Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45673 

PART 3—ASSIGNMENT, RECORDING 

AND RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEE 

7. Section 3.24 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 3.24 Requirements for documents and 

cover sheets relating to patents and patent 

applications. 

(a) For electronic submissions (e.g., 

Electronic Patent Assignment System 

(EPAS)): Either a copy of the original 

document or an extract of the original 

document may be submitted for 

recording. All documents must be 

submitted as digitized images in Tagged 

Image File Format (TIFF) or another 

form as prescribed by the Director. 

When printed to a paper size of either 

21.6 by 27.9 cm (81⁄2 inches by 11 

inches) or 21.0 by 29.7 cm (DIN size 

A4), the document must be legible and 

a 2.5 cm (one inch) margin must be 

present on all sides. 

(b) For paper: Either a copy of the 

original document or an extract of the 

original document must be submitted 

for recording. Only one side of each 

page may be used. The paper size must 

be either 21.6 by 27.9 cm (81⁄2 inches by 

11 inches) or 21.0 by 29.7 cm (DIN size 

A4), and in either case, a 2.5 cm (one 

inch) margin must be present on all 

sides. The paper used should be 

flexible, strong, white, non-shiny, and 

durable. 

(c) Non-return of submissions: The 

Office will not return documents 

submitted for recording. Therefore, 

original documents must not be 

submitted for recording. 

8. Section 3.25 is amended by revising 

paragraph (c) as follows: 

§ 3.25 Recording requirements for 

trademark applications and registrations. 

* * * * * 

(c) All documents. (1) For electronic 

submissions (e.g., Electronic Trademark 

Assignment System (ETAS)): All 

documents must be submitted as 

digitized images in Tagged Image File 

Format (TIFF) or another form as 

prescribed by the Director. When 

printed to a paper size of either 21.6 by 

27.9 cm (81⁄2 inches by 11 inches) or 

21.0 by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4), the 

document must be legible and a 2.5 cm 

(one inch) margin must be present on all 

sides. 

(2) For paper: Only one side of each 

page may be used. The paper size must 

be either 21.6 by 27.9 cm (81⁄2 inches by 

11 inches) or 21.0 by 29.7 cm (DIN size 

A4), and in either case, a 2.5 cm (one 

inch) margin must be present on all 

sides. The paper used should be 

flexible, strong, white, non-shiny, and 

durable. 

(3) Non-return of submissions: The 

Office will not return documents 

submitted for recording. Therefore, 

original documents must not be 

submitted for recording. 

Dated: July 31, 2008. 

Jon W. Dudas, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. E8–18025 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0121; FRL–8701–8] 

RIN 2060–AO07 

National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants 

From the Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry for Process 

Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer 

Operations, and Wastewater; and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. 

SUMMARY: On November 10, 2003, EPA 

promulgated national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for miscellaneous organic 

chemical manufacturing. The rule is 

referred to as the miscellaneous organic 

NESHAP or the MON. The MON 

incorporates by reference the 

wastewater tank requirements in the 

National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From 

the Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry for Process 

Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer 

Operations, and Wastewater, which EPA 

promulgated on April 24, 1994, and 

which is referred to as the hazardous 

organic NESHAP or the HON. In this 

action EPA proposes to amend the HON, 

and thereby, the MON, by adding an 

equivalent means of emission limitation 

for wastewater tanks. This action also 

clarifies and corrects technical 

inconsistencies that have been 

discovered in the MON. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before September 22, 

2008. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by August 18, 2008, a public 

hearing will be held on August 21, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2003–0121, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: Air and Radiation Docket 

and Information Center, EPA, Mailcode: 

2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: In person or by 

courier, deliver your comments to: Air 

and Radiation Docket, EPA, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW. 

Washington, DC 20004. Please include a 

total of two copies. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. We 

request that a separate copy of each 

public comment also be sent to the 

contact person listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–

0121. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

e-mail address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
45674 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air and Radiation 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If you are interested 

in attending the public hearing, contact 

Ms. Janet Eck at (919) 541–7946 to 

verify that a hearing will be held. If a 

public hearing is held, it will be held at 

10 a.m. at EPA’s Campus located at 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research 

Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site 

nearby. If no one contacts EPA 

requesting to speak at a public hearing 

concerning this rule by August 18, 2008 

this hearing will be cancelled without 

further notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Randy McDonald, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division, Coatings and 

Chemicals Group (E143–01), U.S. EPA, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–5402; fax 

number: (919) 541–0246; e-mail address: 

mcdonald.randy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. Categories and entities 

potentially regulated by this action 

include: 

Category NAICS * Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ................................ 3251, 3252, 3253, 3254, 3255, 3256, and 3259, with 

several exceptions.

Producers of specialty organic chemicals, explosives, 

certain polymers and resins, and certain pesticide 

intermediates. 

* North American Industrial Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in § 63.2435. If you 

have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the proposed rule is 

also available on the WWW through the 

Technology Transfer Network. 

Following signature, a copy of the 

proposed rule will be posted on the 

TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Outline. The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. What amendments are we proposing for the 

HON, 40 CFR part 63, subpart G? 

II. What technical corrections are we 

proposing for the MON, 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart FFFF? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. What amendments are we proposing 

for the HON, 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

G? 

The EPA has received a request from 

Dow Chemical Company for approval of 

an equivalent means emission limitation 

for wastewater tanks subject to the 

MON. The MON incorporates by 

reference the wastewater tank 

requirements of the HON in § 63.2485(d) 

and Table 7 by requiring compliance 

with §§ 63.132 through 63.148 of the 

HON. With one exception, the standards 

for wastewater tanks in § 63.133(a) of 

the HON require the owner or operator 

of an affected wastewater tank to 

operate and maintain a fixed roof, an 

internal floating roof, or an external 

floating roof. Under certain 

circumstances or as an alternative to 

these requirements, the owner or 

operator may operate and maintain a 

fixed roof with a closed-vent system and 

control device. If a fixed roof with a 

closed vent system and control device is 

used, § 63.133(b) requires that each 

opening in the roof be closed. The 

request and evaluation submitted by 

Dow Chemicals is to use a fixed roof 

with openings under negative pressure 

and vapors routed through a closed vent 

system to a control device as an 

equivalent means of emission limitation 

to the fixed roof vented to control 

device. 

An owner or operator of an affected 

source covered by the HON may request 

approval to use an equivalent means of 

emission limitation in accordance with 

§ 63.133(a)(2)(iv). The determination of 

equivalency to the reduction in 

emissions achieved by the requirements 

in § 63.133(a)(2)(i) is based on actual 

emission tests or engineering evaluation 

and evaluated according to § 63.102(b). 

Under § 63.102(b), if, in the judgment of 

the Administrator, an equivalent means 

of emission limitation will achieve a 

reduction in organic hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) emissions at least 

equivalent to the reduction in organic 

HAP emissions from that source 

achieved under any design, equipment, 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45675 

work practice, or operational standards 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, the 

Administrator will publish in the 

Federal Register a notice permitting the 

use of the alternative means for 

purposes of compliance with that 

requirement. Any such notice shall be 

published only after public notice and 

an opportunity for a hearing. 

Moreover, the proposed work practice 

is an appropriate standard under section 

112(h) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Specifically, CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) 

provides that a work practice standard 

can be issued in lieu of an emission 

standard where it is ‘‘not feasible to 

prescribe or enforce an emission 

standard.’’ CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) 

defines the phrase ‘‘not feasible to 

prescribe or enforce an emission 

standard,’’ to mean a situation where 

the Administrator determines that ‘‘the 

application of measurement 

methodology to a particular class of 

sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic 

limitations.’’ The proposed work 

practice is consistent with CAA section 

112(h)(2)(B) since applying a 

measurement methodology to this class 

of sources is not technologically feasible 

due to the number of openings and 

possible emissions points. Emissions 

from fixed roof tanks are evaporative 

losses that result from barometric 

pressure and ambient temperature 

changes, as well as filling and emptying 

operations. The flow rate of vent 

emissions from a tank is very low, 

except during filling. The concentration 

of HAP in the vent stream varies with 

the degree of saturation of HAP in the 

tank vapor space. The degree of 

saturation depends on such factors as 

HAP vapor pressure, tank size, and 

liquid throughput. Low flow rate and 

varying concentration make emission 

measurement impractical. 

We discussed work practice standards 

for wastewater tanks in the preamble to 

the proposed HON rule (57 FR 62641). 

We stated: 

Although considered first, it was 

determined that a numerical standard would 

not be feasible because it would be difficult 

to capture and measure emissions from this 

equipment for the purpose of evaluating 

compliance. 

We are considering the Dow Chemical 

Company’s request for a determination 

of equivalency under §§ 63.102(b) and 

63.133(a)(2)(iv) since standards for tanks 

are work practice standards. Design 

features of Dow’s wastewater tank 

include a negative pressure generated 

from the thermal oxidizer blower to 

draw the clarifier vent stream to the 

thermal oxidizer, an air sweep across 

the headspace to minimize 

accumulation of flammables, and a low 

pressure water seal system for the 

rotating raker arm structure. Dow 

developed the patented design to 

address safety and operational issues 

inherent in wastewater treatment tanks. 

The tank has uniform air inlets around 

the circumference of the tank at the roof 

for evenly distributed air flow into the 

clarifier. 

When a fixed roof with a closed vent 

system and control device is used to 

comply with the requirements for 

wastewater tanks, the owner or operator 

must meet the requirements in 

§ 63.133(b). Paragraphs § 63.133(b)(1), 

(2), and (3) contain requirements for the 

fixed roof, the control device, and the 

closed vent system, respectively. 

Paragraph § 63.133(b)(1)(i) requires the 

fixed roof and all openings be 

maintained in accordance with the no 

detectable emissions requirements in 

§ 63.148 and paragraph § 63.133(b)(1)(ii) 

requires each opening in the fixed roof 

be maintained in a closed position. The 

request and evaluation submitted by 

Dow Chemicals is to use a fixed roof 

with openings under negative pressure 

and vapors routed through a closed vent 

system to a control device as an 

equivalent means of emission limitation 

to the fixed roof vented to control 

device. Since the performance of the 

closed vent system and control device 

would be equivalent, Dow’s application 

for equivalency must demonstrate that 

the fixed roof with openings under 

negative pressure performs at least as 

well as the fixed roof. 

To show equivalency under 

§§ 63.102(b) and 63.133(a)(2)(iv), Dow 

tested for detectable emissions at the 

openings of the fixed roof under 

negative pressure. Dow obtained flame 

ionization detection (FID) readings at 

these openings and found meter 

readings of less than 500 parts per 

million by volume (ppmv) above 

background. These results indicate no 

detectable emissions according to 

§ 63.148(d). 

Moreover, Dow correctly states that an 

enclosure with openings under negative 

pressure has previously been considered 

by EPA and is an accepted control 

alternative under the NESHAP for the 

pulp and paper industry (40 CFR part 

63, subpart S) as well as a control 

requirement under the Benzene Waste 

NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF). 

The Pulp and Paper NESHAP requires 

pulping equipment systems be enclosed 

and vapors be vented to a closed vent 

system and routed to a control device. 

Each enclosure must maintain negative 

pressure at each opening. The owner or 

operator is required to demonstrate 

initially and annually that each 

enclosure opening is maintained at a 

negative pressure using an anemometer, 

smoke tubes, or other acceptable test 

method to demonstrate flow into the 

enclosure opening. 

The Benzene Waste NESHAP has 

provisions for tanks maintained at a 

pressure less than atmospheric pressure. 

The standard requires a fixed-roof and 

closed-vent system that routes all vapors 

from a tank to a control device. In lieu 

of maintaining all openings in a closed 

and sealed position, the owner or 

operator may choose to maintain the 

tank at a pressure less than atmospheric 

pressure. 

After considering the information in 

Dow’s request and reviewing prior EPA 

judgments, we have concluded that Dow 

has demonstrated that maintaining a 

fixed roof with openings under negative 

pressure achieves an equivalent 

emissions reduction compared to 

maintaining a fixed roof with no 

openings as required by §§ 63.102(b) 

and 63.133(a)(2)(iv). 

Therefore, we are proposing to amend 

§ 63.133(b) to allow a fixed roof with 

openings maintained at negative 

pressure for owners or operators 

complying with § 63.133(a)(2)(i) for a 

fixed roof and closed vent system that 

routes vapors to a control device. 

We are also proposing monitoring 

requirements to accompany the 

proposed equivalent means of emission 

limitation, which demonstrate that the 

openings in the enclosure are 

maintained under negative pressure 

throughout the full range of operating 

conditions, including periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction. 

II. What technical corrections are we 

proposing for the MON, 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart FFFF? 

We are proposing to edit several 

provisions to clarify our intent. These 

proposed changes are described in Table 

1 of this preamble. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
45676 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—TECHNICAL CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE MON, 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART FFFF 

Subpart FFFF Description of proposed correction 

§ 63.2450(o) .................................... We are adding language to clarify that, if hydrogen halide and halogen HAP in a vent stream must be controlled to meet the emission limits in Table 3 to subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 63, then that vent stream 

may not be vented to a flare. This clarifies our intent that all other vent streams that contain hydrogen 

halide and halogen HAP may be vented to a flare. 

§ 63.2460(a) .................................... We are proposing language to clarify that any combination of emission limits for batch process vents 

(items 1.a, 1.b, and/or 1.c in Table 2) may be applied to batch process vents. 

§ 63.2460(c)(2)(v) ............................ We are proposing to add language to clarify that the requirement to demonstrate that a process condenser 

is properly operated applies only in the case where a HAP is heated above its boiling point. This requirement only applies to HAP in batch process vents and does not apply to HAP as an impurity. 

§ 63.2465(b) .................................... We are proposing to apply the outlet concentration limit to controlled and uncontrolled process vents. 

§ 63.2470(c) .................................... For storage tanks we are proposing to incorporate by reference the monitoring requirements in 

§ 63.1258(b)(1)(v) for nonregenerative carbon adsorbers. 

§ 63.2485(n)(1) ................................ We are adding neutralization units to the requirement that wastewater must be hard-piped between wastewater treatment tanks and the activated sludge unit. 

§ 63.2520(c)(2) ................................ We are correcting the reference to paragraph § 63.2460(c)(5), the referenced paragraph is § 63.2450(k)(6). 

§ 63.2550(i) ..................................... 1. We are proposing to add a definition for the term ‘‘bench-scale process.’’ The term will mean the same 

as ‘‘bench-scale batch process,’’ as defined in § 63.161. 

2. We are proposing to correct the definition for the term ‘‘miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing 

process’’ by removing extruder as an endpoint for processes without an extruder. 

Table 6 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

FFFF.

We are deleting entry 2 as intended (see 70 FR 73121, December 8, 2005). An entry for new sources is 

not necessary. 

Table 7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

FFF.

We are proposing certain wastewater requirements as an alternative for liquid streams in open systems. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), and is, therefore, not 

subject to review under the Executive 

Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. The 

proposed amendments would give 

owners and operators another 

compliance option. Since these changes 

have the potential to result in minor 

reductions in the information collection 

burden, the Information Collection 

Request has not been revised. However, 

OMB has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulation at 

40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and has 

assigned OMB control number 2060–

0533. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed amendments on 

small entities, a small entity is defined 

as: (1) A small business ranging from up 

to 500 employees to up to 1,000 

employees, depending on the NAICS 

code; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; or (3) a small organization 

that is any not-for-profit enterprise that 

is independently owned and operated 

and is not dominant in its field. The 

maximum number of employees to be 

considered a small business for each 

NAICS code is shown in the preamble 

to the proposed rule (67 FR 16178). 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In determining whether a rule has a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

The proposed amendments include an 

additional compliance option for 

wastewater tanks that provide small 

entities with greater flexibility to 

comply with the standards. We have 

therefore concluded that this proposed 

rule amendments will relieve regulatory 

burden for all affected small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

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 us to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45677 

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, we 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. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

does not contain a Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. This 

action clarifies and corrects technical 

inconsistencies that have been 

discovered. Thus, this rule is not subject 

to the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of the UMRA. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. These rule 

amendments clarify and correct 

technical inconsistencies, thus, should 

not affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

affected facilities are owned or operated 

by State or local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. The proposed 

rule amendments provide an owner or 

operator with an additional option for 

complying with the emission limits and 

other requirements in the rule. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to the proposed rule amendments. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5–

501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is based solely 

on technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104–113, 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in 

its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g. , materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed rule does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because they do not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. The proposed rule 

amendments do not relax the control 

measures on sources regulated by the 

rule and, therefore, will not cause 

emissions increases from these sources. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 31, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of the Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be 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. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
45678 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart G—[Amended] 

2. Section 63.133 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.133 Process wastewater provisions—

Wastewater tanks. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) If the fixed-roof and closed-vent 

system is operated such that a negative 

pressure is maintained at each opening 

in the fixed roof, then paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii) of this section does not apply. 

Under representative conditions, 

demonstrate initially and annually that 

each opening is maintained at negative 

pressure as specified in § 63.457(e). For 

a range of operating conditions, the 

owner or operator shall comply with 

§ 63.145(a)(4)(i). 

* * * * * 

Subpart FFFF—[Amended] 

3. Section 63.2450 is amended by 

revising paragraph (o) to read as follows: 

§ 63.2450 What are my general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

(o) You may not use a flare to control 

halogenated vent streams or hydrogen 

halide and halogen HAP emissions to 

comply with Table 3. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 63.2460 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and the first 

sentence in paragraph (c)(2)(v) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.2460 What requirements must I meet 

for batch process vents? 

(a) You must meet each emission 

limit, or combination thereof, in Table 

2 to this subpart that applies to you, and 

you must meet each applicable 

requirement specified in paragraphs (b) 

and (c) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(v) If a process condenser is used for 

boiling operations in which a HAP (not 

as an impurity) is heated to the boiling 

point, you must demonstrate that it is 

properly operated according to the 

procedures specified in 

§ 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(4) and (d)(3)(iii)(B), 

and the demonstration must occur only 

during the boiling operation.* * * 

* * * * * 

5. Section 63.2465 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 63.2465 What requirements must I meet 

for process vents that emit hydrogen halide 

and halogen HAP or HAP metals? 

* * * * * 

(b) If any process vents within the 

process contain greater than 20 parts per 

million by volume (ppmv) hydrogen 

halide or halogen HAP, you must 

determine and sum the uncontrolled 

hydrogen halide and halogen HAP 

emissions from each of the process 

vents within the process using 

procedures specified in 

§ 63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii). 

* * * * * 

6. Section 63.2470 is amended by 

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

follows: 

§ 63.2470 What requirements must I meet 

for storage tanks? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) For nonregenerative carbon 

adsorbers, you may choose to comply 

with the monitoring requirements in 

§ 63.1258(b)(v) in lieu of § 63.995(c). 

* * * * * 

7. Section 63.2485 is amended by 

revising the first sentence in paragraph 

(n)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 63.2485 What requirements must I meet 

for wastewater streams and liquid streams 

in open systems within an MCPU? 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(1) Wastewater must be hard-piped 

between the equalization unit, 

neutralization unit, clarifier, and 

activated sludge unit.* * * 

* * * * * 

8. Section 63.2520 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.2520 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Descriptions of daily or per batch 

demonstrations to verify that control 

devices subject to § 63.2450(k)(6) are 

operated as designed. 

* * * * * 

9. Section 63.2550 is amended in 

paragraph (i) as follows: 

a. Adding a new definition for the 

term ‘‘Bench-scale process’’ in 

alphabetical order; 

b. Revising paragraph (6) to the 

definition for ‘‘Miscellaneous organic 

chemical manufacturing process’’. 

§ 63.2550 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

Bench-scale process means a batch 

process (other than a research and 

development facility) that is operated on 

a small scale, such as one 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. 

* * * * * 

Miscellaneous organic chemical 

manufacturing process 

* * * * * 

(6) The end of a process that produces 

a solid material is either up to and 

including the dryer or extruder, or for a 

polymer production process without a 

dryer or extruder, it is up to and 

including the die plate or solid-state 

reactor, except in two cases. If the dryer, 

extruder, die plate, or solid-state reactor 

is followed by an operation that is 

designed and operated to remove HAP 

solvent or residual HAP monomer from 

the solid, then the solvent removal 

operation is the last step in the process. 

If the dried solid is diluted or mixed 

with a HAP-based solvent, then the 

solvent removal operation is the last 

step in the process. 

* * * * * 

Table 6 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63—

[Amended] 

10. Table 6 to subpart FFFF of part 63 

is amended by removing entry 2. 

Table 7 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63—

[Amended] 

11. Table 7 to subpart FFFF of part 63 

is amended by revising entry 3 to read 

as follows: 

* * * * * 

TABLE 7—TO SUBPART FFFF OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTEWATER STREAMS AND LIQUID STREAMS IN OPEN

SYSTEMS WITHIN AN MCPU 

* * * * * * * 

For each . . . You must . . . 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45679 

TABLE 7—TO SUBPART FFFF OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTEWATER STREAMS AND LIQUID STREAMS IN OPEN

SYSTEMS WITHIN AN MCPU—Continued 

* * * * * * * 

For each . . . You must . . . 

* * * * * * * 

3. Liquid streams in an open system within an MCPU ..... Comply with the requirements in § 63.149 and the requirements referenced therein, 

except as specified in § 63.2485. You may comply with the requirements in 

§ 63.133(b)(1)(ii) for tanks. 

[FR Doc. E8–18142 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 1804 and 1852 

RIN 2700–AD38 

Personal Identity Verification of 

Contractors 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: NASA proposes to revise the 

NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to 

update procedures for compliance with 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

Subpart 4.13, Personal Identity 

Verification of Contractor Personnel. 

FAR 4.13 requires that agencies include 

their implementing guidance of FIPS 

201 and OMB guidance M–05–24 in 

solicitations and contracts that require 

the contractor to have routine physical 

access to Federally-controlled facilities 

and/or access to Federally-controlled 

information systems. NASA further 

proposes to designate The Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Security and 

Program Protection as the official with 

overall responsibility for verifying 

contractor employee personal identity. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

on or before October 6, 2008 to be 

considered in formulation of the final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments, identified by RIN 

number 2700–AD38, via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Comments may also be submitted to 

Leigh Pomponio, NASA Headquarters, 

Office of Procurement, Contract 

Management Division, Washington, DC 

20546. Comments may also be 

submitted by e-mail to Leigh.Pomponio1@nasa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leigh Pomponio, NASA, Office of 

Procurement, Contract Management 

Division (Room 5K75); (202) 358–4773; 

e-mail: Leigh.Pomponio-1@nasa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC 

2005–14) implemented a final rule 

amending the FAR by addressing the 

contractor personal identification 

requirements in Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive (HSPD–12), 

‘‘Policy for a Common Identification 

Standard for Federal Employees and 

Contractors,’’ and Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publication (FIPS 

PUB) Number 201, ‘‘Personal Identity 

Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees 

and Contractors.’’ Section 304(A) of the 

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 

1958, 42 U.S.C., Section 2455, provides 

that the NASA Administrator shall 

establish such security requirements, 

restrictions, and safeguards as he deems 

necessary, and he may arrange for such 

personnel investigations of contractor 

and subcontractor employees as he 

deems appropriate. NASA’s 

implementing guidance, to be used in 

conjunction with FAR clause 52.204–9, 

Personal Identity Verification of 

Contractor Personnel, is set forth in 

NASA Interim Directive (NID) Personal 

Identity Verification (PIV) Policy and 

Procedures, dated May 24, 2007, to 

NASA Policy Regulation (NPR)–1600.1, 

NASA Security Program Procedural 

Requirements w/Change 1. The purpose 

of this proposed rule is to establish a 

new NFS Subpart 1804.13 to address 

NASA PIV requirements. 

This is not a significant regulatory 

action and, therefore, is not subject to 

review under Section 6(b) of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

proposed rule is not a major rule under 

5 U.S.C. 804. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

NASA certifies that this proposed rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities within the meaning of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq., because it merely implements 

the FAR Common Identification 

Standard for Contractors and does not 

impose an economic impact beyond that 

addressed in the FAC 2005–14 

publication of the FAR final rule. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. 

L. 104–13) is not applicable because the 

NFS changes do not impose information 

collection requirements that require the 

approval of the Office of Management 

and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et 

seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1804 

and 1852 

Government procurement. 

William P. McNally, 

Assistant Administrator for Procurement. 

Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1804 and 

1852 are proposed to be amended as 

follows: 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 1804 and 1852 continues to read 

as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2455(a), 2473(c)(1). 

PART 1804—ADMINISTRATIVE 

MATTERS 

2. Subpart 1804.13 is added to read as 

follows: 

Subpart 1804.13—Personal Identity 

Verification of Contractor Personnel 

Sec. 

1804.1303 Contract clause. 

1804.1303–70 NASA contract clause. 

The contracting officer shall insert the 

clause at 1852.204–77, NASA 

Procedures for Personal Identity 

Verification of Contractor Personnel, in 

solicitations and contracts when the 

Center Chief of Security has determined 

that a contractor will require routine 

access to Federally-controlled facilities 

or access to Federally-controlled 

information systems. The Center Chief 

shall make such a determination, on a 

case-by-case basis, as part of acquisition 

planning. Section 1807.104(a) requires 

the contracting officer to coordinate new 

requirements with the security office 

and cites NASA NPR 1600.1, NASA 

Security Program Procedural 

Requirements, as the procedural 

document for identifying and processing 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS