological treatment process means

an aerated, thoroughly mixed treatment

unit(s) that contains biomass suspended in

water followed by a clarifier that removes

biomass from the treated water and recycles

recovered biomass to the aeration unit. The

mixed liquor volatile suspended solids

(biomass) is greater than 1 kilogram per cubic

meter throughout each aeration unit. The

biomass is suspended and aerated in the

water of the aeration unit(s) by either

submerged air flow or mechanical agitation.

A thoroughly mixed treatment unit is a unit

that is designed and operated to approach or

achieve uniform biomass distribution and

organic compound concentration throughout

the aeration unit by quickly dispersing the

recycled biomass and the wastewater

entering the unit.

The proposed definition includes the

following changes made to the January

17, 1997 definition. The term

‘‘thoroughly mixed’’ would be added to

the first sentence and ‘‘homogeneously

distributed’’ would be removed from the

second sentence of the definition. A

sentence would be added to the end of

the definition to clarify the meaning of

the phrase ‘‘thoroughly mixed treatment

unit’’ in the first sentence.

The description of a ‘‘thoroughly

mixed treatment unit’’ in the new

sentence is intended to convey the

concept of an activated sludge system

that is designed and operated to

approach or achieve the characteristics

of a completely backmixed system.

Because the EPA does not intend the

definition to only allow systems with

perfect uniformity in characteristics, a

‘‘thoroughly mixed treatment unit’’

would be described as a unit that is

‘‘designed and operated to approach or

achieve uniform biomass distribution

and organic compound concentration.’’

This description is intended to

recognize that well-designed complete

mix systems may still have small

insignificant stagnant zones or other

minor deviations from complete mixing.

This was the intended meaning of the

definition promulgated on January 17,

1997 as well as the intended meaning of

the definition proposed on August 26,

1996.

An example of a system that would

meet the enhanced biological treatment

system definition would be a welldesigned, well-operated, and wellmaintained activated sludge system that

has uniform characteristics in the

aeration unit. The biological treatment

unit of this enhanced biological

treatment system would be thoroughly

mixed throughout the unit and biomass

and wastewater entering the unit would

be quickly dispersed throughout the

unit. The design of the unit would be

such that uniform mixing and quick

dispersion of the biomass and

wastewater entering the unit would

occur. The design and operation of the

biological treatment unit would take

into account mixing, quick dispersion of

the biomass and wastewater entering the

unit, the location of the wastewater inlet

with regards to aerators and the

wastewater outlet.

In smaller size units, uniform mixing

and quick dispersion could be achieved

with a round or square tank and only

one influent. For larger scale systems,

uniform mixing and quick dispersion

could be achieved by having multiple

influents of biomass and wastewater. In

either case, the biological treatment unit

would have uniform distribution of

organic concentration and mixed liquor

volatile suspended solids (MLVSS)

throughout the vessel where the

biological reactions occur.

A plug-flow system is an example of

a biological treatment system that does

not meet the enhanced biological

treatment system definition. Plug-flow

systems typically occur in long tanks

with a high length-to-width ratio in

which longitudinal dispersion is

minimal or absent (Docket number A–

90–23, item VII–B–8). Plug-flow systems

are not considered acceptable units for

the performance test exemption because

they tend to have higher air emissions

at the front of the system where the

concentration is higher. The modeling

used to develop the simplified

compliance approach for systems

meeting the definition for an ‘‘enhanced

biological treatment system or enhanced

biological treatment process’’ did not

address plug-flow systems. The EPA did

not evaluate the performance of plugflow systems in the development of the

3 lists for the simplified compliance

approach due to the complexity of plugflow systems. The wide range in

characteristics of plug-flow systems led

EPA to conclude that these systems had

to be modeled using site-specific

characteristics. Consequently, these

systems are required to demonstrate

compliance through use of the

procedures in appendix C. The

exclusion of plug-flow biological

treatment systems from the simplified

compliance demonstration should not

be interpreted as implying that a well

designed and operated plug-flow

biological treatment system would not

achieve the required removal of a

compound and thus not represent an

acceptable means of compliance. If

correctly evaluated through the

applicable procedures in appendix C to

part 63, they can be acceptable.

Examples of additional biological

systems that would not meet the

enhanced biological treatment system

definition would be units that are not

thoroughly mixed throughout the

aeration unit and that have large

concentration gradients between the

inlet and the outlet of the aeration unit.

Such biological units do not quickly

disperse the biomass and wastewater
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44611

entering the unit throughout the unit

and tend to concentrate the volatile

organics in a zone with relatively high

air stripping rates. Other examples of

units that would not meet the definition

include a unit where the influent is

introduced close to an aerator increasing

the opportunity for volatilization prior

to biodegradation and a unit where the

influent is introduced close to a

discharge point such that channeling

occurs.

The EPA realizes that many units

have varying degrees of uniformity in

biomass distribution and organic

compound concentration throughout the

biological unit. The EPA is developing

additional information to assist in the

determination of whether a biological

treatment unit meets the enhanced

biological treatment system definition.

The additional information will be

available at the time the final

amendment is issued. The EPA plans to

make this material available from the

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center and to place it on

the EPA’s Technology Transfer Network

bulletin board as well as on the Internet.

III. Revisions to Requirements for

Determining Site-Specific Fraction

Biodegraded

The EPA is also proposing to revise

the requirements in subpart G for

determining site-specific fraction

biodegraded (Fbio). The rule currently

only allows biological treatment

processes that meet the definition of

‘‘enhanced biological treatment

process’’ to use the batch test

procedures in appendix C to part 63. In

today’s action, the EPA is proposing to

remove that restriction in § 63.145(h)(2)

and to allow use of the batch test

procedure in appendix C for any type of

biological treatment system. The EPA is

also proposing to allow use of the batch

test procedure to determine compound

specific fraction biodegraded (fbio) for

compounds designated as list 3

compounds in table 36 of subpart G.

Because this second change removes the

distinction between list 2 and list 3

compounds, today’s action also

proposes to revise table 36 by

combining the list 2 and list 3

compounds into a new list 2 in table 36.

These changes are being proposed to

§ 63.145(h) to provide more flexibility

and to simplify this section of the rule.

IV. Revisions to Appendix C to Part 63

In today’s action, the EPA is also

proposing to revise appendix C to part

63 to reflect the proposed revision of the

definition for ‘‘enhanced biological

treatment system or enhanced biological

treatment process.’’ There are three sets

of proposed changes to appendix C

associated with the proposed change to

the definition. First, the terminology

‘‘uniform well-mixed or completely

mixed system’’ would be replaced with

‘‘thoroughly mixed treatment unit’’

throughout appendix C. Second, the

description of a uniform well-mixed or

completely mixed system would be

removed from section I of appendix C

and a sentence describing a thoroughly

mixed treatment unit would be added to

section I of appendix C. Third, based on

discussions with industry

representatives, the EPA has concluded

that the examples in the second

sentence of the fourth paragraph in

section I were not helpful and should be

deleted. Therefore, the second sentence

of the fourth paragraph of section I

would be removed and the remaining

text in the fourth paragraph merged

with the preceding paragraph.

The EPA is also proposing to revise

the instructions for Procedure 1 and

Procedure 4 in appendix C to part 63 to

allow an owner or operator to assume

that the first order biodegradation rate

constant is zero for any regulated

compound(s) present in the wastewater.

Appendix C currently allows the use of

this assumption only if the compound(s)

represent a small proportion of the mass

of the regulated compounds in the

wastewater. This change would allow

an owner or operator to assume that the

biological treatment system achieves no

control of a particular compound. The

EPA is proposing this change to make

appendix C consistent with

§ 63.145(a)(8) of subpart G and to

remove a restriction that might under

some circumstances impose an

unnecessary burden to determine rate

constants which will have no effect on

the compliance demonstration.

V. Administrative Requirements

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. 1414.03) 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

Chapter 15.

The changes included in these

proposed revisions to the rule will have

no impact on the information collection

burden estimates previously made. The

changes consist of revised definitions,

alternative test procedures, and

clarifications of requirements. The

proposed changes are not additional

requirements. Consequently, the ICR has

not been revised for this rule.

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.

The HON rule promulgated on April

22, 1994 was considered ‘‘significant’’

under Executive Order 12866, and a

regulatory impact analysis was

prepared. The amendments proposed

today would clarify the rule and would

remove restrictions on use of an

alternative test procedure. These

amendments would not add any new

control requirements. Therefore, this

regulatory action is considered ‘‘not

significant.’’

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

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 rule would

not have a significant impact on a
44612 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules

substantial number of small entities. See

the April 22, 1994 Federal Register (59

FR 19449) for the basis for this

determination. The proposed changes to

the rule merely clarify existing

requirements and therefore, do not

create any additional burden for any of

the regulated entities. Therefore, I

certify that this proposed action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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 today’s

proposed action 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:

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 63.111 is amended by

revising the definition of ‘‘enhanced

biological treatment system or enhanced

biological treatment process’’ to read as

follows:

§ 63.111 Definitions.

* * * * *

Enhanced biological treatment system

or enhanced biological treatment

process means an aerated, thoroughly

mixed treatment unit(s) that contains

biomass suspended in water followed

by a clarifier that removes biomass from

the treated water and recycles recovered

biomass to the aeration unit. The mixed

liquor volatile suspended solids

(biomass) is greater than 1 kilogram per

cubic meter throughout each aeration

unit. The biomass is suspended and

aerated in the water of the aeration

unit(s) by either submerged air flow or

mechanical agitation. A thoroughly

mixed treatment unit is a unit that is

designed and operated to approach or

achieve uniform biomass distribution

and organic compound concentration

throughout the aeration unit by quickly

dispersing the recycled biomass and the

wastewater entering the unit.

* * * * *

3. Section 63.145 is amended by

revising paragraph (h) the introductory

text and paragraph (h)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 63.145 Process wastewater provisions—

test methods and procedures to determine

compliance.

* * * * *

(h) Site-specific fraction biodegraded

(Fbio). The compounds listed in table 9

of this subpart are divided into two sets

for the purpose of determining whether

Fbio must be determined, and if Fbio must

be determined, which procedures may

be used to determine compoundspecific kinetic parameters. These sets

are designated as lists 1 and 2 in table

36 of this subpart.

* * * * *

(2) Fbio determination. If a biological

treatment process does not meet the

requirement specified in paragraph

(h)(1)(i) of this section, the owner or

operator shall determine Fbio for the

biological treatment process using the

procedures in appendix C to part 63,

and paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section.

If a biological treatment process meets

the requirements of paragraph (h)(1)(i)

of this section but does not meet the

requirement specified in paragraph

(h)(1)(ii) of this section, the owner or

operator shall determine Fbio for the

biological treatment process using the

procedures in appendix C to part 63,

and paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section.

(i) Enhanced biological treatment

processes. If the biological treatment

process meets the definition of

‘‘enhanced biological treatment

process’’ in § 63.111 of this subpart and

the wastewater streams include one or

more compounds on list 2 of table 36 of

this subpart that do not meet the criteria

in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section, the

owner or operator shall determine fbio

for the list 2 compounds using any of

the procedures specified in appendix C

of 40 CFR part 63. (The symbol ‘‘fbio’’

represents the site specific fraction of an

individual Table 8 or Table 9 compound

that is biodegraded.) The owner or

operator shall calculate fbio for the list 1

compounds using the defaults for first

order biodegradation rate constants (K1)

in table 37 of subpart G and follow the

procedure explained in Form III of

appendix C, 40 CFR part 63, or any of

the procedures specified in appendix C,

40 CFR part 63.

(ii) Biological treatment processes that

are not enhanced biological treatment

processes. For biological treatment

processes that do not meet the

definition for ‘‘enhanced biological

treatment process’’ in § 63.111 of this

subpart, the owner or operator shall

determine the fbio for the list 1 and 2

compounds using any of the procedures

in appendix C to part 63, except

procedure 3 (inlet and outlet

concentration measurements).

* * * * *

4. Table 36 of Appendix to Subpart G

is revised to read as follows:

* * * * *

TABLE 36. COMPOUND LISTS USED FOR COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATIONS FOR ENHANCED BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT

PROCESSES (SEE § 63.145(h))

List 1 List 2

Acetonitrile Acetaldehyde

Acetophenone Acrolein

Acrylonitrile Allyl Chloride

Biphenyl Benzene

Chlorobenzene Benzyl Chloride

Dichloroethyl Ether Bromoform

Diethyl Sulfate Bromomethane
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44613

TABLE 36. COMPOUND LISTS USED FOR COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATIONS FOR ENHANCED BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT

PROCESSES (SEE § 63.145(h))—Continued

List 1 List 2

Dimethyl Sulfate Butadiene 1,3

Dimethyl Hydrazine 1,1 Carbon Disulfide

Dinitrophenol 2,4 Carbon Tetrachloride

Dinitrotoluene 2,4 Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)

Dioxane 1,4 Chloroform

Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether Acetate Chloroprene

Ethylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether Acetate Cumene (isopropylbenzene)

Ethylene Glycol Dimethyl Ether Dibromoethane 1,2

Hexachlorobenzene Dichlorobenzene 1,4

Isophorone Dichloroethane 1,2

Methanol Dichloroethane 1,1 (ethylidene dichloride)

Methyl Methacrylate Dichloroethene 1,1 (vinylidene chloride)

Nitrobenzene Dichloropropane 1,2

Toluidine Dichloropropene 1,3

Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4 Dimethylaniline N,N

Trichlorophenol 2,4,6 Epichlorohydrin

Triethylamine Ethyl Acrylate

Ethylbenzene

Ethylene Oxide

Ethylene Dibromide

Hexachlorobutadiene

Hexachloroethane

Hexane-n

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether

Methyl Ethyl Ketone, (2-butanone)

Methyl Chloride

Methylene Chloride (dichloromethane)

Naphathalene

Nitropropane 2

Phosgene

Propionaldehyde

Propylene Oxide

Styrene

Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2

Toluene

Trichloroethane 1,1,1 (methyl chloroform)

Trichloroethane 1,1,2

Trichloroethylene

Trimethylpentane 2,2,4

Vinyl Chloride

Vinyl Acetate

Xylene-m

Xylene-o

Xylene-p

* * * * *

5. Section I of Appendix C to part 63

is revised to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 63—Determination

of the Fraction Biodegraded (Fbio) in a

Biological Treatment Unit

I. Purpose

The purpose of this appendix is to define

the procedures for an owner or operator to

use to calculate the site specific fraction of

organic compounds biodegraded (Fbio) in a

biological treatment unit. If an acceptable

level of organic compounds is destroyed

rather than emitted to the air or remaining in

the effluent, the biological treatment unit

may be used to comply with the applicable

treatment requirements without the unit

being covered and vented through a closed

vent system to an air pollution control

device.

The determination of Fbio shall be made on

a system as it would exist under the rule. The

owner or operator should anticipate changes

that would occur to the wastewater flow and

concentration of organics, to be treated by the

biological treatment unit, as a result of

enclosing the collection and treatment

system as required by the rule.

The forms presented in this appendix are

designed to be applied to thoroughly mixed

treatment units. A thoroughly mixed

treatment unit is a unit that is designed and

operated to approach or achieve uniform

biomass distribution and organic compound

concentration throughout the aeration unit by

quickly dispersing the recycled biomass and

the wastewater entering the unit. Systems

that are not thoroughly mixed treatment units

should be subdivided into a series of zones

that have uniform characteristics within each

zone. The number of zones required to

characterize a biological treatment system

will depend on the design and operation of

the treatment system. Each zone should then

be modeled as a separate unit. The amount

of air emissions and biodegradation from the

modeling of these separate zones can then be

added to reflect the entire system.

* * * * *

6. Section III of appendix C of part 63,

the second paragraph after (4) is revised

to read as follows:

* * * * *

III. * * *

(4) * * *

* * * * *

Select one or more appropriate procedures

from the four listed above based on the

availability of site specific data. If the facility

does not have site-specific data on the

removal efficiency of its biological treatment

unit, then Procedure 1 or Procedure 4 may

be used. Procedure 1 allows the use of a

bench top bioreactor to determine the first-
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