Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18071

commentors questioned the

precedential implications of this action.

Test

As a result of the public input

received, the ASA(CW) determined that

the proposed criteria were appropriate,

but that they should be tested by

practical application. Corps

headquarters directed the Omaha

District to randomly sample 10 parcels

of former tribal land at Lake Oahe and

Lake Sakakawea an apply the four

criteria/factors mentioned above to each

parcel to illustrate, by example, the

effect of implementing this policy.

The Omaha District selected 10

sections (one square mile) of land at

each reservoir that contained former

tribal lands. Once the sections were

chosen, a map was prepared showing

the relationship of the former tribal land

to all other project lands within that

section.

Applying a 2.5 acre blockout using

close tangents above the contour of the

maximum operating pool, parcels were

identified which could be considered

candidates for transfer. Each of these

former tribal tracts were then

inventoried, and the four mentioned

criteria were applied to the candidate

transfer parcels. A matrix was prepared

for the purpose of summarizing the

parcels and providing a basis for

comparison.

The findings of this study indicate

that along the 828 miles of shoreline at

lake Sakakawea, using these criteria,

there would be less than 800 acres

available for excess. The findings at

Lake Oahe indicate that along the 265

miles of shoreline less than 1,600 acres

would be available for excess.

Depending on the application of the

above mentioned criteria, these numbers

will likely be less.

The results of the study, as well as the

maps prepared for the study, are on file

at the Omaha District office, and may be

examined.

Conclusion

After reviewing and considering the

public input received and upon

examining the results of this study, the

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Civil Works), in consultation with the

Commander, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Missouri River Division and

the Commander, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Omaha District, determined

that the three of the four proposed

criteria were valid criteria/factors that

should be considered in determining

which lands could be declared excess at

Lakes Sakakawea and Oahe. The fourth

criterion, ‘‘consider precedential

implications,’’ was deemed unnecessary

since this rule is limited to Corps lands

within the Standing Rock Sioux

Reservation and the Fort Berthold

Reservation of the Three Affiliated

Tribes and does not apply to other

Corps projects. Also, the ASA(CW)

determined that it would be appropriate

and desirable to consider all former

trust lands, allotted as well as tribal, for

excessing for the following reasons:

Inclusion of all trust lands is consistent

with the manner in which lands were

acquired for the project, and it creates

more manageable land units for both the

tribe and the Corps of Engineers.

Further, including all former trust lands

would be consistent with congressional

intent.

Public Participation

Dates and addresses for public

meetings will be announced at a later

date.

Although this document is a notice of

proposed rulemaking that solicits public

comment, the Corps of Engineers has

concluded that the regulations proposed

herein are interpretative and that the

notice and public procedure

requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not

apply. Accordingly, these proposed

regulations do not constitute regulations

subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The requirements of Executive Order

No. 12291 do not apply to these

procedures. These regulations do not

constitute a ‘‘major rule within the

meaning of the Executive Order.’’

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 211

Claims, Flood control, Indian

reservations, Public lands, Real property

acquisition, Reservoirs, Rights-of-way,

Waterworks.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Corps of Engineers

proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 211, as

set forth below:

Part 211—Real Estate Activities of the

Corps of Engineers in Connection with

Civil Works Projects

1. The authority citation for § 211.148

is added to read as follows:

Authority: Section 211.148 issued under

40 U.S.C. 483, 486.

2. A new center heading and

§ 211.148 are added, to read as follows:

Excessing of Lands Within Indian

Reservations

§ 211.148 Excessing of lands within the

Fort Berthold Reservation of the Three

Affiliated Tribes at Lake Sakakawea and the

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Reservation at

Lake Oahe.

For the projects at Lake Oahe and

Lake Sakakawea, interests in real estate

that are not required for project

purposes may be considered excess to

project purposes when:

(a) The lands lie within the external

boundaries of the Standing Rock Sioux

Tribe Reservation or the Fort Berthold

Reservation of the Three Affiliated

Tribes;

(b) The lands are former trust lands,

either allotted or tribal, acquired for the

project; and

(c) Appropriate interests in the lands

may be retained, or conditions imposed,

as are necessary to preserve the integrity

of legislatively authorized project

operations; provided:

(1) There has been no substantial

capital investment in the property

which cannot be recovered by the

investor prior to excessing;

(2) There will be no unreasonable

impact on access to public and private

land; and

(3) There will be no unreasonable

impact on municipal and rural water

supply systems.

Dated: March 23, 1995.

Approved:

Elizabeth L. Fagot,

Deputy Director of Real Estate.

[FR Doc. 95–8236 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–62–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL–5182–6]

RIN 2060–AC19

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories: Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry and

Other Processes Subject to the

Negotiated Regulation for Equipment

Leaks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule: clarification.

SUMMARY: This action proposes

clarifying changes and corrections to

certain portions of the ‘‘National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry and

Other Processes Subject to the

Negotiated Regulation for Equipment

Leaks’’ (collectively known as the

‘‘hazardous organic NESHAP’’ or the

‘‘HON’’). This action proposes to

remove three compounds (glycerol tri-

(polyoxypropylene)ether, polyethylene
18072 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

glycol, and polypropylene glycol) from

the list of chemical production

processes regulated by the HON. The

production of these compounds is also

included in the source category

‘‘Polyether Polyols Production’’ and will

be regulated by that national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAP). The EPA is also proposing

several changes to the equipment leak

requirements to clarify the intent of

certain provisions, to correct oversights,

and to simplify demonstration of

compliance with the regulation.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before May 10, 1995,

unless a hearing is requested by April

20, 1995. If a hearing is requested,

written comments must be received by

May 25, 1995.

Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a

public hearing must contact the EPA no

later than April 20, 1995. If a hearing is

held, it will take place on April 25,

1995, beginning at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (6102),

Attention Docket Number A–90–20 (see

docket section below), room M–1500,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

20460. The EPA requests that a separate

copy also be sent to the contact person

listed below.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at the EPA’s Office

of Administration Auditorium, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons

interested in attending the hearing or

wishing to present oral testimony

should notify Mrs. Kim Teal, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,

telephone (919) 541–5580.

Docket. Dockets No. A–90–20 and A–

89–10, containing the supporting

information for the original NESHAP

and this action, are available for public

inspection and copying between 8 a.m.

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

at the EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center, Waterside Mall,

room M–1500, first floor, 401 M Street

SW, Washington, DC 20460, or by

calling (202) 260–7548 or 260–7549. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Janet S. Meyer, 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) 541–5254.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

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

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

promulgated in the Federal Register

NESHAP for the synthetic organic

chemical manufacturing industry

(SOCMI), and for several other processes

subject to the equipment leaks portion

of the rule. These regulations were

promulgated as subparts F, G, H, and I

in 40 CFR part 63. Since the rule was

issued, the EPA has received inquiries

regarding certain portions of the rule

and EPA has concluded that it is

necessary to clarify these provisions and

to correct several oversights.

II. Removal of Polyols From Table 1 of

Subpart F

The list of SOCMI chemicals currently

includes three compounds—glycerol tri-

(polyoxypropylene)ether, polyethylene

glycol, and polypropylene glycol—

whose production emissions will be

regulated by the NESHAP for ‘‘Polyether

Polyols Production,’’ a category of major

sources for which a maximum

achievable control technology (MACT)

standard is scheduled to be promulgated

by November 15, 1997. According to

documentation for the list of source

categories, the definition of ‘‘Polyether

Polyols Production’’ encompasses all

commercially important polyether

polyols, and therefore would clearly

include these three chemical

productions currently subject to the

HON.

The EPA believes that it would be

more reasonable and efficient to regulate

emissions from production of all

polyether polyols under only one rule,

rather than regulating some processes

under one rule and other polyol

processes under a different rule.

Specifically, the production process for

all polyether polyols is very similar, and

typical polyol facilities may

manufacture both SOCMI and nonSOCMI polyether polyols with the same

equipment. Thus, EPA concluded that it

would be inappropriate to regulate

polyols under the HON. Also, because

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions

from polyether polyol production are

relatively low, postponing regulation of

polyether polyols would not forestall

large HAP emission reductions.

Accordingly, the EPA proposes to

remove these three chemicals from the

list of SOCMI chemicals, located in

table 1 of subpart F of the final rule, and

to address these production processes

under the subsequent polyether polyols

production rule.

II. Proposed Changes to Subpart H

A. Consolidation of Equipment Leak

Programs

Since 1981, EPA and States have

issued a number of different guidelines

and regulations for controlling

emissions from equipment leaks. Some

companies have reported that they have

to comply with anywhere from 5 to 11

different equipment leak programs at

one plant site. These programs

principally differ in applicability

criteria and have minor differences in

other details of the provisions. Because

of concerns regarding the cost of

maintaining separate programs, the

Regulatory Negotiation Committee

(Committee) that negotiated the

proposed rule upon which subpart H is

based agreed that compliance with the

negotiated rule would also constitute

compliance with any overlapping

applicable new source performance

standards (NSPS) or NESHAP (e.g.,

subpart VV of part 60 or subpart J of part

61). Unfortunately, this provision (40

CFR § 63.160(b)) does not allow enough

consolidation of programs to adequately

address the problem. Owners and

operators of process units subject to the

HON still must maintain multiple

programs because process units may

have non-HAP containing process

equipment as well as HAP containing

process equipment. Consequently, a

number of industry representatives and

a State agency have requested that EPA

also allow owners and operators the

option of consolidating all the volatile

organic compounds (VOC) and HAP

equipment leak programs into one

program for each process unit. The EPA

agrees that consolidation of programs

will allow for more efficient

management of programs, reduce cost of

compliance, and improve compliance.

As EPA believes that the HON contains

more stringent requirements than any

other Federal equipment leak

regulations, EPA proposes to allow

override of those requirements with the

provisions of subpart H. It is proposed

to add a new paragraph (c) to § 63.160

to allow an owner or operator to elect

to comply with subpart H for all VOC

containing process equipment in the

process unit in lieu of compliance with

40 CFR part 60 subparts VV, GGG, or

KKK or with 40 CFR part 61 subparts F

or J. The EPA also encourages States to

allow consolidation of State equipment

leak programs under subpart H. The

EPA believes that establishing one

program for a plant site or process unit

would reduce costs to States and local

agencies for permitting and enforcing

rules as well as reduce the cost of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18073

compliance for owners or operators of

sources.

B. Sampling Connection Systems

Subpart H requires that each sampling

connection system be equipped with

either a closed-loop or closed-vent

system or that a closed-purge system be

used, and that the system either return

the purge directly to the process, collect

and recycle the purge, or send the purge

to a control device. Following issuance

of the final rule, several chemical

companies inquired whether the purge

material could be sent to a hazardous

waste treatment, storage, and disposal

facility (TSDF) or a controlled

wastewater collection and treatment

facility in lieu of sending the purge to

a control device as specified in § 63.172.

Typically, the purge material could not

be returned to the process due to

polymerization or other characteristics

that severely limited the utility of the

material. The EPA agrees that this

control option would meet the intent of

the sampling connection system

provisions, which is to ensure that

purged material is captured and either

returned to a process or destroyed.

Therefore, it is proposed to add

provisions to § 63.166 to allow

treatment of collected purge material at

permitted TSDF or solid waste facilities.

The proposed provisions also allow use

of waste management units complying

with §§ 63.133–63.138 of subpart G. The

proposed § 63.166 also includes minor

clarifying edits to paragraphs (a) and

(b)(1) through (b)(3). Also, due to

numerous questions, EPA is proposing

to add a definition for the term sampling

connection system.

C. Less Frequent Monitoring of Valves in

Phase III

Since the final rule was issued, EPA

has received inquiries about the

feasibility of using data collected before

April 22, 1994 and use of data that

differs slightly from the requirements of

§ 63.180(b). Although the preamble to

the final rule (59 FR 19446) did state

that the rule was intended to allow

owners or operators the flexibility to

initiate phase III of the valve standard

at anytime, the revisions to subpart H

did not include an explicit statement

that data collected before April 22, 1994

could be used or that less frequent

monitoring within Phase III could begin.

Some of the callers seemed to be

concerned that the requirements for

monitoring data specified in § 63.180(b)

precluded use of data collected before

the rule was final. Consequently, it is

proposed to add paragraphs to § 63.168

and § 63.174 to specifically allow use of

data collected before April 22, 1994. It

is also proposed to clarify that data

collected before April 22, 1994 may

have minor deviations from the

requirements in § 63.180(b)(1) through

(b)(6). Examples of minor deviations

from the requirements of § 63.180(b)(1)

through (b)(6) are use of a slightly

different monitoring frequency or

monitoring at a different leak definition

provided the data would still indicate

the presence or absence of a leak.

D. Flow Indicators

In the HON, as well as in other

section 111 and 112 standards, EPA has

required the use of flow indicators or

car-seal systems to ensure that

emissions are continuously vented to an

appropriate control device [see

§ 63.172(j)(1) for example]. The EPA has

recently learned that, as these

provisions are presently drafted, it

appears that either flow must be

measured or that specified equipment

(i.e., car-seal systems or lock and keytype valve configurations) must be used.

The intent of these provisions is to

provide a means of indicating when

emissions are bypassing a control

device. There was no intention in

drafting these provisions to limit the

method used for detecting or monitoring

for potential by-passes of control

devices. The EPA has concluded that

these provisions need to be clarified and

the clearest way is to expand the

definition of flow indicator to include

reference to devices that do not measure

flow and to remove the reference to

presence of flow from the by-pass

monitoring requirement. The EPA is

proposing to amend subpart H to clarify

this provision by adding a definition for

‘‘flow indicator’’ and by revising

paragraph (j)(1) of § 63.172.

E. Safety Issues With § 63.163 and

§ 63.167

Since the final rule was promulgated,

EPA has learned of a few situations

where compliance with the provisions

of the rule creates, or has the potential

to create, serious safety hazards for

plant or monitoring personnel. These

concerns arise because no provisions

presently exist in some sections of

subpart H to exempt unsafe situations

from specific equipment or monitoring

requirements. The need for these

provisions was not raised in the

Committee discussions or in the public

comments. The EPA believes that the

concerns are being raised now as the

rule is being implemented because these

safety issues only arise in a few cases.

Consequently, EPA is proposing to

add unsafe-to-monitor provisions for

pumps and an exemption from the

requirement to cap, or plug, open-ended

lines or valves for materials that

represented a safety or explosion

hazard. The unsafe-to-monitor provision

for pumps is patterned after the unsafeto-monitor valve provisions. Pumps that

are unsafe-to-monitor are pumps that

are located in an area that presents an

imminent danger to personnel due to

the presence of toxic materials,

explosive process conditions, or high

pressure. This provision would exempt

pumps in unsafe locations from routine

monitoring requirements, but would

require monitoring during safe-tomonitor periods.

The EPA is also proposing to exempt

open-ended lines or valves containing

materials that represented a safety or

explosion hazard from the requirement

to equip the line with a cap or plug. The

EPA has recently learned that in a few

processes the requirement to cap, or

plug, the line could result in trapping

highly-reactive monomer in the line. In

these cases, the polymerization reaction

will cause serious overpressure and

catastrophic equipment failure

presenting a safety hazard to plant

personnel and creating the potential for

greater emissions to the atmosphere

than if the line were left uncapped.

F. Inaccessible and Difficult-to-Monitor

Agitators

The Committee developed the

requirements for agitators based on the

assumption that agitators were

technologically similar to pumps. In the

Committee discussions, it was assumed

that agitators would be just as accessible

as pumps. The EPA has recently learned

that there are a few facilities where

agitators are inaccessible, and it simply

is not feasible to monitor this

equipment. Consequently, it is proposed

to add an exemption for inaccessible

agitators and to provide consideration

for difficult-to-monitor agitators. The

proposed provisions in §§ 63.173(h) and

(i) are patterned after the difficult-tomonitor valve provisions and the

inaccessible connector provision in

§ 63.174(h)(1)(iii). Because it is

conceivable that there could also be

processes where agitators are located in

areas that pose an imminent danger to

monitoring personnel, provisions to

exempt unsafe-to-monitor agitators are

also proposed. Recordkeeping

requirements for difficult-to-monitor

and unsafe-to-monitor equipment are

included in the proposed revisions to

§ 63.181(b)(7).

G. Porcelain Connectors

In development of the connector

provisions, the Committee exempted

glass and glass-lined connectors from

the monitoring requirements because of
18074 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

the limited potential for on-line repair.

The Committee was concerned that

tightening of bolts on glass and glasslined connectors presented a high risk

of breakage and potential for significant

accidental releases. Since the rule was

issued, EPA has learned that porcelain

connectors are also used at some

facilities. Since porcelain connectors, as

well as other forms of ceramic materials,

would also have a high risk of breakage

during on-line repairs, EPA is proposing

to revise § 63.174(h)(1) to use the more

generic terminology ‘‘ceramic or

ceramic-lined’’ connector.

H. Pressure Test for Batch Process

Equipment

Two changes are being proposed to

the pressure test provisions of

§ 63.180(f). The pressure test provisions

for batch process equipment were

derived from general industry practice

and EPA’s experience with testing of

tank trucks and railcars for vapor

tightness. In development of these

provisions, the Committee assumed that

this testing would be conducted on

equipment operating at pressures greater

than atmospheric but less than 10

pounds per square inch gauge (psig).

The EPA has since learned that there are

some batch operations operating at

essentially atmospheric pressure for

which the pressure/vacuum test

provisions represent the only practical

means of complying with the standard.

Unfortunately, the Committee agreed to

language on the test provisions that does

not allow pressurization beyond the

operating pressure of the equipment.

The EPA believes that this is an

unintentional limitation on the

availability of the pressure test option.

Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise

§ 63.180(f)(1) to allow pressurization to

less than the set pressure of any

pressure relief device or to within safety

limits of the operating equipment. The

EPA has also recently become aware

that there are batch processes operating

at greater than 10 psig for which the

owner or operator also wishes to use the

pressure/vacuum test provisions of the

rule. In such cases, the precision

requirements for the pressure gauge

(±2.5 mm mercury in the range of the

test pressure) could mean no pressure

gauge would be available or no gauge

would be available at a reasonable cost.

To determine whether any revision to

these provisions would be appropriate,

the EPA reviewed the basis for the

precision specification for the pressure

gauge. It was found that the precision

specified in the rule was the result of

the assumed range of test pressures, an

assumed test duration of 15 minutes,

and a relative accuracy of ±10 percent.

Based on these findings EPA thinks that

it would be appropriate to allow an

alternative procedure for cases where a

pressure gauge with a precision of ±2.5

mm mercury in the range of the test

pressure is not reasonably available. The

EPA proposes to allow the owner or

operator to use a pressure gauge with a

precision of ±10 percent of the test

pressure and to extend the duration of

the test for the time necessary to detect

a pressure loss (or rise) that equals a rate

of 1 psig/hr.

IV. Proposed Changes to Subpart I

A. Notification and Compliance Dates

for Process Changes

Presently, subpart I does not specify

compliance dates for process units or

equipment affected by operational

changes as is done in §§ 63.100(k)

through (m) of subpart F. These subpart

F provisions specify the notification and

approval requirements for each type of

change as well as the compliance date

for equipment affected by the change.

These procedures were included in

subpart F to allow HON sources to

follow the administrative procedures in

subpart F, subpart G, and, as

appropriate, the administrative

procedures of subpart A and the

operating permits rule until final action

on the section 112(g) rule resolves the

question of whether individual MACT

standard administrative procedures

supersede the administrative procedures

of the section 112(g) rule. These

provisions were omitted from subpart I.

To correct this omission paragraphs

(g)(3), (g)(4), and (h) are proposed to be

added to § 63.190 to specify compliance

dates for operational changes that are

expected to occur.

B. Definitions

Definitions for ‘‘process unit’’ and

‘‘source’’ are proposed to be added to

§ 63.191 to correct an oversight. These

definitions were inadvertently omitted

in drafting the final rule. The proposed

definition for ‘‘process unit’’ is derived

from the original definition agreed to by

the Committee. The proposed definition

for ‘‘source’’ is based on the definition

for ‘‘source’’ in subpart F.

Due to several requests for

clarification of the applicability of

subpart I to operations at

pharmaceutical facilities, the EPA is

also proposing a revision to the

definition of ‘‘pharmaceutical

production process.’’ The provisions of

subpart I were intended to apply only to

those pharmaceutical production

processes that synthesize a

pharmaceutical product. At facilities

with solvent recovery capabilities, waste

solvent from the synthesis process is

generally recovered and purified in a

step separate from the pharmaceutical

synthesis process. The provisions of

subpart I were not intended to cover

such solvent recovery processes.

Peripheral operations not necessary for

the production of the drug, such as

formulation (the physical mixing of one

or more final products), tablet coating

(physically coating the final product),

and solvent recovery (repurifying the

solvent after drug production and

reintroducing the pure solvent into raw

solvent storage), are not considered part

of the pharmaceutical production

process as defined in subpart I.

Therefore, EPA is proposing to add a

phrase to the last sentence in the

definition to clarify that solvent

recovery operations located at

pharmaceutical facilities are not subject

to the provisions of Subpart I. This

definition for ‘‘pharmaceutical

production process’’ in subpart I should

be viewed as being unique to subpart I

and should not be viewed as

determining applicability in other

standards.

C. Bench-Scale Batch Process

Equipment

It has recently come to EPA’s

attention that there are a few

pharmaceutical companies producing

products in extremely small batches

using laboratory or small bench-scale

equipment. The equipment in these

processes is very small (typically valves

and connectors are less than 0.5 inches

in diameter) and is closely-spaced.

These small bench-scale processes

typically produce a kilogram or less of

product per batch and only a small

number of batches are run each year.

However, because the components in

these processes are generally in HAP

service more than 300 hours per year,

the processes would be subject to the

provisions of subparts I and H. The EPA

is revising § 63.190(f) of subpart I to

clarify that bench-scale batch processes

are not subject to the provisions of

subpart I and H. A definition for

‘‘bench-scale batch process’’ is also

being added to § 63.191 of subpart I. The

EPA thinks that this correction is

necessary because the equipment cannot

reasonably be monitored and repaired

routinely for any rational benefit. The

equipment in these processes is so

tightly situated that access by the

monitor probe is essentially precluded

and it is difficult to determine the origin

of a leak if one is detected. Furthermore,

due to the size of these units, emissions

would be insignificant due to the small

number of components, the amount of

time the components are in HAP
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18075

service, and the small quantities of

materials processed.

V. 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). A copy

of this Information Collection Request

(ICR) document (OMB control number

1414.02) may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, Information Policy Branch

(2136); U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency; 401 M Street, SW; Washington,

DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260–2740.

Today’s proposed changes to the

NESHAP should have no impact on the

information collection burden estimates

made previously. The changes consist of

new definitions, alternative test

procedures, and clarifications of

requirements; not additional

requirements. Consequently, the ICR has

not been revised.

B. Executive Order 12866 Review

The HON rule promulgated on April

22, 1994 was considered ‘‘significant’’

under Executive Order 12866 and a

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) was

prepared. The amendments issued today

clarify the rule and do not add any

additional control requirements. The

EPA believes that these amendments

would have a negligible impact on the

results of the RIA and the change is

considered to be within the uncertainty

of the analysis.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

requires the identification of potentially

adverse impacts of Federal regulations

upon small business entities. The Act

specifically requires the completion of a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those

instances where small business impacts

are possible. Because this rulemaking

imposes no adverse economic impacts,

a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not

been prepared.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 28, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63

subparts F, H and I of the Code of

Federal Regulations is proposed to be

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 101, 112, 114, 116, and

301 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401, et

seq., as amended by Pub. L. 101–549, 104

Stat. 2399).

Subpart F—National Emission

Standards for Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry

Table 1 of Subpart F—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of subpart F is amended by

removing the entries for glycerol tri-

(polyoxypropylene)ether, polyethylene

glycol, and polypropylene glycol and

their associated CAS number and group

number.

Subpart H—National Emission

Standards for Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Equipment Leaks

3. Section 63.160 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (c) to read as

follows:

§ 63.160 Applicability and designation of

source.

* * * * *

(c) If a process unit subject to the

provisions of this subpart has

equipment to which this subpart does

not apply, but which is subject to a

standard identified in paragraph (c)(1)

or (c)(2) of this section, the owner or

operator may elect to apply this subpart

to all such equipment in the process

unit. If the owner or operator elects this

method of compliance, all VOC in such

equipment shall be considered, for

purposes of applicability and

compliance with this subpart, as if it

were organic HAP. Compliance with the

provisions of this subpart, in the

manner described in this paragraph,

shall be deemed to constitute

compliance with the standard identified

in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this

section.

(1) 40 CFR part 60 subpart VV, GGG,

or KKK; or

(2) 40 CFR part 61 subpart F or J.

* * * * *

4. Section 63.161 is amended by

adding in alphabetical order the

definitions ‘‘flow indicator’’ and

‘‘sampling connection system’’ to read

as follows:

§ 63.161 Definitions.

* * * * *

Flow indicator means a device which

indicates whether gas flow is, or

whether the valve position would allow

gas flow to be present, in a line.

* * * * *

Sampling connection system means

an assembly of equipment within a

process unit used during periods of

representative operation to take samples

of the process fluid. Equipment used to

take non-routine grab samples is not

considered a sampling connection

system.

* * * * *

5. Section 63.163 is amended by

adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:

§ 63.166 Standards: Pumps in light liquid

service.

* * * * *

(j) Any pump that is designated, as

described in § 63.181(b)(7)(i) of this

subpart, as an unsafe-to-monitor pump

is exempt from the requirements of

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section

if:

(1) The owner or operator of the pump

determines that the pump is unsafe to

monitor because monitoring personnel

would be exposed to an immediate

danger as a consequence of complying

with paragraphs (b) through (d) of this

section; and

(2) The owner or operator of the pump

has a written plan that requires

monitoring of the pump as frequently as

practicable during safe-to-monitor

times, but not more frequently than the

periodic monitoring schedule otherwise

applicable.

6. Section 63.166 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read

as follows:

§ 63.166 Standards: Sampling connection

systems.

(a) Each sampling connection system

shall be equipped with a closed-purge,

closed-loop, or closed-vent system,

except as provided in § 63.162(b) of this

subpart. Gases displaced during filling

of the sample container are not required

to be collected or captured.

(b) Each closed-purge, closed-loop, or

closed-vent system as required in

paragraph (a) of this section shall:

(1) Return the purged process fluid

directly to the process line; or

(2) Collect and recycle the purged

process fluid to a process;

(3) Be designed and operated to

capture and transport the purged

process fluid to a control device that

complies with the requirements of

§ 63.172 of this subpart; or

(4) Collect and transport the purged

process fluid to a system or facility

identified in paragraph (b)(4)(i), (ii), or

(iii) of this section.

(i) A waste management unit as

defined in § 63.111 of subpart G of this

part, if the waste management unit is

subject to, and operated in compliance

with the provisions of subpart G of this

part applicable to group 1 wastewater

streams.
18076 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(ii) A treatment, storage, or disposal

facility subject to regulation under 40

CFR part 264, 265, or 266; or

(iii) A facility permitted, licensed, or

registered by a State to manage

municipal or industrial solid waste, if

the process fluids are not hazardous

waste as defined in 40 CFR part 261.

* * * * *

7. Section 63.167 is amended by

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 63.167 Standards: Open-ended valves or

lines.

* * * * *

(e) Open-ended valves or lines

containing materials which would

autocatalytically polymerize or, would

prevent an explosion, serious

overpressure, or other safety hazard if

capped or equipped with a double block

and bleed system as specified in

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section

are exempt from the requirements of

paragraph (a) through (c) of this section.

8. Section 63.168 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (a)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 63.168 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor

service and in light liquid service.

(a) * * *

(3) The use of monitoring data

generated before April 22, 1994 to

qualify for less frequent monitoring is

governed by the provisions of

§ 63.180(b)(6) of this subpart.

* * * * *

9. Section 63.172 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraph

(j)(1) to read as follows:

§ 63.172 Standards: Closed-vent systems

and control devices.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(1) Install, set or adjust, maintain, and

operate a flow indicator that takes a

reading at least once every 15 minutes.

* * *

* * * * *

10. Section 63.173 is amended by

adding paragraphs (h), (i) and (j) to read

as follows:

§ 63.173 Standards: Agitators in gas/vapor

service and in light liquid service.

* * * * *

(h) Any agitator that is difficult-tomonitor is exempt from the

requirements of paragraphs (a) through

(d) of this section if:

(1) The owner or operator determines

that the agitator cannot be monitored

without elevating the monitoring

personnel more than 2 meters above a

support surface or it is not accessible at

anytime in a safe manner;

(2) The process unit within which the

agitator is located is an existing source

or the owner or operator designates less

than 3 percent of the total number of

agitators in a new source as difficult-tomonitor; and

(3) The owner or operator follows a

written plan that requires monitoring of

the agitator at least once per calendar

year.

(i) Any agitator that is obstructed by

equipment or piping that prevents

access to the agitator by a monitor probe

is exempt from the monitoring

requirements of paragraphs (a) through

(d) of this section.

(j) Any agitator that is designated, as

described in § 63.181(b)(7)(i) of this

subpart, as an unsafe-to-monitor agitator

is exempt from the requirements of

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this

section if:

(1) The owner or operator of the

agitator determines that the agitator is

unsafe to monitor because monitoring

personnel would be exposed to an

immediate danger as a consequence of

complying with paragraphs (a) through

(d) of this section; and

(2) The owner or operator of the

agitator has a written plan that requires

monitoring of the agitator as frequently

as practicable during safe-to-monitor

times, but not more frequently than the

periodic monitoring schedule otherwise

applicable.

11. Section 63.174 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (b)(4) and by

revising the first sentence of paragraph

(h)(1) introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 63.174 Standards: Connectors in gas/

vapor service and in light liquid service.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) The use of monitoring data

generated before April 22, 1994 to

qualify for less frequent monitoring is

governed by the provisions of

§ 63.180(b)(6).

* * * * *

(h)(1) Any connector that is

inaccessible or is ceramic or ceramiclined (e.g., porcelain, glass, or glasslined), is exempt from the monitoring

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c) of

this section and from the recordkeeping

and reporting requirements of § 63.181

and § 63.182 of this subpart. * * *

* * * * *

12. Section 63.180 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as

(b)(2)(i) and revising the first sentence of

newly designated paragraph (b)(2)(i), by

adding a paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by revising

paragraph (b)(4)(iii), by revising

paragraph (b)(6) by revising paragraph

(f)(1), and by adding a sentence to

paragraph (f)(4) to read as follows:

§ 63.180 Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2)(i) Except as provided for in

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the

detection instrument shall meet the

performance criteria of Method 21 of 40

CFR part 60, appendix A, except the

instrument response factor criteria in

section 3.1.2(a) of Method 21 shall be

for the average composition of the

process fluid not each individual VOC

in the stream. * * *

(ii) If no instrument is available at the

plant site that will meet the

performance criteria specified in

paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the

instrument readings may be adjusted by

multiplying by the average response

factor of the process fluid, calculated on

an inert-free basis as described in

paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.

(3) * * *

(4) * * *

(iii) The instrument may be calibrated

at a higher methane concentration than

the concentration specified for that

piece of equipment. The concentration

of the calibration gas may exceed the

concentration specified as a leak by no

more than 2,000 parts per million. If the

monitoring instrument’s design allows

for multiple calibration scales, then the

lower scale shall be calibrated with a

calibration gas that is no higher than

2,000 parts per million above the

concentration specified as a leak and the

highest scale shall be calibrated with a

calibration gas that is approximately

equal to 10,000 parts per million.

* * * * *

(6) Monitoring data that do not meet

the criteria specified in paragraphs

(b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section may

be used to qualify for less frequent

monitoring under the provisions in

§ 63.168 (d)(2) and (d)(3) or § 63.174

(b)(3)(ii) or (b)(3)(iii) of this subpart

provided the data meet the conditions

specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and

(b)(6)(ii) of this section.

(i) The data were obtained before

April 22, 1994.

(ii) The departures from the criteria

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(b)(5) of this section or from the

specified monitoring frequency of

§ 63.168(c) are minor and do not

significantly affect the quality of the

data. Examples of minor departures are

monitoring at a slightly different

frequency (such as every 6 weeks

instead of monthly or quarterly),

following the performance criteria of

section 3.1.2(a) of Method 21 of

Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 instead

of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, or

monitoring at a different leak definition
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18077

if the data would indicate the presence

or absence of a leak at the concentration

specified in this subpart. Failure to use

a calibrated instrument is not

considered a minor departure.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(1) The batch product-process

equipment train shall be pressurized

with a gas to a pressure less than the set

pressure of any safety relief devices or

valves or to a pressure slightly above the

operating pressure of the equipment, or

alternatively the equipment shall be

placed under a vacuum.

(2) * * *

(3) * * *

(4) * * * If such a pressure

measurement device is not reasonably

available, the owner or operator shall

use a pressure measurement device with

a precision of at least ±10 percent of the

test pressure of the equipment and shall

extend the duration of the test for the

time necessary to detect a pressure loss

or rise that equals a rate of 1 psig per

hour.

* * * * *

13. Section 63.181 is amended by

revising the introductory text in

paragraph (b)(7) and by revising

paragraph (b)(7)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 63.181 Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(7) The following information

pertaining to all pumps subject to the

provisions of § 63.163(j), valves subject

to the provisions of § 63.168(h) and (i)

of this subpart, agitators subject to the

provisions of § 63.173(h) through (j),

and connectors subject to the provisions

of § 63.174 (f) through (h) of this subpart

shall be recorded:

(i) * * *

(ii) A list of identification numbers for

the equipment that is designated as

difficult to monitor, an explanation of

why the equipment is difficult to

monitor, and the planned schedule for

monitoring this equipment.

* * * * *

Subpart I—National Emission

Standards for Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Certain Processes

Subject to the Negotiated Regulation

for Equipment Leaks

14. Section 63.190 is amended by

revising paragraph (f), paragraphs (g)(1)

introductory text and (g)(2) introductory

text, by adding paragraphs (g)(3) and

(g)(4), and revising paragraph (i) to read

as follows:

§ 63.190 Applicability and designation of

source.

* * * * *

(f) The provisions of subparts I and H

of this part do not apply to research and

development facilities or to bench-scale

batch processes, regardless of whether

the facilities or processes are located at

the same plant site as a process subject

to the provisions of subpart I and H of

this part.

(g)(1) If an additional process unit

specified in paragraph (b) of this section

is added to a plant site that is a major

source as defined in section 112(a) of

the Act, the addition shall be subject to

the requirements for a new source in

subparts H and I of this part if:

* * * * *

(2) If any change is made to a process

subject to this subpart, the change shall

be subject to the requirements for a new

source in subparts H and I of this part

if:

* * * * *

(3) If an additional process unit is

added to a plant site or a change is made

to a process unit and the addition or

change is determined to be subject to

the new source requirements according

to paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this

section:

(i) The new or reconstructed source

shall be in compliance with the new

source requirements of subparts H and

I of this part upon initial start-up of the

new or reconstructed source or by April

22, 1994, whichever is later; and

(ii) The owner or operator of the new

or reconstructed source shall comply

with the reporting and recordkeeping

requirements in subparts H and I of this

part that are applicable to new sources.

The applicable reports include, but are

not limited to:

(A) Reports required by § 63.182(b), if

not previously submitted, § 63.182(c)

and (d) of subpart H of this part; and

(B) Reports and notifications required

by subpart A of this part that are

applicable to subparts H and I of this

part, as identified in § 63.192(a) of this

subpart.

(4) If an additional process unit is

added to a plant site, if a surge control

vessel or bottoms receiver becomes

subject to § 63.170 of subpart H, or if a

compressor becomes subject to § 63.164

of subpart H, and if the addition or

change is not subject to the new source

requirements as determined according

to paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this

section, the requirements in paragraphs

(g)(4)(i) through (g)(4)(iii) of this section

shall apply. Examples of process

changes include, but are not limited to,

changes in production capacity,

feedstock type, or catalyst type, or

whenever there is replacement, removal,

or addition of recovery equipment. For

purposes of this paragraph, process

changes do not include: process upsets,

unintentional temporary process

changes, and changes that are within the

equipment configuration and operating

conditions documented in the

Notification of Compliance Status

required by § 63.182(c) of subpart H of

this part.

(i) The added emission point(s) and

any emission point(s) within the added

or changed process unit are subject to

the requirements of subparts H and I of

this part for an existing source;

(ii) The added emission point(s) and

any emission point(s) within the added

or changed process unit shall be in

compliance with subparts H and I of

this part by the dates specified in

paragraphs (g)(4)(ii)(A) or (g)(4)(ii)(B) of

this section, as applicable.

(A) If a process unit is added to a

plant site or an emission point(s) is

added to an existing process unit, the

added process unit or emission point(s)

shall be in compliance upon initial

start-up of the added process unit or

emission point(s) or by April 22, 1997,

whichever is later.

(B) If a surge control vessel or bottoms

receiver becomes subject to § 63.170 of

subpart H, if a compressor becomes

subject to § 63.164 of subpart H, or if a

deliberate operational process change

causes equipment to become subject to

subpart H of this part, the owner or

operator shall be in compliance upon

initial start-up or by April 22, 1997,

whichever is later, unless the owner or

operator demonstrates to the

Administrator that achieving

compliance will take longer than

making the change. The owner or

operator shall submit to the

Administrator for approval a

compliance schedule, along with a

justification for the schedule. The

Administrator shall approve the

compliance schedule or request changes

within 120 calendar days of receipt of

the compliance schedule and

justification.

(iii) The owner or operator of a

process unit or emission point that is

added to a plant site and is subject to

the requirements for existing sources

shall comply with the reporting and

recordkeeping requirements of subparts

H and I of this part that are applicable

to existing sources, including, but not

limited to, the reports listed in

paragraphs (g)(4)(iii)(A) and (g)(4)(iii)(B)

of this section.

(A) Reports required by § 63.182 of

subpart H of this part; and

(B) Reports and notifications required

by subpart A of this part that are

applicable to subparts H and I of this

part, as identified in § 63.192(a) of this

subpart.
18078 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(i) If a change that does not meet the

criteria in paragraph (g)(4) of this

section is made to a process unit subject

to subparts H and I of this part, and the

change causes equipment to become

subject to the provisions of subpart H of

this part, then the owner or operator

shall comply with the requirements of

subpart H of this part for the equipment

as expeditiously as practicable, but in

no event later than 3 years after the

equipment becomes subject.

(1) The owner or operator shall

submit to the Administrator for

approval a compliance schedule, along

with a justification for the schedule.

(2) The Administrator shall approve

the compliance schedule or request

changes within 120 calendar days of

receipt of the compliance schedule and

justification.

* * * * *

15. Section 63.191 is amended by

adding in alphabetical order definitions

for ‘‘bench-scale batch process,’’

‘‘process unit,’’ and ‘‘source’’ to

paragraph (b) and revising the definition

of ‘‘pharmaceutical production process’’

in paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 63.191 Definitions.

(b) * * *

Bench-scale batch process means a

batch process (other than a research and

development facility) that is capable of

being located on a laboratory bench top.

This bench-scale equipment will

typically include reagent feed vessels, a

small reactor and associated product

separator, recovery and holding

equipment. These processes are only

capable of producing small quantities of

product.

* * * * *

Pharmaceutical production process

means a process that synthesizes

pharmaceutical intermediate or final

products using carbon tetrachloride or

methylene chloride as a reactant or

process solvent. Pharmaceutical

production process does not mean

process operations involving

formulation activities, such as tablet

coating or spray coating of drug

particles, or solvent recovery.

* * * * *

Process unit means the equipment

assembled and connected by pipes or

ducts to process raw materials and to

manufacture a product. For the

purposes of this subpart, process unit

includes all unit operations and

associated equipment (e.g., reactors and

associated product separators and

recovery devices), associated unit

operations (e.g., extraction columns),

any feed and product storage vessels,

and any transfer racks for distribution of

final product.

* * * * *

Source means the collection of

equipment listed in § 63.190(d) to which

this subpart applies as determined by

the criteria in § 63.190. For purposes of

subparts H and I of this part, the term

affected source as used in subpart A of

this part has the same meaning as the

term source defined in this definition.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–8201 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL–5182–5]

RIN 2060–AC19

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories: Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry and

Other Processes Subject to the

Negotiated Regulation for Equipment

Leaks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes to

correct errors and clarify regulatory text

of the ‘‘National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories: Organic Hazardous Air

Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry and

Other Processes Subject to the

Negotiated Regulation for Equipment

Leaks,’’ which was issued as a final rule

on April 22, 1994 and June 6, 1994. This

rule is commonly known as the

Hazardous Organic NESHAP or the

HON. Because the revisions merely

correct errors and clarify regulatory text

the Agency does not anticipate receiving

adverse comments. Consequently the

revisions are also being issued as a

direct final rule in the final rules section

of this Federal Register. If no significant

adverse comments are timely received,

no further action will be taken with

respect to this proposal and the direct

final rule will become final on the date

provided in that action.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before May 10, 1995,

unless a hearing is requested by April

20, 1995. If a hearing is requested,

written comments must be received by

May 25, 1995.

Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a

public hearing must contact the EPA no

later than April 20, 1995. If a hearing is

held, it will take place on April 25,

1995, beginning at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (6102),

Attention Docket Number A–90–20 (see

docket section below), room M–1500,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

20460. The EPA requests that a separate

copy also be sent to the contact person

listed below.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at the EPA’s Office

of Administration Auditorium, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons

interested in attending the hearing or

wishing to present oral testimony

should notify Mrs. Kim Teal, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,

telephone (919) 541–5580.

Docket. Dockets No. A–90–20 and A–

89–10, containing the supporting

information for the original NESHAP

and this action, are available for public

inspection and copying between 8:00

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

Friday, at the EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center,

Waterside Mall, room M–1500, first

floor, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC

20460, or by calling (202) 260–7548 or

260 -7549. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Janet S. Meyer, 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) 541–5254.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If no

significant, adverse comments are

timely received, no further activity is

contemplated in relation to this

proposed rule and the direct final rule

in the final rules section of this Federal

Register will automatically go into effect

on the date specified in that rule. If

significant adverse comments are timely

received on any provision, that

provision of the direct final rule will be

withdrawn and all public comment

received on that provision will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the relevant portions of this

proposed rule. Because the Agency will

not institute a second comment period

on this proposed rule, any parties

interested in commenting should do so

during this comment period.

For further supplemental information,

the detailed rationale, and the rule

provisions, see the information

provided in the direct final rule in the