Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 9087

compounds, nitrogen oxides, and

carbon monoxide. The inventory covers

point, area, non-road mobile, on-road

mobile, and biogenic sources.

(c) The Knox and Lincoln Counties

nonattainment area is classified as

moderate. The Lewiston and Auburn

nonattainment area is classified as

moderate and consists of Androscoggin

and Kennebec Counties. The Portland

nonattainment area is classified as

moderate and consists of Cumberland,

Sagadahoc and York Counties. The

Hancock and Waldo Counties

nonattainment area is classified as

attainment.

(d) The Governor’s designee for the

State of Maine submitted 1993 periodic

year emission inventories for the

Hancock and Waldo Counties area on

May 13, 1996 as a revision to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP). The 1993

periodic year emission inventory

requirement of section 182(3)(A) of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, has

been satisfied for the Hancock and

Waldo counties area.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. In § 81.320 the ‘‘Maine-Ozone’’

table is amended by revising the entry

for ‘‘Hancock County and Waldo County

Area’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.320 Maine.

* * * * *

MAINE—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Hancock County and Waldo County Area:

Hancock County ................................................ Apr. 29, 1997 ............ Attainment.

Waldo County .................................................... Apr. 29, 1997 ............ Attainment.

* * * * * * *

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 97–4963 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–5695–9]

RIN 2060–AD93

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories: Gasoline Distribution

(Stage I)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule: amendments.

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating, as

a direct final rule, amendments to the

‘‘National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories: Gasoline Distribution (Stage

I)’’ (the ‘‘Gasoline Distribution

NESHAP’’). These amendments

implement a proposed settlement

agreement with the American Petroleum

Institute noticed for comment on

November 15, 1996 regarding

improvements in the screening

equations for determining applicability

of the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP.

This action also addresses some

clarifications to the NESHAP that were

requested by other parties. These

clarifications do not change the level of

the standards or the intent of the

NESHAP promulgated in 1994.

In the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register, the EPA is proposing

a rule that is identical to this direct final

rule. If significant, adverse comments

are received on the proposed rule by the

due date (see DATES section below), this

direct final rule will be withdrawn and

all such comments will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. If no significant, adverse

comments are timely received on the

proposed rule, then the direct final rule

remains effective upon publication, and

no further action is contemplated on the

parallel proposal published today.

DATES: This rule is effective April 14,

1997, unless adverse comments are

received by March 31, 1997. If adverse

comments are received, the EPA will

publish timely notice in the Federal

Register withdrawing the direct final

rule.

Judicial Review. Under section

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (Act),

judicial review of NESHAP is available

only by filing a petition for review in

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of

today’s publication of these direct final

amendments. Under section 307(b)(2) of

the Act, the requirements that are the

subject of today’s notice may not be

challenged later in civil or criminal

proceedings brought by the EPA to

enforce these requirements.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A–92–

38, category VIII 1997 Amendments,

containing information considered by

the EPA in developing the final

amendments, is available for public

inspection and copying between 8:00

a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except for Federal holidays, at

the EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, room M1500, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460;

telephone (202) 260–7548. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying. This

docket also contains information

considered by the EPA in proposing and

promulgating the original Gasoline

Distribution NESHAP.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning applicability

and rule determinations, contact the

appropriate EPA regional or Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

(OECA) representative:

Region I: Greg Roscoe, Air Programs

Enforcement Office Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region I, JFK Federal Building (SEA),

Boston, MA 02203, Telephone

number (617) 565–3221

Region II: Kenneth Eng, Air Compliance

Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region II, 290

Broadway, New York, NY 10007,

Telephone number (212) 637–4080,

Fax number (212) 637–3998

Region III: Walter K. Wilkie, U.S. EPA,

Region III (3AT12), 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107,

Telephone number (215) 566–2150,

Fax number (215) 566–2114

Region IV: Lee Page, U.S. EPA, Region

IV (AR–4), 100 Alabama Street, SW,

Atlanta, GA 30303–3104, Telephone

number (404) 562–9131, Fax number

(404) 562–9095
9088 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Region V: Howard Caine (AE–17J), U.S.

EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,

Chicago, IL 60604, Telephone number

(312) 353–9685, Fax number (312)

353–8289

Region VI: Sandra A. Cotter (6EN–AT),

U.S. EPA, Region VI (6PD–R), 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202–2733,

Telephone number (214) 665–7347,

Fax number (214) 665–7446

Region VII: Bill Peterson, U.S. EPA,

Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue,

Kansas City, KS 66101, Telephone

number (913) 551–7881

Region VIII: Heather Rooney, U.S. EPA,

Region VIII (8ART–AP), 999 18th

Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202–

2405, Telephone number (303) 312–

6971, Fax number (303) 312–6826

Region IX: Christine Vineyard, U.S.

EPA, Region IX (Air-4), 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,

Telephone number (415) 744–1197

Region X: Chris Hall, Office of Air

Quality (OAQ–107), U.S. EPA, Region

X, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA

98101–9797, Telephone number (206)

553–1949 or (800) 424–4372 x1949

OECA: Julie Tankersley, U.S. EPA,

Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance (2223A), 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460,

Telephone number (202) 564–7002,

Fax number (202) 564–0050.

For information concerning the

analyses performed in developing the

final rule amendments, contact Mr.

Stephen Shedd, Waste and Chemical

Processes Group, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919)

541–5397 or fax number (919) 541–

0246.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An

electronic version of these final

amendments and the proposal preamble

is available for download from the EPA

Technology Transfer Network (TTN), a

network of electronic bulletin boards

developed and operated by the Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards.

The TTN provides information and

technology exchange in various areas of

air pollution control. The service is free,

except for the cost of a phone call. Dial

(919) 541–5742 for data transfer of up to

14,400 bits per second. If more

information on the operation of the TTN

is needed, contact the systems operator

at (919) 541–5384. The TTN is also

available on the Internet (access: http:/

/ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov).

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background and Summary of Action

II. Summary of and Rationale for Rule

Changes

A. Improvement of Emission Estimation

Screening Equations

B. Clarifications

1. Excess Emissions Reports

2. Definition of Bulk Gasoline Terminal

3. Potential to Emit and Federal

Enforcement

4. Demonstration of Compliance

5. Oxygenated Gasoline

6. Reporting Emissions Inventories

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

B. Executive Order 12866

C. Regulatory Flexibility

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Regulatory Review

F. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

I. Background and Summary of Action

On December 14, 1994 (59 FR 64303),

the EPA promulgated the ‘‘National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Source Categories:

Gasoline Distribution (Stage I)’’ (the

‘‘Gasoline Distribution NESHAP’’). The

Gasoline Distribution NESHAP regulates

all hazardous air pollutants (HAP)

emitted from new and existing bulk

gasoline terminals and pipeline

breakout stations that are major sources

of HAP emissions or are located at sites

that are major sources of HAP

emissions. The regulated category and

entities affected by this action include:

Category Examples of regulated

pentities

Industry ......... Bulk gasoline terminals.

Pipeline breakout stations.

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. To

determine whether your facility is

regulated by this action, you should

carefully examine all of the applicability

criteria in 40 CFR 63.420. If you have

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

the appropriate person listed in the

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

On March 29, 1995, the American

Petroleum Institute (API), a trade

association having members who own

or operate facilities potentially subject

to the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP,

submitted a Petition for Administrative

Stay and for Reconsideration of the

Gasoline Distribution NESHAP. After

lengthy negotiations with API, the EPA

provided notice and requested public

comment on a proposed settlement in

the Federal Register on November 15,

1996 (61 FR 58547). No comments were

received on the proposed settlement

during the 30-day comment period. The

EPA also issued a guidance

memorandum (available on the TTN

and in the docket), ‘‘Guidance

Concerning Notifications Required by

December 16, 1996 Under Gasoline

Distribution NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63,

Subpart R),’’ Bruce Jordan to EPA

Regional Offices, November 21, 1996,

clarifying the notification requirements

for major sources that plan to be an area

source by the first substantive

compliance date of the rule, December

15, 1997.

As a result of the settlement

agreement, the EPA has made

modifications to the screening equations

in the promulgated rule to make them

more useful to facilities attempting to

demonstrate that they are area sources,

and therefore not subject to the control

requirements of the NESHAP. These

modifications are discussed in detail in

Section II.A of this notice.

In response to requests by other

parties, the EPA has also made several

clarifications to the final NESHAP, as

discussed in Section II.B of this notice,

that are not a direct result of the

settlement agreement. First, the

language of the rule has been revised to

clarify that the requirement for an

excess emissions report applies to all

affected facilities whether or not they

have a continuous monitoring system.

Second, the definition for bulk gasoline

terminal has been inserted directly into

the rule instead of cross-referencing the

definition in the new source

performance standards for bulk

terminals. Third, the term ‘‘federally

enforceable’’ has been replaced with the

term ‘‘limitations on potential to emit’’

(PTE) to accommodate any eventual

outcome of the EPA’s current

consideration of PTE issues. Fourth, the

requirement that compliance be

demonstrated upon the EPA’s request

has been clarified to include the

calculations and assumptions used for

the applicability screening equations.

Fifth, the EPA has clarified the intended

meaning of the term ‘‘reformulated or

oxygenated gasoline containing methyl

tert-butyl ether (MTBE)’’ as used in

defining the parameter ‘‘CF’’ for the

applicability screening equations. Sixth,

the EPA has clarified that there is no

requirement to submit emissions

inventory documentation that a facility

is not a major source to the

Administrator for approval. These

emissions inventory documents need

only be maintained at the facility and

provided upon request.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 9089

II. Summary of and Rationale for Rule

Changes

A. Improvement of Emission Estimation

Screening Equations

The final Gasoline Distribution

NESHAP provides two options for

facilities to obtain area source status for

this rule and thus not be subject to the

control requirements of this major

source standard. These options are the

use of an emission screening equation or

performance of an HAP emissions

inventory for the facility. The emissions

inventory provision is currently

implemented outside the provisions of

this rule and approved by the permitting

authority. The screening equation

option allows facilities to use a

specified equation in the 1994 final rule

to determine their area source status

under this rule, as long as they are in

compliance with the equation

parameters and the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements in the rule.

These screening equations were

developed to provide facilities with a

way of determining whether they are a

major source without obtaining an area

source determination outside the

provisions of this rule.

The 1994 final rule contains two

screening equations in § 63.420 (one for

use by bulk gasoline terminals and one

for pipeline breakout stations) to make

an estimation of the total HAP

emissions from the major gasoline

operations at the facility. The equations

identify facilities that have the potential

to emit (PTE) less than 10 tons per year

(tpy) of a single HAP or less than 25 tpy

of a combination of HAP, which are the

criteria for area sources. Since the

equations in the final rule included only

gasoline storage and transfer operations,

the rule did not allow the equations to

be used by facilities that have HAP

emissions from other products (such as

distillates) or that emit HAP from

gasoline operations not accounted for in

the equations.

The API, as part of the settlement,

requested that the EPA incorporate

additional modifications to those

changes made to the screening

equations before the 1994 promulgation

in order to make the equations more

useful to facilities attempting to

demonstrate that they are area sources

within the structure of the rule. The API

said that the ‘‘other’’ HAP emissions not

considered in the equation are routinely

very low, and virtually every bulk

gasoline terminal has such HAP

emission sources. (The API’s comments

were directed toward bulk terminals,

but they can be applied to also cover

pipeline breakout stations.) As a result,

they felt that the equation, as

promulgated, had very little utility as a

means of screening for rule

applicability. The EPA reviewed API’s

supporting information and agreed that

the utility of the screening equations

needed to be improved.

The EPA and API investigated the

development of a factor or expression to

account for ‘‘other’’ HAP emission

sources at marketing facilities. These

other HAP sources consist of activities

not already accounted for in the

screening equations (i.e., sources other

than gasoline storage vessels, gasoline

loading racks and cargo tanks, and

gasoline vapor leaks from equipment

components). HAP emission sources not

arising directly from the storage and

handling of gasoline occur routinely in

this source category, and include

distillate fuel, additive tanks,

wastewater storage/handling tanks,

cleaning/degassing of tanks, subsurface

recovery (and other remedial actions),

service station tank bottoms storage,

sample handling/laboratory activities,

and pipeline transmix (interface) storage

(i.e., transmix with no gasoline content).

Gasoline mixtures in storage tanks, such

as transmix containing gasoline, are

considered to be ‘‘gasoline’’ in the

emission screening equations and also

in the standards.

The EPA agreed that the utility of the

equations would be further enhanced by

including a factor to account for these

other HAP emission sources (OE).

However, the EPA believed that it was

necessary to limit the percentage of total

facility HAP emissions that a facility

could claim from other emission sources

because such sources are most likely not

currently permitted or subject to current

enforceable limits on emissions, are part

of another source category [‘‘Organic

Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)’’]

that has yet to be studied, or are

collocated at other facilities (refineries,

chemical plants, military bases) and not

the primary source of emissions. The

API surveyed some of its member

companies and concluded that HAP

emissions from other sources at gasoline

bulk terminals are low, ranging from 0.1

to 3.5 tons/yr. Based on this

information, API suggested limiting the

OE value to 5 percent of total facility

HAP emissions. The EPA agrees with

API that limiting the value of OE to 5

percent is appropriate to represent

typical facilities in this source category.

If a facility finds that OE contributes

more than 5 percent of its total HAP

emissions, then the facility fits into a

combination of source categories and

must use the emissions inventory

approach to determine HAP emissions

and the applicability of the Gasoline

Distribution NESHAP.

Since the screening equations were

originally and continue to be

normalized, or set equal to ‘‘1,’’ to

determine area source status, OE should

thus be divided by either 10 or 25 (the

tpy cutoffs defining a major source) to

be incorporated into the equation. The

API suggested, and the EPA agreed, that

OE (in tpy) should be normalized by

dividing by 25 (or multiplying by 0.04),

since the OE factor will be calculated

from a variety of emission sources and

these emissions will most likely be

composed of a combination of HAP,

rather than a single HAP. Additionally,

since the allowable value is small (5

percent of total facility HAP emissions),

the resulting environmental effect from

adding this parameter to an equation

designed for screening purposes is

expected to be small.

B. Clarifications

1. Excess Emissions Reports

The EPA was requested after

promulgation to clarify whether the

owner or operator of a pipeline breakout

station needs to submit the excess

emissions report required under

§ 63.428(h), even though the facility is

not required to install a continuous

monitoring system (CMS) in

conjunction with the operation of a

control device. The commenter also

asked whether the information to be

included in such a report would be

limited to that indicated in

§ 63.428(h)(4) (late repairs of leaking

equipment), and whether the required

reporting frequency would be

semiannual or quarterly.

The final rule promulgated in 1994, in

§ 63.428(h) (1) through (4), specifies

information that must be included in

excess emissions reports submitted by

bulk gasoline terminals and pipeline

breakout stations. In summary, there are

four elements of information required to

be included in the excess emissions

report as excess emissions. They are:

(1) Exceedances or failures to

maintain the monitored operating

parameter value of the vapor processor,

(2) Failures to take steps to assure that

reloadings of nonvapor-tight gasoline

cargo tanks will not occur,

(3) Reloadings of nonvapor-tight

gasoline cargo tanks before vapor

tightness documentation on those tanks

is obtained by the facility, and (4)

certain information on equipment leaks

for which no repair was attempted

within 5 days or completed within 15

days after detection. The section also

states that the excess emissions report is

to be filed as required under

§ 63.10(e)(3) of CFR part 63, subpart A

(General Provisions). Section
9090 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1Affected sources must either be in full

compliance with the major source emission

standards in the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP or

have been determined to be an area source no later

than December 15, 1997. Additionally, each

affected source was required to submit an initial

notification by December 16, 1996 if it is (1) a major

source, (2) a major source on December 16, 1996

and plans to be an area source by December 15,

1997, or (3) using one of the emission screening

equations in § 63.420. These latter major sources

(no. 3) must include in the notification a nonbinding description of and a schedule for the

actions that are planned to achieve area source

status [§ 63.428(a)].

63.10(e)(3)(i) specifies that an ‘‘excess

emissions and continuous monitoring

system performance report and/or a

summary report’’ shall be submitted by

each owner or operator of an affected

source required to install a CMS. Also,

if the CMS data are to be used for

compliance and the source experienced

excess emissions, quarterly reporting is

required. [(§ 63.10(e)(3)(i)(C)].

The EPA believes that this question

may have arisen due to the different

characteristics of bulk terminals versus

pipeline breakout stations, and the

different elements of information

specified for the reports in § 63.428 and

§ 63.10. Items (1) through (3) required

under § 63.428 are primarily intended to

refer to activities at a bulk terminal,

where the loading of gasoline cargo

tanks will be controlled with a vapor

processor combined with a vapor

tightness (test and repair) program for

the cargo tanks. However, item (1)

would also apply to pipeline breakout

stations that elect to install a control

device and CMS for storage vessel

emission control in response to

§ 63.427(c) and § 60.112b(a)(3). In that

case, the report required from sources

‘‘required to install a CMS’’ under

§ 63.10(e)(3)(i) would be appropriate for

pipeline breakout stations. However, for

most breakout pipeline breakout

stations, only item (4) pertaining to the

repair of equipment leaks is applicable.

The EPA’s intent in the final rule [as

described in the preamble to the 1994

promulgated standards (59 FR 64316)]

was to require a semiannual report

under § 63.428(g) and § 63.10(e)(3) for

bulk terminals and pipeline breakout

stations, with this frequency increasing

to quarterly in the event that any

specified excess emissions occur that

are listed in § 63.428(h)(1) through (4).

Section 63.10(e)(3)(i)(C) requires the

quarterly reporting frequency to be

followed until a facility’s request to

reduce the frequency is approved.

In summary, all bulk terminals and

pipeline breakout stations are required

to submit this report, and each facility

should include the information

pertinent to its own situation. The

initial reporting frequency is

semiannual, but will increase to

quarterly if excess emissions are

experienced. The EPA reviewed the

language of the rule and found that the

rule needed revision to clarify this

approach. Today’s action revises the

language of the rule to clarify and make

more explicit the EPA’s original intent

that the requirement for an excess

emissions report applies to all affected

bulk terminals and pipeline breakout

stations with or without a CMS.

2. Definition of Bulk Gasoline Terminal

In the 1994 promulgated rule, several

terms were defined in § 63.421 through

cross-referencing with definitions

already provided in the Act; in 40 CFR

60, subparts A, K, Ka, Kb, and XX; and

in 40 CFR 63, subpart A. One term

intended to be defined in this way was

‘‘bulk gasoline terminal.’’ The definition

for bulk gasoline terminal (as included

in 40 CFR 60, subpart XX) is as follows:

Bulk gasoline terminal means any

gasoline facility which receives gasoline

by pipeline, ship or barge, and has a

gasoline throughput greater than 75,700

liters per day. Gasoline throughput shall

be the maximum calculated design

throughput as may be limited by

compliance with an enforceable

condition under Federal, State or local

law and discoverable by the

Administrator and any other person.

The approach of cross-referencing the

definition of one of the affected sources

apparently created confusion, possibly

because a definition for ‘‘pipeline

breakout station’’ was explicitly

included in § 63.421. In order to lessen

the confusion, and to clearly specify

that the Agency intended to apply the

same facility definition to bulk

terminals as was used in the bulk

terminal NSPS, the definition is being

inserted directly into subpart R under

§ 63.421. This change does not create

new requirements in the rule, but

merely makes more explicit the EPA’s

intent concerning the definition of a

bulk gasoline terminal.

3. Potential To Emit and Federal

Enforcement

The EPA is also replacing the term

‘‘federally enforceable’’ as a condition

for some of the emission screening

equation parameters with the term

‘‘limitations on potential to emit’’ (PTE).

The purpose of this change is not to

make any substantive decision regarding

the PTE issues that are currently under

review by the Agency, but rather to

recognize that those issues exist and to

minimize any confusion regarding how

those issues should be dealt with in the

interim as they relate to the Gasoline

Distribution NESHAP. The EPA believes

that using the term ‘‘limitations on

potential to emit’’ will eliminate the

need for subsequent amendments to this

rule as it relates to PTE issues. PTE is

defined in § 63.2 Definitions, of the

General Provisions of subpart A of part

63, and the term ‘‘limitations on

potential to emit’’ has been added to the

list of definitions in § 63.421.

As discussed in the February 29, 1996

(61 FR 7718) Gasoline Distribution final

rule amendments, the EPA is

considering a number of options

regarding the requirements on potential

to emit limits, in response to the

National Mining court decision. In

addition, the EPA created a 2-year

transition period (January 1995 until

January 1997) during which the EPA

will recognize limitations on PTE, so

long as those limits are enforceable as a

practical matter. In a policy

memorandum (available on the TTN

and in the docket), ‘‘Extension of

January 25, Potential to Emit Transition

Policy,’’ John S. Seitz and Robert I. Van

Heuvelen to EPA Regional Offices,

August 27, 1996, the EPA has extended

this transition period for 18 months

until July 31, 1998, which is later than

the December 15, 1997 control

equipment compliance date for all

MACT source categories, including the

Gasoline Distribution NESHAP.

Accordingly, for the critical

applicability date 1 for the Gasoline

Distribution NESHAP, the EPA wishes

to clarify that State-enforceable limits

that are enforceable as a practical matter

will be treated by the EPA as acceptable

limitations on potential to emit. If, as a

result of the PTE rulemaking, a decision

is made that yields a requirement that

PTE limitations must be federally

enforceable for some or all sources, an

appropriate transition period will be

given to allow time for such sources to

obtain federally enforceable limits.

4. Demonstration of Compliance

Section § 63.420(f) of the final rule

requires an owner or operator to

demonstrate compliance with any

provision of the rule to which the

facility is subject, upon request by the

EPA. The rule has been amended to

clarify that this demonstration also

needs to be made, upon request, for the

parameters and assumptions used in

performing calculations for the

applicability screening equations. This

change does not impose any new

requirements, but has been made to

eliminate any chance for ambiguity in

interpreting this rule provision.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 9091

5. Oxygenated Gasoline

The emission screening equations in

§ 63.420 of the final rule use the

parameter ‘‘CF’’ to account for the

higher HAP content of the modified

gasolines that are marketed to comply

with Federal and State ozone and

carbon monoxide control programs.

These reformulated and oxygenated

gasolines, in addition to other formula

changes, contain significant levels of

oxygenate, frequently the HAP methyl

tert-butyl ether (MTBE), which supplies

oxygen in the combustion process to

reduce the amount of carbon monoxide

emitted in tailpipe exhaust. The higher

CF factor of 1.0 for these gasolines that

use MTBE as an oxygenate, versus a CF

factor of 0.161 for ‘‘normal’’ gasolines,

reflects the fact that the overall HAP

content of reformulated and oxygenated

gasolines using MTBE as an oxygenate

is significantly higher than the HAP

content of normal gasoline.

The definitions given in § 63.421 for

reformulated and oxygenated gasolines

cross-reference existing definitions

already codified at 40 CFR 80.2(ee) and

40 CFR 80.2(rr), respectively. The CFR

defines oxygenated gasoline as

‘‘gasoline which contains a measurable

amount of oxygenate.’’ However, this

definition may not adequately

distinguish oxygenated gasoline from

normal gasoline. The reason is that, in

addition to its use as an oxygenate,

MTBE is often used in generally smaller

concentrations to boost the octane rating

of normal gasoline. Although the MTBE

present in these gasolines is generally

minimal, the EPA was concerned that

even these small amounts could be

construed as qualifying a gasoline as

‘‘oxygenated.’’ The EPA’s intent was not

to specify the higher CF factor for

normal gasolines with minor amounts of

MTBE, but only for those gasolines with

a sufficient quantity of MTBE to create

a substantially higher HAP content than

found in normal gasolines.

Section 211(k) of the Act specifies a

minimum oxygen content for

reformulated gasolines of 2.0 percent by

weight, while EPA guidelines issued in

response to section 211(m) recommend

a minimum oxygen content of 2.7

percent by weight for oxygenated

gasolines. The EPA’s final regulations to

implement the reformulated gasoline

program, promulgated on February 16,

1994 (59 FR 7716), specify a minimum

allowable per-gallon oxygen content for

reformulated gasoline of 1.5 weight

percent when the standards are being

achieved on an average basis. In order

to include all of the allowable modified

fuels in the CF factor definition, the

same oxygen content of 1.5 weight

percent is being used in these rule

amendments as the cutoff defining these

high-HAP gasolines. Since reformulated

and oxygenated gasolines are frequently

oxygenated using MTBE, this minimum

oxygen content was converted to MTBE

volume percent. Based on the molecular

composition and density of MTBE and

a typical density for gasoline, the value

of 1.5 percent oxygen by weight was

calculated to be equivalent to 7.6

percent MTBE by volume (available in

the docket). Since this value is not

inconsistent with the existing

definitions for reformulated and

oxygenated gasolines, but only specifies

a minimum gasoline MTBE content, the

promulgated definitions for

‘‘reformulated gasoline’’ and

‘‘oxygenated gasoline’’ are being

retained in the rule. The two definitions

for the term CF have been amended to

incorporate this minimum MTBE

content.

The EPA emphasizes that this change

merely clarifies the Agency’s intent in

specifying a higher CF value for

reformulated and oxygenated gasolines

that use MTBE as an oxygenate. The

higher CF factor of 1.0 is intended to be

used in the screening equations by those

facilities that handle gasoline blended

with significant amounts (7.6 volume

percent or more) of MTBE. The 1.0

factor should not be used by facilities

that handle only gasoline having trace

amounts of MTBE. The change has no

effect on the control programs that

require the marketing of these fuels, nor

does it change or add any reporting,

recordkeeping, or testing requirements

for affected facilities.

6. Reporting Emissions Inventories

The owner or operator of a stationary

source in this category is allowed to use

methods other than the emission

screening equations (typically an

emissions inventory) to establish that

the facility is not a major source,

provided that he or she ‘‘has

documented and recorded to the

Administrator’s satisfaction that the

facility is not a major source, or is not

[collocated with] a major source’’ [40

CFR 63.420(a)(2) and (b)(2)]. Some

confusion has been expressed as to

whether these documents must in all

cases be submitted to the Administrator

for approval prior to December 16, 1996

as an alternative to the results of the

screening equation or whether it is

appropriate to maintain these records at

the facility. This action clarifies that

there is no requirement to submit these

emissions inventory type documents for

approval either prior to or after

December 16, 1996, and that these

documents may be maintained at the

facility. However, the owner or operator

is required [§ 63.420(f)], ‘‘upon request,’’

to demonstrate compliance with all of

the applicability provisions, including

this determination that the facility is not

a major source.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements of the previously

promulgated NESHAP were submitted

to and approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). A copy

of this Information Collection Request

(ICR) document (OMB control number

2060–0325) may be obtained from Ms.

Sandy Farmer, Information Policy

Branch, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, S.W. (mail code

2136), Washington, DC 20460, or by

calling (202) 260–2740.

Today’s amendments to the Gasoline

Distribution NESHAP have no impact

on the information collection burden

estimates made previously. No

additional certifications or filings were

promulgated. Therefore, the ICR has not

been revised.

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine whether a regulation is

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The criteria set

forth in section 1 of the Order for

determining whether a regulation is a

significant rule are as follows:

(1) Is likely to have an annual effect

on the economy of $100 million or

more, or adversely and materially affect

a sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal government communities;

(2) Is likely to create a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfere

with an action taken or planned by

another agency;

(3) Is likely to materially alter the

budgetary impact of entitlements,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or

(4) Is likely to raise novel or policy

issues arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

The Gasoline Distribution NESHAP

promulgated on December 14, 1994 was

treated as a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ within the meaning of the

Executive Order. An estimate of the cost

and benefits of the NESHAP was

prepared at proposal as part of the

background information document
9092 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(BID). This estimate was updated in the

BID for the final rule to reflect

comments and changes made in

developing the final rule. The

amendments issued today have no

impact on the estimates in the final BID.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this action is a ‘‘non-significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of the Executive Order. As such, this

action was not submitted to OMB for

review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this final rule. When the Agency

promulgated the Gasoline Distribution

NESHAP, it analyzed the potential

impacts on small businesses, discussed

the results of this analysis in the

Federal Register, and concluded that

the promulgated regulation would not

result in financial impacts that

significantly or differentially stress

affected small companies. Since today’s

action imposes no additional impacts,

the EPA has determined that these

amendments 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, signed into law

on March 22, 1995, 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 most cost

effective and 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

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 Reform Act do not

apply to this action.

E. Regulatory Review

In accordance with sections 112(d)(6)

and 112(f)(2) of the Act, this regulation

will be reviewed 8 years from the date

of promulgation. This review may

include an assessment of such factors as

evaluation of the residual health risk,

any overlap with other programs, the

existence of alternative methods of

control, enforceability, improvements in

emission control technology and health

data, and the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

F. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the

EPA submitted a report containing the

final amendments and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the

Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office prior to publication

of the amendments in today’s Federal

Register. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Petroleum bulk stations and

terminals, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: February 21, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 63 of chapter I of title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 63.420 is amended by

revising the equation and the terms

‘‘CF’’ ‘‘CE’’, ‘‘Q’’ and ‘‘EF’’ in paragraph

(a)(1), and by adding the term ‘‘OE’’ to

the list in paragraph (a)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 63.420 Applicability.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

ET=CF[0.59(TF)(1–CE)+0.17

(TE)+0.08(TES)+0.038(TI)+8.5×10–

6(C)+KQ]+0.04(OE)

* * * * *

CF=0.161 for bulk gasoline terminals

and pipeline breakout stations that

do not handle any reformulated or

oxygenated gasoline containing 7.6

percent by volume or greater methyl

tert-butyl ether (MTBE), OR

CF=1.0 for bulk gasoline terminals and

pipeline breakout stations that

handle reformulated or oxygenated

gasoline containing 7.6 percent by

volume or greater MTBE;

CE=control efficiency limitation on

potential to emit for the vapor

processing system used to control

emissions from fixed-roof gasoline

storage vessels [value should be

added in decimal form (percent

divided by 100)];

* * * * *

Q=gasoline throughput limitation on

potential to emit or gasoline

throughput limit in compliance

with paragraphs (c), (d), and (f) of

this section (liters/day);

* * * * *

EF=emission rate limitation on potential

to emit for the gasoline cargo tank

loading rack vapor processor outlet

emissions (mg of total organic

compounds per liter of gasoline

loaded);

OE=other HAP emissions screening

factor for bulk gasoline terminals or

pipeline breakout stations (tons per

year). OE equals the total HAP from

other emission sources not

specified in parameters in the

equations for ET or EP. If the value

of 0.04(OE) is greater than 5 percent

of either ET or EP, then paragraphs

(a)(1) and (b)(1) of this section shall

not be used to determine

applicability; * * *

* * * * *

3. Section 63.420 is amended in

paragarph (b)(1) by revising the equation

and the text following the equation to

read as follows:

§ 63.420 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

EP=CF [6.7(TF)(1-CE)+

0.21(TE)+0.093(TES)+0.1(TI)

+5.31×10¥6(C))+0.04(OE);

where:

EP=emissions screening factor for

pipeline breakout stations,

and the definitions for CF, TF, CE, TE,

TES, TI, C, and OE are the same as

provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this

section; or

* * * * *

4. Section 63.420 is amended by

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 63.420 Applicability.

* * * * *

(f) Upon request by the Administrator,

the owner or operator of a bulk gasoline

terminal or pipeline breakout station

subject to the provisions of any

paragraphs in this section including, but
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 9093

not limited to, the parameters and

assumptions used in the applicable

equation in paragraph (a)(1) or (b)(1) of

this section, shall demonstrate

compliance with those paragraphs.

* * * * *

5. Section 63.421 is amended by

adding in alphabetical order definitions

for ‘‘bulk gasoline terminal’’ and

‘‘limitation(s) on potential to emit’’ to

read as follows:

§ 63.421 Definitions.

* * * * *

Bulk gasoline terminal means any

gasoline facility which receives gasoline

by pipeline, ship or barge, and has a

gasoline throughput greater than 75,700

liters per day. Gasoline throughput shall

be the maximum calculated design

throughput as may be limited by

compliance with an enforceable

condition under Federal, State or local

law and discoverable by the

Administrator and any other person.

* * * * *

Limitation(s) on potential to emit

means limitation(s) limiting a source’s

potential to emit as defined in § 63.2 of

subpart A of this part.

* * * * *

6. Section 63.428 is amended by

revising paragraphs (g) introductory text

and (h) introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 63.428 Reporting and recordkeeping.

* * * * *

(g) Each owner or operator of a bulk

gasoline terminal or pipeline breakout

station subject to the provisions of this

subpart shall include in a semiannual

report to the Administrator the

following information, as applicable:

* * * * *

(h) Each owner or operator of a bulk

gasoline terminal or pipeline breakout

station subject to the provisions of this

subpart shall submit an excess

emissions report to the Administrator in

accordance with § 63.10(e)(3), whether

or not a CMS is installed at the facility.

The following occurrences are excess

emissions events under this subpart,

and the following information shall be

included in the excess emissions report,

as applicable:

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–4885 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP–5F4578/R2277A; FRL–5590–4]

RIN 2070–AB78

Glufosinate Ammonium; Tolerances

for Residues

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: EPA is correcting the table

under § 180.473, paragraph (c) to reflect

the tolerance for residues of glufosinate

ammonium on corn, field, forage as

stated in the petition submitted by

AgrEvo USA Co.

DATES: This correction is effective on

February 5, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Joanne Miller, Product Manager

(PM) 23, Registration Division, (7505C),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location, telephone number, and

e-mail address: Rm. 237, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA

22202, 703–305–7830, e-mail:

miller.joanne@epamail.epa.gov.

In FR Doc. 97-2838, appearing at page

5333 in the issue for Wednesday,

February 5, 1997, on page 5338, in

§ 180.473, in the table to paragraph (c),

the entry for ‘‘corn, field, forage,’’ is

corrected as follows:

§ 180.473 Glufosinate ammonium;

tolerances for residues.

* * * * *

Commodity Parts per

million Expiration

* * * * *

Corn, field,

forage .... 4.0 July 13, 1999

* * * * *

List of Subjects in Part 180

Environmental protection.

Dated: February 18, 1997.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–4624 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 3800

[WO–660–4120–02–24 1A]

RIN 1004–AC40

Mining Claims Under the General

Mining Laws; Surface Management

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) is amending its

surface management regulations at 43

CFR subpart 3809. The final rule

requires submission of financial

guarantees for reclamation of all

hardrock mining operations greater than

casual use, increases the types of

financial instruments acceptable to

satisfy the requirement for a financial

guarantee, and amends the

noncompliance section of the

regulations to require the filing of plans

of operations by operators who have a

record of noncompliance. In addition,

the final rule removes section 3809.1–8

on existing operations, which is no

longer applicable, because all activities

that were in operation in 1980 and

continue in operation have now

complied with this section.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Inquiries or suggestions

should be sent to the Solid Minerals

Group at Director (320), Bureau of Land

Management, Room 501 LS, 1849 C

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Deery, (202) 452–0350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

11, 1991 (56 FR 31602), BLM published

a proposed rule to require submission of

financial guarantees for reclamation for

all hardrock mining operations greater

than casual use, to designate additional

financial instruments that would satisfy

the requirement for a financial

guarantee, and to amend the

noncompliance section of the

regulations to require the filing of plans

of operations by operators who have a

record of noncompliance. The extended

90-day comment period expired on

October 9, 1991. The BLM received 218

comments on the proposed rule,

including 3 citizen-petitions with

numerous signatures. Of these

comments, 58 were from public interest

groups, 51 were from business entities

or associations, 22 were from

government agencies, and 135 were

from individuals, not including the

petitions. All of the comments were