31358 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

or if an emergency situation occurs.

This temporary deviation is issued to

allow for the replacement of the shim

plates on the center locks and replacing

the electric brake system with a new

hydraulic system and additional

maintenance as required.

DATES: This deviation is effective from

8:30 a.m. on June 8, 1998 through 3 p.m.

on July 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. David Frank, Bridge Administration

Branch, Commander (ob), Eighth Coast

Guard District, 501 Magazine Street,

New Orleans, LA, 70130–3396,

telephone number 504–589–2965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The US 90

bascule drawbridge across the Back Bay

of Biloxi between Biloxi and Ocean

Springs, Harrison and Jackson Counties,

Mississippi has a vertical clearance of

35.9 feet above mean high water,

elevation 1.8 feet Mean Sea Level, in the

closed-to-navigation position and

unlimited clearance in the open-tonavigation position. Navigation on the

waterway consists of tugs with tows,

fishing vessels, sailing vessels, and

other recreational craft. Presently, as set

out in 33 CFR 117.765, the draw opens

on signal except that from 6:30 a.m. to

7:05 a.m., 7:20 a.m. to 8:05 a.m., 4 p.m.

to 4:45 p.m., and 4:55 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Monday through Friday except

holidays, the draw need not open for the

passage of vessels.

The Mississippi Department of

Transportation requested a temporary

deviation from the normal operation of

the bridge in order to accommodate

maintenance work. The maintenance

work consists of replacing existing

center span locks with new shim plates,

replacing the electric brake system with

a new hydraulic system, restoring the

auxiliary drive system, realignment of

the bridge, replacing worn oil seals and

installation of new power supply

conduit and cables. This work is

essential for the continued operation of

the draw span. The request was

reviewed by the Marine Safety Office in

Mobile, Alabama, and it does not appear

that the requested deviation will have a

major impact on local vessel traffic.

This District Commander has,

therefore, issued a deviation from the

regulations in 33 CFR 117.765

authorizing the bridge to remain closed

from 8:30 a.m. until noon and from

12:30 p.m. until 3 p.m., Monday

through Friday from June 8, until July

1, 1998. Additionally, the bridge will be

closed to navigation daily from 12:01

a.m. to 5 a.m. from June 22, until June

26, 1998.

Dated: May 29, 1998.

A.L. Gerfin, Jr.,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting

Commander, 8th Coast Guard Dist.

[FR Doc. 98–15282 Filed 6–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–6106–4]

RIN 2060–A100

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Petroleum

Refineries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This action revises the

‘‘National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Petroleum

Refineries’’ which was issued as a final

rule August 18, 1995. This rule is

commonly known as the Petroleum

Refineries national emission standards

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP).

This action revises the date by which an

Implementation Plan for emissions

averaging is to be submitted. Today’s

action also exempts specific streams

associated with hydrogen plants from

the requirements for process vents.

DATES: The direct final rule will be

effective on August 18, 1998. The direct

final rule will become effective without

further notice unless the EPA receives

relevant adverse comments on or before

July 9, 1998. Should the EPA receive

such comments, it will publish a timely

document withdrawing this rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (6102),

Attention Docket Number A–93–48 (see

docket section below), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

The EPA requests that a separate copy

also be sent to the contact person listed

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

James Durham, Waste and Chemical

Processes Group, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina, 27711, telephone

number (919) 541–5672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

18, 1995 EPA promulgated the

‘‘National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants from

Petroleum Refineries’’ (the ‘‘Petroleum

Refineries NESHAP’’). The NESHAP

regulates hazardous air pollutants (HAP)

emitted from new and existing refineries

that are major sources of HAP

emissions. The regulated category and

entities affected by this action include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry .... Petroleum Refineries (Standard

Industrial Classification Code

2911).

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 63.640. 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.

A companion proposal to this direct

final rule is being published in today’s

Federal Register and is identical to this

direct final rule. Any comments on the

revisions to the Petroleum Refineries

NESHAP should address that proposal.

If relevant adverse comments are timely

received by the date specified in the

proposed rule, the EPA will publish a

document informing the public that this

rule did not take effect and the

comments will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. If no relevant adverse

comments on any provision of this

direct final rule are timely filed then the

entire direct final rule will become

effective on August 18, 1998, and no

further action will be taken on the

companion proposal published today.

I. Description of Revisions

A. Revision of Submission Date for Plan

to Implement Emissions Averaging

Today’s action revises the

requirement to submit an

Implementation Plan, if using emissions

averaging, no later than 18 months prior

to the compliance date. The requirement

is revised to allow the Implementation

Plan to be submitted for approval at any

time prior to initiation of emissions

averaging. The EPA has determined that

the requirement to submit the

Implementation Plan 18 months prior to

the compliance date is not desirable

because it precludes existing sources

from using emissions averaging if they

decide to do so in the future.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31359

B. Exemption of Specific Hydrogen

Plant Vent Streams From Process Vents

Requirements

At the time the Petroleum Refineries

NESHAP was being developed, little

information was available regarding

hydrogen plant vent streams. Neither

the petroleum refining industry nor the

EPA had adequate information to

accurately determine if hydrogen plant

vents would be subject to the

miscellaneous process vent provisions

of the NESHAP. Recent information

gathering efforts by the petroleum

refining industry indicate that there are

vent streams from hydrogen plants that

meet the definition of Group 1

miscellaneous process vents. However,

this information indicates that these

vents, because they have no controls,

are significantly different from the vents

on which the miscellaneous process

vent provisions are based.

Consequently, it may not be appropriate

or even possible to apply the

miscellaneous process vent provisions

to these hydrogen plant vents.

In hydrogen plants, steam and

methane or other hydrocarbons are

reacted to form a synthesis gas, which

is a mixture of hydrogen and carbon

dioxide. Once the hydrogen is formed it

must be purified by removing the

carbon dioxide. Two techniques are

used for carbon dioxide removal: wet

carbon dioxide absorption/desorption;

and pressure swing absorption (PSA).

Methanol is formed as a byproduct of

the hydrogen-forming reactions.

Absorption/desorption systems absorb

some of the methanol along with the

CO2. In some instances, methanol is

used as the absorption fluid. Heat or an

inert gas such as nitrogen is

subsequently used to desorb the

absorption fluid. The desorbed gases

contain CO2, water vapor, nitrogen (for

some processes), and small quantities of

methanol. This is referred to as the CO2

vent. A source of emissions for both the

absorption/desorption and PSA systems

can be steam that is condensed and

removed at various points in the

process. The steam contains condensed

methanol and dissolved carbon dioxide.

When the steam is deaerated to remove

air and carbon dioxide before being

recycled, some of the methanol is

released to the atmosphere with the

carbon dioxide and air. This is referred

to as the deaerator vent.

The CO2 vent and deaerator vent are

significantly different from typical

miscellaneous process vents considered

in determining the requirements of the

Petroleum Refineries NESHAP. Typical

process vents are continuous streams of

consistent composition with sufficient

heating value to sustain combustion.

Incineration of these streams in boilers,

process heaters or flares, which was

determined to be the maximum

achievable control technology, is not

expected to cause operational upsets.

The hydrogen plant vents are of

significant volume and have little

heating value. They are primarily

composed of water vapor and carbon

dioxide. Methanol, the combustible

element of the streams, has been

determined to make up less than one

percent of the deaerator vent and to be

in the part per million range in the CO2

vent. It is not likely that existing flares,

boilers, or process heaters can

accommodate the combustion of these

vents due to their large volume and the

additional auxiliary fuel that would be

required to sustain combustion. None of

these hydrogen plant vents are currently

known to be controlled. New control

devices would have to be built to

achieve the destruction efficiency

required by the NESHAP. The original

analysis of the impact of the

miscellaneous process vent provisions

indicated that no major capital

investments or significant operating

costs would be required to comply. This

would not be the case for the hydrogen

plant vents. Cost analyses indicate that

new control devices would require a

capital investment ranging from

$250,000 to $2,000,000. Capital costs are

relatively high due to the large volume

of the vents streams. The relative

amount of methanol destroyed is low,

due to the low concentrations in the

vent streams. The resulting cost

effectiveness is estimated to range from

$5,500 to $55,000 per megagram of

methanol destroyed.

Analysis of data currently available

indicates that, unlike other process

vents, these hydrogen plant CO2 and

deaerator vents are not being controlled.

An analysis of the control technology in

place at the best performing 12 percent

of facilities would result in a

determination that the maximum

achievable control technology (MACT)

floor is ‘‘no control’’ for hydrogen plant

CO2 and deaerator vents. Thus,

requiring hydrogen plant CO2 and

deaerator vents to comply with the

existing process vent requirements

would constitute the imposition of an

‘‘above the floor’’ requirement. Due to

significantly increased compliance

costs, EPA does not believe that such an

‘‘above the floor’’ requirement is

justified. Compliance with the existing

process vents requirements cannot be

achieved with the same cost

effectiveness estimated for typical

miscellaneous process vents. Potential

controls for the hydrogen plant vents are

significantly more costly than those for

typical process vents, mainly due to the

fact that new control devices would be

required. Because the MACT analysis

and cost effectiveness analysis for

miscellaneous process vents are not

applicable to hydrogen plant vents, an

exemption from the miscellaneous

process vents provision is being

provided for hydrogen plant CO2 and

deaerator vents.

II. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act (Act), judicial review of the

actions taken by the administrator in

this final rule is available only on the

filing of 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 this action. Under

section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the

requirements set forth in today’s final

rule may not be challenged later in civil

or criminal proceedings brought by EPA

to enforce these requirements.

III. Administrative

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) under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. A copy of this Information

Collection Request (ICR) document

(OMB Control Number 2060–0340) may

be obtained from the Information Policy

Branch (PY–223Y); U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW;

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202) 260–2740. The ICR is currently in

the reinstatement process.

Today’s changes to the NESHAP have

no impact on the information collection

burden estimates. The changes

regarding emissions averaging consist of

a revision to the date by which an

Implementation Plan is to be submitted.

Because the industry and the EPA were

not aware of the hydrogen plant vent

streams that may meet the current

Group 1 miscellaneous process vent

definition, information collection

activities associated with these vents

were not included in the burden

estimate. Today’s revisions do not

increase or decrease the information

collection burden on the regulated

community or the EPA. Consequently,

the ICR has not been revised.

B. Executive Order 12866 Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993) the EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to
31360 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Order defines

a ‘‘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 land 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.

Today’s action revises a submittal

date for a report and provides an

exemption for specific vent streams.

Because today’s action does not add any

additional requirements, this rule was

classified ‘‘non-significant’’ under

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore

was not reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this final rule. The EPA has also

determined that this rule will not have

a significant negative economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. This direct final rule will not

have a significant negative impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because it does not add any

requirements to the Petroleum

Refineries NESHAP. This rule revises a

submittal date for a report and provides

an exemption for specific vent streams.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective,

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

At the time of promulgation, EPA

determined that the Petroleum

Refineries NESHAP 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. This determination is not

altered by today’s action, the purpose of

which is to revise the submittal date for

a report and provide an exemption for

specific vent streams. Thus, today’s rule

is not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 12875

To reduce the burden of Federal

regulations on States and small

governments, the President issued

Executive Order 12875 entitled

‘‘Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership’’ on October 26, 1993.

Executive Order 12875 prohibits the

EPA, to the extent feasible and

permitted by law, from promulgating

any regulation that is not required by

statute and that creates a mandate upon

a State, local or tribal government

unless: (i) the Federal Government

provides the funds necessary to pay the

direct costs incurred by the State, local

or tribal government in complying with

the mandate; or, (ii) EPA provides to the

Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of the EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of those entities

concerns, any written communications

submitted to EPA by such units of

government and the EPA’s position

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. Executive Order 12875

further requires the EPA to develop an

effective process to permit elected

officials and other representatives of

State, local and tribal governments ‘‘to

provide meaningful and timely input in

the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded

mandates.’’ This rule does not create a

mandate upon State, local or tribal

governments.

F. Applicability of Executive Order

13045

Executive Order 13045 applies to any

rule that EPA determines (1)

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

the environmental health or safety risk

addressed by the rule has a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the EPA must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the EPA.

This direct final rule is not subject to

E.O. 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not an

economically significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order

12866, and it does not address an

environmental health or safety risk that

would have a disproportionate effect on

children.

G. 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

of the United States. The 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 in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous air

pollutants, Petroleum refineries,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31361

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Storage vessels.

Dated: May 28, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set out in the preamble,

part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart CC—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

From Petroleum Refineries

2. Amend § 63.641 by revising

paragraphs (11), (12), and (13) of and

adding paragraph (14) to the definition

of miscellaneous process vent to read as

follows:

§ 63.641 Definitions.

* * * * *

Miscellaneous process vent * * *

(11) Coking unit vents associated with

coke drum depressuring at or below a

coke drum outlet pressure of 15 pounds

per square inch gauge, deheading,

draining, or decoking (coke cutting) or

pressure testing after decoking;

(12) Vents from storage vessels;

(13) Emissions from wastewater

collection and conveyance systems

including, but not limited to,

wastewater drains, sewer vents, and

sump drains; and

(14) Hydrogen production plant vents

through which carbon dioxide is

removed from process streams or

through which steam condensate

produced or treated within the

hydrogen plant is degassed or deaerated.

* * * * *

3. Amend § 63.653 by revising

paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:

§ 63.653 Monitoring, recordkeeping, and

implementation plan for emission

averaging.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) The Implementation Plan shall be

submitted to the Administrator and

approved prior to implementing

emissions averaging. This information

may be submitted in an operating

permit application, in an amendment to

an operating permit application, in a

separate submittal, in a Notification of

Compliance Status Report, in a Periodic

Report or in any combination of these

documents. If an owner or operator

submits the information specified in

paragraph (d)(2) of this section at

different times, and/or in different

submittals, later submittals may refer to

earlier submittals instead of duplicating

the previously submitted information.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–15005 Filed 6–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P