P.1 

OAR Box 1252 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

17) FED REG VOL. 59, NO. 46 3/9/94 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 5/21/2008 11:46:01 AM Sheet 17 of 184 
P.3 

11018 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9. 1994 / Proposed Rules 

superseded Executive Order 12291 on 

September 30.1993. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq.. EPA must prepare 

a regulatory flexibility anal;. 

npact of any proposed or 

on small entities. 5 U.S.C 603 

<)4. Alternatively, EPA may certify 

that the rule will not nave a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small ei 

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

entities with jurisdiction over 

populations of less than 50,000. 

5lP approvals under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Act do not 

create any new requirements, but 

simply approve requirements thot the 

State is already imposing. Therefore, 

because the federal SEP-approval does 

not impose any new requirements, I 

certify that it does not have a significant 

impact on small entities affected. 

Moreover, due to the nature ofthe 

ral-state relationship under the Act, 

preparation ofa regulatory flexib 

is would constitute federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The Act 

forbids EPA to base its actions 

concerning SIPs on such grounds. 

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A. . 427 

U.S. 246. 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 

section 7410(a)(2). 

VII. Applicability to Future SIP 

Decisions 

Nothing in this action should be 

construed as permitting or allowing or 

establishing a precedent for any future 

request for revision to any SIP. Each 

request for revision to the SIP shall be 

considered separately in light of specific 

technical, economic, and environmental 

factors and in relation to relevant 

statutory and regulatory requirements. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. Hydrocarbons, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. 

Dated: March 1.1994. 

William P. Yellowtail. 

Regional Administrator. 

|FR Doc. 94-5423 Filed 3-8-y4; 8:45 ami 

BILLING COOE tMO-M-P 

40 CFR Part 63 

[AD-FRL-4846-1] 

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; Pulp and Paper Production; and 

Chromium Emissions From Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks: 

Determination of MACT "Floor." 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Reopening of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: On December 31,1992 (57 FR 

62608), the EPA proposed standards to 

regulate the emissions of certain organic 

hazardous air pollutants from synthorganic chemical manufacturing 

industry (SOCMI) production processes 

and seven other processes which are 

part of major sources under section 112 

of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(the Act). The initial public comment 

period closed on April 19,1993, but 

EPA subsequently reopened the 

comment period for 30 days on October 

15,1993 (58 FR 53478) to take 

additional comment on certaii 

In the final action regarding the 

December 31,1992 proposal, which was 

signed on February 28.1994, EPA 

deferred taking final action regarding 

provisions applicable to medium storage 

vessels due to the need to resolve an 

issue of statutory interpretation of 

section 112(d)(3)(A) ofthe Act. With 

this notice. EPA reopens the comment 

period to request additional comment 

on the appropriate interpretation of this 

statutory provision and the effect of that 

interpretation on the appropriate control 

requirements for medium storage 

vessels. The maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) "floor'* 

decision that EPA will make in this 

rulemaking will have broad precedential 

effect, and will presumptively be 

followed in subsequent MACT 

rulemakings, including die pulp and 

paper and chromium electroplating 

rulemakings. EPA plans to take final 

action regarding the provisions 

applicable to medium storage vewithin 90 days of publication of this 

^notice. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

1 or before April 8,1994. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comnn 

should be submitted (in duplicate if 

possible) to the EPA'S Air and Radiation 

Informa* .02). 

ATTN: Docket Numbe; 

M l in 

Agency. 401 M Street. SW, Wast 

DC 20 

Dockets. The following dcx.• 

ain supporting information used in 

developing the propose 

Docket Number A-90-19 contai: 

information specific to emissions 

averaging and general informal! 

to characterize emissions and control 

costs for the industry and Docket A-90-

21 contains information on stora 

vessels. These dockets are a ior 

public inspection and copying between 

8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation 

Docket and Infonnation Center. 

Waterside Mall. Room M1500, 410 M 

. SW. Washington. DC 20460. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

tog. 

FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: On 

technical issues. Dr. Joi 

Standards Develop: 

Emission Standards Division (MD-1 

U.S. Environmental Pri 

Office of Air Quality Planni 

Standards. Research Triangle Park. 

North Carolina 27711, telephone 

number (919) 541-5299. For further 

information on the legal issue addressed 

in this notice, contact Michael S. VV 

Assistant General Counsel, Air and 

Radiation Division (2344). Office of 

General Counsel. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, 

Washington. IX 20460. telephone 

number (202) 260-7606. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: O n 

December 31. 1992 (57 FR 62608), EPA 

proposed certain standards to regulate 

the emissions of certain organic 

hazardous air pollutants from syntht 

organic chemical manufacturing 

industry (SOCMI) production processes 

and seven other processes that are part 

of major sources under section 112 of 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(the Act). The proposed rule is 

commonly referred to as the hazardous 

organic NESHAP or HON. In a separate 

notice. EPA is taking final action on 

virtually all aspects of that proposal but 

is deferring final action regarding the 

portion of the emission standards for 

emissions from one of the types of 

emission points covered by the 

proposal, medium storage vessels. "1 

reason EPA is deferring final action 

regarding regulation of medium storage 

vessels is to reopen the comment period 

to take comments regarding the nature 

ofthe "floor" under section 112(d)(3)(A) 

ippropriate le\ :rol for 

ige vessels. Conse<; 

for purposes of this rulemak 
P.4 

Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9. 1994 / Proposed Rules 1101 9 

Agency will consider only comments 

limited to the interpretation ofthe 

language in section 112(d)(3)(A) 

regarding the establishment of the 

"floor" and whether the control 

>r medium sh 

vessels previously proposed by EPA 

would be appropriate in the event those 

proposed controls were to be 

determined to be more stringent than 

the floor. 

In other proposals regarding MACT 

A has noted the possibility 

-"o interpretations of tb- a in 

section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B) requiring 

that EPA set standards no less stringent 

than '.ge emission limitation 

*ved by the best performing 

ent of the existing ore 

least 30 sources in vor 

.verage emission lr 

" best performing 5 

' if there BI 

sources in a category. (See 58 FR 66078 

nber 17.1993) (pulp and paper): 

R 65768. i6, 

1993) (chromium electropla 

nee, the difference I wo 

i pretations is diat one would result 

in the floor being established t<t the I 

• 

mean, median, or other appropriate 

" of central tendem 

nntrol achieved by the best 

• 

sources, wnich would be gener;: 

valent to the 94th ; 

sources, while the other would r 

the floor being tht evel of 

source a: 

881 h percentile if all sources 

ked from the most 

ont rolled (1st 

perThe first Interpretation is based on 

grouping the words 

and ask' the 

-ved 

12 percei 

•-.• o f 

i'ion 

plaa " It 

achiever 

s as a group (i ly 

percentiiwords "average emission limitation" 

;ent. ln this case, the 

: be 

point over time. Under this 

interpretation, EPA would look at the 

average emission limits achieved by 

f the best performing 12 percent 

of existing sources, and take the average 

limit that is "achieved" by all sources 

within the group (i.e., the average level 

of control achieved by the 88th 

percentile source or the level of control 

achieved by the fifth source among the 

top five in the case of section 

112(d)(3)(B)). 

The two possible interpretations are 

also described in detail in the proposals 

regarding the pulp and paper MACT 

standard (see 58 FR 66136-137 

(December 17,1993), and the chromium 

vl ACT standard (see 58 

FR 65768, 65770 (December 16,1993). 

As described in section V.C.1. ofthe 

preamble to the final HON rule signed 

February 28.1994, EPA has reevaluated 

and revised the medium storage vessel 

data base since the December 31, 1992 

proposal. EPA's revised data base 

indicates that, for medium stone 

vessels. 6 percent ofthe vessels are 

rolled^with either a 90-pero 

nt conlroi device or an internal 

floating roof (IFR) or external floating 

roof (EFR) with a continuous seal. All of 

the controlled medium-sized vessels 

,1 liquids with vapor pressures 

of 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia). The arithmetical 

average, or mean, characteristics of the 

top 12 percent ofthe medium vessels 

would not represent the perfonnance of 

any known technology. However, if the 

median were used to represent tl 

average, the floor woui 

ofve ng liquids with vapor 

pressures of 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia) or 

greater by either a 90-percent 

control device or an IFR or EFR with a 

continuous seal. This is th> por 

pressure thBt was d in the 

December 31, 1992 proposal. With the 

id data base, however, if the floor 

at the average level of 

• ed by die 88th percentile 

sour oorwoul' io 

ol. (At the time ofthe Dece31,1992 proposal, EPA had determined 

about 30 percent of medium storage 

Is storing liquids with vapor 

pressures of 13 1 IdPa (1.9 psia] or higher 

'.rolled with the reference 

igy. Thus, at that time, either of 

the two interpretations ofthe statutory 

language regarding tbe establishment of 

the floor would have resulted in die 

floor being established at the level at 

which the control requiremt 

proposed.) 

EPA solicits comment on the proper 

interpretation ofthe statutory Iregarding the establishment ofthe floor. 

EPA also solicits commun! on whel 

ort ion of the ei 

•erning medium storag* 

proposed in the December 31.1992 

HON proposal is appro j ose 

proposed controls were to be 

determined to be more stringent than 

the floor, rather than to be at the floor 

as EPA believed at the time of t! 

proposal. EPA intends to take fi 

action regarding die provisions 

applicable to medium storage ves 

within 90 days of die publication of this 

notice. 

he MACT "floor" decision that EPA 

will make in this rulemaking will ha 

broad precedential eiU ill 

presumptively be followed in 

subsequent MACT rulemakings, 

including the pulp and paper and 

chromium electroplating ruh 

Consequently, con on the p. 

and paper and chromium electroplat 

proposals should submit any comments 

they mav the 

HON docket. EPA will consider 

idy 

submitted in those r they 

are resubmitted to the HON docket, but 

will not consider Ll is 

proceeding for any purposo other I 

addressing tl ue regarding the 

: ofthe floor provisions of 

ion 112(d7 

Dated: February 28, 

Carol M. Browner, 

The Administrator. 

IFR Doc. 94-5419 Filed 3 S 94; 8:45 am| 

BILLING CODE weo-«M» 

DEPARTMENT OF THE fNTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Part 3160 

[WO-610-4111-02-24 IA] 

RIN: 1004-AB80 

Onshore Oil and Gas Operations. 

Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; 

Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 4, 

Measurement of Oil 

AGENC 7.and Man; 

Interior. 

ACTION: V 

SUMMARY: This pro, 

(54 i and made eft 

'.989. This proposed ret 

reorganize the Order to make it more 

lence, remove un: 

a the Ore 

These on mare