24436 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

justice related issues as required by

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994). Because this action

is not subject to notice-and-comment

requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute, it is

not subject to the regulatory flexibility

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). EPA’s

compliance with these statutes and

Executive Orders for the underlying rule

is discussed in the July 22, 1997,

Federal Register document.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as

added by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

will submit a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office; however, in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 808(2), this rule is effective on

May 4, 1998. This rule is not a ‘‘major

rule’’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This final rule only amends the

effective date of the underlying rule; it

does not amend any substantive

requirements contained in the rule.

Accordingly, to the extent it is available,

judicial review is limited to the

amended effective date.

Dated: April 22, 1998.

Carol Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–11542 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[AD–FRL–6003–7]

RIN 2060–AH94

Standards of Performance for New

Stationary Sources: General

Provisions; National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Source Categories: General

Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This action amends the

General Control Device Requirements

applicable to flares in 40 CFR Part 60

which were issued as a final rule on

January 21, 1986, and the Control

Device Requirements applicable to

flares in 40 CFR Part 63 which were

issued as a final rule on March 16, 1994.

This action amends existing

specifications to permit the use of

hydrogen-fueled flares. For additional

information concerning comments, see

the parallel proposal found in the

Proposed Rules Section of this Federal

Register.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

June 23, 1998 without further notice

unless the Agency receives relevant

adverse comments by June 3, 1998.

Should the Agency receive such

comments, it will publish a document

withdrawing this rule. The

incorporation by reference of certain

publications listed in the rule is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of June 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (6102),

Attention Docket No. A–97–48 (see

docket section below), Room M–1500,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460. The EPA requests that a separate

copy also be sent to Mr. Robert

Rosensteel (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for

address). Comments may also be

submitted electronically by following

the instructions provided in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through electronic

mail.

Docket. The official record for these

amendments has been established under

docket number A–97–48. A public

version of this record, including

printed, paper versions of electronic

comments and data, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection between 8

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

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The

official rulemaking record is located at

the address in the ADDRESS section.

Alternatively, a docket index, as well as

individual items contained within the

docket, may be obtained by calling (202)

260–7548 or (202) 260–7549. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert Rosensteel, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,

telephone number (919) 541–5608.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Filing

Electronic comments and data can be

sent directly to EPA at: a-and-rdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments and data must be submitted

as an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption. Comments and data will

also be accepted on diskette in Word

Perfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file

format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number A–97–48. Electronic

comments may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries.

Electronic Availability

This document is available in Docket

No. A–97–48, or by request from the

EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (see ADDRESSES), and

is available for downloading from the

Technology Transfer Network (TTN),

the EPA’s electronic bulletin board

system. The TTN provides information

and technology exchange in various

areas of emissions control. The service

is free, except for the cost of a telephone

call. Dial (919) 541–5742 for up to a

14,000 baud per second modem. For

further information, contact the TTN

HELP line at (919) 541–5384, from 1:00

p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, or access the TTN web site at:

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/rules.html.

Regulated Entities

Entities affected by this direct final

rule include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry .... Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industries; and

Petroleum Refining Industries.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that the EPA is now

aware could potentially be affected by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be affected.

If you have any questions regarding the

applicability of this direct final rule to

a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background

A. Existing Flare Specifications

B. DuPont’s Request for Specifications for

Hydrogen-Fueled Flares

II. DuPont Test Program For HydrogenFueled Flares

A. Summary of Earlier Relevant HydrogenFueled Flares Tests

B. Objectives of the DuPont Test Program

C. Design and Implementation of DuPont

Test Program

D. Results of the Test Program

III. Rationale

A. The Need for Specifications for

Hydrogen-Fueled Flares

B. Use of DuPont Test Results as the Basis

for Hydrogen-Fueled Flare Specifications
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 24437

C. Selection of Specifications for

Hydrogen-Fueled Flares

D. Decision to Proceed With Direct Final

Rulemaking

IV. Summary of the Amendments to the Flare

Specifications

V. Impacts

A. Primary Air Impacts

B. Other Environmental Impacts

C. Energy Impacts

D. Cost and Economic Impacts

E. Summary of Impacts

VI. Administrative

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

B. Executive Order 12866

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

I. Background

The General Control Device

Requirements of 40 CFR 60.18 were

issued as a final rule on January 21,

1986 and are applicable to control

devices complying with New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS)

promulgated by the Agency under

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA),

and National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

issued under the authority of Section

112 prior to the CAA Amendments of

1990. The Control Device Requirements

of 40 CFR 63.11 were issued as a final

rule on March 16, 1994 and are

applicable to control devices used to

comply with NESHAP issued under the

authority of the CAA Amendments of

1990, for the control of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP). These existing control

device requirements contain

specifications defining required

operating conditions of control devices

generally. Specifically, 40 CFR 60.18(b)

through (d), and 40 CFR 63.11(b)

contain the operating conditions for

flares (i.e., existing flare specifications).

Flares operating in accordance with

these specifications destroy volatile

organic compounds (VOC) or volatile

HAP with a destruction efficiency of 98

percent or greater. These existing flare

specifications were written for flares

combusting organic emission streams.

The current regulations do not permit

the use of flares not meeting these

specifications to satisfy control

requirements under the CAA.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and

Company (DuPont) representatives

requested that the EPA either add

specific limits for hydrogen-fueled flares

to the existing flare specifications or

approve their hydrogen-fueled flares as

alternate means of emission limitation

under 40 CFR 61.484, 40 CFR 61.12(d)

and 40 CFR 63.6(g) (Docket No. A–97–

48, Item No. II–D–2). DuPont

subsequently sponsored a testing

program to demonstrate that hydrogenfueled flares in use at DuPont destroy

emissions with greater than 98 percent

efficiency. The test program

demonstrated that these hydrogenfueled flares achieved greater than 98

percent destruction efficiency. Further,

the EPA judged the conditions of the

test program to be universally

applicable under the specifications

contained in these amendments.

Therefore, this notice provides the

background and rationale for this action

to add specifications for hydrogenfueled flares to the existing flare

specifications.

This notice is being published as a

direct final notice since the EPA does

not anticipate relevant adverse

comments. For the reasons discussed in

this notice, the EPA believes that

hydrogen-fueled flares meeting the

operating specification in this

amendment will achieve the same

control efficiency, i.e., 98 percent or

greater, as flares complying with the

existing flare specifications. Further,

these specifications will result in

reduced emissions of carbon monoxide,

nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide

formed during the combustion of

supplemental fuel necessary for

hydrogen-fueled flares to comply with

existing regulations. By promulgating

these amendments some companies

using hydrogen-fueled flares can, as of

the effective date of this amendment,

reduce supplemental fuel use resulting

in cost savings and reduced emissions.

A. Existing Flare Specifications

Flares are commonly used in industry

to safely combust VOC and volatile

HAP. Flares can accommodate

fluctuations in VOC or volatile HAP

concentrations, flow rate, heating value,

and inerts content. Further, flares are

appropriate for continuous and

intermittent flow applications. Some

organic emission streams can be flared

without the need for supplemental fuel.

However, the use of supplemental

organic fuel such as natural gas to

ensure the complete combustion of

emissions is common.

The EPA determined the destruction

efficiency of flares combusting organic

emissions in the early 1980’s and

developed the existing flare

specifications as a result of this work.

The testing was conducted with a

nominal 8-inch diameter flare head

furnished by a vendor (Docket No. A–

97–48, Item No. I–II–12) and pilot-scale

flares (Docket No. A–97–48, Item No. I–

II–5). From destruction efficiency

testing under a wide variety of

velocities, gas compositions, tip

diameters, air and steam assistance, and

the presence or absence of a pilot

burner, it was concluded that the

destruction efficiency of flares was

above 98 percent when operated within

the conditions of the flare

specifications. These specifications list

the minimum heat content of the flame

(British thermal units per standard

cubic feet of gas, or Btu/scf), and the tip

velocity (feet per second, or ft/s)

allowed for steam-assisted, air-assisted

and nonassisted flares.

B. DuPont’s Request for Specifications

for Hydrogen-Fueled Flares

DuPont operates six flares at three

facilities which are used to combust

waste gases containing hydrogen (from

13 to 22 mol percent), VOC and volatile

HAP. These waste streams also contain

other combustible waste gases, inerts,

and oxygen. All of DuPont’s hydrogenfueled flares are nonassisted and use

pilot burners.

The concentrations of the combustible

gases are low, and since the heating

value of hydrogen per unit of volume is

low, the DuPont emission streams have

lower volumetric heat contents than the

streams of flares meeting the existing

flare specifications. Because DuPont’s

six flares do not meet the existing flare

specifications, and three of these flares

are used to control emissions for HAP

sources currently subject to NESHAP,

DuPont initiated a process to

demonstrate that their hydrogen-fueled

flares achieve the same destruction

efficiency as flares complying with the

existing flare specifications. DuPont

began the process by investigating the

literature on hydrogen-fueled flares

(Docket No. A–97–48, Item No. II–I–2).

The objective of this investigation was

to find any data that may exist in earlier

hydrogen-fueled flare test reports that

would support their assertion that

hydrogen-fueled flares achieve a control

efficiency for VOC and volatile HAP of

98 percent or greater. The investigation

concluded that no such historical data

exist.

At this point, DuPont wrote a letter to

the EPA, discussed in the introduction

to this section, asking the EPA to

consider either adding specific limits for

hydrogen-fueled flares to the existing

specifications, or approving their

hydrogen-fueled flares as an alternate

means of emission limitation. DuPont

stated that they would provide testing to

support this request, and the EPA’s

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards (OAQPS) and Office or

Research and Development (ORD)

agreed to review their test plan, observe

testing and review the test report.
24438 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

II. DuPont Test Program for HydrogenFueled Flares

A. Summary of Earlier Relevant

Hydrogen-Fueled Flares Tests

There has been previous testing of

hydrogen-fueled flares. In 1970, a study

was conducted to evaluate the stability

of hydrogen-fueled flares (Docket No.

A–97–48, Item No. II–I–6). In this study

the velocity gradient and the volume

percent hydrogen were correlated with

the observation of blow out (i.e., when

the flame is completely extinguished)

for diffusion flares with hydrogen

concentrations in the 50 to 100 volumepercent range. The velocity gradient is

defined as the change in velocity at the

boundary of the fuel and air. A critical

velocity gradient for a given volumepercent of hydrogen was identified,

above which the flame was unstable.

The significance of this study was that

the stability of hydrogen-rich flares (i.e.,

50 to 100 volume-percent) was able to

be predicted by calculating the velocity

gradient. Another study was conducted

in 1984 (Docket No. A–97–48, Item No.

II–I–9), where the velocity gradient and

predictions of flame stability were

investigated, but in the range of

hydrogen concentrations from 4 to 75

volume-percent hydrogen. However,

data were not collected in these tests

sufficient to determine destruction

efficiencies.

B. Objectives of the DuPont Test

Program

The primary objective of DuPont’s

hydrogen-fueled flare testing program

was to demonstrate that the hydrogenfueled flares used at their facilities were

achieving a volatile HAP and VOC

destruction efficiency equal to or greater

than that of flares meeting the existing

flare specifications. Specific technical

objectives to support this primary

objective were:

(1) To determine the limits of velocity

and hydrogen content within which

hydrogen-fueled flares are stable, and;

(2) To measure the destruction

efficiencies of a surrogate for HAP under

conditions corresponding to those in

industrial hydrogen-fueled flares.

C. Design and Implementation of

DuPont Test Program

The results of the testing program

form the basis of these flare

specification amendments. The testing

program used a nominal 3-inch pipe

flare with a hood and a stack suspended

over the flare to capture the plume.

Stability and destruction efficiency tests

were performed on the test flare.

The first portion of the testing

consisted of stability testing. To

determine the flare’s stability limit, a

stable flame was first established, then

the hydrogen flow rate was slowly

reduced while holding the tip velocity

constant. Hydrogen readings were

recorded when the flame lifted off, and

again when the flame completely blew

out. This procedure was repeated at

different tip velocities in the 16 to 130

ft/s range, for flares with and without

pilot burners.

The destruction efficiency of the flare

was tested at high gas velocities and

hydrogen contents in the stable range.

The gases in the waste gas stream and

in the hood stack were sampled and

analyzed for concentrations of the

compound chosen as a surrogate for

HAP. Since the surrogate is a VOC this

destruction efficiency also demonstrates

the destruction efficiency of VOC.

Destruction efficiencies were then

calculated from these results.

D. Results of the Test Program

1. Flare Stability

The measurements of the hydrogen

volume percent at lift off and blow out

for the piloted and unpiloted nominal 3-

inch (2.9 inch inner diameter) pipe flare

are shown in Figure 1 as a function of

velocity. Because the hydrogen content

at lift off was essentially the same for

flares with and without a pilot burner,

a single line was fit to the data sets of

lift off measurements for piloted and

unpiloted flares, this is represented by

the upper curve in Figure 1. The data

point in the far upper right corner of the

figure is an unexplained outlier that is

inconsistent with all other data points

and was excluded from the linear

regression analysis of the lift off data

set. The middle and lower curves in

Figure 1 are the blow out curves without

and with a pilot, respectively.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 24439

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
24440 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

2. Destruction Efficiency

The measured mean destruction

efficiencies and destruction efficiencies

at the 95 percent confidence level are

shown in Figure 1. All the

measurements of destruction

efficiencies at conditions more stable

than lift off were above 99 percent.

Further, control efficiencies greater than

98 percent were found at hydrogen

contents below the lift off curve.

III. Rationale

A. The Need for Specifications for

Hydrogen-Fueled Flares

The EPA is taking this action to

amend 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11

since the EPA sees the need to permit

the use of hydrogen-fueled flares to

meet the EPA control requirements. As

discussed below, hydrogen has a lower

heat content than organics commonly

combusted in flares meeting the existing

flare specifications and cannot,

therefore, be used to satisfy current

control requirements. However, since

the combustion of hydrogen is different

than the combustion of organics, and

the test report demonstrates a

destruction efficiency greater than 98

percent, the EPA believes that

hydrogen-fueled flares meeting the

specifications outlined in the

amendments will achieve a control

efficiency of 98 percent or greater. This

level of control is equivalent to the level

of control achieved by flares meeting the

existing specifications. In addition to

achieving the same destruction

efficiency of VOC or organic HAP, the

adoption of these amendments has the

added advantage of reducing the

formation of secondary pollutants; since

the combustion of supplemental fuel

would not be required by hydrogenfueled flares to meet the existing flare

specifications.

1. The Heat Content of Hydrogen

The heat content of a substance is a

measure of the amount of energy stored

within the bonds between atoms in each

molecule of the substance. Hydrogen is

a simple molecule consisting of two

hydrogen atoms held together by weak,

hydrogen bonds, thus resulting in a low

heat content. In comparison, organic

chemicals are larger chains (or rings) of

carbons with hydrogens and other atoms

attached to them. These molecules are

held together with a combination of

ionic, covalent and hydrogen bonds,

which contain substantially more

energy (i.e., higher heat content) than

the hydrogen bond in the hydrogen

molecule.

2. The Difference in Combustion

Between Hydrogen and Organics

The first phenomenon to explain the

difference in combustion between

hydrogen and organics is related to the

thermodynamics of the combustion

reaction. In order for the hydrogen atom

to react in the combustion/oxidation

reaction, the weak hydrogen bond

between the two hydrogen atoms must

first be broken. Because there is less

energy holding the hydrogen atoms

together, less energy (heat) is required to

separate them. Once the hydrogen

bonds are broken, the hydrogen atoms

are free to react in the combustion

reaction.

The second phenomenon explaining

the difference in combustion between

hydrogen and organics is due to

hydrogen’s upper and lower

flammability limits. The flammability

limits are the minimum (lower) and

maximum (upper) percentages of the

fuel in a fuel-air mixture that can

propagate a self-sustaining flame. The

lower and upper flammability limits of

hydrogen are 4.0 and 74.2 percent,

respectively, which is the second widest

range of lower and upper limits of

substances typically combusted in flares

(Docket No. A–97–48, Item No. II–I–2).

The third phenomenon explaining the

difference in combustion between

hydrogen and organics is the relative

difference in diffusivity between

hydrogen and organics in air. Diffusivity

refers to how easily molecules of one

substance mix with molecules of

another. Further, the quicker the fuel

and air in a flare mix, the quicker the

combustion reaction occurs. The

measure of how quickly a substance

mixes with another substances is

expressed in terms of the diffusivity

coefficient. The larger the diffusivity

coefficient, the quicker the mixing. The

diffusivity coefficient for the mixture of

hydrogen and air is an order of

magnitude higher than those for the

mixture of air and volatile HAP with

readily available diffusivity coefficients.

Therefore, hydrogen is more diffuse in

air compared to organics and more

quickly enters the flammability range

than organics.

B. Use of DuPont Test Results as the

Basis for Hydrogen-Fueled Flare

Specifications

These tests were conducted by

DuPont primarily for their flaring

conditions. However, after reviewing

the test plan, observing the testing, and

thoroughly reviewing the test report

supplied by DuPont, the EPA concluded

that the test results were applicable to

all nonassisted flares with a hydrogen

content of 8.0 percent (by volume) or

greater, and a diameter of 3 inches or

greater. The EPA believes that the test

results are universally applicable since

all the effective data points

demonstrated a destruction efficiency

greater than 98 percent, with the

majority achieving greater than 99

percent destruction. Therefore, if the

test flare can achieve these destruction

efficiencies, then the EPA expects

industrial flares meeting the flare

specifications in these amendments to

achieve a destruction efficiency of 98

percent or greater.

In selecting the conditions under

which the pilot flare testing was to be

conducted and interpreting the results

of the testing, a ‘‘conservative’’ decision

was made for each choice, that is the

condition that would most likely assure

that a full-scale flare would achieve at

least as high and possibly higher

destruction efficiency was chosen. This

approach applied to the selection of

flare tip design, flare tip diameter, pilot

burner heat input, and characteristics of

the surrogate for HAP for destruction

testing. It also applied to the evaluation

of stability testing and destruction

efficiency results, as well as the

selection of operating limits applying to

hydrogen concentration and tip

discharge velocity.

1. The Selection of the Flare Type

A nonassisted, plain-tip flare was

used in the testing program because all

of DuPont’s flares are nonassisted. A

nonassisted flare is a flare tip without

any auxiliary provision for enhancing

the mixing of air into its flame. The

plain-tip means no tabs or other devices

to redistribute flow were added to the

rim of the flare. Because the presence of

tabs improves the stability of the flare

by channeling the flare’s flow and

improving mixing of fuel and air, it was

concluded that the lack of tabs (i.e.,

plain tip) would result in the least stable

test conditions.

2. The Comparison of the Selected Flare

with the Existing Flare Specifications

A 3-inch flare was selected for the

emission test since this was the same

size flare used for the testing to establish

the basis for the existing flare

specifications in 40 CFR 60.18 and 40

CFR 63.11. Stability tests were

conducted using propane to determine

if the flare was operating properly and

could meet the existing flare

specifications. Test results

demonstrated that this flare was stable

when it was expected to be stable and

not stable when it was not expected to

be (i.e., as indicated by the existing flare

specifications).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 24441

3. The Size of the Test Flare

Another reason for using the 3-inch

flare for these tests is because a 3-inch

flare is small, relative to the size of

flares in industry (as a point of

reference, the DuPont flares are 16 to 48

inches in diameter). Research indicates

that smaller flares are less stable than

larger flares (Docket No. A–97–48, Item

No. II–I–1, Sec 4, page 6). Specifically,

the physical parameter known as the

velocity gradient can be used to predict

when a flame will blow out by plotting

the velocity gradient versus the volumepercent hydrogen. The larger the

boundary velocity gradient, the more

unstable the flame. Further, the velocity

gradient is inversely proportional to the

diameter of the pipe. Therefore, at a

given velocity, the larger the pipe, the

smaller the boundary velocity, and the

more stable the flame. The EPA

concludes that if a stable flame can be

maintained with a smaller flare pipe,

then a larger flare would be expected to

be stable at lower hydrogen

concentrations and higher velocities.

Therefore, the EPA believes that 3-inch

or larger flares that meet these

specifications will have destruction

efficiencies as high or higher than those

obtained from the 3-inch pipe flares.

4. The Selection of the Size of the Pilot

Burner

The amount of heat input from the

pilots on DuPont’s full-scale hydrogenfueled flares are in the range from 0.05

to 0.6 percent of the total heat input to

the flares. A venturi burner turned

down to approximately one third of its

9,000 Btu/hr capacity was used for the

tests described in this document, and

the heat input was equal to 0.3 to 0.6

percent of the pilot flare’s total heat

input during the stability and

destruction efficiency tests. Therefore,

the heat input from the pilot during the

tests was comparable to the heat input

for the full-scale flares operated by

DuPont.

The relatively small proportion of

heat input from the venturi burner

compared to the total heat input to the

test flare would not be expected to have

a significant effect on either the stability

or destruction efficiency results,

because this amount of heat is

insignificant compared to the flare’s

total heat content. Also, the use of a

pilot burner is consistent with EPA’s

flare specification which requires that

the pilot flame be present at all times.

5. The Selection of Ethylene as the

Surrogate for HAP to be used in the

testing

For this study it was desired to select

a surrogate for HAP that was more

difficult to destroy than the volatile

HAP present in the large scale flare

waste streams, and which could be

measured at a concentration of 10 parts

per billion by volume and higher. In

general, the difficulty of destruction for

organics increases as the molecular

weight decreases, but the limit of

detection decreases as the molecular

weight decreases. It is obvious then that

there may be some compromise

necessary in selecting a surrogate for

HAP.

In order to compare the relative

difficulty to destroy various species, a

linear multiple regression model was

used that calculates a destruction

temperature using parameters

describing the molecular structure,

autoignition temperature, and residence

time as inputs to the model. The

destruction temperatures obtained are

theoretical temperatures for plug flow

reactors to achieve specified destruction

allowing a comparison to be made

among various chemical species to

estimate relative destructibility (Docket

No. A–97–48, Item No. II–I–14). As a

first step the destruction temperatures

were calculated for all the chemical

species that were identified as present

in DuPont’s full-scale flare waste

streams. The next step was to calculate

destruction temperatures for the

surrogates for HAP under consideration.

(The results from this analysis are

presented in Tables 4–3 and Table 4–4

of Docket Item II–I–14).

In comparing the model’s destruction

temperature estimates for candidate

surrogates for HAP present in DuPont’s

flare streams, the best choice as a

surrogate was methane, but the

detection limit was too high to be

accepted for the field study. The next

choice was methanol but not only is the

detection limit high, it is a HAP and it

is also a liquid at ambient temperatures,

presenting handling difficulties. The

next candidate considered was ethylene

which was selected for the study. It has

a higher destruction temperature than

all the organic HAP in the study, except

methanol, and has an acceptable limit of

detection. Therefore, the most difficult

to destroy substance was chosen for the

study that was feasible to use.

6. The Criteria for a Stable Flame

The hydrogen content reported when

lift off was first observed was selected

as the criterion for a stable flame,

because it was easy and precise to

identify. The EPA concluded that this

was a conservative estimate for the

stability limit because destruction

efficiencies greater than 98 percent were

noted even for hydrogen contents below

the lift off level.

Another reason why the EPA

concluded that lift off was a

conservative criterion for a stable flame

was based on a correlation between the

stability ratio and the destruction

efficiency observed in earlier flare

testing conducted in the 1980’s (Docket

No. A–97–48, Item No. II–I–5). At that

time it was demonstrated that the

destruction efficiencies were directly

proportional to the ratio of the flare gas

heating value to the minimum heating

value for flame stability (i.e., stability

ratio). Regardless of the substance being

combusted, it was observed that the

destruction efficiency plateaued to

greater than 98 percent destruction

when the stability ratio was above

approximately 1.2. For this test

program, the destruction efficiency

versus the ratio of actual hydrogen to

hydrogen at lift off (analogous with the

stability ratio, and referred to as the

hydrogen ratio) was plotted for this test

program. The curve of the data was

similar to those obtained from the flare

test programs in the 1980’s. Three data

points demonstrated that at stability

ratios below 1.0, with the lowest

stability ratio of 0.955, destruction

efficiencies greater than 98 percent were

achieved. Since the amendments for

these flare specifications require a

stability ratio of 1.0 or greater, it is

assumed that a 98 percent or greater

destruction efficiency will be achieved.

7. The Operating Parameters Used for

Testing the Destruction Efficiency (i.e.,

Hydrogen Content and Flare Tip

Velocity)

The destruction efficiency of ethylene

for the hydrogen-fueled flares was tested

at high tip velocities (i.e., approximately

100 to 120 ft/sec) because this is the

velocity range expected to produce

lower destruction efficiencies.

Therefore, if acceptable destruction

efficiencies are observed at high tip

velocities, then at least as high or even

higher destruction efficiencies are

expected at lower tip velocities.

The expectation to observe decreased

destruction efficiency at high tip

velocities is explained by two

phenomena. The first phenomenon is

due to the increased fuel flow. The

increased volume of fuel flow entrains

more air, and more eddies are formed at

the boundary between the fuel and the

air. These eddies tend to strip off some

of the gases’ flow, even before the flame

is able to combust the substances, so

uncombusted or incompletely

combusted substances may be lost to the

ambient air.

Another phenomenon explaining the

expectation of decreased destruction

efficiency at increased tip velocities
24442 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

results from comparisons of stability

ratios at different tip velocities. For this

test program the ratio of the hydrogen

content at lift off to the hydrogen

content at blow out with a pilot was

used as an analogous ratio to the

previously mentioned stability ratio.

Further, the value of hydrogen at blow

out was used as the minimum hydrogen

content, since at essentially this level of

hydrogen, the destruction efficiencies

were above 98 percent for tip velocities

of 100 and 120 ft/sec. The DuPont test

program’s data revealed a trend where

the hydrogen ratios were lower at higher

velocities compared to lower tip

velocities, 1.15 to 1.17 versus 1.3,

respectively. Since the test programs in

the 1980’s demonstrated that the

destruction efficiency is directly

proportional to the stability ratio, then

it could be expected that the same or

higher destruction efficiencies would be

experienced at lower tip velocities

where the hydrogen ratios are larger.

C. Selection of the Specifications for

Hydrogen-Fueled Flares

The operating specification for

hydrogen-fueled flares in these

amendments is the maximum tip

velocity for a given hydrogen content,

from the equation of the line fitting the

data from the stability testing at lift off

conditions as seen in Figure 1. The

equation in these amendments comes

directly from the test report. This

equation is presented in the appropriate

form in Section IV of this preamble with

the units changed to metric.

There are safety requirements that

must be carefully considered for all flare

installations, and this is the case for the

user of these hydrogen-fueled flare

amendments. As an example, if the

discharge velocity is too low under

certain conditions, the flame could

propagate back into the process with

potentially catastrophic results. These

amendments only specify a maximum

discharge velocity for the purpose of

assuring efficient destruction of

pollutants in waste streams and do not

address any aspect of safe operation.

The user of any EPA flare specifications

should carefully consider all features of

this application, not just the limitation

on maximum discharge velocity, and

implement all necessary measures to

assure a safe operation. Safe operating

conditions are always the responsibility

of the owner/operator at each facility to

assure that all applicable safety

requirements are adhered to whether

they are company, consensus and/or

governmental requirements.

The EPA did not think that

extrapolating the data outside the range

of values tested to be prudent; therefore,

the hydrogen-fueled flare specifications

have been restricted to the confines of

the conditions used for the test program.

The following restrictions are included

in the hydrogen-fueled flare

specifications:

1. Nonassisted Flares

The amendments are applicable to

only nonassisted flares because that is

the only type of flare tested for these

amendments.

2. Continuous Flame

The existing flare specifications

require the presence of a continuous

flame where reliable ignition is obtained

by continuous pilot burners designed

for stability. To ensure that the pilot is

continuously lit, a flame detection

device is required. These amendments

incorporate the same requirements for

the same reason, to ensure flame

stability.

3. Minimum Flare Diameter

The testing was conducted on 3-inch

flares, therefore this is the minimum

flare diameter for the amendments.

4. Minimum Hydrogen Content

The minimum hydrogen content in

the gas streams tested was rounded to

the nearest whole number, 8.0 volume

percent, and set as the defining

minimum hydrogen concentration

cutoff for a hydrogen-fueled flare.

5. Maximum Tip Velocity

The maximum tip velocity was set at

37.2 m/sec (122 ft/s), because that was

the highest tip velocity tested.

6. Flame Stabilizers

Flame stabilizers (often called flame

holders) are allowed because stability

and destruction efficiency testing was

conducted without them, so if these tabs

stabilize the flame even better mixing,

and potentially greater destruction

efficiencies can be achieved.

7. Minimum Flare Tip Velocity

A minimum flare tip velocity was not

listed since evidence indicates that

performance will not be diminished due

to lower tip velocities (See the

preceding discussion concerning safety

responsibilities).

D. Decision To Proceed With Direct

Final Rulemaking

This notice is being published as a

direct final notice since the EPA does

not anticipate relevant adverse

comments. For the reasons discussed in

this notice, the EPA believes that

hydrogen-fueled flares meeting the

operating specification in this

amendment will achieve the same

control efficiency, i.e., 98 percent or

greater, as flares complying with the

existing flare specifications. Further,

these specifications will result in

reduced emissions of carbon monoxide,

nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide

formed during the combustion of

supplemental fuel necessary for

hydrogen-fueled flares to comply with

existing regulations. By promulgating

these amendments some companies

using hydrogen-fueled flares can, as of

the effective date of this amendment,

reduce supplemental fuel use resulting

in cost savings and reduced emissions.

IV. Summary of the Amendments to the

Flare Specifications

The amendments to the flare

specifications add requirements for

nonassisted flares that combust 8.0

percent (by volume) or greater of

hydrogen in the stream and have a 3-

inch or greater diameter. The

amendments present an equation that

calculates the maximum allowable flare

tip velocity for a given volume percent

of hydrogen. This equation format is

similar to the one used for air-assisted

flares in the existing flare specifications.

The specific equation for the maximum

tip velocity for hydrogen-fueled flares

is:

Vmax=(XH2—K1)* K2

Where:

Vmax=Maximum permitted velocity, m/

sec.

K1=Constant, 6.0 volume-percent

hydrogen.

K2=Constant, 3.9(m/sec)/volumepercent hydrogen.

XH2=The volume-percent of hydrogen,

on a wet basis, as calculated by

using the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM)

Method D1946–77.

This direct final rule adds

specifications for hydrogen-fueled flares

to both 40 CFR 60.18 and 63.11. The

amendments to the General Provisions

for NSPS are contained in 40 CFR 60.18.

In addition, 40 CFR 60.18 (c)(4)(i) was

revised to correct an earlier published

typographical error. The amendments to

the General Provisions for NESHAP are

contained in 40 CFR 63.11(b)(9). 40 CFR

63.11(b)(8) was also revised to make the

number of significant figures consistent

throughout the specifications.

IV. Impacts

The impacts discussed in this section

are only for six DuPont flares that are

required by current or pending EPA

regulations to meet the existing flare

specifications. The EPA does not have

information, and cannot estimate
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 24443

impacts for other hydrogen-fueled flares

in the United States. Therefore, the

following estimates are limited to these

six DuPont flares.

A. Primary Air Impacts

The amended flare specifications will

reduce emissions by the same amount

(i.e., 98 percent or greater) as emissions

would be reduced by using flares

meeting the existing flare specifications.

B. Other Environmental Impacts

The Agency estimates that these

amendments to the flare specifications

will reduce secondary emissions of

pollutants since the combustion of

supplemental organic fuel will no

longer be required; therefore, there will

be no emissions resulting from the

combustion of a supplemental fuel. It is

estimated that these flare specification

amendments will reduce annual

emissions from the six affected DuPont

flares by 147 megagrams (161 tons per

year) of criteria pollutants (i.e., 124

megagrams (136 tons per year) of carbon

monoxide, and 22.7 megagrams (25 tons

per year) of nitrogen oxides) and 39,900

megagrams (44,000 tons per year) of

carbon dioxide.

In addition to these secondary

emission reductions, there may also be

State regulations that require owners/

operators to follow the existing flare

specifications, and by allowing the

owners/operators to meet the

specifications in these amendments,

there may be further reductions in

secondary air emissions. Therefore,

these impacts are a minimal estimate of

the potential secondary air emission

reductions.

C. Energy Impacts

These amendments to the flare

specifications are expected to decrease

the amount of energy used by DuPont’s

six hydrogen-fueled flares since these

flares will no longer be required to

combust secondary fuel. The expected

energy savings is estimated to be 7.75 ×

108 cubic feet of natural gas annually

(7.75 × 1011 Btu/yr) .

D. Cost and Economic Impacts

Cost savings will be realized due to

these amendments by not requiring the

combustion of supplemental fuel (to

comply with the original heat content

requirements), and by not requiring the

subsequent resizing of the existing flares

that would result from a requirement to

combust supplemental fuel in order to

accommodate the additional flow of

supplemental fuel. The cost of natural

gas as supplemental fuel for the six

affected flares is estimated to be $2.8

million per year. The capital investment

to replace a smaller flare tip with a

larger one is estimated to be

approximately $667,000 per flare or $4

million for all six flares. The total

annual savings achieved by allowing

hydrogen-fueled flares that fulfill the

specifications of these amendments are

the sum of the annual fuel cost savings,

and the annualization of the capital

savings (calculated to be $280,000 per

year). Therefore, total annual savings for

the six affected DuPont flares are

estimated to be $3.08 million per year.

Since sources using these hydrogenfueled flare specifications will

experience savings, no adverse

economic impacts will result from this

action.

E. Summary of Impacts

This section discussed the cost

savings, emission reduction of

secondary pollutants, and energy

savings from only the six DuPont flares

subject to current or pending

regulations. These flare specification

amendments have the potential to

reduce emissions and save money and

fuel from hydrogen-fueled flares of

which the EPA is not yet aware.

VI. Administrative

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any

information collection subject to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.

B. Executive Order 12866 Review

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993) the Agency

must determine whether the 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 result in 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, or

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.

It has been determined that these

amendments are not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under the terms of

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore,

are not subject to review by the Office

of Management and Budget.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this final rule. EPA has also determined

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, because this

rule imposes no additional regulatory

requirements, but merely expands the

types of flares that may be used to meet

the requirements of 40 CFR 60 and 40

CFR 63.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final standards that include a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector, of,

in the aggregate, $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 standard 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 standards.

The EPA has determined that the final

standards do not include a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs of, in the aggregate, $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

nor do the standards significantly or

uniquely impact small governments,

because they contain no requirements

that apply to such governments or

impose obligations upon them.

Therefore, the requirements of the

Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to

this final rule.

E. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General
24444 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference.

40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Incorporation by reference.

Dated: April 17, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 60—STANDARDS OF

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW

STATIONARY SOURCES

1. The authority citation for part 60

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414,

7416, 7429, 7601 and 7607.

Subpart A—General Provisions

2. Section 60.17 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(6) to read as

follows:

§ 60.17 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(6) ASTM D1946–77, Standard

Method for Analysis of Reformed Gas by

Gas Chromatography, IBR approved for

§§ 60.45(f)(5)(i), 60.18(c)(3)(i), 60.18(f),

60.614(d)(2)(ii), 60.614(d)(4),

60.664(d)(2)(ii), 60.664(d)(4), 60.564(f),

60.704(d)(2)(ii) and 60.704(d)(4).

* * * * *

3. Section 60.18 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4)(i),

and by adding paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and

(c)(3)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 60.18 General control device

requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) An owner/operator has the choice

of adhering to either the heat content

specifications in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of

this section and the maximum tip

velocity specifications in paragraph

(c)(4) of this section, or adhering to the

requirements in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of

this section.

(i)(A) Flares shall be used that have a

diameter of 3 inches or greater, are

nonassisted, have a hydrogen content of

8.0 percent (by volume), or greater, and

are designed for and operated with an

exit velocity less than 37.2 m/sec (122

ft/sec) and less than the velocity, Vmax,

as determined by the following

equation:

Vmax=(XH2¥K1)* K2

Where:

Vmax=Maximum permitted velocity, m/

sec.

K1=Constant, 6.0 volume-percent

hydrogen.

K2=Constant, 3.9(m/sec)/volumepercent hydrogen.

XH2=The volume-percent of hydrogen,

on a wet basis, as calculated by

using the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM)

Method D1946–77. (Incorporated by

reference as specified in § 60.17).

(B) The actual exit velocity of a flare

shall be determined by the method

specified in paragraph (f)(4) of this

section.

(ii) Flares shall be used only with the

net heating value of the gas being

combusted being 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/

scf) or greater if the flare is steamassisted or air-assisted; or with the net

heating value of the gas being

combusted being 7.45 MJ/scm (200 Btu/

scf) or greater if the flare is nonassisted.

The net heating value of the gas being

combusted shall be determined by the

methods specified in paragraph (f)(3) of

this section.

(4)(i) Steam-assisted and nonassisted

flares shall be designed for and operated

with an exit velocity, as determined by

the methods specified in paragraph

(f)(4) of this section, less than 18.3 m/

sec (60 ft/sec), except as provided in

paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) and (iii) of this

section.

* * * * *

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, 7411, 7412,

7414, 7416, 7429, 7601 and 7607.

Subpart A—General Provisions

2. Section 63.11 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(8),

and by adding paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and

(b)(6)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 63.11 Control device requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) An owner/operator has the choice

of adhering to the heat content

specifications in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of

this section, and the maximum tip

velocity specifications in paragraph

(b)(7) or (b)(8) of this section, or

adhering to the requirements in

paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section.

(i)(A) Flares shall be used that have a

diameter of 3 inches or greater, are

nonassisted, have a hydrogen content of

8.0 percent (by volume) or greater, and

are designed for and operated with an

exit velocity less than 37.2 m/sec (122

ft/sec) and less than the velocity Vmax,

as determined by the following

equation:

Vmax=(XH2¥K1)* K2

Where:

Vmax=Maximum permitted velocity, m/

sec.

K1=Constant, 6.0 volume-percent

hydrogen.

K2=Constant, 3.9(m/sec)/volumepercent hydrogen.

XH2=The volume-percent of hydrogen,

on a wet basis, as calculated by

using the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM)

Method D1946–77. (Incorporated by

reference as specified in § 63.14).

(B) The actual exit velocity of a flare

shall be determined by the method

specified in paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this

section.

(ii) Flares shall be used only with the

net heating value of the gas being

combusted at 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/scf)

or greater if the flare is steam-assisted or

air-assisted; or with the net heating

value of the gas being combusted at 7.45

M/scm (200 Btu/scf) or greater if the

flares is non-assisted. The net heating

value of the gas being combusted in a

flare shall be calculated using the

following equation:

H K C H T i i

i

n

=

=

∑

1

Where:

HT=Net heating value of the sample,

MJ/scm; where the net enthalpy per

mole of offgas is based on combustion

at 25 °C and 760 mm Hg, but the

standard temperature for determining

the volume corresponding to one mole

is 20 °C.

K=Constant=

1 740 10 7 1 . × 



 





















−

ppmv

g-mole

scm

MJ

kcal

where the standard temperature for (gmole/scm) is 20 °C.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 24445

Ci=Concentration of sample component

i in ppmv on a wet basis, as

measured for organics by Test

Method 18 and measured for

hydrogen and carbon monoxide by

American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) D1946–77

(incorporated by reference as

specified in § 63.14).

Hi=Net heat of combustion of sample

component i, kcal/g-mole at 25 °C

and 760 mm Hg. The heats of

combustion may be determined

using ASTM D2382–76

(incorporated by reference as

specified in § 63.14) if published

values are not available or cannot

be calculated.

n=Number of sample components.

* * * * *

(8) Air-assisted flares shall be

designed and operated with an exit

velocity less than the velocity Vmax. The

maximum permitted velocity, Vmax, for

air-assisted flares shall be determined

by the following equation:

Vmax=8.71 + 0.708(HT)

Where:

Vmax=Maximum permitted velocity, m/

sec.

8.71=Constant.

0.708=Constant.

HT=The net heating value as determined

in paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this

section.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–11262 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[FRL–598–6]

Technical Amendments to Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Texas; Revised

Geographical Designation of Certain

Air Quality Control Regions;

Correction of Effective Date Under

Congressional Review Act (CRA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; correction of

effective date under CRA.

SUMMARY: On June 3, 1997 (62 FR

30270), the Environmental Protection

Agency published in the Federal

Register a direct final rule approving a

July 2, 1993, request by the Governor of

Texas to revise the geographical

boundaries of seven Air Quality Control

Regions (AQCRs) in the State of Texas

to conform with the Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission

(TNRCC) regional boundaries, which

established an effective date of August

4, 1997. This document corrects the

effective date of the rule to May 4, 1998

to be consistent with sections 801 and

808 of the Congressional Review Act

(CRA), enacted as part of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 and 808.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

May 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Eagles, Office of Air, at (202) 260–

5585.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 801 of the CRA precludes a

rule from taking effect until the agency

promulgating the rule submits a rule

report, which includes a copy of the

rule, to each House of Congress and to

the Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office (GAO). EPA recently

discovered that it had inadvertently

failed to submit the above rule as

required; thus, although the rule was

promulgated on the date stated in the

June 3, 1997, Federal Register

document, by operation of law, the rule

did not take effect on August 4, 1997,

as stated therein. Now that EPA has

discovered its error, the rule has been

submitted both Houses of Congress and

the GAO. This document amends the

effective date of the rule consistent with

the provisions of the CRA.

Section 553 of the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),

provides that, when an agency for good

cause finds that notice and public

procedure are impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to the public

interest, an agency may issue a rule

without providing notice and an

opportunity for public comment. EPA

has determined that there is good cause

for making today’s rule final without

prior proposal and opportunity for

comment because EPA merely is

correcting the effective date of the

promulgated rule to be consistent with

the congressional review requirements

of the Congressional Review Act as a

matter of law and has no discretion in

this matter. Thus, notice and public

procedure are unnecessary. The Agency

finds that this constitutes good cause

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Moreover,

since today’s action does not create any

new regulatory requirements and

affected parties have known of the

underlying rule since June 3 1997, EPA

finds that good cause exists to provide

for an immediate effective date pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and 808(2).

II. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

is therefore not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. In

addition, this action does not impose

any enforceable duty or contain any

unfunded mandate as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4), or require prior

consultation with State officials as

specified by Executive Order 12875 (58

FR 58093, October 28, 1993), or involve

special consideration of environmental

justice related issues as required by

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994). Because this action

is not subject to notice-and-comment

requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute, it is

not subject to the regulatory flexibility

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act ( 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). EPA’s

compliance with these statutes and

Executives Orders for the underlying

rule is discussed in the June 3, 1997,

Federal Register document.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as

added by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

will submit a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office; however, in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 808(2), this rule is effective on

May 4, 1998. This rule is not a ‘‘major

rule’’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This final rule only amends the

effective date of the underlying rule; it

does not amend any substantive

requirements contained in the rule.

Accordingly, to the extent it is available,

judicial review is limited to the

amended effective date.

Dated: April 22, 1998.

Carol Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–11544 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[FRL–5987–9]

Technical Amendments to Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; State of New Jersey;

Correction of Effective Date Under

Congressional Review Act (CRA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).