Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 1263

with the branch campus. Therefore, we

are revising § 602.2(b) to more clearly

reflect the Department’s long-standing

policy.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking

Under the Administrative Procedure

Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department

generally offers interested parties the

opportunity to comment on proposed

regulations. However, these regulations

merely clarify statutory changes and do

not establish or effect substantive

policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(8), the Secretary has determined

that proposed regulations are

unnecessary and contrary to public

interest.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The Secretary certifies that these

regulations would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

The small entities that would be

affected by these regulations are small

institutions of higher education (IHEs)

receiving Federal funds under this

program. However, the regulations

would not have a significant economic

impact on the small IHEs affected

because the regulations would not

impose excessive regulatory burdens or

require unnecessary Federal

supervision. The regulations would

impose minimal requirements to ensure

the proper expenditure of program

funds.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

These final regulations do not contain

any information collection

requirements.

Electronic Access to this Document

You may view this document, as well

as all other Department of Education

documents published in the Federal

Register, in text or Adobe Portable

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet

at either of the following sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use PDF, you must have Adobe

Acrobat Reader which is available free

at either of the previous sites. If you

have questions about using PDF, call the

U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO),

toll free, at 1–888–293–6498; or in the

Washington, DC area at (202) 512–1530.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register. Free internet access to the official

edition of the Federal Register and the Code

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO

Access at:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/

index.html

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Numbers: 84.031S, 84.031A, and 84.031B)

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 606

Colleges and universities, Grant

programs-education, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 29, 2000.

A. Lee Fritschler

Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary

Education.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Secretary amends Title 34

of the Code of Federal Regulations by

amending part 606 as follows:

PART 606—DEVELOPING HISPANICSERVING INSTITUTIONS PROGRAM

1. The authority citation for part 606

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., unless

otherwise noted.

2. Section 606.2 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 606.2 What institutions are eligible to

receive a grant under the Developing

Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program?

* * * * *

(b) A branch campus of a HispanicServing institution is eligible to receive

a grant under this part if—

(1) The institution as a whole meets

the requirements of paragraphs (a)(3)

through (a)(6) of this section; and (2)

The branch campus satisfies the

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)

through (a)(4) of this section.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–430 Filed 1–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–6928–2]

RIN 2060–AH96

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical corrections

and amendments.

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act

(CAA), the EPA promulgated the

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

from Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations (OSWRO) on July 1, 1996

with subsequent amendments on July

20, 1999. The promulgated rule requires

new and existing major sources to

control emissions of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) to the level reflecting

application of the maximum achievable

control technology. The technical

corrections and minor technical

amendments in this action will not

change the basic control requirements of

the rule or the level of health protection

it provides.

Section 553 of the Administrative

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

provides that, when an agency for good

cause finds that notice and public

procedure are impracticable,

unnecessary, or contrary to the public

interest, the agency may issue a rule

without providing notice and an

opportunity for public comment. We

have determined that there is good

cause for making today’s rule final

without prior proposal and opportunity

for comment because the changes to the

rule are minor technical corrections, are

noncontroversial in nature, and do not

substantively change the requirements

of the OSWRO rule. Thus, notice and

public procedure are unnecessary. We

find that this constitutes good cause

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

Section 553(d)(3) allows an agency,

upon finding good cause, to make a rule

effective immediately. Because today’s

changes do not substantively change the

requirements of the OSWRO rule, we

find good cause to make these

amendments effectively immediately.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A–92–16

contains the supporting information for

the original OSWRO NESHAP and this

action. The docket is located at the U.S.

EPA in room M–1500, Waterside Mall

(ground floor), 401 M Street SW,

Washington, DC 20460, and may be

inspected from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Elaine Manning, Waste and Chemical

Processes Group, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), U.S. EPA, Research

Triangle Park, NC, 27711, telephone

number (919) 541–5499, facsimile

number (919) 541–0246, electronic mail

address manning.elaine@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated

Entities. Entities potentially regulated

by this action include the following

types of facilities if the facility receives

‘‘off-site material’’ as defined in the rule,

and the facility is determined to be a

major source of emissions of HAP as

defined in 40 CFR 63.2.

1264 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ........................................... Businesses that receive waste, used oil, or used solvent from off-site locations and manage this material in

any of the following waste management or recovery operations: hazardous waste treatment, storage,

and disposal facilities (TSDF); hazardous wastewater treatment operations exempted from air emission

control requirements in 40 CFR parts 264 or 265; nonhazardous wastewater treatment facilities other

than publicly owned treatment works; used solvent recovery operations; recovery operations that recycle

or reprocess hazardous waste and are exempted from regulation as a TSDF in 40 CFR parts 264 or

265; and used oil re-refineries.

Federal Government ....................... Federal agency facilities that operate any of the waste management or recovery operations that meet the

description of the entities listed under the ‘‘Industry’’ category in this table.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that the EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action.

A comprehensive list of Standard

Industrial Classification (SIC) codes

cannot be compiled for businesses

potentially regulated by this action due

to the structure of the rule. The rule may

be applicable to any business that

receives waste, used oil, or used solvent

from an off-site location and then

manages this material in one of the

operations or processes specified in the

rule. Thus, for many businesses subject

to the rule, the regulated sources (i.e.,

off-site waste management or recovery

operations) are only a small part of the

overall manufacturing process or service

conducted at the facility. In these cases,

the SIC code indicates the primary

product produced or service provided at

the facility rather than the presence of

an off-site waste management or

recovery operation at the site which is

operated to support the predominate

function of the facility. For example,

SIC code classifications likely to have

off-site waste management or recovery

operations at some (but not all) facilities

include, but are not limited to,

petroleum refineries (SIC code 2911),

industrial organic chemical

manufacturing (SIC code 286x), plastic

materials and synthetics manufacturing

(SIC code 282x), and miscellaneous

chemical products manufacturing (SIC

code 289x). The EPA is also aware of

off-site waste management or recovery

operations potentially subject to the rule

being located at a few facilities listed

under SIC codes for refuse systems,

waste management, business services,

miscellaneous services, and

nonclassifiable. Thus, the SIC code

alone for a given facility does not

determine whether the facility is or is

not potentially subject to this rule. To determine whether your facility is

regulated by this action, you should

carefully examine the applicability

criteria in § 63.680 of the rule. If you

have questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this

document. World Wide Web (WWW).

The text of today’s document will also

be available on the WWW through the

Technology Transfer Network (TTN).

Following signature, a copy of this

action will be posted on the TTN’s

policy and guidance page for newly

proposed or promulgated rules http//

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

provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air

pollution control. If more information

regarding the TTN is needed, call the

TTN HELP line at (919) 541–5384.

I. Background

The EPA, under 40 CFR part 63,

subpart DD, promulgated the OSWRO

NESHAP on July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34140).

The OSWRO NESHAP establish

standards to control HAP emissions

from certain waste management and

recovery operations that are not subject

to Federal air standards under other

subparts in 40 CFR part 61 or 63.

Subpart DD specifies the rule’s

applicability, standards for affected

sources, compliance requirements, and

reporting and recordkeeping provisions.

In addition, subpart DD cross-references

other subparts in 40 CFR part 63 for the

specific air emissions control

requirements to be used for affected

tanks, surface impoundments,

containers, individual drain systems,

and oil-water and organic-water

separators. The cross-referenced

subparts are Subpart OO, National

Emission Standards for Tanks, Level 1;

Subpart PP, National Emission

Standards for Containers; Subpart QQ,

National Emission Standards for Surface

Impoundments; Subpart RR, National

Emission Standards for Individual Drain

Systems; and Subpart VV, National

Emission Standards for Oil-Water

Separators and Organic-Water

Separators. Amendments were made to

the final rule on July 20, 1999.

II. Summary of Corrections

Today’s changes are described in

Table 2 to this preamble for the

convenience of the reader.

Table 2

Citation Change

§ 63.681 ........................................... Add definition ‘‘Off-site material service’’ to amendatory paragraph.

§ 63.684(b)(1)(ii)(A)&(B) .................. Add the letters ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ which were inadvertently left out of July 20, 1999 amendments.

§ 63.685(i) and (i)(4) ....................... Add reference to (i)(4) in (i), intro paragraph, and add (i)(4), which was left out of July 1, 1996 final rule

and the July 20, 1999 amendments.

§ 63.691(a) ...................................... In the July 20, 1999 amendments, § 63.683(b)(3) was eliminated and § 63.683(d) was added to take its

place. The cite in § 63.691(a) referencing § 63.683 was not corrected in the July 1999 amendments to

cite § 63.683(d). Today’s action corrects this oversight.

§ 63.693(d)(3)(ii), (e)(3)(ii), (f)(3)(iii),

and (g)(3)(ii).

The change to the rule removes the ±1 percent accuracy requirement and replaces it with reference to part

60, appendix B, Performance Specification 8 or 9. The EPA received comments that the monitoring requirements in the rule were too vague, in that they did not define what type of monitoring device was acceptable, nor did it establish procedures for determining the accuracy requirement (±1 percent) cited in

the rule. The addition of part 60, appendix B, Performance Specification 8 or 9 to the rule will aid

sources in choosing and certifying appropriate monitors, as well as establishing quality assurance procedures for maintaining, calibrating and auditing the monitors.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 1265

Citation Change

§ 63.693 (d)(3), (d)(4)(i) and (iii) ..... This change adds another option to the carbon canister monitoring and replacement requirements consistent with those allowed under other related NESHAP and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA) air rules.

§ 63.694(b)(2)(iii) ............................. Correction to subscript of the ‘‘QT’’ term.

§ 63.694(1)(3)(ii)(A) ......................... Correction to misprinted equation in July 1, 1996 final rule.

Table 2. Applicability of Paragraphs

in Subpart A of Part 63—General

Provisions to Subpart DD.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xi) inadvertently left off table. The ‘‘yes’’ for this section was added.

§ 63.924(c)(2) .................................. Change reference of § 63.692 to § 63.693. Section 63.692 is reserved.

§ 63.962(b)(3)(ii) .............................. Corrected typographical error ‘‘in accordance.’’

§ 63.965(b) ...................................... Corrected typographical error ‘‘Standards.’’

§ 63.966 ........................................... Corrected typographical error ‘‘Standards.’’

§ 63.1045 ......................................... Corrected typographical error ‘‘Standards.’’

III. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

is therefore not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). Because the EPA has made a

‘‘good cause’’ finding that this action is

not subject to notice and comment

requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute, it is

not subject to the regulatory flexibility

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public

Law 104–4). In addition, this action

does not significantly or uniquely affect

small governments or impose a

significant intergovernmental mandate,

as described in sections 203 and 204 of

the UMRA. This action also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This action

does not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, as specified in Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999). This action also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) because it is not

economically significant.

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No.

104–113), directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in their regulatory

and procurement activities unless to do

so would be inconsistent with

applicable law or otherwise impractical.

Voluntary consensus standards are

technical standards (e.g., materials

specifications, test methods, sampling

procedures, business practices)

developed or adopted by one or more

voluntary consensus bodies. The

NTTAA directs EPA to provide

Congress, through annual reports to

OMB, with explanations when an

agency does not use available and

applicable voluntary consensus

standards.

These final rule amendments provide

technical corrections and minor

technical amendments to the Off-Site

Waste and Recovery Operations

NESHAP (Subpart DD). These

amendments include two technical

standards: Performance Specification 8

(PS–8), Performance Specification for

Volatile Organic Compound Continuous

Emission Monitoring Systems in

Stationary Sources; and Performance

Specification 9 (PS–9), Performance

Specification for Gas Chromatograph

Continuous Emission Monitoring

Systems in Stationary Sources which

are cited in § 63.693.

Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA

conducted a search for EPA’s

Performance Specifications 8 and 9. No

candidate consensus standards were

identified for either performance

specification applicable for these

amendments. Therefore, EPA is not

proposing/adopting any voluntary

consensus standards in this rulemaking.

Nevertheless, under § 63.8, sources are

allowed to apply to EPA for permission

to use alternative monitoring in lieu of

PS–8 and PS–9.

This technical correction action does

not involve special consideration of

environmental justice related issues as

required by Executive Order 12898 (59

FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing

these rule amendments, the EPA has

taken the necessary steps to eliminate

drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct, as

required by section 3 of Executive Order

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

The EPA has complied with Executive

Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15,

1988) by examining the takings

implications of these rule amendments

in accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. These rule

amendments do not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The

EPA’s compliance with these statutes

and Executive Orders for the underlying

rule is discussed in the July 20, 1999

amendments to the final OSWRO rule.

The Congressional Review Act (5

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. Section 808 allows

the issuing agency to make a rule

effective sooner than otherwise

provided by the Congressional Review

Act if the agency makes a good cause

finding that notice and public procedure

is impracticable, unnecessary or

contrary to the public interest. This

determination must be supported by a

brief statement (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). As

stated previously, the EPA has made

such a good cause finding, including the

reasons therefor, and established an

effective date of January 8, 2001. The

EPA will submit a report containing this

rule and other required information to

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

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication of the rule in the Federal

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Off-site waste and

recovery operations.

Dated: December 27, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

1266 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart DD—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

from Off-Site Waste and Recovery

Operations

2. Section 63.684 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as

follows:

§ 63.684 Standards: Off-site material

treatment.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) In the case when off-site material

streams entering the treatment process

are a mixture of off-site material streams

having an average VOHAP

concentration equal to or greater than

500 ppmw at the point-of-delivery with

off-site material streams having average

VOHAP concentrations less than 500

ppmw at the point-of-delivery, then the

VOHAP concentration of the off-site

material must be reduced to a level at

the point-of-treatment that meets the

performance level specified in either

paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) or (B) of this

section.

(A) Less than the VOHAP

concentration limit (CR) established for

the treatment process using the

procedure specified in § 63.694(d); or

(B) Less than the lowest VOHAP

concentration determined for each of

the off-site material streams entering the

treatment process as determined by the

VOHAP concentration of the off-site

material at the point-of-delivery.

* * * * *

3. Section 63.685 is amended by

revising paragraph (i) introductory text

and adding paragraph (i)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 63.685 Standards: Tanks.

* * * * *

(i) The owner or operator who elects

to control air emissions by using an

enclosure vented through a closed-vent

system to an enclosed combustion

control device shall meet the

requirements specified in paragraphs

(i)(1) through (4) of this section.

* * * * *

(4) The owner or operator shall

inspect and monitor the closed-vent

system and control device as specified

in § 63.693.

4. Section 63.691 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 63.691 Standards: Equipment leaks.

(a) The provisions of this section

apply to the control of air emissions

from equipment leaks for which

§ 63.683(d) references the use of this

section for such air emissions control.

* * * * *

5. Section 63.693 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)

introductory text and (d)(3)(ii);

b. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(i);

c. Adding paragraph (d)(4)(iii)

d. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(ii);

e. Revising paragraph (f)(3)(iii); and

f. Revising paragraph (g)(3)(ii).

The revisions and addition read as

follows:

§ 63.693 Standards: Closed-vent systems

and control devices.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(3) The owner or operator must

monitor the operation of the carbon

adsorption system in accordance with

the requirements of § 63.695(e) using

one of the continuous monitoring

systems specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(i)

through (iii) of this section. Monitoring

the operation of a nonregenerable

carbon adsorption system (e.g., a carbon

canister) using a continuous monitoring

system is not required when the carbon

canister or the carbon in the control

device is replaced on a regular basis

according to the requirements in

paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section.

* * * * *

(ii) A continuous monitoring system

to measure and record the daily average

concentration level of organic

compounds in the exhaust gas stream

from the control device. The organic

monitoring system must comply either

with Performance Specification 8 or 9 in

40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The

relative accuracy provision of

Performance Specification 8, Sections

2.4 and 3 need not be conducted.

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(i) Following the initial startup of the

control device, all carbon in the control

device shall be replaced with fresh

carbon on a regular, predetermined time

interval that is no longer than the

carbon service life established for the

carbon adsorption system. The

provisions of this paragraph (d)(4)(i) do

not apply to a nonregenerable carbon

adsorption system (e.g., a carbon

canister) for which the carbon canister

or the carbon in the control device is

replaced on a regular basis according to

the requirements in paragraph (d)(4)(iii)

of this section.

* * * * *

(iii) As an alternative to meeting the

requirements in paragraphs (d)(3) and

(d)(4)(i) of this section, an owner or

operator of a nonregenerable carbon

adsorption system may choose to

replace on a regular basis the carbon

canister or the carbon in the control

device using the procedures in either

paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(A) or (d)(4)(iii)(B) of

this section. For the purpose of

complying with this paragraph

(d)(4)(iii), a nonregenerable carbon

adsorption system means a carbon

adsorption system that does not

regenerate the carbon bed directly onsite

in the control device, such as a carbon

canister. The spent carbon removed

from the nonregenerable carbon

adsorption system must be managed

according to the requirements in

paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section.

(A) Monitor the concentration level of

the organic compounds in the exhaust

vent from the carbon adsorption system

on a regular schedule, and when carbon

breakthrough is indicated, immediately

replace either the existing carbon

canister with a new carbon canister or

replace the existing carbon in the

control device with fresh carbon.

Measurement of the concentration level

of the organic compounds in the

exhaust vent stream must be made with

a detection instrument that is

appropriate for the composition of

organic constituents in the vent stream

and is routinely calibrated to measure

the organic concentration level expected

to occur at breakthrough. The

monitoring frequency must be daily or

at an interval no greater than 20 percent

of the time required to consume the

total carbon working capacity

established as a requirement of

paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section,

whichever is longer.

(B) Replace either the existing carbon

canister with a new carbon canister or

replace the existing carbon in the

control device with fresh carbon at a

regular, predetermined time interval

that is less than the design carbon

replacement interval established as a

requirement of paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of

this section.

(e) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) A continuous monitoring system

to measure and record the daily average

concentration level of organic

compounds in the exhaust gas stream

from the control device. The organic

monitoring system must comply either

with Performance Specification 8 or 9 in

40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The

relative accuracy provision of

Performance Specification 8, Sections

2.4 and 3 need not be conducted.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 1267

(3) * * *

(iii) For either type of vapor

incinerator, a continuous monitoring

system to measure and record the daily

average concentration of organic

compounds in the exhaust vent stream

from the control device. The organic

monitoring system must comply either

with Performance Specification 8 or 9 in

40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The

relative accuracy provision of

Performance Specification 8, Sections

2.4 and 3 need not be conducted.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) A continuous monitoring system

to measure and record the daily average

concentration of organic compounds in

the exhaust vent stream from the control

device. The organic monitoring system

must comply either with Performance

Specification 8 or 9 in 40 CFR part 60,

appendix B. The relative accuracy

provision of Performance Specification

8, Sections 2.4 and 3 need not be

conducted.

* * * * *

6. Section 63.694 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and

(l)(3)(ii)(A) to read as follows:

§ 63.694 Testing methods and procedures.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(iii) Calculations. The average

VOHAP concentration (C) on a massweighted basis shall be calculated by

using the results for all samples

analyzed in accordance with paragraph

(b)(2)(ii) of this section and the

following equation. An owner or

operator using a test method that

provides species-specific chemical

concentrations may adjust the measured

concentrations to the corresponding

concentration values which would be

obtained had the off-site material

samples been analyzed using Method

305. To adjust these data, the measured

concentration for each individual HAP

chemical species contained in the offsite material is multiplied by the

appropriate species-specific adjustment

factor (fm305) listed in Table 1 of this

subpart.

C

Q Q C

T

i i

i

n

=× × ( ) =

∑ 1

1

Where:

C = Average VOHAP concentration of the offsite material at the point-of-delivery on

a mass-weighted basis, ppmw.

i = Individual sample ‘‘i’’ of the off-site

material.

n = Total number of samples of the off-site

material collected (at least 4) for the

averaging period (not to exceed 1 year).

Qi = Mass quantity of off-site material stream

represented by Ci, kg/hr.

QT = Total mass quantity of off-site material

during the averaging period, kg/hr.

Ci = Measured VOHAP concentration of

sample ‘‘i’’ as determined in accordance

with the requirements of § 63.694(a),

ppmw.

* * * * *

(l) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) * * *

(A) The following equations shall be

used:

EKQ CM

E KQ C M

i i ij ij

j

n

o o oj oj

j

n

= ×× × ( )

=×× × ( )

=

=

∑

∑

2

1

2

1

Where:

Cij, Coj = Concentration of sample component

j of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet

of the control device, respectively, dry

basis, parts per million by volume.

Ei, Eo = Mass rate of TOC (minus methane

and ethane) or total HAP at the inlet and

outlet of the control device, respectively,

dry basis, kilogram per hour.

Mij, Moj = Molecular weight of sample

component j of the gas stream at the inlet

and outlet of the control device,

respectively, gram/gram-mole.

Qi, Qo = Flow rate of gas stream at the inlet

and outlet of the control device,

respectively, dry standard cubic meter

per minute.

K2 = Constant, 2.494×10 ¥6 (parts per

million) ¥1 (gram-mole per standard

cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minute/

hour), where standard temperature

(gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is

20°C.

* * * * *

7. In Table 2 of Subpart DD, the entry

‘‘63.10(b)(2)(x)’’ is revised to read as

follows:

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART DD—APPLICABILITY OF PARAGRAPHS IN SUBPART A OF THIS PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS TO

SUBPART DD

Subpart A Applies to Subpart DD Explanation

*******

63.10(b)(2)(x)–(xi) .......................... Yes.

*******

Subpart PP—National Emission

Standards for Containers

8. Section 63.924 is amended by

revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 63.924 Standards—Container Level 3

Controls.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) The closed-vent system and

control device shall be designed and

operated in accordance with the

requirements of § 63.693.

* * * * *

Subpart RR—National Emission

Standards for Individual Drain Systems

9. Section 63.962 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) to read

as follows:

§ 63.962 Standards.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) * * *

(A) The junction box shall be vented

through a closed vent system to a

control device except as provided for in

paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.

The closed vent system and control

device shall be designed and operated

in accordance with the standards

specified in § 63.693.

* * * * *

10. Section 63.965 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 63.965 Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *

(b) Owners and operators that use a

closed-vent system and a control device

in accordance with the provisions of

§ 63.962 shall prepare and maintain the

records required for the closed-vent

system and control device in accordance

with the requirements of § 63.693.

11. Section 63.966 is revised to read

as follows:

1268 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

§ 63.966 Reporting requirements.

Owners and operators that use a

closed-vent system and a control device

in accordance with the provisions of

§ 63.962 shall prepare and submit to the

Administrator the reports required for

closed-vent systems and control devices

in accordance with the requirements of

§ 63.693.

Subpart VV—National Emission

Standards for Oil-Water Separators

and Organic-Water Separators

12. Section 63.1045 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to read as

follows:

§ 63.1045 Standards—Pressurized

separator.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) At those times when purging of

inerts from the separator is required,

and the purge stream is routed to a

closed-vent system and control device

designed and operated in accordance

with the applicable requirements of

§ 63.693.

[FR Doc. 01–365 Filed 1–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[NV 032–FON; FRL–6927–7]

Clean Air Act Reclassification;

Nevada—Reno Planning Area;

Particulate Matter of 10 Microns or

Less (PM–10)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

find that the Reno (Washoe County)

Planning Area (RPA) has not attained

the annual and 24-hour PM–10 national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

by the Clean Air Act (CAA) mandated

attainment date for moderate

nonattainment areas, December 31,

1994. This finding is based on

monitored air quality data for the PM–

10 NAAQS during the years 1992–1994.

As a result of this failure to attain, the

RPA will be reclassified under CAA

section 188(b)(2) by operation of law as

a serious nonattainment area on the

effective date of this rule. The State of

Nevada will be required to submit a

state implementation plan (SIP) revision

addressing the CAA provisions for

serious areas within 18 months of the

reclassification.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

on February 7, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of

the administrative record for this action

at EPA’s Region 9 office during normal

business hours. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9, Air

Division, Planning Office (AIR–2), 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105.

Electronic Availability

This document is also available as an

electronic file on EPA’s Region 9 Web

Page at http://www.epa.gov/region09/

air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

monitoring data questions contact

Manny Aquitania, U.S. EPA, Region 9,

Air Division, Technical Support Office

(AIR–7), 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105, (415) 744–

1299, aquitania.manny@epa.gov. For

other questions contact Doris Lo, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office

(AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105, (415) 744–

1287, lo.doris@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 22, 2000, EPA proposed

to find that the RPA, a moderate PM–

10 nonattainment area (40 CFR 81.329)

did not attain either the 24-hour or

annual PM–10 NAAQS by the required

attainment date of December 31, 1994

and, as a result, would be reclassified as

a serious area. 65 FR 70326. The

proposed finding and resulting

reclassification is based on air quality

data which revealed violations of the

PM–10 NAAQS during 1992–1994. For

more background information see the

November 22, 2000 proposal at 65 FR

70326. Today’s rulemaking provides

EPA’s responses to public comments

and finalizes EPA’s proposed action.

II. Public Comments and EPA

Responses

In response to the November 22, 2000

proposal, EPA received one comment

letter from the Washoe County District

Health Department Air Quality

Management Division (the District). In

general, the District believes that the air

quality in the RPA has improved over

the past decade and that a

reclassification to serious is not

indicative of the air quality

improvement for the area; however, the

District also recognizes that EPA

proposed to reclassify the RPA pursuant

to the Clean Air Act’s statutory

requirements. Below are EPA’s

responses to the District’s comments.

Comment 1: The District is concerned

that after years of improving PM–10

ambient levels and public outreach

efforts promoting their successes, the

proposed action will bring into question

the credibility of both the District and

EPA. Moreover, the District believes that

the reclassification of the area to serious

nonattainment will require considerable

staff resources to be spent on plan

preparation and documentation

requirements.

In addition, the District does not

believe that the serious classification

correctly defines the current PM–10

status of the RPA and that maintaining

the moderate classification, although it

may not be an option provided by the

Clean Air Act, would more correctly

characterize the area.

Response 1: While the PM–10

ambient levels may have improved over

the years, the RPA was violating the

PM–10 standard on its CAA attainment

deadline of December 31, 1994 and is

currently still in violation of the PM–10

standard. The basis for this conclusion

and the data supporting it are discussed

in detail in the proposed rule. See 65 FR

at 70327.

EPA has the responsibility under CAA

sections 179(c) and 188(b)(2) to make

findings of failure to attain for areas

which have not attained the NAAQS by

the statutory deadline. Under section

188(b)(2)(A), a moderate PM–10

nonattainment area is reclassified as

serious by operation of law if the

Administrator finds that the area has

failed to attain the NAAQS by the

statutory attainment date.

EPA supports the District’s efforts to

improve the air quality in the Reno area

and understands that the District has

already spent considerable resources in

developing measures that will satisfy

the requirements in CAA section 189(b)

for a serious PM–10 area. EPA

understands that the plan preparation

and document requirements can be

resource-intensive and difficult, but

EPA is encouraged by the District’s

ongoing efforts and believes that the

District’s past efforts (e.g., residential

wood burning and construction dust

control measures) will also help address

the serious area planning requirements.

These ongoing and past efforts should

help the serious area plan preparation

and documentation requirements

proceed with fewer resources and less

difficulty.

Comment 2: The District stated that

the lawsuit and accompanying

arguments levied by the Sierra Club

present the perception that the air

quality in the RPA has continually been

at a level endangering public health.

The District believes this is a