issue-1996-09-05•Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-05
Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-05
issue-1996-09-05Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-05Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-22707 Redelegation of Functions; Delegation of Authority to Drug Enforcement Administration Official
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22707]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 0
[DEA-136C]
Redelegation of Functions; Delegation of Authority to Drug
Enforcement Administration Official
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under delegated authority, the Deputy Administrator of the
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice, is
amending the Appendix to Subpart R of the Justice Department
regulations to make a technical correction to reflect a change in the
position classification series for DEA Diversion Investigators.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G. Thomas Gitchel, Chief, Liaison and
Policy Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Washington, D.C. 20537, Telephone (202) 307-7297.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 1, 1995, Drug Enforcement
Administration Diversion Investigators were converted from the Office
of Personnel Management position classification series 1810 to series
1801. Section 3(b) of the Appendix to Subpart R is being amended to
reflect that change by removing the reference to series 1810 and
replacing it with series 1801.
The Deputy Administrator certifies that this action will have no
impact upon entities whose interests must be considered under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). Pursuant to Executive Order
12866, this is not a significant regulatory action since it relates
only to the organization of functions within DEA. Accordingly, it has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and does not
require certification under Executive Order 12778. This action has been
analyzed in accordance with Executive Order 12616. It has been
determined that this matter has no federalism implications which would
require preparation of a federalism assessment.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 0
Authority Delegations (Government Agencies), Organizations and
functions (Government Agencies).
For the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to the authority
vested in the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration by 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, and 21 U.S.C. 871, title 28
of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 0, appendix to subpart R,
Redelegation of Functions, is amended as follows:
PART 0--ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301: 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-519.
2. In the Appendix to subpart R, Section 3(b) remove the words
``series 1810'' and replace them with the words ``series 1801''.
Dated: August 28, 1996.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-22707 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22695 Indirect Food Additives: Polymers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46716-46719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22695]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 177
[Docket No. 84F-0330]
Indirect Food Additives: Polymers
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food
additive regulations to provide for the safe use of a copolymer of
ethyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, and methacrylamide in combination
with melamine-formaldehyde resin as a coating for polyethylene
phthalate films intended for use in contact with food. This action is
in response to a petition filed by ICI Americas, Inc.
DATES: Effective September 5, 1996; written objections and requests for
a hearing by October 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mitchell Cheeseman, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-217), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3083.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
In a notice published in the Federal Register of October 26, 1984
(49 FR 43111), FDA announced that a food additive petition (FAP 4B3786)
had been filed by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE 19897. The
petition proposed that the food additive regulations be amended to
provide for the safe use of a copolymer of ethyl acrylate, methyl
methacrylate, and methacrylamide in combination with melamine-
formaldehyde resin for use in contact with food in coatings for
polyethylene phthalate films as defined by Sec. 177.1630(a) (21 CFR
177.1630(a)).
In its evaluation of the safety of this additive, FDA has reviewed
the safety of the additive itself and the chemical impurities that may
be present in the additive resulting from its manufacturing process.
Although the additive itself has not been shown to cause cancer, it has
been found to contain minute amounts of unreacted ethyl acrylate, 1,4-
dioxane, and ethylene oxide, all of which are carcinogenic impurities
resulting from the manufacture of the additive. Residual amounts of
reactants and manufacturing aids, such as ethyl acrylate, 1,4-dioxane,
and ethylene oxide, are commonly found as contaminants in chemical
products, including food additives.
II. Determination of Safety
Under the so-called ``general safety clause'' of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 348(c)(3)(A), a food
additive cannot be approved for a particular use unless a fair
evaluation of the data available to FDA establishes that the additive
is safe for that use. FDA's food additive regulations (21 CFR 170.3(i))
define safe as ``a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent
scientists that the substance is not harmful under the intended
conditions of use.''
[[Page 46717]]
The food additives anticancer or Delaney clause of the act (21
U.S.C. 348(c)(3)(A)) provides that no food additive shall be deemed
safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal.
Importantly, however, the Delaney clause applies to the additive itself
and not to impurities in the additive. That is, where an additive
itself has not been shown to cause cancer, but contains a carcinogenic
impurity, the additive is properly evaluated under the general safety
clause using risk assessment procedures to determine whether there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the proposed use of
the additive, Scott v. FDA, 728 F.2d 322 (6th Cir. 1984).
III. Safety of Petitioned Use of the Additive
FDA estimates that the petitioned use of the additive, a copolymer
of ethyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, and methacrylamide in
combination with melamine-formaldehyde resin, will result in exposure
to the additive of no greater than 50 parts per billion (ppb) in the
daily diet (Ref. 1).
FDA does not ordinarily consider chronic toxicological testing to
be necessary to determine the safety of an additive whose use will
result in such low exposure levels (Ref. 2), and the agency has not
required such testing here. However, the agency has reviewed the
available toxicological data on the additive and has determined that
these data support the safety of the additive under the intended
conditions of use.
FDA has evaluated the safety of this additive under the general
safety clause, considering all available data and using risk assessment
procedures to estimate the upper-bound limit of lifetime risk presented
by the carcinogenic chemicals that may be present as impurities in the
additive. This risk evaluation of the carcinogenic impurities has two
aspects: (1) Assessment of the worst-case exposure to the impurities
from the proposed use of the additive; and (2) extrapolation of the
risk observed in the animal bioassays to the conditions of probable
exposure to humans.
A. Ethyl Acrylate
FDA has estimated the hypothetical worst-case exposure to ethyl
acrylate from the petitioned use of the additive in coatings for
polyethylene phthalate films to be 8 parts per trillion (ppt) of the
daily diet or 24 nanograms per person per day (ng/person/day) (Refs. 1
and 3). The agency used data from the National Toxicology Program
report (No. 259:1986), a bioassay on ethyl acrylate, to estimate the
upper-bound level of lifetime human risk from exposure to this chemical
stemming from the proposed use of the additive (Ref. 4). The results of
the bioassay demonstrated that ethyl acrylate was carcinogenic for rats
and mice under the conditions of the study. The test material induced
squamous cell neoplasms in both sexes of F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice
when administered by gavage in corn oil.
Based on the estimated worst-case exposure to ethyl acrylate of 24
ng/person/day, FDA estimates that the upper-bound limit of individual
lifetime risk from exposure to ethyl acrylate from the use of the
subject additive is 1.9 x 10-9 (or 2 in 1 billion) (Ref. 5).
Because of the numerous conservative assumptions used in calculating
the exposure, the actual lifetime-averaged individual exposure to ethyl
acrylate is expected to be substantially less than the worst-case
exposure, and therefore, the calculated upper-bound limit of risk would
be less. Thus, the agency concludes that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm from exposure to ethyl acrylate would result
from the proposed use of the additive.
B. Ethylene Oxide
FDA has estimated the hypothetical worst-case exposure to ethylene
oxide from the petitioned use of the additive in coatings for
polyethylene phthalate films to be 0.04 ppt of the daily diet or 0.12
ng/person/day (Refs. 1 and 3). The agency used data from a
carcinogenesis bioassay on ethylene oxide, conducted for the Institute
of Hygiene, University of Mainz, Germany, to estimate the upper-bound
level of lifetime human risk from exposure to this chemical stemming
from the proposed use of the additive (Ref. 6). The results of the
bioassay on ethylene oxide demonstrated that the material was
carcinogenic for female rats under the conditions of the study. The
test material caused significantly increased incidence of squamous cell
carcinomas of the forestomach and carcinoma in situ of the glandular
stomach.
Based on the estimated worst-case exposure to ethylene oxide of
0.12 ng/person/day, FDA estimates that the upper-bound limit of
individual lifetime risk from exposure to ethylene oxide from the use
of the subject additive is 2.2 x 10-10 (or 2 in 10 billion) (Ref.
5). Because of the numerous conservative assumptions used in
calculating the exposure, the actual lifetime-averaged individual
exposure to ethylene oxide is expected to be substantially less than
the worst-case exposure, and therefore, the calculated upper-bound
limit of risk would be less. Thus, the agency concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm from exposure to ethylene oxide would
result from the proposed use of the additive.
C. 1,4-Dioxane
FDA has estimated the hypothetical worst-case exposure to 1,4-
dioxane from the petitioned use of the additive in coatings for
polyethylene phthalate films to be 0.04 ppt of the daily diet or 0.12
ng/person/day (Refs. 1 and 3). The agency used data from a
carcinogenesis bioassay on 1,4-dioxane, conducted by the National
Cancer Institute, to estimate the upper-bound lifetime human risk from
exposure to this chemical stemming from the proposed use of the
additive (Ref. 7). The results of the bioassay on 1,4-dioxane
demonstrated that the material was carcinogenic for female rats under
the conditions of the study. The test material caused significantly
increased incidence of squamous cell carcinomas and hepatocellular
tumors in female rats.
Based on the estimated worst-case exposure to 1,4-dioxane of 0.12
ng/person/day, FDA estimates that the upper-bound limit of individual
lifetime risk from exposure to 1,4-dioxane from the use of the subject
additive is 4.2 x 10-12 (or 4 in 1 trillion) (Ref. 5). Because of
the numerous conservative assumptions used in calculating the exposure,
the actual lifetime-averaged individual exposure to 1,4-dioxane is
expected to be substantially less than the worst-case exposure, and
therefore, the calculated upper-bound limit of risk would be less.
Thus, the agency concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm from exposure to ethylene oxide would result from the proposed use
of the additive.
D. Formaldehyde
FDA's review of the subject petition indicates that the additive
may contain trace amounts of formaldehyde as an impurity. The potential
carcinogenicity of formaldehyde was reviewed by the Cancer Assessment
Committee (the Committee) of FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition. The Committee noted that for many years formaldehyde has
been known to be a carcinogen by the inhalation route, but it concluded
that these inhalation studies are not appropriate for assessing the
potential carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in food. The Committee's
conclusion was based on the fact that the route of administration
(inhalation) is not relevant to the safety of formaldehyde residues in
food and the fact that tumors were observed only locally at the portal
of entry (nasal
[[Page 46718]]
turbinates). In addition, the agency has received literature reports of
two drinking water studies on formaldehyde: (1) A preliminary report of
a carcinogenicity study purported to be positive by Soffritti et al.
(1989), conducted in Bologna, Italy (Ref. 8) and a negative study by
Til et al. (1989), conducted in The Netherlands (Ref. 9). The Committee
reviewed both studies and concluded, concerning the Soffritti study,
``* * * that data reported were unreliable and could not be used in the
assessment of the oral carcinogenicity of formaldehyde'' (Ref. 10).
This conclusion is based on a lack of critical detail in the study,
questionable histopathologic conclusions, and the use of unusual
nomenclature to describe the tumors. Based on the Committee's
evaluation, the agency has determined that there is no basis to
conclude that formaldehyde is a carcinogen when ingested.
E. Need for Specifications
The agency has also considered whether specifications are necessary
to control the amount of ethyl acrylate, ethylene oxide, and 1,4-
dioxane present as impurities in the additive. The agency finds that
specifications are not necessary for the following reasons: (1) Because
of the low level at which ethyl acrylate, ethylene oxide, and 1,4-
dioxane may be expected to remain as impurities following production of
the additive, the agency would not expect the impurities to become
components of food at other than extremely small levels; and (2) the
upper-bound limits of lifetime risk from exposure to the impurities,
even under worst-case assumptions, are very low, in the range of less
than 4 in 1 trillion to 2 in 1 billion.
IV. Conclusion
FDA has evaluated data in the petition and other relevant material.
The agency concludes that the proposed use of the additive in coating
polyethylene phthalate films is safe, that it will achieve its intended
technical effect, and that the regulations in Sec. 177.1630 should be
amended as set forth below.
In accordance with Sec. 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition
and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its
decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the
information contact person listed above. As provided in Sec. 171.1(h),
the agency will delete from the documents any materials that are not
available for public disclosure before making the documents available
for inspection.
V. Environmental Impact
The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental
effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have
a significant impact on the human environment, and that an
environmental impact statement is not required. The agency's finding of
no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding,
contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
VI. References
The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
1. Memorandum dated September 20, 1984, from the Food Additive
Chemistry Evaluation Branch (HFF-458), to the Petitions Control
Branch (HFF-334), entitled ``FAP 4B3786-ICI Americas, Inc. Copolymer
coating for polyethylene phthalate films complying with
Sec. 177.1630(c). Submission dated 7/30/84 (Rohm & Haas).''
2. Kokoski, C. J., ``Regulatory Food Additive Toxicology'' in
``Chemical Safety Regulation and Compliance,'' edited by F.
Homburger, and J. K. Marquis, S. Karger, New York, pp. 24-33, 1985.
3. Memorandum dated October 30, 1992, from the Food and Color
Additives Review Section (HFF-415), to the Indirect Additives Branch
(HFF-335), concerning FAP 4B3786--ICI Americas, Inc.--exposures
acrylamide and methacrylamide, ethyl acrylate, and formaldehyde.
4. ``Carcinogenesis Studies of Ethyl Acrylate (CAS Reg. No. 140-
88-5) in F-344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice'' (gavage studies),
National Toxicology Program, Technical Report Series, No. 259,
December 1986.
5. Memorandum, ``Report of the Quantitative Risk Assessment
Committee,'' July 1, 1993.
6. Dunkelberg, H., ``Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide and 1,2-
Propylene Oxide Upon Intragastric Administration to Rats,'' British
Journal of Cancer, 46:924-933, 1982.
7. ``Bioassay of 1,4-Dioxane for Possible Carcinogenicity,''
National Cancer Institute, NCI-CG-TR-80, 1978.
8. Soffritti, M., C. Maltoni, F. Maffei, and R. Biagi,
``Formaldehyde: An Experimental Multipotential Carcinogen,''
Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 5, No. 5:699-730, 1989.
9. Til, H. P., R. A. Woutersen, V. J. Feron, V. H. M.
Hollanders, H. E. Falke, and J. J. Clary, ``Two-Year Drinking-Water
Study of Formaldehyde in Rats,'' Food Chemical Toxicology, vol. 27,
No. 2, pp. 77-87, 1989.
10. Memorandum of Conferences concerning ``Formaldehyde,''
Meeting of the Cancer Assessment Committee, FDA, April 24, 1991, and
March 4, 1993.
VII. Objections
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at
any time on or before October 7, 1996, file with the Dockets Management
Branch (address above) written objections thereto. Each objection shall
be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with
particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is
made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on
which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to
request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a
waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered
objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed
description and analysis of the specific factual information intended
to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing
is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any
particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a
hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents shall be
submitted and shall be identified with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in
response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 177
Food additives, Food packaging.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
177 is amended as follows:
PART 177--INDIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES: POLYMERS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 177 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409, 721 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e).
2. Section 177.1630 is amended in paragraph (e)(4) by
alphabetically adding a new substance to paragraph (iii) in the ``List
of Substances and Limitations'' to read as follows:
Sec. 177.1630 Polyethylene phthalate polymers.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) * * *
List of Substances and Limitations
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
[[Page 46719]]
Acrylic copolymers (CAS Reg. No. 30394-86-6): Prepared by reaction
of ethyl acrylate (CAS Reg. No. 140-88-5), methyl methacrylate (CAS
Reg. No. 80-62-6), and methyacrylamide (CAS Reg. No. 79-39-0)
blended with melamine-formaldehyde resin (CAS Reg. No. 68002-20-0).
For use in coatings for polyethylene phthalate films complying with
paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * *
Dated: August 23, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-22695 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22694 Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Sulfadimethoxine/Ormetoprim Tablets
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22694]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 520
Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Sulfadimethoxine/Ormetoprim
Tablets
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug
application (NADA) filed by Pfizer, Inc. The approved NADA provides for
oral use of sulfadimethoxine/ormetoprim tablets in dogs for the
treatment of certain bacterial skin and soft tissue infections (wounds
and abscesses). The supplement adds the treatment of certain bacterial
urinary tract infections. This product is limited to veterinary
prescription use.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 1996
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra K. Woods, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-114), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1617.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pfizer, Inc., 235 East 42d St., New York, NY
10017, filed supplemental NADA 100-929, which provides for oral use of
Primor (sulfadimethoxine/ormetoprim) tablets in dogs for the
treatment of urinary tract infections caused by Escherichia coli,
Staphylococcus spp., and Proteus mirabilis susceptible to the
combination of sulfadimethoxine/ormetoprim in addition to its approved
use for skin and soft tissue infections (wounds and abscesses) caused
by strains of S. aureus and E. coli susceptible to sulfadimethoxine/
ormetoprim. This product is limited to use by or on the order of a
licensed veterinarian. The supplement is approved as of August 5, 1996,
and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 520.2220d to reflect the
approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of
information summary.
In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of part 20
(21 CFR part 20) and Sec. 514.11(e)(2)(ii) (21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii)), a
summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to
support approval of this application may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420
Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville, MD 20857, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(iii)), this supplemental approval
qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning August 5,
1996, because the supplement contains reports of new clinical or field
investigations (other than bioequivalence or residue studies) essential
to the approval and conducted or sponsored by the applicant. Marketing
exclusivity applies only to use in treating urinary tract infections.
The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental
effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have
a significant impact on the human environment, and that an
environmental impact statement is not required. The agency's finding of
no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding,
contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520
Animal drugs.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is
amended as follows:
PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 360b).
Sec. 520.2220d [Amended]
2. Section 520.2220d Sulfadimethoxine-ormetoprim tablets is amended
in paragraph (c)(2) by adding the phrase ``and urinary tract infections
caused by Escherichia coli, Staphlococcus spp., and Proteus mirabilus''
after ``Escherichia coli'' .
Dated: August 23, 1996.
Stephen F. Sundlof,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 96-22694 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22674 Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22674]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
14 CFR Part 1215
RIN 2700-AA29
Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS)
AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NASA is revising Appendix A to reflect the estimated service
rates in 1997 dollars for Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System
(TDRSS) standard services, based on NASA escalation estimates. 14 CFR
Part 1215 sets forth the policy governing the TDRSS services provided
to non-U.S. Government users and the reimbursement for rendering such
services. The TDRSS represents a major investment by the U.S.
Government with the primary goal of providing improved communications
and tracking services to spacecraft in low earth orbit or to mobile
terrestrial users such as aircraft or balloons.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Network Operations Branch, Code 532, Goddard Space Flight
Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roger Flaherty, 301-286-8422.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This regulation was first published in the
Federal Register on March 9, 1983 (48 FR 9845). Each year since that
time, 14 CFR Part 1215 has been amended by revising Appendix A to
reflect the rate changes for the appropriate Calendar Years (CY). Since
this revision of Appendix A to 14 CFR Part 1215 reflects the rate
changes for CY 1997 and involves NASA management procedures and
decisions, no public comment is required.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has determined
that this rule is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, since it will not exert a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
and it is not a major rule as defined in Executive Order 12866.
Due to the advent of commercial launch service customers, an
addendum to Appendix A is required to reflect rates for service
rendered under the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA). Due to statutory
requirements, the rates are slightly different for CSLA customers.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 1215
Satellites, Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System,
Communications equipment, Government contract.
For reasons set out in the Preamble, 14 CFR Part 1215 is amended as
follows:
PART 1215--TRACKING AND DATA RELAY SATELLITE SYSTEM (TDRSS)
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 1215 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 203, Pub. L. 85-568, 72 Stat. 429, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 2473; 49 U.S.C. 2601.
2. Appendix A is revised to read as follows:
Appendix A--Estimated Service Rates in 1997 Dollars for TDRSS
Standard Services (Based on NASA Escalation Estimate)
TDRSS user service rates for services rendered in CY-97 based on
current projections in 1997 dollars are as follows:
1. Single Access Service--Forward command, return telemetry, or
tracking, or any combination of these, the base rate is $184.00 per
minute for non-U.S. Government users.
2. Multiple Access Forward Service--Base rate is $42.00 per
minute for non-U.S. Government users.
3. Multiple Access Return Service--Base rate is $13.00 per
minute for non-U.S. Government users.
Due to the advent of commercial launch service customers, an
addendum will be required to reflect rates for service rendered
under the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA). Due to statutory
requirements, the rates are slightly different for CSLA customers.
CSLA customer rates:
1. Single Access Service--Base rate is $180 per minute for CSLA
users.
2. Multiple Access Forward Service--Base rate is $39 per minute
for CSLA users.
3. Multiple Access Return Service--Base rate is $13 per minute
for CSLA users.
Dated: August 29, 1996.
David W. Harris,
Acting Associate Administrator for Space Communications.
[FR Doc. 96-22674 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22670 Suspension of Community Eligibility
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46732-46734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22670]
[[Page 46732]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket No. FEMA-7648]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are suspended on the effective dates listed within
this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management
requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the
required floodplain management measures prior to the effective
suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will be withdrawn by
publication in the Federal Register.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of each community's suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to determine whether a particular community was
suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional
Office or the NFIP servicing contractor.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Shea, Jr., Division
Director, Program Implementation Division, Mitigation Directorate, 500
C Street, SW., Room 417, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., unless an
appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures
with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this
document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with
program regulations, 44 CFR part 59 et seq. Accordingly, the
communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third
column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in
the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit
the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management
measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual
suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will
continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice
withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the
Federal Register.
In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified
the special flood hazard areas in these communities by publishing a
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM if one has been
published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct
Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in
connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or
acquisition of buildings in the identified special flood hazard area of
communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than
a year, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column.
The Acting Associate Director finds that notice and public comment
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because
communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives a 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
addressed to the Chief Executive Officer that the community will be
suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met
prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications have
been made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR
Part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Acting Associate Director has determined that this rule is
exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022,
prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the
statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the communities unless they take
remedial action.
Regulatory Classification
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not involve any collection of information for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987
Comp., p. 252.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR 55195, 3 CFR, 1991
Comp., p. 309.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
PART 64--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
Sec. 64.6 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 64.6 are
amended as follows:
[[Page 46733]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date certain
Federal
Community Effective date of Current assistance no
State/location No. eligibility effective map longer available
date in special flood
hazard areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region II
New York:
Ticonderoga, town of, Essex County... 361159 Apr. 15, 1975, Sept. 6, 1996.. Sept. 6, 1996.
Emerg.; May 17,
1988, Reg.; Sept.
6, 1996, Susp.
Wellsville, village of, Allegany 360036 May 10, 1975, ......do....... Do.
County. Emerg.; July 17,
1978, Reg.; Sept.
6, 1996, Susp.
Region III
West Virginia: Danville, town of, Boone 540230 July 1, 1975, ......do....... Do.
County. Emerg.; Apr. 16,
1991, Reg.; Sept.
6, 1996, Susp.
Region V
Indiana: Brownstown, town of, Jackson 180317 Jan. 29, 1976, ......do....... Do.
County. Emerg.; Jan. 3,
1985, Reg.; Sept.
6, 1996, Susp.
Minnesota: Cannon Falls, city of, Goodhue 270141 Apr. 5, 1974, ......do....... Do.
County. Emerg.; Jan. 2,
1981, Reg.; Sept.
6, 1996, Susp.
Region II
New York:
Dresden, town of, Washington County.. 361410 Jan. 25, 1977, Sept. 20, 1996. Sept. 20, 1996.
Emerg.; July 3,
1986, Reg.; Sept.
20, 1996, Susp.
Hillburn, village of, Rockland County 360683 June 18, 1975, ......do....... Do.
Emerg.; Jan. 6,
1982, Reg.; Sept.
20, 1996, Susp.
Region III
Pennsylvania: Shirley, township of, 421700 Feb. 4, 1976, ......do....... Do.
Huntingdon County. Emerg.; Aug. 15,
1989, Reg.; Sept.
20, 1996, Susp.
Region IV
Florida: Bay County, unincorporated areas 120004 May 12, 1975, ......do....... Do.
Emerg.; July 2,
1981, Reg.; Sept.
20, 1996, Susp.
Region V
Indiana: Scottsburg, city of, Scotts 180234 Apr. 7, 1975, ......do....... Do.
County. Emerg.; Aug. 19,
1985, Reg.; Sept.
20, 1996, Susp.
Michigan: Hartland, township of, 260784 Nov. 25, 1986, ......do....... Do.
Livingston County. Emerg.; May 17,
1989, Reg.; Sept.
20, 1996, Susp.
Ohio: Riverside, city of, Montgomery 390416 May 12, 1976, ......do....... Do.
County. Emerg.; Dec. 15,
1981, Reg.; Sept.
20, 1996, Susp.
Region VI
New Mexico:
Albuquerque, city of, Bernalillo 350002 Sept. 9, 1974, ......do....... Do.
County. Emerg.; October 14,
1983, Reg.; Sept.
20, 1996, Susp.
Bernalillo County, unincorporated 350001 Aug. 26, 1974, ......do....... Do.
areas. Emerg.; Sept. 15,
1983, Reg.; Sept.
20, 1996, Susp.
Tijeras, village of, Bernalillo 350135 July 9, 1975, ......do....... Do.
County. Emerg.; Jan. 6,
1983, Reg.; Sept.
20, 1996, Susp.
Region X
Alaska: Fairbanks North Star, borough of, 025009 May 15, 1970, ......do....... Do.
Fairbanks North Star Borough. Emerg.; June 25,
1969, Reg.; Sept.
20, 1996, Susp.
Washington: Skagit County, unincorporated 530151 June 25, 1971, Sept. 29, 1989. Do.
areas. Emerg.; Jan. 3,
1985, Reg.; Sept.
20, 1996, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code for reading third column: Emerg.-Emergency; Reg.-Regular; Rein.-Reinstatement; Susp.-Suspension.
[[Page 46734]]
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance'')
Issued: August 22, 1996.
Richard W. Krimm,
Acting Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate.
[FR Doc. 96-22670 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22661 Limes and Avocados Grown in Florida; Suspension of Certain Volume Regulations and Reporting Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46701-46703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22661]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 173 / Thursday, September 5, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 46701]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 911 and 915
[Docket No. FV95-911-2 FIR]
Limes and Avocados Grown in Florida; Suspension of Certain Volume
Regulations and Reporting Requirements
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule; suspension.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting as a
final rule, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule to
suspend indefinitely certain volume regulation provisions of the
marketing order covering limes grown in Florida. This rule indefinitely
suspends the pack-out reporting requirements for the marketing orders
covering limes and avocados grown in Florida. The marketing orders
regulate the handling of limes and avocados grown in Florida and are
administered by the Florida Lime Administrative Committee and the
Avocado Administrative Committee, respectively. These provisions are
not needed due to reduced Florida lime and avocado production. This
rule will also reduce handler reporting burdens for both marketing
orders.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline C. Thorpe, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.
Box 96456, room 2522-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: 202-720-
5127; or Aleck J. Jonas, Southeast Marketing Field Office, USDA/AMS,
P.O. Box 2276, Winter Haven, Florida 33883; telephone: 813-299-4770.
Small businesses may request information on compliance with this
regulation by contacting: Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room
2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone (202) 720-2491; Fax #
(202) 720-5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule is issued under the
provisions of section 8c(16)(A) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement
Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as
the Act; and of Marketing Agreements and Marketing Orders No. 911 (7
CFR Part 911) and No. 915 (7 CFR Part 915) regulating the handling of
limes grown in Florida and avocados grown in South Florida,
respectively. These agreements and orders are effective under the Act.
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. It is intended that this rule will be applicable for
the entire 1996 fiscal year which began April 1, 1996, and will
continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not
preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they
present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 8c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed
not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has
considered the economic impact of this action on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are about 10 Florida lime handlers subject to regulation
under the marketing order covering limes grown in Florida, and about 30
lime producers in Florida. Also, there are approximately 35 handlers of
avocados and approximately 95 producers in the regulated area. Small
agricultural producers have been defined by the Small Business
Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those having annual receipts of less
than $500,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as
those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000. A majority of
these handlers and producers may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues to suspend indefinitely volume regulation
provisions of the Florida lime marketing order. These provisions
permitted the collection of information from handlers so that the
Florida Lime Administrative Committee (FLAC) could recommend to the
Department that lime volume regulations be issued, when and if needed.
FLAC determined that volume regulations will not be needed in the near
future because of reduced production due to hurricane damage in 1992.
Thus, the Department has determined such information will not be
needed. This rule also suspends indefinitely certain reporting
requirements under the Florida lime and avocado marketing orders. This
rule is a relaxation in regulations which reduces handler reporting
burdens, resulting in lower industry costs under both marketing orders.
Thus, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has determined that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small businesses.
The FLAC met on December 13, 1995, and unanimously recommended a
two year suspension of their lime volume regulations and pack-out
reporting requirements. However, the Department revised the FLAC
recommendation by suspending both of these requirements
[[Page 46702]]
indefinitely. The Department determined that since volume regulations
have not been implemented for at least the past five years and lime
production has been reduced to low levels, these regulations should be
suspended indefinitely. The Department does not anticipate that such
regulations will be needed in the near future.
Also, the Avocado Administrative Committee (AAC) met on January 10,
1996, and recommended indefinite suspension of their pack-out reporting
requirements.
The initial suspension of Secs. 911.53-59 and 911.111 of the lime
marketing order volume regulations and pack-out reporting requirements
was published in the Federal Register (59 FR 13429, March 22, 1994) and
remained in effect through March 31, 1996. Also, the previous
suspension of Sec. 915.150 paragraph (d) of the avocado marketing order
pack-out reporting requirements was published in the Federal Register
(59 FR 30866, June 16, 1994) and remained in effect through March 31,
1996.
An interim final rule was issued on April 16, 1996, to extend the
suspension indefinitely. That rule was published in the Federal
Register (61 FR 17551, April 22, 1996), with an effective date of April
1, 1996. That rule provided a 30-day comment period which ended May 22,
1996. No comments were received.
Sections 911.53-59 (7 CFR 911.53-59) of the lime marketing order
cover volume regulations and were used by FLAC to collect and maintain
information from handlers, so that it could recommend to the Department
that lime volume regulations be issued, when and if needed. FLAC
determined that volume regulations will not be needed in the near
future, and thus such information will not be needed because of reduced
production due to hurricane damage in 1992.
Concerning pack-out reporting requirements, both FLAC and AAC
recommended suspension of their pack-out reporting requirements.
Section 911.111 (7 CFR 911.111) and Sec. 915.150 (7 CFR 915.150)
contain provisions requiring Florida handlers to file certain reports
with either the FLAC or the AAC concerning their Florida lime and
avocado shipments, respectively. This rule continues the suspension of
these provisions since information collected under these provisions is
not needed because lime and avocado production is so low. These
provisions would require handlers to furnish information on types and
numbers of containers of limes and avocados they pack each day.
Sufficient information from other sources is available to meet the
committees' needs during future seasons. Information needed for the
committees' operations, marketing policies, and compliance is available
from inspection certificates collected on a daily basis by committee
staff. These resources are used to collect such information. Low lime
and avocado production has also resulted in a substantial reduction of
both committees' staff and a reduction of assessment income. Thus, the
continuation of the suspension will reduce administrative costs and
work load.
These continued suspensions are a result of damage to the lime and
avocado groves caused by Hurricane Andrew in August 1992. For limes,
Hurricane Andrew reduced production acreage from approximately 6,500
acres to approximately 1,500 acres with many non-producing trees in the
remaining acreage. Production in the 1991-92 season was 1,682,677
bushels. In the 1992-93 season, production prior to the hurricane was
1,146,000 bushels. After the hurricane, in the 1993-94 season,
production fell to 228,455 bushels and in the 1994-95 season, it was
283,977 bushels. This was well below the levels reached prior to the
hurricane.
For avocados, Hurricane Andrew reduced production acreage from
approximately 9,000 acres to less than 6,000 acres with many non-
producing trees in the remaining acreage. Production in the 1991-92
season was 1,110,105 bushels. In the 1992-93 season, production fell to
283,000 bushels and in the 1993-94 season it was 174,712 bushels.
Although the 1994-95 season recovered to 778,951 bushels, it is well
below the levels reached prior to the hurricane.
Therefore, this action reflects the committees' and the
Department's appraisal of the need to continue the suspension of
certain volume regulations and pack-out reporting requirements under
the orders, as specified. This rule finalizes the interim final rule
that indefinitely suspended certain reporting requirements for Florida
limes and avocados, and lessens the overall reporting and recordkeeping
burden under the orders. The Department's view is that this continued
suspension will have a beneficial impact on Florida lime and avocado
producers and handlers, since it lessens the reporting burden on
handlers and will reduce the committees' expenses incurred under the
orders.
The information collection requirements have been previously
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 and have been assigned OMB Numbers
0581-0091 and 0581-0078 for limes and avocados respectively.
This final rule continues to indefinitely suspend the annual
reporting burden currently estimated at 210.4 hours for all regulated
Florida lime handlers to: (1) apply for a prorate base and allotment;
(2) report daily the percentages, by size category, of the limes packed
by them; and (3) report daily the number of containers of limes sold
and delivered by them within the State of Florida.
This final rule continues to indefinitely suspend the annual
reporting burden currently estimated at 62 hours for all regulated
Florida avocado handlers who file Avocado Handler Daily Size Report
Forms. The Supplementary Information section of the interim final rule
published on April 22, 1996 (61 FR 17551) indicated that the Avocado
Weekly Report Form was also being discontinued. That statement was in
error. Only paragraph (d) of section 915.150 Reports of the avocado
marketing order's rules and regulations was suspended. Paragraph (a) of
that section, which pertains to the weekly report, was not suspended.
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, the
information and recommendations submitted by the committees, and other
information, it is found that the provisions as they appeared in the
interim rule, as published in the Federal Register (61 FR 17551, April
22, 1996), and as finalized herein no longer tend to effectuate the
declared policy of the Act.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 911
Limes, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
7 CFR Part 915
Avocados, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 911 and 915
are amended as follows:
PART 911--LIMES GROWN IN FLORIDA
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 911 which
was published at 61 FR 17551 on April 22, 1996, is adopted as a final
rule without change.
PART 915--AVOCADOS GROWN IN SOUTH FLORIDA
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 915 which
was
[[Page 46703]]
published at 61 FR 17551 on April 22, 1996, is adopted as a final rule
without change.
Dated: August 29, 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 96-22661 Filed 9-04-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22649 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47012-47018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22649]
[[Page 47011]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 173 / Thursday, September 5, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 47012]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-5556-5]
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Acceptability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice expands the list of acceptable substitutes for
ozone-depleting substances (ODS) under the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)
program. In addition, this Notice clarifies information on refrigerant
blends R-410A, R-410B, and R-407C that EPA previously added to the
acceptable substitute list.
ADDRESSES: Information relevant to this notice is contained in Air
Docket A-91-42, Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S.
Environmental Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Telephone: (202) 260-7548. The docket may be inspected between 8:00
a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable
fee may be charged for photocopying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Smagin at (202) 233-9126 or fax
(202) 233-9577, U.S. EPA, Stratospheric Protection Division, 401 M
Street, S.W., Mail Code 6205J, Washington, D.C. 20460; EPA
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline at (800) 296-1996; EPA World
Wide Web Site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/snap.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Regulatory History
II. Listing of Acceptable Substitutes
A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning: Substitutes for Class
I Substances
B. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning: Substitutes for Class
II Substances
C. Foam Blowing
D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
E. Solvent Cleaning
F. Aerosols
G. Adhesives, Coatings and Inks
III. Additional Information
Appendix A--Summary of Acceptable and Pending Decisions
I. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA
refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making
it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance
with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present
adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently
or potentially available.
Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section 612(c) also
requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for
specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of acceptable
alternatives for specific uses.
Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to
petition EPA to add a substance to or delete a substance from the lists
published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to
grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA
must publish the revised lists within an additional 6 months.
90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to require any
person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to
notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing
chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new
uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also
provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety
studies on such substitutes.
Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall
seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources
to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and
developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial
applications.
Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a
public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.
B. Regulatory History
On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR
13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program.
At the same time, EPA also issued EPA's first acceptability lists for
substitutes in the major industrial use sectors. These sectors include:
refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning;
fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols;
adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors
compose the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the
largest volumes of ozone-depleting compounds.
As described in the final rule for the SNAP program (59 FR 13044),
EPA does not believe that rulemaking is required to list alternatives
as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do not impose any
sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a substance.
Consequently, EPA is adding substances to the list of acceptable
alternatives by this notice.
EPA does, however, believe that Notice-and-Comment rulemaking is
required to place any substance on the list of prohibited substitutes,
to list a substance as acceptable only under certain conditions, to
list substances as acceptable only for certain uses, or to remove a
substance from either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes.
Updates to these lists are published as separate notices of rulemaking
in the Federal Register.
The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product
substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or
new, that could replace a class I or class II substance. Anyone who
produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety
studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into
interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This
requirement applies to substitute manufacturers, but may include
importers, formulators or end-users, when they are responsible for
introducing a substitute into commerce.
EPA published lists of acceptable alternatives on August 26, 1994
(59 FR 44240), January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3318), July 28, 1995 (60 FR
38729), February 8, 1996 (61 FR 4736) and published Final Rulemakings
restricting the use of certain substitutes on June 13, 1995 (60 FR
31092), and May 22, 1996 (61 FR 25585). EPA also published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking restricting the use of certain substitutes on May
22, 1996 (61 FR 25604).
II. Listing of Acceptable Substitutes
This section presents EPA's most recent acceptable listing
decisions for substitutes for class I and class II substances in the
following industrial sectors: refrigeration and air conditioning, foam
blowing, and fire
[[Page 47013]]
suppression and explosion protection. In this Notice, EPA has split the
refrigeration and air conditioning sector into two parts: substitutes
for class I substances and substitutes for class II substances. For
copies of the full list, contact the EPA Stratospheric Protection
Hotline at (800) 296-1996.
Parts A through G below present a detailed discussion of the
substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables
summarizing today's listing decisions are in Appendix A. The comments
contained in Appendix A provide additional information on a substitute,
but for listings of acceptable substitutes, they are not legally
binding under section 612 of the Clean Air Act. Thus, adherence to
recommendations in the comments is not mandatory for use as a
substitute. In addition, the comments should not be considered
comprehensive with respect to other legal obligations pertaining to the
use of the substitute. However, EPA encourages users of acceptable
substitutes to apply all comments to their use of these substitutes. In
many instances, the comments simply allude to sound operating practices
that have already been identified in existing industry and/or building-
code standards. Thus, many of the comments, if adopted, would not
require significant changes in existing operating practices for the
affected industry.
A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning: Class I
1. Secondary Loop Systems
In this Notice, EPA requests information about fluids used in
secondary loop systems. Unlike most other end-uses, secondary loop
systems do not circulate refrigerant through heat exchangers that are
in direct contact with the refrigerated or air conditioned space.
Rather, the primary refrigerant exchanges heat only with a second
fluid, which in turn carries heat away from the cooled space.
A good example of such a system is a large building chiller. The
primary loop chills water, which then circulates throughout the
building, where fans blow air over the cold pipes to air condition
occupied spaces. Another example is an ammonia-based supermarket
refrigeration system. The ammonia-containing primary loop is isolated
from the occupied area of the store, while a secondary loop fluid
carries the chill to the refrigerated cases.
Secondary loop systems are gaining market share in many areas
because they offer potential safety improvements, particularly when the
primary refrigerant is flammable or toxic. The primary system generally
has a relatively small charge, and it can be placed in an external
building, thereby removing the risk to occupants. In addition, a
smaller charge means that less refrigerant can escape during a leak.
Given even the lower ozone depletion potential (ODP) of HCFCs, and
global warming potential (GWP) of some HCFCs and HFCS, this reduced
leakage yields direct benefits to the environment. Because of the
potential environmental and safety benefits of secondary loop systems,
EPA is investigating whether it would be appropriate to list secondary
fluids formally under the SNAP program.
Such systems would use an already EPA-acceptable refrigerant in the
primary loop and a different fluid in the secondary loop. Therefore,
such a system could be listed as a not-in-kind replacement for CFC-
based refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. EPA is aware that
water, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, ice slurries, CO2, ethyl
alcohol, calcium chloride, Flo-ice, HCFC-123, and certain
hydrofluoroethers are either used today or are being considered for use
as secondary fluids. While studying whether this end-use would be
appropriate for listing, EPA invites companies interested in listing
other secondary loop fluids to contact the SNAP coordinator at 202-233-
9126, fax 202-233-9577.
2. Acceptable Substitutes for Other End-Uses
Note that EPA acceptability does not mean that a given substitute
will work in a specific type of equipment within an end-use.
Engineering expertise must be used to determine the appropriate use of
these and any other substitutes. In addition, although some
alternatives are listed for multiple refrigerants, they may not be
appropriate for use in all equipment or under all conditions.
a. Hot Shot and GHG-X4
Hot Shot and GHG-X4, both of which consist of HCFC-22, HCFC-124,
HCFC-142b, and isobutane, are acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 and
R-500 in the following retrofitted and new end-uses:
Centrifugal and Reciprocating Chillers
Industrial Process Refrigeration
Ice Skating Rinks
Cold Storage Warehouses
Refrigerated Transport
Retail Food Refrigeration
Vending Machines
Water Coolers
Commercial Ice Machines
Household Refrigerators
Household Freezers
Residential Dehumidifiers
Non-Automotive Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners
Because HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b contribute to ozone depletion, they
will be phased out of production. Therefore, these blends will be used
primarily as retrofit refrigerants. However, these blends are
acceptable for use in new systems. Regulations regarding recycling and
reclamation issued under section 608 of the Clean Air Act apply to
these blends. HCFC-142b has one of the highest ODPs among the HCFCs.
The GWPs of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are 1700 and 2000, respectively,
which are somewhat high. However, this concern is mitigated by the
scheduled phaseout of these refrigerants. Although HCFC-142b and
isobutane are flammable, these blends are not. In addition, testing on
these blends has shown that they do not become flammable after leaks.
GHG-X4 is being sold under the trade names ``Autofrost'' and ``Chill-
It.''
b. R-401C
R-401C, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and HCFC-124, is
acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new non-
automotive motor vehicle air conditioners. Because HCFC-22 and HCFC-124
contribute to ozone depletion, they will be phased out of production.
Therefore, these blends will be used primarily as retrofit
refrigerants. However, these blends are acceptable for use in new
systems. Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued under
section 608 of the Clean Air Act apply to these blends. HCFC-142b has
one of the highest ODPS among the HCFCs. The GWP of HCFC-22 is 1700,
which is somewhat high. However, this concern is mitigated by the
scheduled phaseout of this refrigerant. Although HCFC-142b and
isobutane are flammable, these blends are not. In addition, testing on
these blends has shown that they do not become flammable after leaks.
GHG-X4 is being sold under the trade names ``Autofrost'' and ``Chill-
It.''
c. NARM-502
NARM-502, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-23, and HFC-152a, is
acceptable as a substitute for R-503 and CFC-13 in new and retrofitted
very low temperature refrigeration and industrial process
refrigeration. Because HCFC-22 contributes to ozone depletion, it will
be phased out of production. Therefore, this blend will be used
primarily as a retrofit refrigerant. However, NARM-502 is acceptable
for use in new systems. Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation
issued under section 608 of the Clean Air Act apply to this blend. The
GWP of HCFC-22 is 1700,
[[Page 47014]]
which is somewhat high, and the GWP of HFC-23 is 12,100, which is
extremely high. However, other acceptable refrigerants in this end-use
also contain either HFC-23 or perfluorocarbons (PFCs), with higher
GWPs. In addition, the percentage of HFC-23 is quite small, so this
blend poses much lower global warming risk than other substitutes for
this end-use. Although HFC-152a is flammable, NARM-502 as blended is
not, and testing has shown that it does not become flammable after
leaks.
d. Freezone (Formerly Listed as HCFC Blend Delta) and FREEZE 12
Freezone, which consists of HFC-134a, HCFC-142b, and a lubricant,
and FREEZE 12, which consists of HFC-134a and HCFC-142b, are acceptable
as substitutes for CFC-12 in the following retrofitted and new end-
uses:
Centrifugal and Reciprocating Chillers
Industrial Process Refrigeration
Ice Skating Rinks
Cold Storage Warehouses
Refrigerated Transport
Retail Food Refrigeration
Vending Machines
Water Coolers
Commercial Ice Machines
Household Refrigerators
Household Freezers
Residential Dehumidifiers
Non-Automotive Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners
Because HCFC-142b contributes to ozone depletion, it will be phased
out of production. Therefore, these blends will be used primarily as
retrofit refrigerants. However, they are acceptable for use in new
systems. Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued under
section 608 of the Clean Air Act apply to these blends. HCFC-142b has
one of the highest ODPs among the HCFCs. In addition, the GWP of HCFC-
142b is 2000, which is somewhat high. However, this concern is
mitigated by the scheduled phaseout of this refrigerant. Although HCFC-
142b is flammable, Freezone and FREEZE 12 as blended are not, and
testing has shown that they do not become flammable after leaks.
e. G2018C
G2018C, which consists of HCFC-22, HFC-152a, and propylene, is
acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in the following retrofitted and
new end-uses:
Centrifugal and Reciprocating Chillers
Industrial Process Refrigeration
Ice Skating Rinks
Cold Storage Warehouses
Refrigerated Transport
Retail Food Refrigeration
Vending Machines
Water Coolers
Commercial Ice Machines
Because HCFC-22 contributes to ozone depletion, it will be phased
out of production. Therefore, this blend will be used primarily as a
retrofit refrigerant. However, it is acceptable for use in new systems.
Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued under section
608 of the Clean Air Act apply to G2018C. The GWP of HCFC-22 is 1700,
which is somewhat high. However, this concern is mitigated by the
scheduled phaseout of this refrigerant. Although HFC-152a is flammable,
G2018C as blended is not, and testing has shown that it does not become
flammable after leaks.
B. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning: Class II
1. Clarification of Previous Notice (61 FR 4736)
Please refer to the March 18, 1994 SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) for
detailed information pertaining to the designation of end-uses,
additional requirements imposed under sections 608 and 609, and other
information related to the use of alternative refrigerants.
This Notice marks the second time EPA has listed acceptable
substitutes for HCFC-22 in the refrigeration and air conditioning
sector. Although the substitutes listed below were intended
specifically to replace HCFC-22, HCFC-22 is itself frequently used as a
substitute for class I refrigerants (e.g, CFC-11 and CFC-12).
Therefore, the listings below also describe these HCFC-22 substitutes
as acceptable alternatives for class I refrigerants in new equipment.
The underlying reasoning is that if, for instance, HCFC-22 poses lower
overall risk than CFC-12, and R-410A poses lower overall risk than
HCFC-22, then R-410A must also pose lower overall risk than CFC-12.
Therefore, even though R-410A is not designed to be a direct
replacement for CFC-12, in new equipment it may be appropriate to
design for R-410A rather than for another CFC-12 substitute. As with
all listings, however, engineering expertise is required to determine
the best match between a given class I refrigerant and an alternative.
The February 8, 1996 Notice of Acceptability (61 FR 4736)
inadvertently described R-410A, R-410B, and R-407C as not containing
any components regulated as volatile organic compounds (VOC) under
Title I of the Clean Air Act . In fact, all three blends contain HFC-
32, which is a VOC-regulated compound.
2. Acceptable Substitutes
a. R-507
R-507, which consists of HFC-143a and HFC-125, is acceptable as a
substitute for HCFC-22, and by extension, class I refrigerants, in
equipment in the following new and retrofit end-uses:
Commercial comfort air conditioning
Industrial process refrigeration systems
Industrial process air conditioning
Refrigerated transport
Retail food refrigeration
Cold storage warehouses
Vending machines
Commercial ice machines
Household and light commercial air conditioning
R-507 contains HFC-125 and HFC-143a. HFC-125 and HFC-143a exhibit a
fairly high global warming potential (3,200 and 4,400 respectively at
100 year integrated time horizon) compared to other HFCs and HCFC-22.
However, their potential for contributing to global warming will be
mitigated in the listed end uses through the implementation of the
venting prohibition under Section 608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act. Note
that the prohibition on venting, which applies to all substitute
refrigerants, was mandated in section 608(c)(2) and took effect through
regulations on November 15, 1995. While the current rule issued under
section 608 of the CAA (58 FR 28660) does not specify recycling or leak
repair requirements, it is illegal to vent this refrigerant at any
time. In addition, EPA anticipates proposing new recycling regulations
for non-ozone-depleting refrigerants in the near future. A fact sheet
on the proposal is available from the EPA Ozone Hotline at (800) 296-
1996. R-507 does not contain ozone-depleting substances and is low in
toxicity. Although HFC-143a is flammable, the blend is not. It is a
near azeotrope, so it will not fractionate during operation. Leak
testing has demonstrated that its composition never becomes flammable.
b. Ammonia
Ammonia, either in vapor compression or absorption systems, is
acceptable as a substitute for HCFC-22, and by extension, class I
refrigerants, in equipment in the following new end-uses:
Industrial process air conditioning
Industrial process refrigeration
Ice skating rinks
Cold storage warehouses
Commercial ice machines
Commercial comfort air conditioning (absorption chillers or
vapor compression with a secondary loop)
[[Page 47015]]
Retail food refrigeration (with a secondary loop)
Household refrigerators (absorption systems only)
Household and light commercial air conditioning (absorption
systems only)
Ammonia applications that do not fall under any of the above-listed
end uses and for which ammonia has traditionally been used as the
refrigerant fluid, whether in vapor compression or absorption systems,
are not covered under the SNAP program. Therefore, does not require
notification or listing under the SNAP program.
Ammonia has been used as a medium to low temperature refrigerant in
vapor compression cycles for more than 100 years. Ammonia has excellent
refrigerant properties, a characteristic pungent odor, no long-term
atmospheric risks, and low cost. It is, however, moderately flammable
and toxic, although it is not a cumulative poison. Ammonia may be used
safely if existing OSHA and ASHRAE standards are followed. Users should
check local building codes related to the use of ammonia. Ammonia does
not deplete the ozone or contribute to global warming.
c. Alternative Technologies
Several technologies already exist as alternatives to equipment
using class I substances. As a result of the CFC phaseout, they are
gaining prominence in the transition away from CFCs. Examples of these
technologies include evaporative cooling, desiccant cooling, and
absorption refrigeration and air conditioning. In addition, several
technologies are currently under development. Significant progress has
expanded the applicability of these alternatives, and their
environmental benefits generally include zero ODP and low direct GWP.
In addition, evaporative cooling offers significant energy savings,
which results in reduced indirect GWP.
(1) Evaporative Cooling
Evaporative Cooling is acceptable as a substitute for HCFC-22, and
by extension, class I refrigerants, in equipment in the following new
end-uses:
Industrial process air conditioning
Commercial comfort air conditioning
Household and light commercial air conditioning
Evaporative cooling does not contribute to ozone depletion or
global warming and has the potential to be more energy efficient than
current refrigeration and air conditioning systems. Evaporative cooling
uses no chemicals, but relies instead on water evaporation as a means
of cooling. It is in widespread use in office buildings in the western
U.S. Recent design improvements have greatly expanded its applicability
to other regions.
(2) Desiccant Cooling
Desiccant cooling is acceptable as a substitute for HCFC-22, and by
extension, class I refrigerants, in equipment in the following new end-
uses:
Industrial process air conditioning
Commercial comfort air conditioning
Residential air conditioning
Desiccant cooling is an alternate technology to the vapor
compression cycle. Desiccant cooling systems do not contribute to ozone
depletion or global warming. These systems offer potential energy
savings over conventional HCFC-22 vapor compression systems.
(3) Water/Lithium Bromide Absorption
Water/lithium bromide absorption is acceptable as an alternative
technology to centrifugal chillers using HCFC-22. Some absorption
systems use water as the refrigerant and lithium bromide as the
absorber. Lithium bromide has zero ODP and GWP. It is low in toxicity
and is nonflammable.
C. Foam Blowing
1. Acceptable Substitutes
a. Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock;
Rigid polyurethane appliance; Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other;
and Rigid polyurethane spray and commercial refrigeration, and sandwich
panels.
Proprietary Blowing Agent 1 (PBA 1) is an acceptable substitute for
CFCs and HCFCs in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated
boardstock foam; rigid polyurethane appliance; rigid polyurethane
slabstock and other; and rigid polyurethane spray and commercial
refrigeration, and sandwich panels. This blowing agent was submitted as
a proprietary formulation by a foam system manufacturer. PBA 1 does not
contain ozone depleting chemicals and has very low or zero global
warming potential. This blend is not flammable. No other significant
health or environmental risks are anticipated from the use of this
substitute as long as other existing relevant health, environmental and
safety requirements are met. Exposure assessments indicate worker
exposure is unlikely to exceed the OSHA permissible exposure level.
D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
1. Acceptable Substitutes
a. Total Flooding Agents
(1) Foam A--formerly [Water Mist/Surfactant Blend] A
Foam A is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute. This agent was
previously identified as [Water Mist/Surfactant Blend] A in the July
28, 1995 Notice (60 FR 38729), and was listed as acceptable for use in
normally unoccupied areas only. Since that time, the manufacturer has
clarified to EPA that this agent is not a water mist system, nor is it
a wetting agent, but instead is a low density, short duration foam.
This agent is dispensed as bubbles which physically interfere with the
mixture of fuel and air, and provide some cooling of the flame front,
both of which contribute to control of the fire.
In the event that the manufacturer develops a misting system based
on this agent, EPA requires the manufacturer to submit a separate SNAP
application for assessment of exposure to fine water mist particles
containing additives.
E. Solvent Cleaning
1. Acceptable Substitutes
a. Metals Cleaning
Hydrofluoroether (HFE): C4F9OCH3 (methoxynonafluorobutane, iso and
normal) is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform
(MCF) in metals cleaning. This HFE is a new chemical that completed
review in May 1996 under EPA's Premanufacture Notice Program under the
Toxic Substances Control Act. This chemical does not deplete the ozone
layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. It has a 4.1-year
atmospheric lifetime and a GWP of 150 over a 500-year time horizon and
480 over a 100-year time horizon.
This HFE exhibits only moderate toxicity in tests reviewed by EPA,
and the 600 ppm 8-hr Time Weighted Average workplace standard set by
the company was deemed sufficiently protective. Based on the
combination of the feasibility of meeting the exposure standard and the
moderate toxicity exhibited by this chemical, EPA is listing this
substance as acceptable without restrictions. As with workplace
exposure standards for other CFC alternatives, this standard for this
substance, too, will be examined by the Workplace Environmental
Exposure Limit subcommittee of the American Industrial Hygiene
Association.
[[Page 47016]]
b. Electronics Cleaning
Hydrofluoroether (HFE): C4F9OCH3 (methoxynonafluorobutane, iso and
normal) is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform
(MCF) in electronics cleaning. This HFE is a new chemical that
completed review in May 1996 under EPA's Premanufacture Notice Program
under the Toxic Substances Control Act. This chemical does not deplete
the ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. It has a
atmospheric 4.1-year lifetime and a GWP of 150 over a 500-year time
horizon and 480 over a 100-year time horizon. The GWP and lifetime for
this HFE are both lower than the GWP and lifetime for CFC-113 and for
PFCs.
This HFE exhibits only moderate toxicity in tests reviewed by EPA,
and the 600 ppm 8-hr Time Weighted Average workplace standard set by
the company was deemed sufficiently protective. Based on the
combination of the feasibility of meeting the exposure standard and the
moderate toxicity exhibited by this chemical, EPA is listing this
substance as acceptable without restrictions. As with workplace
exposure standards for other CFC alternatives, this standard for this
substance, too, will be examined by the Workplace Environmental
Exposure Limit subcommittee of the American Industrial Hygiene
Association.
c. Precision Cleaning
Hydrofluoroether (HFE): C4F9OCH3 (methoxynonafluorobutane, iso and
normal) is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform
(MCF) in precision cleaning. This HFE is a new chemical that completed
review this past May under EPA's Premanufacture Notice Program under
the Toxic Substances Control Act. This chemical does not deplete the
ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. It has a
4.1-year atmospheric lifetime and a low GWP of 150 over a 500-year time
horizon and 480 over a 100-year time horizon. The GWP and lifetime for
this HFE are both lower than the GWP and lifetime for CFC-113 and PFCs.
This HFE exhibits only moderate toxicity in tests reviewed by EPA,
and the 600 ppm 8-hr Time Weighted Average workplace standard set by
the company was deemed sufficiently protective. Based on the
combination of the feasibility of meeting the exposure standard and the
moderate toxicity exhibited by this chemical, EPA is listing this
substance as acceptable without restrictions. As with workplace
exposure standards for other CFC alternatives, this standard for this
substance, too, will be examined by the Workplace Environmental
Exposure Limit subcommittee of the American Industrial Hygiene
Association.
F. Aerosols
1. Acceptable Substitutes
a. Solvents
Hydrofluoroether (HFE): C4F9OCH3 (methoxynonafluorobutane, iso and
normal) is an acceptable substitute for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform
(MCF) as a solvent in aerosol products. This HFE is a new chemical that
completed review this past May under EPA's Premanufacture Notice
Program under the Toxic Substances Control Act. This chemical does not
deplete the ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine.
It has a 4.1-year atmospheric lifetime and a GWP of 150 over a 500-year
time horizon and 480 over a 100-year time horizon. The GWP and lifetime
for this HFE are both lower than the GWP and lifetime for CFC-113 and
for PFCs.
This HFE exhibits only moderate toxicity in tests reviewed by EPA,
and the 600 ppm 8-hr Time Weighted Average workplace standard set by
the company was deemed sufficiently protective. Based on the
combination of the feasibility of meeting the exposure standard and the
moderate toxicity exhibited by this chemical, EPA is listing this
substance as acceptable without restrictions. As with workplace
exposure standards for other CFC alternatives, this standard for this
substance, too, will be examined by the Workplace Environmental
Exposure Limit subcommittee of the American Industrial Hygiene
Association.
G. Adhesives, Coatings and Inks
1. Acceptable Substitutes
a. Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene is acceptable as an alternative to MCF
and CFC-113 in adhesives. The OSHA set exposure limit (PEL) is 200 ppm.
III. Additional Information
Contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996,
Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern
Standard Time) weekdays.
For more information on the Agency's process for administering the
SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the
SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044). Federal Register notices can be ordered from the
Government Printing Office Order Desk (202) 783-3238; the citation is
the date of publication. This Notice may also be obtained on the World
Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/snap.html.
Dated: August 13, 1996.
Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
Note: The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix A.--Summary of Acceptable and Pending Decisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-Use Substitute Decision Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-12 and R-500 Centrifugal and Reciprocating Hot Shot............................................. Acceptable............. .................
Chillers; CFC-12 Industrial Process Refrigeration, GHG-X4............................................... Acceptable............. .................
Ice Skating Rinks, Cold Storage Warehouses, Freezone............................................. Acceptable............. .................
Refrigerated Transport, Retail Food Refrigeration, FREEZE 12............................................ Acceptable............. .................
Vending Machines, Water Coolers, Commercial Ice G2018C............................................... Acceptable............. .................
Machines (Retrofitted and New).
CFC-12 Household Refrigerators, Household Freezers, Hot Shot............................................. Acceptable............. .................
and Residential Dehumidifiers (Retrofitted and New). GHG-X4............................................... Acceptable............. .................
Freezone............................................. Acceptable............. .................
FREEZE 12............................................ Acceptable............. .................
CFC-13, R-13B1, and R-503 Very Low Temperature NARM-502............................................. Acceptable............. .................
Refrigeration and Industrial Process Refrigeration
(Retrofitted and New).
[[Page 47017]]
Non-Automotive Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning, e.g., R-401C............................................... Acceptable............. .................
buses, trains, planes (Retrofitted and New). Hot Shot............................................. Acceptable............. .................
GHG-X4............................................... Acceptable............. .................
Freezone............................................. Acceptable............. .................
FREEZE 12............................................ Acceptable............. .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Acceptable Substitutes for Class II Substances
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household and Light Commercial Air Conditioning...... R-507, Ammonia, Evaporative and Desiccant Cooling.... Acceptable............. Ammonia includes
absorption
systems only.
EPA urges
recycling of R-
507.
Commercial Comfort Air Conditioning.................. R-507, Ammonia, Evaporative and Desiccant Cooling, Acceptable............. Includes ammonia
Water/Lithium Bromide. absorption
chillers and
vapor
compression with
a secondary
loop. EPA urges
recycling of R-
507.
Industrial Process Refrigeration..................... R-507, Ammonia....................................... Acceptable............. Includes ammonia
vapor
compression and
absorption
systems. EPA
urges recycling
of R-507.
Industrial Process Air Conditioners.................. R-507, Ammonia, Evaporative and Desiccant Cooling.... Acceptable............. Includes ammonia
vapor
compression and
absorption
systems. EPA
urges recycling
of R-507.
Ice Skating Rinks.................................... Ammonia.............................................. Acceptable............. Includes ammonia
vapor
compression and
absorption
systems.
Refrigerated Transport............................... R-507................................................ Acceptable............. EPA urges
recycling.
Retail Food Refrigeration............................ R-507, Ammonia....................................... Acceptable............. Ammonia includes
vapor
compression with
secondary loop
systems only.
EPA urges
recycling of R-
507.
Ice Machines......................................... R-507, Ammonia....................................... Acceptable............. Includes ammonia
vapor
compression and
absorption
systems. EPA
urges recycling
of R-507.
Household and Other Refrigerated Appliances.......... Ammonia.............................................. Acceptable............. Includes
absorption
systems only.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foam Blowing
Acceptable Substitutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated Proprietary Blowing Agent 1 (PBA 1).................. Acceptable............. Proprietary
boardstock; Rigid Polyurethane Appliance; Rigid formulation. PBA
Polyurethane Slabstock and Other; and Rigid 1 has zero-ODP
Polyurethane Spray and Commercial Refrigeration; and and has very low
Sandwich Panels CFCs and HCFCs. or zero GWP. Not
flammable, and
no other
significant
health
environmental
risks are
anticipated from
the use of this
substitute as
long as other
exisiting
relevant health,
environmental
and safety
requirements are
met.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
Acceptable Substitutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Flooding with Halon 1301....................... Foam A............................................... Acceptable............. Previously
identified as
[Water Mist/
Surfactant
Blend] A (60 FR
38729).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptable Substitutes
Solvent Cleaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals cleaning with CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b...... Hydrofluoroether (HFE): C4F9OCH3 Acceptable............. .................
(methoxynonafluorobutane, iso and normal).
Electronics cleaning with CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b. Hydrofluoroether (HFE): C4F9OCH3 Acceptable............. .................
(methoxynonafluorobutane, iso and normal).
Precision cleaning with CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b... Hydrofluoroether (HFE): C4F9OCH3 Acceptable............. .................
(methoxynonafluorobutane, iso and normal).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47018]]
Acceptable Substitutes
Aerosols
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11, CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b as aerosol Hydrofluoroether (HFE): C4F9OCH3 Acceptable............. .................
solvents. (methoxynonafluorobutane, iso and normal).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptable Substitutes
Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCF and CFC-113 as solvents in adhesives............. Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene........................... Acceptable............. The OSHA set
exposure limit
(PEL) is 200
ppm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-Use Substitute Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent Cleaning
Pending Substitutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Cleaning w/CFC-113 and MCF............................ n-propylbromide.............................................. EPA awaiting results from
ODP study. EPA also
examining new toxicity
data reported under the
Toxic Substances Control
Act.
Electronics Cleaning w/CFC-113 and MCF....................... n-propylbromide.............................................. EPA awaiting results from
ODP study. EPA also
examining new toxicity
data reported under the
Toxic Substances Control
Act.
Precision Cleaning w/CFC-113 and MCF......................... n-propylbromide.............................................. EPA awaiting results from
ODP study. EPA also
examining new toxicity
data reported under the
Toxic Substances Control
Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosols
Pending Substitutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-113, MCF, and HCFC-141b as aerosol solvents.............. HFC-4310..................................................... EPA awaiting results on
occupational exposure
study.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-22649 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22606 Food Standards: Amendment of Standards of Identity for Enriched Grain Products to Require Addition of Folic Acid; Clarification
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46714-46716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22606]
[[Page 46714]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 136, 137, and 139
[Docket No. 91N-100S]
RIN 0910-AA19
Food Standards: Amendment of Standards of Identity for Enriched
Grain Products to Require Addition of Folic Acid; Clarification
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Clarification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is clarifying how it
intends to implement regulations that it issued in March 1996 that
require that, by January 1, 1998, certain standardized enriched grain
products be fortified with folic acid, with respect to foods to which
this substance is to be added or that include ingredients to which this
substance is to be added. Given that the U.S. Public Health Service
(PHS) has recommended that women of childbearing age consume at least
0.4 milligrams (mg) (400 micrograms (mcg)) of folic acid daily to
reduce their risk of having a pregnancy affected with spina bifida or
other neural tube defects, FDA encourages firms to initiate the
required fortification before the 1998 effective date of the
regulations. To facilitate initiation of fortification for firms who
elect to voluntarily fortify foods in a manner that is consistent with
the new folic acid fortification requirements, the agency is unlikely
to enforce the ingredient declaration and nutrition labeling
requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) with
respect to this nutrient until after January 1, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia B. Satchell, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-158), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-5099.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Folic Acid Requirements for Standardized Foods
In September 1992, PHS recommended that all women of childbearing
age in the United States consume 0.4 mg (400 mcg) of folic acid daily
to reduce their risk of having a pregnancy affected with spina bifida
or other neural tube defects (Ref. 2). In response to the PHS
recommendation, FDA issued regulations in the Federal Register of March
5, 1996 (61 FR 8781), that require that by January 1, 1998, certain
standardized enriched grain products be fortified with folic acid
(hereinafter referred to as the 1996 fortification final rule).
Affected foods are enriched bread, rolls, and buns (21 CFR 136.115);
enriched flour (21 CFR 137.165); enriched self-rising flour (21 CFR
137.185); enriched corn meals (21 CFR 137.260); enriched farina (21 CFR
137.305); enriched rice (21 CFR 137.350); enriched macaroni products
(21 CFR 139.115); enriched nonfat milk macaroni (21 CFR 139.122); and
enriched noodle products (21 CFR 139.155) and, by cross-reference, the
standards of identity for enriched bromated flour (21 CFR 137.160),
enriched vegetable macaroni products (21 CFR 139.135), and enriched
vegetable noodle products (21 CFR 139.165).
B. Effective Date
In the Federal Register of October 14, 1993 (58 FR 53305), FDA
published a proposed rule entitled ``Food Standards: Amendment of the
Standards of Identity for Enriched Grain Products to Require Addition
of Folic Acid'' (hereinafter referred to as the 1993 fortification
proposal). In the 1996 fortification final rule, FDA advised that many
comments had expressed concern over the statement in the 1993
fortification proposal that the final rule would become effective 1
year after publication. The comments addressed both manufacturing and
labeling issues. Comments explained that it would be difficult and
impractical to synchronize the addition of a folic acid-fortified
enriched cereal-grain product to a food with the availability of labels
for that food that have been revised to declare folic acid in the
ingredient statement and, where necessary, in the nutrition label.
These comments pointed out that enrichment nutrients are generally not
added to each product separately but are added, for example, to
thousands of pounds of flour at the flour mill. The flour is sold to
manufacturers as an ingredient, and this ingredient is used in many
different products. Thus, the comments asserted that, as a matter of
economic necessity, the enrichment of all products using the ingredient
occurs at the same time, regardless of the availability of new
labeling.
To resolve the problems of coordinating fortification with
labeling, comments requested an effective date for the fortification
requirement of 2 years or more from the date of publication of the
final rule adopting that requirement. Further, comments pointed out
that any less time to comply with the fortification requirement would
create economic burdens on firms because large inventories of labels
would have to be discarded. However, the comments did not provide data
concerning the extent of the economic burdens from discarded label
inventory. A few comments suggested that the agency permit folic acid
to be added to the product without requiring declaration in the
ingredient statement and the nutrition label.
In the preamble to the 1996 fortification final rule, FDA
acknowledged the significance of the logistical concerns regarding
label changes that must accompany the addition of folic acid to
enriched cereal-grain products and the resultant addition of folic acid
to the foods in which these products are used as ingredients. FDA
stated that it was persuaded that it should provide 2 years for
manufacturers to implement the label and formulation changes required
by the 1996 fortification final rule. The agency concluded that a 2-
year period should allow manufacturers time to exhaust current
packaging inventory and to add folic acid to the statement of
ingredients and nutrition label as other changes are made to update
package labeling. Furthermore, the agency pointed out that a 2-year
period is consistent with the amount of time given for implementation
of the requirements of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990
(the 1990 amendments). Thus, the effective date of this final rule was
established as January 1, 1998.
The agency noted, however, that compliance with the requirements
established in this final rule could begin immediately, provided that
the label accurately reflects that folic acid has been added to the
product. FDA explained that it would not permit folic acid
fortification without label declaration because, traditionally, it has
not permitted manufacturers who change their formulas by adding or
deleting ingredients to use labels that do not reflect this fact.
Furthermore, the agency believed that it was establishing an effective
date that would provide manufacturers ample time to ensure that
products enriched with folic acid are labeled in compliance with the
regulations. The agency also reminded manufacturers that it considered
stickers an acceptable means to correct labels.
C. Problems With Folate Labeling
After the March 1996 regulations requiring that standardized
enriched
[[Page 46715]]
grain foods be fortified with folic acid were issued, the National
Pasta Association (NPA) submitted a request (Ref. 1) that, at least
until January 1, 2000, the agency permit folic acid addition to
products without requiring declaration in the ingredient statement. NPA
stated that such flexibility was urgently needed because, without it,
manufacturers of all affected standardized enriched grain foods would
suffer tremendous financial losses.
More specifically, NPA stated that pasta manufacturers would lose
millions of dollars of label inventory. NPA advised that the logistical
problems regarding label changes that must accompany folic acid
fortification were not fully resolved by the agency's extension of the
effective date until 1998 or by the agency's explicit permission for
using stickering to correct ingredient lists on labels. NPA explained
that the industry still faces high costs from labels that must be
discarded, because coordinating folic acid fortification with labeling
changes is a monumental task. NPA stated that once folic acid is added
to a raw material that serves as an ingredient in food, all products
using that material will include the substance, but it is not possible
to change all labels for such products at the same time. Furthermore,
because firms must regularly replenish label supplies, NPA stated that,
without the requested labeling flexibility, firms would face losing the
same level of label inventory, regardless of when the regulations take
effect. NPA stated that its members had advised that about 5,000 pasta
products would have label inventories costing more than $27 million
that would have to be discarded when the regulations take effect.
In addition, NPA advised that using stickering to correct
ingredient lists on labels would not resolve logistical problems
regarding label changes because many companies would have to purchase
special machines for stickering. A machine would have to be purchased
for each packaging line, and pasta manufacturers typically have
multiple packaging lines. NPA stated that each machine would cost about
$10,000. In addition to these costs, NPA stated that production
problems would be created by stickering. NPA explained that it is
generally not practicable to cover the ingredient statement on pasta
packaged in a folding carton because of the high speed of the cartoners
and the manner in which the cartons are oriented as they move through
the packaging line. Stickers would have to be applied to cartons before
they enter the packaging line with significant loss of packaging
efficiency. Production could be drastically reduced.
NPA explained that stickering would also not be practicable on
pasta packaged in bags because stickers cannot be affixed to the
package film without making the film significantly thicker. A thicker
film could not be wound tightly on the packaging spool. Also, the
stickers would not move smoothly through the forming tubes on the
baggers. If manufacturers tried to sticker the bags after filling, they
could not reliably cover existing ingredient information, given the
speed of the packaging line and the fact that the bags are neither flat
nor consistently oriented after they are filled.
Furthermore, NPA asked whether the effective date ultimately
designated for fortification of standardized enriched grain products
would apply to products labeled on or after that date or to products
introduced into interstate commerce on or after that date. NPA
suggested that the agency should adopt the former approach for
consistency with the effective date established in the 1990 amendments,
ease of enforcement, equity between small and large manufacturers, and
maximization of cost savings derived from a delayed effective date.
II. The Agency's Position
Given the more specific information that was provided by NPA
regarding folic acid label changes, the logistical problems with these
changes, and the costs associated with label inventories that would
have to be discarded, FDA has reviewed its position regarding the
effective date of these regulations. FDA recognizes that its allowance,
without label flexibility, of nearly 2 years for compliance with the
fortification requirements did not resolve significant problems
associated with formulation and label changes, and that there are
significant reasons for flexibility in label declaration of folate
content, at least pending the effective date of the regulations
requiring fortification. These reasons are listed as follows:
(1) Among firms that add folic acid to their foods themselves
(e.g., flour manufacturers), the raw material is commonly fortified in
large batches, and the fortified material is then used in numerous
products. Because each product requires at least one label (e.g., often
a firm will pack one product for several companies, each of which uses
a different label), numerous labels will have to be corrected once
fortification begins. If all these labels have to be changed at once,
existing label inventories would have to be discarded. Even if it were
possible to change all (perhaps hundreds) labels at once, firms would
logically postpone fortification as long as possible to allow for
depletion of label inventory.
(2) For firms that do not themselves perform all folic acid
fortification of the ingredients in the products they manufacture, the
logistics of coordinating label changes with fortification are even
more complicated. These firms have little or no control over when the
fortification of ingredients with folic acid is to begin. Suppliers of
ingredients that are to be fortified with folic acid are likely to
initiate fortification at different times. In many, if not most,
situations, firms may be advised of the fortification only through the
ingredient list that comes from the supplier. Firms will thus have
significant difficulty anticipating when label stocks that do not list
folic acid as an ingredient will have to be depleted. Firms also will
have difficulty anticipating how far in advance of the 1998 effective
date new label stocks will be needed. Thus, many firms will likely
incur costs associated with discarding label stocks. Also, where
suppliers fortify early, some firms may not have new label stocks that
appropriately reflect the composition of their food.
(3) Where firms purchase an enriched ingredient from multiple
suppliers, planning for depletion of old label stock and for acquiring
new label stock will present particular problems. Some ingredient
shipments may be fortified with folic acid, others may not.
Consequently, such firms will be faced with having to switch back and
forth between old and new label stocks. Where enriched ingredient
shipments are pooled into an automatic bulk handling system, folic
acid-enriched and non-folic acid-enriched ingredients will be
commingled. The commingled ingredient may not conform to fortification
requirements, and both old and new label stocks may be inappropriate as
a result.
(4) NPA has presented logical reasons why stickering will not
provide a practicable way to correct lists of ingredients and nutrient
declarations on old labels because of adverse impact on manufacturing
productivity.
(5) NPA has provided data concerning the extent of the economic
burden from discarded label inventory in the pasta industry. For that
industry, the costs appear to be substantial. Pasta manufacturers are
not likely to be the only firms affected by the problems associated
with the folic acid label changes and the logistical problems and costs
associated with these changes. Thus, costs from discarded label
inventory may be much higher than the
[[Page 46716]]
$27 million that NPA estimated. Such costs will surely be passed on to
consumers.
Although NPA has demonstrated that significant problems will be
presented by the transition to fortification of enriched grains with
folic acid, it has not explained why the effective date should be
changed from January 1, 1998, to January 1, 2000. If firms have
flexibility to use existing label stocks that do not have folic acid
ingredient labeling until January 1, 1998, most of the cost burdens on
these firms should be eliminated. The only continuing concern would be
if label suppliers could not meet the demand for new labels by January
1, 1998. However, neither NPA nor the comments on the 1993
fortification proposal indicated that large numbers of firms would be
faced with such a situation. To the contrary, the agency knows of no
reason why most firms cannot acquire new label stocks by that date.
On May 23, 1996, the March of Dimes wrote to FDA that the desire to
begin to fortify early was widespread in the industry, but that many
firms were not doing so because fortifying their foods would mean that
they could not use up existing label stocks (Ref. 3). The March of
Dimes suggested that if the agency provided flexibility in the use of
label supplies, it would make it more likely that firms would proceed
with folic acid fortification at an earlier date, thereby helping to
reduce a woman's risk of having a pregnancy affected with spina bifida
or other neural tube defects.
Given this significant benefit from folic acid fortification and
the significant difficulties in label modification as folic acid is
being phased into enriched grain products, FDA advises that, until the
amendments to the standards of identity for enriched grain products are
effective on January 1, 1998, it is unlikely to take regulatory action
against enriched grain products, or products that contain enriched
grain products, because the ingredient list in the labeling of such
foods fails to include folic acid, or because the nutrition label fails
to accurately declare the level of folate, unless folate claims are
made for the product. If folate claims are made FDA will expect the
food to comply fully with all applicable labeling requirements.
With respect to NPA's request for clarification of the
applicability of the effective date, FDA advises that the January 1,
1998, effective date for fortification of standardized enriched grain
products applies to the date such products are initially introduced
into interstate commerce. FDA does not agree with the NPA suggestion
that the effective date should be tied to the date that products are
labeled. The agency has for many years used the date of initial
introduction into interstate commerce as the effective date for
compliance with regulations. Using the date of initial introduction
into interstate commerce is a more efficient enforcement approach
because this date is easier to determine (e.g., from shipping
documents) than the date the food was labeled (from manufacturers'
records). Even though the effective date established by the 1990
amendments was the date on which the label was applied to the food,
there is no indication in that law or its legislative history that
Congress intended that provision to change FDA's approach to effective
dates for other labeling requirements from the one the agency has
traditionally used.
III. References
The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420
Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville, MD 20857, and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ``Recommendations
for the Use of Folic Acid to Reduce the Number of Cases of Spina
Bifida and Other Neural Tube Defects,'' in Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Reports, 41, 1-7, 1992.
2. Kinnaird, Jula J., letter to F. Edward Scarbrough, April 18,
1996.
3. Howse, Jennifer L., letter to Secretary Donna Shalala, May
23, 1996.
Dated: August 23, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-22606 Filed 9-04-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22593 Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Respiratory System
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46720-46731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22593]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 4
RIN 2900-AE94
Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Respiratory System
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends that portion of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Schedule for Rating Disabilities that addresses
the Respiratory System. The intended effect of this action is to update
the respiratory portion of the rating schedule to ensure that it uses
current medical terminology and unambiguous criteria, and that it
reflects medical advances which have occurred since the last review.
DATES: This amendment is effective October 7, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroll McBrine, M.D., Consultant,
Regulations Staff (213A), Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans
Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont
Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20420, (202) 273-7210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of its first comprehensive review of
the rating schedule since 1945, VA published a proposal to amend 38 CFR
4.96 and 4.97, which address the respiratory system. The proposal was
published in the Federal Register of January 19, 1993 (58 FR 4962-69).
Interested persons were invited to submit written comments on or before
March 22, 1993. We received comments from Paralyzed Veterans of
America, Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the
American Legion, several VA employees, and one member of the general
public.
One commenter suggested a need for a zero percent level for all
conditions.
On October 6, 1993, VA revised its regulation addressing the issue
of zero percent evaluations (38 CFR 4.31) to authorize assignment of a
zero percent evaluation for any disability in the rating schedule when
minimum requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met. In
general, that regulatory provision precludes the need for zero percent
criteria for every condition. VA believes that it is useful to include
a zero percent evaluation only if it is necessary to give the rating
board clear and unambiguous instructions on rating where it might
otherwise be unclear whether commonly occurring minor findings warrant
a zero percent or higher evaluation.
One commenter suggested that the proposed revision would
discriminate against veterans whose initial evaluations would be
assigned under a new and deliberalized schedule.
Significant medical advances have occurred since the last
comprehensive review of the rating schedule, and it is appropriate to
take these advances into account in revising the rating schedule. Doing
so is, in fact, one of the primary reasons for conducting this review.
In our judgment, veterans will not be discriminated against by having
their disabilities evaluated under criteria which reflect the effects
of those medical advances. For veterans evaluated under the former
criteria, Congress amended 38 U.S.C. 1155 to prohibit a reduction in a
veteran's disability rating because of a readjustment of the rating
schedule
[[Page 46721]]
unless an improvement in the disability has been shown.
One commenter stated that rating schedule revisions appear to be
based on optimum success in overcoming the effects of disease rather
than average impairment.
VA disagrees. 38 U.S.C. 1155 directs that ``ratings shall be based,
as far as practicable, upon the average impairments of earning capacity
resulting from such injuries in civil occupations.'' The word
``average,'' as used in the statute, refers to the ``usual or normal
kind, amount, quantity, rate, etc.'' (``Webster's New World
Dictionary,'' Third College Edition). To the extent possible, we have
based our changes on average or usual or normal courses of disease and
recovery.
The previous schedule provided a two-year period of total
evaluation following the cessation of treatment for malignant neoplasms
of the respiratory tract (DC 6819). As with malignant neoplasms in
other revised sections of the rating schedule, we proposed that a 100-
percent rating continue following the cessation of surgical, X-ray,
antineoplastic chemotherapy or other therapeutic procedure, with a
mandatory examination six months following cessation of treatment.
Before any change in evaluation based upon the examination can be made,
the provisions of Sec. 3.105(e) must be implemented, and evaluation is
made on residuals if there has been no metastasis or recurrence. We
received a number of comments about that proposed change. One commenter
said that six months is not a long enough convalescence.
We believe that an examination six months following the cessation
of treatment affords sufficient time for convalescence and
stabilization of residuals, particularly since the rule requires only
an examination, not a reduction, at that time. If the results of that
or any subsequent examination warrant a reduction in evaluation, the
reduction will be implemented under the provisions of 38 CFR 3.105(e),
which require a 60-day notice before VA reduces an evaluation and an
additional 60-day notice before the reduced evaluation takes effect.
The revised procedure, by requiring an examination, will not only
assure that all residuals are documented, but also that the veteran
receives timely notice of any proposed action and an expanded
opportunity to present evidence showing that the proposed action should
not be taken or should be mitigated. In our judgment, this method will
better ensure that actual residual disabilities and recuperation times
are taken into account because they will be documented on the required
examination, and the veteran will have better opportunities to present
evidence demonstrating the current level of disabilities.
We have revised the note under DC 6819 for the sake of clarity and
consistency. We have added to the note a direction to rate on
residuals, if there has been no local recurrence or metastasis, in
order to make these provisions consistent with the revised provisions
for malignancies of the genitourinary system. This is not a substantive
change.
One commenter felt that applying Sec. 3.105(e) will cause
administrative problems and will significantly lengthen the period of a
total evaluation when claims are received months or years after
surgery. He felt that a retroactive increase to 100 percent
simultaneously with the initiation of due process under Sec. 3.105(e)
to determine the extent of residual disability would be inconsistent.
Since Sec. 3.105(e) applies only to reductions in ``compensation
payments currently being made,'' it does not apply where a total
evaluation is assigned and reduced retroactively.
When the proposed rule was published, we cited improvements in the
administration of chemotherapy and radiation therapy as one reason for
eliminating a fixed convalescent period. One commenter requested that
we justify our statement that chemotherapy has improved.
While the first effective drugs for treating cancer were introduced
in the mid and late 1940's, the results were disappointing because
responses were incomplete and of short duration, and doses were limited
by toxicity (``Cecil Textbook of Medicine'' 1118 (James B. Wyngaarden,
M.D. et al. eds., 19th ed. 1992)). In 1945 there was only one drug
known to be effective--nitrogen mustard. Today there are nearly 50
chemotherapeutic agents in use. The dose and frequency of
administration of the newer agents often differ from those of earlier
agents, and the actions of some of the newer agents are more targeted
in their actions, so that side effects may be fewer and treatment
shorter than before. In use since the 1960's, combination chemotherapy
has also marked a turning point in the effective treatment of
neoplastic disease (``Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine'' 1587
(Jean D. Wilson, M.D. et al. eds., 12th ed. 1991)).
Another commenter stated that the proposed changes in convalescence
should be justified by medical experts or text citations and that our
medical consultants should be named.
As part of the process of reviewing the rating schedule, we
contracted with an outside consultant, Abt Associates Incorporated, to
submit recommendations for revisions to those portions of the rating
schedule dealing with the respiratory system. We also received advice
and suggestions from physicians in the Veterans Health Administration,
and we consulted standard medical and surgical textbooks, including
``Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine'' (Jean D. Wilson, M.D. et
al. eds., 12th ed. 1991), ``Cecil Textbook of Medicine'' (James B.
Wyngaarden, M.D. et al. eds., 19th ed. 1992), and ``The Merck Manual,''
(16th ed. 1992). The convalescent periods adopted in this change
represent, in our judgment, based on sound medical advice, neither the
longest nor the shortest periods that any individual patient might
require for recovery, but the usual or normal periods during which a
normal patient, under normal circumstances, would be expected to
recover from a specific condition or surgical procedure. For the
unusual case where a longer convalescence is needed, the provisions of
Secs. 4.29 and 4.30 allow an extension of convalescence.
One commenter said that the reductions in the revision appear to be
on a purely economic basis.
This review was carried out from a medical perspective. Its purpose
is to ensure that the rating schedule uses current medical terminology
and unambiguous criteria, and that it reflects medical advances which
have occurred since the last review. Cost cutting was not an issue.
One commenter suggested that we revise the title of DC 6522,
allergic rhinitis, to ``allergic or vasomotor rhinitis'' because both
conditions exhibit the same manifestations and are at times
indistinguishable.
We agree and have revised the title of DC 6522 accordingly.
Another commenter, without giving his reasons, suggested that we
combine DC's 6510 through 6514 (the codes for chronic pansinusitis,
ethmoid sinusitis, frontal sinusitis, maxillary sinusitis, and sphenoid
sinusitis) into a single code for sinusitis.
Retaining a separate code for each of the sinuses will allow
statistical tracking of disease of individual sinuses. Since the
commenter gave no reason for suggesting the change, and no substantial
advantage to either the veteran or the rating board is evident, we have
kept separate codes.
[[Page 46722]]
One commenter felt that subjective descriptors like ``marked''
under DC's 6522 (allergic rhinitis), 6523 (chronic rhinitis), and 6516
(laryngitis), and ``abundant'' in DC 6601 (bronchiectasis) in the
proposed revision should be eliminated for the sake of objectivity.
VA agrees, and we have revised the criteria accordingly. In some
cases we have simply removed subjective terms such as ``marked'' and
``mild'' when they did not substantively explain or clarify the
evaluation criteria. In other cases, we have supplied objective
definitions of terms. In still others, establishing more objective and
unambiguous criteria required greater modification of the proposed
criteria, and these changes will be discussed under the affected
diagnostic codes.
In the case of chronic laryngitis (DC 6516), removing ``marked''
and ``moderate'' required additional changes in the criteria to
distinguish the 10- and 30-percent levels. We proposed a ten-percent
evaluation for moderate hoarseness with inflammation of cords or mucous
membrane and a thirty-percent evaluation for marked hoarseness with
pathological changes such as inflammation of cords or mucous membrane,
thickening or nodules of cords, or submucous infiltration. We have
revised the requirements for a ten-percent evaluation to hoarseness
with inflammation of cords or mucous membrane and for a thirty-percent
evaluation to hoarseness with thickening or nodules of cords, polyps,
submucous infiltration, or pre-malignant changes on biopsy. This
clarifies the criteria for the given percentages.
For several conditions with nasal obstruction: septum, nasal,
deviation of (DC 6502), allergic or vasomotor rhinitis (DC 6522), and
bacterial rhinitis (DC 6523), we proposed a ten-percent evaluation if
there is ``marked'' interference with breathing space. We replaced that
subjective criterion with ``more than 50-percent obstruction of nasal
passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side'' for a ten-
percent evaluation in all three conditions. This clarifies the criteria
for the given percentages.
In the general rating formula for sinusitis, the criteria included
such subjective terms as ``severe symptoms,'' ``frequently
incapacitating recurrences,'' and ``frequent severe headaches.'' We
proposed a 100-percent evaluation for ``following radical surgery with
chronic osteomyelitis, or; severe symptoms after repeated surgeries.''
We proposed a 30-percent evaluation for ``frequently incapacitating
recurrences, and frequent severe headaches, and purulent discharge or
crusting reflecting purulence.'' We proposed a ten-percent level for
``infrequent headaches with discharge or crusting or scabbing.'' We
have revised these criteria by specifying the frequency of
incapacitating or non-incapacitating episodes of sinusitis per year and
the specific symptoms for the various levels. For example, we changed
the criteria for a 30-percent evaluation to a requirement for three or
more incapacitating episodes per year of sinusitis requiring prolonged
(lasting four to six weeks) antibiotic treatment, or; more than six
non-incapacitating episodes per year of sinusitis characterized by
headaches, pain, and purulent discharge or crusting. The change is to
clarify the criteria.
One commenter, while agreeing with the removal of ambiguous words
such as ``severe,'' urged that the rules not be made too concrete.
We believe that providing clear and objective criteria is the best
way to assure that disabilities will be evaluated fairly and
consistently. At the same time we are aware that there must be some
flexibility in application of the criteria because patients do not
commonly present as textbook models of disease. Rating boards are
required to assess all the evidence of record before determining a
disability evaluation and must use their judgment in determining, for
example, which level of evaluation is more appropriate when there is
conflicting information. Therefore, no matter how objective the
criteria, an element of judgment in their application remains.
We proposed criteria for bronchiectasis (DC 6601) that included
``severe'' hemoptysis, ``chronic'' antibiotic usage, and ``chronic
recurrent'' pneumonia. One commenter said that the words ``severe,''
``chronic,'' and ``chronic recurrent'' are not objective and that in
fact they are unnecessary.
VA agrees. However, simply eliminating those adjectives would not
have left appropriate criteria, so we have revised the criteria to make
them more objective. We have specified the required duration of
incapacitating episodes of infection or frequency of antibiotic usage
for each level of severity of bronchiectasis. At the 60- and 30-percent
levels, we also provided alternative objective criteria based on such
symptoms as cough, purulent sputum, and weight loss. Our change is to
clarify the criteria for the evaluation of bronchiectasis.
The previous schedule used a variety of symptoms, signs, and X-ray
findings to evaluate pulmonary diseases. We proposed that many be
evaluated, at least in part, on criteria based on the results of
pulmonary function tests (PFT's). One commenter, concerned that a
single set of PFT's on a given day might not accurately represent the
veteran's usual condition, recommended that VA place greater emphasis
on interpreting examination reports in light of all evidence of record
and require that test results be reviewed by a pulmonary disease
specialist or by the medical specialist on the rating board.
Rating boards are required by Sec. 4.2 to evaluate all evidence of
record before assigning an evaluation. It is highly unlikely that the
results of a single set of PFT's would be the only available evidence
on which to evaluate the level of severity of a pulmonary condition.
Current clinical information, treatment records, previous examination
reports, and other laboratory results are generally available for
consideration. Rating boards seek medical consultation when they feel
it is necessary. The medical consultant to the rating board is readily
available for information and advice, and the rating board may request
an examination by a pulmonary disease specialist when it feels it is
needed. It would be both impractical and unnecessary to consult with a
pulmonary disease specialist on every case in which PFT's have been
conducted.
One commenter suggested that the criteria in the previous rating
schedule for evaluating respiratory diseases be retained as a backup
for cases where pulmonary function testing is not available.
The equipment for carrying out PFT's is widely available, but if an
examining facility is not equipped for the tests, the examination will
need to be conducted at another facility, as is the case with other
specialized testing, such as for vision or hearing. VA therefore does
not believe retention of the previous criteria as backup is necessary.
Another commenter stated that pulmonary function testing is
contraindicated in certain instances for medical reasons, such as a
history of spontaneous pneumothorax, a hole in the tympanic membrane,
or a recent history of active tuberculosis, and that provisions are
therefore needed for evaluating these conditions when PFT's cannot be
done.
The Veterans Health Administration has advised us that the medical
conditions listed by the commenter do not contraindicate pulmonary
function testing. The major limiting factor in carrying out such
testing is the inability of some patients to follow directions, as
[[Page 46723]]
might occur, for example, in individuals who are severely ill following
a stroke. Even in such individuals, the new criteria allow assignment
of a total evaluation for respiratory disease because there are a
number of criteria warranting a 100-percent evaluation, including cor
pulmonale, right ventricular hypertrophy, and respiratory failure, that
can be assessed without the need for patient cooperation. As under the
previous criteria, for a small number of patients with a less severe
respiratory disease, an evaluation may have to be deferred until
pulmonary function testing is feasible.
Machines that are used for disability testing purposes must meet
the calibration standards of The American Thoracic Society, which are
internationally accepted. This assures that the basis of evaluations
will be the most accurate and consistent measurements possible.
We proposed a 100-percent level of evaluation for larynx, stenosis
of, (DC 6520) if there is either a Forced Expiratory Volume in one
second (FEV-1) of less than 40-percent predicted, or a permanent
tracheostomy, and a 60-percent evaluation if there is an FEV-1 of 40-
to 55-percent predicted. We proposed a 100-percent evaluation for
chronic bronchitis (DC 6600), pulmonary emphysema (DC 6603), chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (DC 6604) and restrictive lung diseases
if there is an FEV-1 of less than 40-percent predicted, a ratio of FEV-
1 to Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) less than 40-percent, a DLCO less than
40-percent predicted, maximum exercise capacity less than 15 ml/kg/min
oxygen consumption, cor pulmonale (right heart failure), right
ventricular hypertrophy, pulmonary hypertension, episode(s) of acute
respiratory failure, or a requirement for outpatient oxygen therapy. We
proposed a 60-percent evaluation for the same group of conditions if
there is an FEV-1 of 40- to 55-percent predicted, an FEV-1/FVC of 40-
to 55-percent, a DLCO of 40- to 55-percent predicted, or maximum oxygen
consumption of 15 to 20 ml/kg/min. We proposed a 100-percent evaluation
for bronchial asthma (DC 6602) if there is an FEV-1 less than 40-
percent predicted, an FEV-1/FVC less than 40-percent, more than one
attack per week with episodes of respiratory failure, or daily use of
systemic high dose corticosteroids or immuno-suppressive medication,
and a 60-percent evaluation if there is an FEV-1 of 40- to 55-percent
predicted, an FEV-1 of 40- to 55-percent, at least monthly visits to a
physician for exacerbations, or intermittent courses of systemic
corticosteroids.
One commenter said that the levels of reduction of pulmonary
function for the 60- and 100-percent evaluation levels of DC's 6520,
6600, 6602, 6603, 6604, and 6844 (one of the restrictive lung
conditions) that we proposed are extreme and do not represent average
impairments.
VA disagrees. The criteria we have provided for a 100-percent
evaluation for these conditions are consistent with the criteria used
by the American Thoracic Society for its ``severely impaired (unable to
meet the physical demands of most jobs)'' category. This is not more
stringent than the requirement for ``dyspnea at rest'' or ``dyspnea on
slight exertion,'' which were among the criteria for a 100-percent
level of evaluation for many pulmonary conditions in the previous
schedule. We also provided alternative requirements for a 100-percent
evaluation, such as heart failure, that are consistent with criteria
for this level in other sections of the rating schedule. The criteria
we have provided for 60 percent are proportionately lower than those
for the 100-percent level.
One commenter questioned what values will be assigned as normals in
PFT's.
Normal values of PFT's, for VA purposes, are those that exceed the
requirements for a 10-percent evaluation, and those levels are also
consistent with the American Thoracic Society standards for normal
values except in the case of the FEV-1/FVC ratio, where we include the
75- to 80-percent level in the criteria that warrant a ten-percent
evaluation. Although the American Thoracic Society uses an evaluation
of 75 percent as the normal level of the FEV-1/FVC ratio, two widely
used medical textbooks use other normals: Cecil (374) uses ``80
percent,'' and Harrison (1035) uses ``approximately 75 to 80 percent.''
Therefore, our designation of over 80 percent as normal is consistent
with current medical teaching.
The same commenter recommended that we specify that pulmonary
function be tested before bronchodilatation in order to reflect
ordinary conditions of life.
VA disagrees. The American Lung Association/American Thoracic
Society Component Committee on Disability Criteria recommends testing
for pulmonary function after optimum therapy. The results of such tests
reflect the best possible functioning of an individual and are the
figures used as the standard basis of comparison of pulmonary function.
Using this standard testing method assures consistent evaluations.
One commenter stated that, while pulmonary function testing
provides a very accurate picture of functional impairment of the
respiratory system, compensation should be based on the limitation of
earning capacity.
The determination of compensation based on limitation of earning
capacity is not inconsistent with the use of objective PFT's. A major
objective of the rating schedule revision is to provide criteria that
are accurate, consistent, and unambiguous. The widespread use and
acceptance of PFT's (American Thoracic Society, American Medical
Association, etc.) indicates their value in assessing the severity of
pulmonary diseases. Their usefulness lies in part in the fact that they
correlate with the functional impairment that an individual
experiences. The more severe the pulmonary disease, the more abnormal
one or more PFT's are likely to be, and the more interference there is
likely to be with occupational functioning. Using PFT's as a means of
evaluation fulfills to as great an extent as is possible, the desire
for evaluation criteria that allow accuracy and consistency and that
are not ambiguous. The commenter offered no alternative suggestions for
criteria to evaluate pulmonary disease.
One commenter felt that PFT's should be the exclusive basis for
evaluating lung disorders because they are strictly objective.
VA disagrees. While we have used the results of pulmonary function
tests as evaluation criteria when they are appropriate, they are not
suitable for the evaluation of all lung conditions. Asthma, for
example, is an episodic condition that may exhibit normal PFT's at most
times despite significantly disabling disease, and it therefore
requires other criteria for its evaluation, such as the need for a
certain type or frequency of treatment.
One commenter, noting that we had proposed to assign most lung
disorders (restrictive lung diseases, chronic bronchitis, asthma,
emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and bronchiectasis)
evaluation levels of 10, 30, 60, and 100 percent, but interstitial lung
diseases levels of 0, 10, 40, 70, and 100 percent, said that it would
be more logical and consistent to assign all lung conditions the same
evaluation levels. Another commenter stated that lung conditions with
similar impairments of lung functions should receive similar ratings.
He suggested listing FEV-1, FVC, FEV-1/FVC, and DLCO under all lung
diseases requiring PFT's, as recommended by the American
[[Page 46724]]
Thoracic Society and found in the AMA Guides.
Individual categories of pulmonary disorders often affect the
results of one PFT more than another. Our non-VA panel of specialist
consultants felt that FEV-1 and the ratio of FEV-1 to FVC are good
indicators of the level of severity of many pulmonary diseases, but
that the FVC and DLCO are more appropriate PFT's to evaluate
interstitial diseases. The American Medical Association's ``Guides to
the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment,'' Third Edition, Revised
(1990), says that ``for interstitial lung disease, the FVC has proved
to be a reliable and valid index of significant impairment,'' and it
goes on to say that the DLCO is especially useful in detecting
abnormalities that limit gas transference, such as emphysema or
interstitial fibrosis of the lung parenchyma. A standard medical
textbook (Cecil, 401), says that the ratio of FEV-1 to FVC may be
normal or increased in interstitial disease. It is therefore not useful
as a criterion to evaluate the severity of this type of disease. Our
use of the proposed criteria is thus consistent with the effects of the
various conditions on PFT's.
Regarding the comment about using the same evaluation levels for
all lung disorders, VA agrees that there is no compelling reason to use
evaluation levels for interstitial lung disease that differ from those
used for the majority of other lung diseases. We have, therefore, for
the sake of greater consistency, revised the criteria for interstitial
lung disease by substituting 30- and 60-percent levels for the 40- and
70-percent levels. This required adjustments in the FVC and DLCO levels
used as criteria, both because of the changed evaluation levels and to
make them correspond with the PFT criteria for other pulmonary
conditions. We also removed the zero-percent evaluation for
consistency.
One commenter said that while an FEV-1 above 80 percent is
considered normal in the proposed revision of the respiratory disease
section of the rating schedule, the Veterans Health Administration's
``Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations'' (a manual
that gives guidance to examining physicians who do compensation and
pension examinations) states that 83 percent is normal, and these
figures are inconsistent.
The ``Physician's Guide'' is meant to insure that all necessary
tests are performed and that all findings are provided for diagnosis
and/or evaluation to meet the specific requirements of the Schedule for
Rating Disabilities and related programs. It is available to VA and fee
basis examiners conducting examinations for VA disability benefits. The
current version of the Guide (revised 1994), which is computerized and
no longer available in printed form, does not provide lists of normal
PFT results. The examining physician is required to obtain PFT's where
the criteria call for them but need not interpret the results since the
criteria themselves contain the actual figures that warrant various
evaluations. As with any examination, it is incumbent upon the rating
board to return to the examiner reports that lack information necessary
to apply the provisions of the rating schedule (see 38 CFR 4.2).
We proposed notes under DC's 6600 (chronic bronchitis), 6603
(pulmonary emphysema), 6604 (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and
under the general rating formula for restrictive lung diseases
outlining the requirements for home oxygen. One commenter said that the
requirements for home oxygen are too specific and should be flexible
enough to allow for a physician's assessment that the patient needs
oxygen. Another commenter said that the term ``home oxygen'' is
confusing because many use oxygen away from home and the requirement
for oxygen may be temporary, pending stabilization or during an acute
illness.
VA agrees that the decision to use home oxygen should be a medical,
not a rating, decision, and we have therefore deleted the note
explaining the technical requirements for home oxygen. We proposed that
``meets requirements for home oxygen'' be one of the criteria for the
100-percent level of the conditions listed above, but the preferred
current term for such treatment is ``outpatient oxygen therapy,'' and
we have revised the language accordingly.
A commenter asked how VA will deal with results of PFT's from non-
VA facilities that are at variance with VA test results.
This potential problem is not unique to the area of PFT's. Any
laboratory test may show different results when performed on the same
individual in the same facility at different times or when the same
test is performed on the same individual at more than one facility.
Rating boards are required to consider and reconcile all evidence of
record, and at times they may seek additional testing or a medical
opinion to help reconcile differences.
One commenter suggested we assign a minimum evaluation of 10
percent for any lung disorder if the patient must take daily
medication.
VA disagrees. Because of the broad range of pulmonary conditions
and medications used to treat them, a 10-percent evaluation would not
necessarily be warranted in all cases on the basis of daily medication
alone. For example, daily use of an expectorant or cough medicine would
not necessarily be indicative of a condition warranting a ten-percent
level of evaluation.
We proposed to add sarcoidosis (DC 6846) to the rating schedule
with evaluation levels of 0, 30, and 60 percent. We received two
comments about this change. One stated that while the criteria of
pulmonary involvement with fever, weight loss, and night sweats
requiring high dose systemic corticosteroids for control establish a
60-percent level of evaluation in the case of sarcoidosis, similar
criteria (active infection with systemic symptoms such as fever, night
sweats, weight loss, or hemoptysis) establish a 100-percent evaluation
for bacterial infections of the lung (DC's 6822, 6823, and 6824). He
felt that the criteria described should be considered totally disabling
for both conditions.
VA agrees that some of the criteria we had proposed for the 60-
percent level of sarcoidosis are more consistent with total disability.
We have therefore revised the criteria for the 60-percent evaluation
level and added a 100-percent evaluation level. We have made fever,
night sweats, and weight loss part of the criteria for the 100-percent
level and pulmonary disease requiring systemic high dose (therapeutic)
steroids for control of the criterion for the 60-percent level. We also
slightly revised the 30 percent criteria by adding ``maintenance'' in
parentheses as a description of the steroid therapy and removed
``mild'' modifying symptoms because it is a subjective term, and
whether maintenance or therapeutic doses of steroid are used makes a
clearer differentiation of the level of severity.
The other commenter stated that it will be difficult to establish
service connection for sarcoidosis on a presumptive basis if there is
no ten-percent level, because presumptive service connection requires
that a condition be manifest to a degree of ten percent or more within
one year of discharge.
The evaluation levels we provide for various conditions are meant
to reflect the ordinary levels of severity that may be seen in those
conditions, and we do not provide ten-percent evaluation levels in
order to aid presumptive service connection. The proposed evaluation
criteria for sarcoidosis included 30- and 60-percent evaluation levels,
and either of those levels would
[[Page 46725]]
establish presumptive service connection if present within one year of
discharge. Sarcoidosis may also be evaluated under other criteria,
however, as indicated in a note following the evaluation criteria.
Therefore, a 10-percent level, as well as other levels of evaluation,
may be assigned under DC 6600 (chronic bronchitis) based on the results
of pulmonary function tests, or under skin disease, eye disease, etc.,
when there is extra-pulmonary involvement.
One commenter suggested that we add a diagnostic code and
evaluation criteria for asbestosis. He suggested that we evaluate the
condition based on its restrictive aspects, X-ray changes, and pleural
changes.
VA agrees that asbestosis is a common enough disease in the veteran
population to warrant its own diagnostic code. We have therefore
removed asbestosis from the list of pneumoconioses in DC 6832 and have
added asbestosis as DC 6833. It will be evaluated under the general
rating formula for interstitial diseases, as recommended by our panel
of consultants. The X-ray changes unique to asbestosis are not
necessarily related to the degree of disability but are helpful in
establishing the fact of asbestos exposure. They therefore relate more
to the issue of service connection rather than to evaluation, and we
have not made them part of the evaluation criteria. We have adjusted
the numbering of the proposed diagnostic codes following asbestosis to
accommodate the added condition. We have changed the proposed DC's for
histoplasmosis of lung from 6833 to 6834, coccidioidomycosis from 6834
to 6835, blastomycosis from 6835 to 6836, cryptococcosis from 6836 to
6837, aspergillosis from 6837 to 6838, mucormycosis from 6838 to 6839,
diaphragm paralysis or paresis from 6839 to 6840, spinal cord injury
with respiratory insufficiency from 6840 to 6841, kyphoscoliosis,
pectus excavatum, pectus carinatum from 6841 to 6842, traumatic chest
wall defect, pneumothorax, hernia, etc., from 6842 to 6843, post-
surgical residual from 6843 to 6844, chronic pleural effusion or
fibrosis from 6844 to 6845, sarcoidosis from 6845 to 6846, and sleep
apnea from 6846 to 6847.
One commenter asked why we have not proposed to rate the
disfigurement and disability from radical neck surgery under
respiratory disorders.
Radical neck surgery is not appropriate for inclusion in the
respiratory system section of the rating schedule because it primarily
results in loss of muscle tissue (of the neck), subcutaneous tissue,
and lymph nodes. There is ordinarily no effect on the respiratory
system from such surgery. Disability from this loss of tissue can be
most appropriately evaluated under diagnostic codes in other sections,
such as DC 5322 (Muscle Group XXII, muscles of the front of the neck)
or DC 7800 (disfiguring scars of the head, face, or neck).
We proposed that injuries to the pharynx (DC 6521) have a single
evaluation level of 50 percent based on the presence of stricture or
obstruction of the pharynx or nasopharynx or on paralysis or absence of
the soft palate. A commenter said that the resulting symptoms are
severe enough to be considered 60-percent disabling, equivalent to
complete organic aphonia (DC 6519) or stenosis of larynx (DC 6520),
which have both 60- and 100-percent evaluation levels.
VA disagrees. The impairments from these three conditions differ
because they are in different locations. The major effect of pharyngeal
and palatal injuries is swallowing difficulty rather than respiratory
difficulty, and any resulting speech impairment is not likely to
approach the level of aphonia. (A 50-percent evaluation for these
injuries is comparable to the 50-percent evaluation criteria in the
digestive system for severe esophageal stricture, permitting passage of
liquids only.) Laryngeal stenosis, on the other hand, causes both
respiratory and speech impairment. However, if there is a case where
the impairment from pharyngeal injury more closely resembles aphonia or
the effects of laryngeal stenosis, an evaluation analogous to one of
those conditions may be used instead (Sec. 4.20). In our judgment, the
criteria and level of evaluation we have provided are appropriate for
most pharyngeal injuries, and there are adequate provisions for
evaluating those few that may be more severe.
Note (1) under the proposed general rating formula for inactive
pulmonary tuberculosis stated that when a veteran is placed on the 100-
percent rating for inactive tuberculosis, the medical authorities will
be appropriately notified of the fact, and of the necessity under 38
U.S.C. 356 to notify the Adjudication Division in the event of failure
to submit to examination or to follow prescribed treatment. A commenter
said that the citation of 38 U.S.C. 356, repealed by Public Law 90-493,
should be followed by a notation that it is to be found as footnote 1
to section 1156 of title 38, United States Code.
We agree and have revised the note accordingly.
One commenter felt that there is inequity in the evaluation
criteria for laryngectomy and partial aphonia because if partial
aphonia allows a person to whisper, the rating is 60 percent while if
laryngectomy allows a person to whisper, the rating is 100 percent.
VA disagrees. Disability resulting from a laryngectomy is not
comparable to partial aphonia with an intact larynx. In the case of
laryngectomy, a significant organ has been removed which has functions
beyond that of speech. The larynx acts as the sphincter guarding the
gateway to the trachea, and a laryngectomy produces a serious
compromise of the respiratory tract, requiring a permanent
tracheostomy. Partial aphonia may result from any of several causes,
including inflammatory and benign neoplastic conditions, but since they
affect speech without affecting respiration, we have retained the
evaluation criteria as proposed.
Another comment regarding total laryngectomy (DC 6518) and complete
organic aphonia (DC 6519) was that there should be a footnote at these
codes as a reminder to consider special monthly compensation (SMC),
which may be awarded for complete organic aphonia under the provisions
of 38 CFR 3.350.
In our judgment, the rating agency should refer directly to the
complex and extensive regulations regarding special monthly
compensation in Sec. 3.350 whenever the question of special monthly
compensation arises. However, in response to the comment, we have taken
two steps to remind the rating board to consider the possibility of
SMC. We added paragraph (c), ``Special monthly compensation,'' to
Sec. 4.96 requiring the rating board to refer to Sec. 3.350 any time it
evaluates a claim involving complete organic aphonia; and we placed
footnotes at DC's 6518 and 6519, conditions which may be associated
with complete organic aphonia, instructing rating boards to review for
entitlement to SMC. While those conditions clearly call for review for
entitlement to SMC, there are other conditions in this portion of the
rating schedule where there might also be entitlement to SMC. The lack
of a footnote does not relieve the rating board of the responsibility
of recognizing additional circumstances where SMC might be warranted.
We believe that the combination of the regulatory requirement contained
in the note and the footnotes is the best method of making sure that
potential entitlement to SMC is considered.
In view of the addition of paragraph (c) to Sec. 4.96, we have
changed the title
[[Page 46726]]
of this section to ``Special provisions regarding evaluation of
respiratory conditions,'' which is more descriptive of its current
contents.
The previous rating schedule had separate diagnostic codes and
evaluations for pneumonectomy (60 percent under DC 6815) and lobectomy
(50 percent if bilateral, and 30 percent if unilateral, under DC 6816).
We proposed that all pulmonary post-surgical residuals, including
lobectomy and pneumonectomy, be evaluated under DC 6843, post-surgical
residual, as restrictive lung disease, based on the objective findings
of PFT's. One commenter said this change is an arbitrary decrease
because no advancement in medical science can change the degree of
disability resulting from such surgery.
VA does not concur. Since there is an objective method to measure
residual breathing impairment, it is more equitable to use that method
so that evaluation of the residuals of any type of lung resection is
made on the actual residuals found. The previous schedule did not
provide evaluations for residuals more severe than the levels specified
under those codes. It required, for example, that lobectomy be
bilateral to qualify for a 50-percent level of impairment. Under the
revised criteria, a veteran will be assigned an evaluation according to
the level of disability reflected by the PFT's, whatever the extent of
the surgery. This will assure that veterans with comparable residual
pulmonary disabilities are consistently evaluated.
We proposed that chronic lung abscess (DC 6824) be evaluated under
a general rating formula for bacterial infections of the lung and
directed that post-surgical residuals and post-treatment fibrosis and
scars be rated as chronic bronchitis (DC 6600). One commenter pointed
out that there may be other types of residuals besides fibrosis and
scars, such as thoracoplasty, lobectomy, or purulent pleurisy, and
suggested that the residuals be rated as appropriate.
We agree, and have revised the statement under DC 6824 to read:
``Depending on the specific findings, rate residuals as interstitial
lung disease, restrictive lung disease, or, when obstructive lung
disease is the major residual, as chronic bronchitis (DC 6600).''
The previous schedule called for a 100-percent rating for one year
following the date of inactivity of active pulmonary tuberculosis (DC
6731). We proposed that once pulmonary tuberculosis becomes inactive,
it be evaluated on the residual scar or fibrosis as chronic bronchitis
(DC 6600). Three commenters objected to the change. One said that
eliminating a period of convalescence when there is a new worldwide
outbreak of tuberculosis is questionable, one said that the change is
not justifiable, and one said that we should provide a period of
readjustment because individuals have difficulty finding employment
after release from treatment for tuberculosis.
On further consideration, VA agrees that some provision for
readjustment is appropriate, and we have revised DC 6731 to require
that a mandatory examination be requested immediately after
notification that active tuberculosis has become inactive. Any change
in evaluation will be carried out under the provisions of
Sec. 3.105(e). This will assure that a total evaluation will continue
for at least several months, which will provide a period of
readjustment, and will also assure that the extent of any residual
impairment has been documented by examination.
The third commenter stated that the proposal to rate residual scar
or fibrosis of inactive tuberculosis (DC 6731) as chronic bronchitis
(DC 6600) is too restrictive because there may be other residuals.
We agree, and have revised the statement under DC 6731 to read:
``Depending on the specific findings, rate residuals as interstitial
lung disease, restrictive lung disease, or, when obstructive lung
disease is the major residual, as chronic bronchitis (DC 6600). Rate
thoracoplasty as removal of ribs under DC 5297.''
We proposed separate diagnostic codes for chronic bronchitis (DC
6600), pulmonary emphysema (DC 6603), and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (DC 6604), with evaluation under identical criteria. One
commenter suggested a single diagnostic code, ``chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (bronchitis or emphysema),'' for all of these
conditions, since the proposed criteria are essentially identical.
VA disagrees. While pulmonary emphysema, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD), and chronic bronchitis often coexist and are
sometimes hard to differentiate, they are not synonymous. COPD
ordinarily refers to a combination of chronic obstructive bronchitis
and emphysema (Cecil, 389), but the term is not always used precisely.
Emphysema may be localized or generalized, and is not always
categorized as COPD. Since an individual may receive a diagnosis of any
of the three conditions, it is useful to have a separate diagnostic
code for each entity for statistical purposes and to aid the rating
board in selecting appropriate evaluation criteria.
We proposed to add spinal cord injury with respiratory
insufficiency (DC 6840) as one of six restrictive lung diseases to be
evaluated under a general rating formula. One commenter, without
explaining how the conditions differ or offering an alternative for us
to consider, suggested that spinal cord injury with respiratory
insufficiency not be evaluated as a restrictive lung disease because
ventilator dependency secondary to spinal cord injury is distinct from
other lung diseases.
VA disagrees. The panel of non-VA specialists convened by a
contract consultant included spinal cord injury with respiratory
insufficiency among the restrictive pulmonary diseases. Cecil (377), in
discussing restrictive pulmonary disease, includes those conditions
that affect the chest wall or respiratory muscles. We have provided
alternative criteria for restrictive lung disease at each evaluation
level, and if any one of the criteria for a particular level is
present, that level of evaluation can be assigned. A wide range of
respiratory conditions with a predominantly restrictive effect can
therefore be evaluated under our criteria, even though one condition
might be reflected in an abnormality of one PFT more than another. As a
result, our criteria are broad enough to encompass any likely
functional impairment spinal cord injury with respiratory insufficiency
may produce.
The previous rating schedule provided a one hundred-percent
evaluation for six months following spontaneous pneumothorax (now DC
6843). We proposed to provide a convalescent period of three months
following total pneumothorax. We received two comments objecting to
this proposal. One commenter said that our statement in the preamble to
the proposed revision that pneumothorax resolves sooner than six months
is not supported by medical evidence, and the other said that
decreasing the convalescent period may impede full recovery.
VA disagrees. ``The Merck Manual,'' (731, 16th ed. 1992), states
that a small pneumothorax requires no special treatment and that the
air is reabsorbed in a few days. It also says that full absorption of a
larger airspace may take two to four weeks, a period which can be
shortened by the use of a tube for drainage. Cecil (450), states that a
small pneumothorax is reabsorbed in 7 to 14 days and that larger ones
may be treated with a tube for 2 to 4 days if very large, under
tension, or very symptomatic. A persistent or complicated pneumothorax
[[Page 46727]]
may require surgery, and in that case, the provisions of
Sec. 4.30(b)(2) allow the rating board to assign convalescence for up
to a total of six months. Therefore, it is our judgment that three
months of convalescence is adequate in the average case.
We received one comment on avoiding pyramiding, the prohibited
practice of evaluating the same disability under various diagnoses (see
38 CFR 4.14). The commenter suggested that we direct that DC 6520,
stenosis of larynx, not be combined with other codes in this section
because the criterion for airflow obstruction due to stenosis of the
larynx is similar to those for disease of bronchi or lungs.
Stenosis of the larynx may be evaluated on the basis of the results
of pulmonary function tests, if there is respiratory impairment, or as
aphonia, when interference with speech is the main impairment. Only in
cases of laryngeal stenosis where respiratory impairment is the basis
of evaluation would it be pyramiding to combine such an evaluation with
the evaluation of another pulmonary condition. Therefore, a strict
prohibition against combining evaluations for stenosis of the larynx
with evaluations for pulmonary conditions is not warranted. The
statement in Sec. 4.96, paragraph (a), stipulating that when there is
lung or pleural involvement, DC's 6819 and 6920 will not be combined
with each other or with DC's 6600 through 6817 or 6822 through 6847 is
sufficient to alert the rating board to possible problems of pyramiding
when evaluating pulmonary conditions.
The same commenter additionally said that, to prevent pyramiding,
VA should state that evaluations under DC's 6520 (stenosis of larynx),
6511, 6512, 6513, and 6514 (sinusitis in various locations) should not
be combined with one another and likewise that evaluations under DC's
6522, 6523, and 6524 (rhinitis of various types) should not be combined
with one another.
In VA's judgment, there is no need to specifically prohibit
pyramiding of the various codes for sinusitis or rhinitis as the
commenter suggests. The rating board is required in general by
Sec. 4.14 not to pyramid disabilities. The board must use its judgment
as to whether a single evaluation encompasses all disability present or
not. A specific prohibition might be useful if all conditions involved
always had the same manifestations, but this is not true of either
sinusitis or rhinitis.
The commenter went on to say that, alternatively, Sec. 4.96 could
be amended to state that it does not remove the prohibition against
pyramiding that may apply to other diagnostic codes.
VA disagrees. Such an amendment is not necessary because Sec. 4.14,
which prohibits the practice of ``pyramiding,'' applies to the entire
rating schedule, and all rating boards are required to follow it.
For further clarity, we have revised the criteria for pulmonary
vascular disease, DC 6817. We proposed that the criterion for 30
percent be ``acute pulmonary embolism with residual symptoms,'' and we
changed that language to ``symptomatic following resolution of acute
pulmonary embolism.'' We proposed that the criterion at the zero-
percent level be ``resolved pulmonary thromboembolism with no residual
symptoms,'' and we changed that language to ``asymptomatic, following
resolution of pulmonary thromboembolism.'' These do not represent
substantive changes. Because pulmonary vascular disease may result in
residuals other than those included in the proposed criteria, such as
chronic pleural thickening, for the sake of completeness, we added a
note under DC 6817 directing to evaluate other residuals under the most
appropriate diagnostic code.
In the proposed regulation for chronic bronchitis (DC 6600),
pulmonary emphysema (DC 6603), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(DC 6604), and restrictive lung diseases, we inadvertently omitted an
upper level of DLCO that would warrant a ten percent evaluation. We
have corrected this oversight in the final regulation by making the
DLCO requirement for the 10-percent evaluation ``66- to 80-percent
predicted.''
An additional change we made for the sake of completeness was the
addition of a note following DC 6504, nose, loss of part of, or scars,
stating that this disability may alternatively be evaluated as DC 7800,
disfiguring scars of the head, face, or neck.
We made minor editorial changes in language in several cases, such
as changing ``rate'' to ``evaluate'' and ``applicable'' to
``appropriate'', but these are not substantive changes.
VA appreciates the comments submitted in response to the proposed
rule, which is now adopted with the amendments noted above.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this regulatory amendment will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5
U.S.C. 601-612. The reason for this certification is that this
amendment would not directly affect any small entities. Only VA
beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b), this amendment is exempt from the initial and final
regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
This regulatory amendment has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under the provisions of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers are
64.104 and 64.109.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 4
Disability benefits, Individuals with disabilities, Pensions,
Veterans.
Approved: May 13, 1996.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 4, subpart B,
is amended as set forth below:
PART 4--SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
Subpart B--Disability Ratings
2. In Sec. 4.96, the section heading and paragraph (a) are revised,
and paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 4.96 Special provisions regarding evaluation of respiratory
conditions.
(a) Rating coexisting respiratory conditions. Ratings under
diagnostic codes 6600 through 6817 and 6822 through 6847 will not be
combined with each other. Where there is lung or pleural involvement,
ratings under diagnostic codes 6819 and 6820 will not be combined with
each other or with diagnostic codes 6600 through 6817 or 6822 through
6847. A single rating will be assigned under the diagnostic code which
reflects the predominant disability with elevation to the next higher
evaluation where the severity of the overall disability warrants such
elevation. However, in cases protected by the provisions of Pub. L. 90-
493, the graduated ratings of 50 and 30 percent for inactive
tuberculosis will not be elevated.
* * * * *
(c) Special monthly compensation. When evaluating any claim
involving complete organic aphonia, refer to Sec. 3.350 of this chapter
to determine whether the veteran may be entitled to special monthly
compensation. Footnotes in the schedule indicate
[[Page 46728]]
conditions which potentially establish entitlement to special monthly
compensation; however, there are other conditions in this section which
under certain circumstances also establish entitlement to special
monthly compensation.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)
3. Section 4.97 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4.97 Schedule of ratingsrespiratory system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISEASES OF THE NOSE AND THROAT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6502 Septum, nasal, deviation of:
Traumatic only,
With 50-percent obstruction of the nasal passage on
both sides or complete obstruction on one side........ 10
6504 Nose, loss of part of, or scars:
Exposing both nasal passages............................... 30
Loss of part of one ala, or other obvious disfigurement.... 10
Note: Or evaluate as DC 7800, scars, disfiguring, head, face,
or neck.
6510 Sinusitis, pansinusitis, chronic.
6511 Sinusitis, ethmoid, chronic.
6512 Sinusitis, frontal, chronic.
6513 Sinusitis, maxillary, chronic.
6514 Sinusitis, sphenoid, chronic.
General Rating Formula for Sinusitis (DC's 6510 through
6514):
Following radical surgery with chronic osteomyelitis,
or; near constant sinusitis characterized by
headaches, pain and tenderness of affected sinus, and
purulent discharge or crusting after repeated
surgeries............................................. 50
Three or more incapacitating episodes per year of
sinusitis requiring prolonged (lasting four to six
weeks) antibiotic treatment, or; more than six non-
incapacitating episodes per year of sinusitis
characterized by headaches, pain, and purulent
discharge or crusting................................. 30
One or two incapacitating episodes per year of
sinusitis requiring prolonged (lasting four to six
weeks) antibiotic treatment, or; three to six non-
incapacitating episodes per year of sinusitis
characterized by headaches, pain, and purulent
discharge or crusting................................. 10
Detected by X-ray only................................. 0
Note: An incapacitating episode of sinusitis means one that
requires bed rest and treatment by a physician.
6515 Laryngitis, tuberculous, active or inactive.
Rate under Secs. 4.88c or 4.89, whichever is appropriate.
6516 Laryngitis, chronic:
Hoarseness, with thickening or nodules of cords, polyps,
submucous infiltration, or pre-malignant changes on biopsy 30
Hoarseness, with inflammation of cords or mucous membrane.. 10
6518 Laryngectomy, total...................................... \1\ 100
Rate the residuals of partial laryngectomy as laryngitis
(DC 6516), aphonia (DC 6519), or stenosis of larynx (DC
6520).
6519 Aphonia, complete organic:
Constant inability to communicate by speech................ \1\ 100
Constant inability to speak above a whisper................ 60
Note: Evaluate incomplete aphonia as laryngitis, chronic
(DC 6516).
6520 Larynx, stenosis of, including residuals of laryngeal
trauma (unilateral or bilateral):
Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV-1) less than 40
percent of predicted value, with Flow-Volume Loop
compatible with upper airway obstruction, or; permanent
tracheostomy.............................................. 100
FEV-1 of 40- to 55-percent predicted, with Flow-Volume Loop
compatible with upper airway obstruction.................. 60
FEV-1 of 56- to 70-percent predicted, with Flow-Volume Loop
compatible with upper airway obstruction.................. 30
FEV-1 of 71- to 80-percent predicted, with Flow-Volume Loop
compatible with upper airway obstruction.................. 10
Note: Or evaluate as aphonia (DC 6519).
6521 Pharynx, injuries to:
Stricture or obstruction of pharynx or nasopharynx, or;
absence of soft palate secondary to trauma, chemical burn,
or granulomatous disease, or; paralysis of soft palate
with swallowing difficulty (nasal regurgitation) and
speech impairment......................................... 50
6522 Allergic or vasomotor rhinitis:
With polyps................................................ 30
Without polyps, but with greater than 50-percent
obstruction of nasal passage on both sides or complete
obstruction on one side................................... 10
6523 Bacterial rhinitis:
Rhinoscleroma.............................................. 50
With permanent hypertrophy of turbinates and with greater
than 50-percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides
or complete obstruction on one side....................... 10
6524 Granulomatous rhinitis:
Wegener's granulomatosis, lethal midline granuloma......... 100
Other types of granulomatous infection..................... 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISEASES OF THE TRACHEA AND BRONCHI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6600 Bronchitis, chronic:
FEV-1 less than 40 percent of predicted value, or; the
ratio of Forced Expiratory Volume in one second to Forced
Vital Capacity (FEV-1/FVC) less than 40 percent, or;
Diffusion Capacity of the Lung for Carbon Monoxide by the
Single Breath Method (DLCO (SB)) less than 40-percent
predicted, or; maximum exercise capacity less than 15 ml/
kg/min oxygen consumption (with cardiac or respiratory
limitation), or; cor pulmonale (right heart failure), or;
right ventricular hypertrophy, or; pulmonary hypertension
(shown by Echo or cardiac catheterization), or; episode(s)
of acute respiratory failure, or; requires outpatient
oxygen therapy............................................ 100
[[Page 46729]]
FEV-1 of 40- to 55-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 40
to 55 percent, or; DLCO (SB) of 40- to 55-percent
predicted, or; maximum oxygen consumption of 15 to 20 ml/
kg/min (with cardiorespiratory limit)..................... 60
FEV-1 of 56- to 70-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 56
to 70 percent, or; DLCO (SB) 56- to 65-percent predicted.. 30
FEV-1 of 71- to 80-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 71
to 80 percent, or; DLCO (SB) 66- to 80-percent predicted.. 10
6601 Bronchiectasis:
With incapacitating episodes of infection of at least six
weeks total duration per year............................. 100
With incapacitating episodes of infection of four to six
weeks total duration per year, or; near constant findings
of cough with purulent sputum associated with anorexia,
weight loss, and frank hemoptysis and requiring antibiotic
usage almost continuously................................. 60
With incapacitating episodes of infection of two to four
weeks total duration per year, or; daily productive cough
with sputum that is at times purulent or blood-tinged and
that requires prolonged (lasting four to six weeks)
antibiotic usage more than twice a year................... 30
Intermittent productive cough with acute infection
requiring a course of antibiotics at least twice a year... 10
Or rate according to pulmonary impairment as for chronic
bronchitis (DC 6600).
Note: An incapacitating episode is one that requires
bedrest and treatment by a physician.
6602 Asthma, bronchial:
FEV-1 less than 40-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC less
than 40 percent, or; more than one attack per week with
episodes of respiratory failure, or; requires daily use of
systemic (oral or parenteral) high dose corticosteroids or
immuno-suppressive medications............................ 100
FEV-1 of 40- to 55-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 40
to 55 percent, or; at least monthly visits to a physician
for required care of exacerbations, or; intermittent (at
least three per year) courses of systemic (oral or
parenteral) corticosteroids............................... 60
FEV-1 of 56- to 70-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 56
to 70 percent, or; daily inhalational or oral
bronchodilator therapy, or; inhalational anti-inflammatory
medication................................................ 30
FEV-1 of 71- to 80-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 71
to 80 percent, or; intermittent inhalational or oral
bronchodilator therapy.................................... 10
Note: In the absence of clinical findings of asthma at time
of examination, a verified history of asthmatic attacks
must be of record.
6603 Emphysema, pulmonary:
FEV-1 less than 40 percent of predicted value, or; the
ratio of Forced Expiratory Volume in one second to Forced
Vital Capacity (FEV-1/FVC) less than 40 percent, or;
Diffusion Capacity of the Lung for Carbon Monoxide by the
Single Breath Method (DLCO (SB)) less than 40-percent
predicted, or; maximum exercise capacity less than 15 ml/
kg/min oxygen consumption (with cardiac or respiratory
limitation), or; cor pulmonale (right heart failure), or;
right ventricular hypertrophy, or; pulmonary hypertension
(shown by Echo or cardiac catheterization), or; episode(s)
of acute respiratory failure, or; requires outpatient
oxygen therapy............................................ 100
FEV-1 of 40- to 55-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 40
to 55 percent, or; DLCO (SB) of 40- to 55-percent
predicted, or; maximum oxygen consumption of 15 to 20 ml/
kg/min (with cardiorespiratory limit)..................... 60
FEV-1 of 56- to 70-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 56
to 70 percent, or; DLCO (SB) 56- to 65-percent predicted.. 30
FEV-1 of 71- to 80-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 71
to 80 percent, or; DLCO (SB) 66- to 80-percent predicted.. 10
6604 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease:
FEV-1 less than 40 percent of predicted value, or; the
ratio of Forced Expiratory Volume in one second to Forced
Vital Capacity (FEV-1/FVC) less than 40 percent, or;
Diffusion Capacity of the Lung for Carbon Monoxide by the
Single Breath Method (DLCO (SB)) less than 40-percent
predicted, or; maximum exercise capacity less than 15 ml/
kg/min oxygen consumption (with cardiac or respiratory
limitation), or; cor pulmonale (right heart failure), or;
right ventricular hypertrophy, or; pulmonary hypertension
(shown by Echo or cardiac catheterization), or; episode(s)
of acute respiratory failure, or; requires outpatient
oxygen therapy............................................ 100
FEV-1 of 40- to 55-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 40
to 55 percent, or; DLCO (SB) of 40- to 55-percent
predicted, or; maximum oxygen consumption of 15 to 20 ml/
kg/min (with cardiorespiratory limit)..................... 60
FEV-1 of 56- to 70-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 56
to 70 percent, or; DLCO (SB) 56- to 65-percent predicted.. 30
FEV-1 of 71- to 80-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 71
to 80 percent, or; DLCO (SB) 66- to 80-percent predicted.. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISEASES OF THE LUNGS AND PLEURA--TUBERCULOSIS
Ratings for Pulmonary Tuberculosis Entitled on August 19, 1968
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6701 Tuberculosis, pulmonary, chronic, far advanced, active... 100
6702 Tuberculosis, pulmonary, chronic, moderately advanced,
active........................................................ 100
6703 Tuberculosis, pulmonary, chronic, minimal, active........ 100
6704 Tuberculosis, pulmonary, chronic, active, advancement
unspecified................................................... 100
6721 Tuberculosis, pulmonary, chronic, far advanced, inactive.
6722 Tuberculosis, pulmonary, chronic, moderately advanced,
inactive......................................................
6723 Tuberculosis, pulmonary, chronic, minimal, inactive......
6724 Tuberculosis, pulmonary, chronic, inactive, advancement
unspecified...................................................
General Rating Formula for Inactive Pulmonary Tuberculosis:
For two years after date of inactivity, following active
tuberculosis, which was clinically identified during
service or subsequently................................... 100
Thereafter for four years, or in any event, to six years
after date of inactivity.................................. 50
Thereafter, for five years, or to eleven years after date
of inactivity............................................. 30
Following far advanced lesions diagnosed at any time while
the disease process was active, minimum................... 30
Following moderately advanced lesions, provided there is
continued disability, emphysema, dyspnea on exertion,
impairment of health, etc................................. 20
Otherwise.................................................. 0
Note (1): The 100-percent rating under codes 6701 through 6724
is not subject to a requirement of precedent hospital
treatment. It will be reduced to 50 percent for failure to
submit to examination or to follow prescribed treatment upon
report to that effect from the medical authorities. When a
veteran is placed on the 100-percent rating for inactive
tuberculosis, the medical authorities will be appropriately
notified of the fact, and of the necessity, as given in
footnote 1 to 38 U.S.C. 1156 (and formerly in 38 U.S.C. 356,
which has been repealed by Public Law 90-493), to notify the
Adjudication Division in the event of failure to submit to
examination or to follow treatment.
[[Page 46730]]
FR Doc. 96-22593 Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Respiratory System
Note (2): The graduated 50-percent and 30-percent ratings and
the permanent 30 percent and 20 percent ratings for inactive
pulmonary tuberculosis are not to be combined with ratings for
other respiratory disabilities. Following thoracoplasty the
rating will be for removal of ribs combined with the rating
for collapsed lung. Resection of the ribs incident to
thoracoplasty will be rated as removal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratings for Pulmonary Tuberculosis Initially Evaluated After August 19,
1968
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6730 Tuberculosis, pulmonary, chronic, active................ 100
Note: Active pulmonary tuberculosis will be considered
permanently and totally disabling for non-service-
connected pension purposes in the following circumstances:
(a) Associated with active tuberculosis involving other
than the respiratory system.
(b) With severe associated symptoms or with extensive
cavity formation.
(c) Reactivated cases, generally.
(d) With advancement of lesions on successive
examinations or while under treatment.
(e) Without retrogression of lesions or other evidence
of material improvement at the end of six months
hospitalization or without change of diagnosis from
``active'' at the end of 12 months hospitalization.
Material improvement means lessening or absence of
clinical symptoms, and X-ray findings of a stationary
or retrogressive lesion.
6731 Tuberculosis, pulmonary, chronic, inactive:
Depending on the specific findings, rate residuals as
interstitial lung disease, restrictive lung disease, or,
when obstructive lung disease is the major residual, as
chronic bronchitis (DC 6600). Rate thoracoplasty as
removal of ribs under DC 5297.
Note: A mandatory examination will be requested immediately
following notification that active tuberculosis evaluated
under DC 6730 has become inactive. Any change in
evaluation will be carried out under the provisions of
Sec. 3.105(e).
6732 Pleurisy, tuberculous, active or inactive:
Rate under Secs. 4.88c or 4.89, whichever is appropriate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NONTUBERCULOUS DISEASES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6817 Pulmonary Vascular Disease:
Primary pulmonary hypertension, or; chronic pulmonary
thromboembolism with evidence of pulmonary hypertension,
right ventricular hypertrophy, or cor pulmonale, or;
pulmonary hypertension secondary to other obstructive
disease of pulmonary arteries or veins with evidence of
right ventricular hypertrophy or cor pulmonale............ 100
Chronic pulmonary thromboembolism requiring anticoagulant
therapy, or; following inferior vena cava surgery without
evidence of pulmonary hypertension or right ventricular
dysfunction............................................... 60
Symptomatic, following resolution of acute pulmonary
embolism.................................................. 30
Asymptomatic, following resolution of pulmonary
thromboembolism........................................... 0
Note: Evaluate other residuals following pulmonary embolism
under the most appropriate diagnostic code, such as
chronic bronchitis (DC 6600) or chronic pleural effusion
or fibrosis (DC 6844), but do not combine that evaluation
with any of the above evaluations.
6819 Neoplasms, malignant, any specified part of
respiratory system exclusive of skin growths.............. 100
Note: A rating of 100 percent shall continue beyond the
cessation of any surgical, X-ray, antineoplastic
chemotherapy or other therapeutic procedure. Six months
after discontinuance of such treatment, the appropriate
disability rating shall be determined by mandatory VA
examination. Any change in evaluation based upon that or
any subsequent examination shall be subject to the
provisions of Sec. 3.105(e) of this chapter. If there has
been no local recurrence or metastasis, rate on residuals.
6820 Neoplasms, benign, any specified part of respiratory
system. Evaluate using an appropriate respiratory analogy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bacterial Infections of the Lung
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6822 Actinomycosis.
6823 Nocardiosis.
6824 Chronic lung abscess.
General Rating Formula for Bacterial Infections of the Lung
(diagnostic codes 6822 through 6824):
Active infection with systemic symptoms such as fever,
night sweats, weight loss, or hemoptysis.............. 100
Depending on the specific findings, rate residuals as
interstitial lung disease, restrictive lung disease, or,
when obstructive lung disease is the major residual, as
chronic bronchitis (DC 6600).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interstitial Lung Disease
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6825 Diffuse interstitial fibrosis (interstitial pneumonitis,
fibrosing alveolitis).
6826 Desquamative interstitial pneumonitis.
6827 Pulmonary alveolar proteinosis.
6828 Eosinophilic granuloma of lung.
6829 Drug-induced pulmonary pneumonitis and fibrosis.
6830 Radiation-induced pulmonary pneumonitis and fibrosis.
6831 Hypersensitivity pneumonitis (extrinsic allergic
alveolitis).
6832 Pneumoconiosis (silicosis, anthracosis, etc.).
6833 Asbestosis.
General Rating Formula for Interstitial Lung Disease
(diagnostic codes 6825 through 6833):
Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) less than 50-percent
predicted, or; Diffusion Capacity of the Lung for
Carbon Monoxide by the Single Breath Method (DLCO
(SB)) less than 40-percent predicted, or; maximum
exercise capacity less than 15 ml/kg/min oxygen
consumption with cardiorespiratory limitation, or; cor
pulmonale or pulmonary hypertension, or; requires
outpatient oxygen therapy............................. 100
FVC of 50- to 64-percent predicted, or; DLCO (SB) of 40-
to 55-percent predicted, or; maximum exercise
capacity of 15 to 20 ml/kg/min oxygen consumption with
cardiorespiratory limitation.......................... 60
FVC of 65- to 74-percent predicted, or; DLCO (SB) of 56-
to 65-percent predicted.............................. 30
[[Page 46731]]
FVC of 75- to 80-percent predicted, or; DLCO (SB) of 66-
to 80-percent predicted.............................. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mycotic Lung Disease
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6834 Histoplasmosis of lung.
6835 Coccidioidomycosis.
6836 Blastomycosis.
6837 Cryptococcosis.
6838 Aspergillosis.
6839 Mucormycosis.
General Rating Formula for Mycotic Lung Disease (diagnostic
codes 6834 through 6839):
Chronic pulmonary mycosis with persistent fever, weight
loss, night sweats, or massive hemoptysis............. 100
Chronic pulmonary mycosis requiring suppressive therapy
with no more than minimal symptoms such as occasional
minor hemoptysis or productive cough.................. 50
Chronic pulmonary mycosis with minimal symptoms such as
occasional minor hemoptysis or productive cough....... 30
Healed and inactive mycotic lesions, asymptomatic...... 0
Note: Coccidioidomycosis has an incubation period up to 21
days, and the disseminated phase is ordinarily manifest
within six months of the primary phase. However, there are
instances of dissemination delayed up to many years after
the initial infection which may have been unrecognized.
Accordingly, when service connection is under
consideration in the absence of record or other evidence
of the disease in service, service in southwestern United
States where the disease is endemic and absence of
prolonged residence in this locality before or after
service will be the deciding factor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restrictive Lung Disease
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6840 Diaphragm paralysis or paresis.
6841 Spinal cord injury with respiratory insufficiency.
6842 Kyphoscoliosis, pectus excavatum, pectus carinatum.
6843 Traumatic chest wall defect, pneumothorax, hernia, etc.
6844 Post-surgical residual (lobectomy, pneumonectomy, etc.).
6845 Chronic pleural effusion or fibrosis.
General Rating Formula for Restrictive Lung Disease
(diagnostic codes 6840 through 6845):
FEV-1 less than 40 percent of predicted value, or; the
ratio of Forced Expiratory Volume in one second to
Forced Vital Capacity (FEV-1/FVC) less than 40
percent, or; Diffusion Capacity of the Lung for Carbon
Monoxide by the Single Breath Method (DLCO (SB)) less
than 40-percent predicted, or; maximum exercise
capacity less than 15 ml/kg/min oxygen consumption
(with cardiac or respiratory limitation), or; cor
pulmonale (right heart failure), or; right ventricular
hypertrophy, or; pulmonary hypertension (shown by Echo
or cardiac catheterization), or; episode(s) of acute
respiratory failure, or; requires outpatient oxygen
therapy............................................... 100
FEV-1 of 40- to 55-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of
40 to 55 percent, or; DLCO (SB) of 40- to 55-percent
predicted, or; maximum oxygen consumption of 15 to 20
ml/kg/min (with cardiorespiratory limit).............. 60
FEV-1 of 56- to 70-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of
56 to 70 percent, or; DLCO (SB) 56- to 65-percent
predicted............................................. 30
FEV-1 of 71- to 80-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of
71 to 80 percent, or; DLCO (SB) 66- to 80-percent
predicted............................................. 10
Or rate primary disorder.
Note (1): A 100-percent rating shall be assigned for
pleurisy with empyema, with or without pleurocutaneous
fistula, until resolved.
Note (2): Following episodes of total spontaneous
pneumothorax, a rating of 100 percent shall be assigned as
of the date of hospital admission and shall continue for
three months from the first day of the month after
hospital discharge.
Note (3): Gunshot wounds of the pleural cavity with bullet
or missile retained in lung, pain or discomfort on
exertion, or with scattered rales or some limitation of
excursion of diaphragm or of lower chest expansion shall
be rated at least 20-percent disabling. Disabling injuries
of shoulder girdle muscles (Groups I to IV) shall be
separately rated and combined with ratings for respiratory
involvement. Involvement of Muscle Group XXI (DC 5321),
however, will not be separately rated.
6846 Sarcoidosis:
Cor pulmonale, or; cardiac involvement with congestive
heart failure, or; progressive pulmonary disease with
fever, night sweats, and weight loss despite treatment.... 100
Pulmonary involvement requiring systemic high dose
(therapeutic) corticosteroids for control................. 60
Pulmonary involvement with persistent symptoms requiring
chronic low dose (maintenance) or intermittent
corticosteroids........................................... 30
Chronic hilar adenopathy or stable lung infiltrates without
symptoms or physiologic impairment........................ 0
Or rate active disease or residuals as chronic bronchitis
(DC 6600) and extra-pulmonary involvement under specific
body system involved......................................
6847 Sleep Apnea Syndromes (Obstructive, Central, Mixed):
Chronic respiratory failure with carbon dioxide retention
or cor pulmonale, or; requires tracheostomy............... 100
Requires use of breathing assistance device such as
continuous airway pressure (CPAP) machine................. 50
Persistent day-time hypersomnolence........................ 30
Asymptomatic but with documented sleep disorder breathing.. 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Review for entitlement to special monthly compensation under Sec.
3.350 of this chapter.
[FR Doc. 96-22593 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22592 Furnishing Statements Required With Respect to Certain Substitute Payments; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46719-46720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22592]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Parts 1 and 602
[TD 8029]
Furnishing Statements Required With Respect to Certain Substitute
Payments; Correction
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Services (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Correcting amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD
8029), which were published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, June
5, 1985 (50 FR 23676) relating to statements required to be furnished
by brokers and information returns of brokers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Welch, (202) 622-4910, (not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final regulations that are the subject of this correction are
under sections 6042, 6045 and 6049 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
The final regulations (TD 8029) omitted instructions to remove
Sec. 1.6045-2T and the entry for the OMB control number. It is the
intent of this document to make these removals as of the publication of
the final regulations.
List of Subjects
26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Part 602
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Correcting Amendment to Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 602 are corrected by making the
following correcting amendments:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in
part as follows:
[[Page 46720]]
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Sec. 1.6045-2T [Removed]
Par. 2. Section 1.6045-2T is removed.
PART 602--OMB CONTROL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
Par. 3. The authority citation for part 602 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.
Sec. 602.101 [Amended]
Par. 4. Section 602.101(c) is amended by removing the entry for
Sec. 1.6045-2T from the table.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-22592 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22545 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46706-46707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22545]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 97
[Docket No. 28667; Amdt. No. 1750]
RIN 2120-AA65
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at
certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the
adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in
the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new
navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air
traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight
operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
DATES: An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory
provisions.
Incorporation by reference approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
For Examination--
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
For Purchase--Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.
By Subscription--Copies of all SIAPs, mailed once every 2 weeks,
are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul J. Best, Flight Procedures Standards Branch (AFS-420), Technical
Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267-8277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 97 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or
revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete
regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and Sec. 97.20 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA forms are identified as FAA Form
8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for
examination or purchase as stated above.
[[Page 46707]]
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR
(and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs.
This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure
identification and the amendment number.
This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each
separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. The SIAPs contained in
this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the United States
Standard for Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPS). In
developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports.
The FAA has determined through testing that current non-localizer
type, non-precision instrument approaches developed using the TERPS
criteria can be flown by aircraft equipped with Global Positioning
System (GPS) equipment. In consideration of the above, the applicable
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) will be altered to
include ``or GPS'' in the title without otherwise reviewing or
modifying the procedure. (Once a stand alone GPS procedure is
developed, the procedure title will be altered to remove ``or GPS''
from these non-localizer, non-precision instrument approach procedure
titles.) Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public
procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to
the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for
making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air).
Issued in Washington, DC on August 23, 1996.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, part 97 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as
follows:
PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 97 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; 49 U.S.C.
106(g); and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
Secs. 97.23, 97.27, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended]
By amending: Sec. 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec. 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec. 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec. 97.35
COPTER SIAPs, identified as follows:
* * * Effective Oct. 10, 1996
Angola, IN, Tri-State Steuben County, NDB or GPS RWY 5, Amdt 6
CANCELLED
Angola, IN, Tri-State Steuben County, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 6
Dayton, OH, Dayton-Wright Brothers, NDB or GPS RWY 9, Amdt 7
CANCELLED
Dayton, OH, Dayton-Wright Brothers, NDB or GPS-A, Orig
[FR Doc. 96-22545 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22544 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46707-46711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22544]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 97
[Docket No. 28666; Amdt. No. 1749]
RIN 2120-AA65
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at
certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of
changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the
commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new
obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are
designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace
and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at
the affected airports.
DATES: An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory
provisions.
Incorporation by reference-approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
For Examination--
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which affected airport
is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
For Purchase--Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.
By Subscription--Copies of all SIAPs, mailed once every 2 weeks,
are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul J. Best, Flight Procedures Standards Branch (AFS-420), Technical
Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267-8277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 97 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or
revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete
regulatory description on each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA
Form 8260 and the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent (P)
Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) which are
[[Page 46708]]
incorporated by reference in the amendment under U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR
part 51, and Sec. 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).
Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or
purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction of charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR
(and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs.
This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure
identification and the amendment number.
The Rule
This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs. For
safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment
incorporates only specific changes contained in the content of the
following FDC/P NOTAM for each SIAP. The SIAP information in some
previously designated FDC/Temporary (FDC/T) NOTAMs is of such duration
as to be permanent. With conversion to FDC/P NOTAMs, the respective
FDC/T NOTAMs have been cancelled.
The FDC/P NOTAMs for the SIAPs contained in this amendment are
based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal
Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart
changes to SIAPs by FDC/P NOTAMs, the TERPS criteria were applied to
only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All
SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in
a National Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need
for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less
than 30 days.
Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the TERPS. Because of the close and immediate
relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.
Conclusion
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 97
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air).
Issued in Washington, DC on August 23, 1996.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, part 97 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as
follows:
PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 97 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; 49 U.S.C.
106(g); and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
Secs. 97.23, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended]
By amending: Sec. 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec. 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec. 97.27
NDB, NDB/DME; Sec. 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec. 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec. 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec. 97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, identified as follows:
* * * Effective upon publication.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDC date State City Airport FDC No. SIAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07/17/96... NY New York........ John F. Kennedy 6/4927 ILS RWY 4L AMDT 8...
Intl.
07/25/96... GA Atlanta......... Peachtree City- 6/5239 NDB RWY 31 AMDT 1...
Falcon Field. THIS NOTAM CORRECTS
6/5239 IN TL 96-18
08/08/96... NC Rutherfordton... Rutherfordton 6/5824 NDB RWY 1, AMDT 4B...
County.
08/08/96... SC Darlington...... Darlington 6/5838 NDB OR GPS RWY 23, ORIG. DELETE NOTE...
County Jetport.
08/08/96... SC Darlington...... Darlington 6/5839 VOR/DME OR GPS-A, AMDT 6. DELETE NOTE...
County Jetport.
08/13/96... NH Lebanon......... Lebanon Muni... 6/5996 ILS RWY 18 AMDT 3...
THIS REPLACES NOTAM
6/5297 LEB
08/13/96... NH Lebanon......... Lebanon Muni... 6/5997 VOR OR GPS RWY 25 ORIG...
THIS REPLACES NOTAM 6/5251 LEB
08/13/96... NH Lebanon......... Lebanon Muni... 6/5999 VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 7, ORIG...
THIS REPLACES NOTAM
6/5250 LEB
08/16/96... GA Marietta........ Cobb County- 6/6161 VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 9 ORIG-A...
McCollum Field.
08/16/96... MI Oscoda.......... Oscoda- 6/6163 VOR OR GPS RWY 6, ORIG...
Wurtsmith.
[[Page 46709]]
08/16/96... PR San Juan........ Luis Munoz 6/6158 NDB RWY 8 AMDT 7...
Marin Intl.
08/16/96... PR San Juan........ Luis Munoz 6/6159 VOR RWY 8/10 AMDT 9...
Marin Intl.
08/16/96... PR San Juan........ Luis Munoz 6/6160 VOR OR GPS RWY 26 AMDT 18...
Marin Intl.
08/16/96... PR San Juan........ Luis Munoz 6/6189 NDB RWY 10 AMDT 5...
Marin Intl.
08/16/96... PR San Juan........ Luis Munoz 6/6190 ILS RWY 8 AMDT 15...
Marin Intl.
08/16/06... PR San Juan........ Luis Munoz 6/6195 RNAV RWY 10 AMDT 7...
Marin Intl.
08/19/06... MS Jackson......... Jackson Intl... 6/6274 LOC BC RWY 15R AMDT 4...
08/19/96... MS Jackson......... Jackson Intl... 6/6275 ILS RWY 33L AMDT 4...
08/19/96... PR San Juan........ Luis Munoz 6/6286 ILS RWY 10 AMDT 4...
Marin Intl.
08/19/96... TX Fort Stockton... Fort Stockton- 6/6279 GPS RWY 12, ORIG...
Pecos County.
08/19/96... TX Fort Worth...... Fort Worth 6/6296 ILS RWY 34R, ORIG...
Meacham Intl.
08/19/96... WV Bluefield....... Mercer County.. 6/6306 ILS RWY 23 AMDT 14A...
08/19/96... WV Bluefield....... Mercer County.. 6/6310 VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 23 AMDT 4...
08/19/96... WV Bluefield....... Mercer County.. 6/6322 VOR RWY 23 AMDT 8...
08/20/96... OK Durant.......... Eaker Field.... 6/6355 NDB OR GPS RWY 35, AMDT 5...
08/20/96... RI Providence...... Theodore 6/6349 VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 23 AMDT 6...
Francis Green
State.
08/20/96... TX Dallas-Fort Dallas-Fort 6/6358 ILS RWY 17L, ORIG...
Worth. Worth Intl.
08/20/96... TX Dallas-Fort Dallas-Fort 6/6359 ILS RWY 35R, ORIG...
Worth. Worth Intl.
08/21/96... AK Anchorage....... Anchorage Intl. 6/6371 ILS/DME RWY 14, ORIG...
08/21/96... CA Palo Alto....... Palo Alto Arpt 6/6375 GPS RWY 30 ORIG...
of Santa Clara
Co.
08/21/96... CT Windsor Locks... Bradley Intl... 6/6385 ILS RWY 24 AMDT 7...
08/21/96... CT Windsor Locks... Bradley Intl... 6/6386 VOR RWY 15, ORIG...
08/22/96... MS Jackson......... Jackson Intl... 6/6407 ILS RWY 15L AMDT 7A...
08/22/96... MS Jackson......... Jackson Intl... 6/6408 NDB OR GPS RWY 15L AMDT 4...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANCHORAGE
ANCHORAGE INTL
Alaska
ILS/DME RWY 14 ORIG...
FDC Date: 08/21/96
FDC 6/6371/ANC/ FI/P ANCHORAGE INTL, ANCHORAGE, AK. ILS/DME 14
ORIG...S-ILS 14... VIS CAT A-D \3/4\. THIS IS ILS/DME RWY 14 ORIG A.
PALO ALTO
PALO ALTO ARPT OF SANTA CLARA CO
California
GPS RWY 30 ORIG...
FDC Date: 08/21/96
FDC 6/6375/PAO/ FI/P PALO ALTO ARPT OF SANTA CLARA CO, PALO
ALTO, CA. GPS RWY 30 ORIG...DELETE NOTE... PROC NA AT NIGHT. THIS IS
GPS RWY 30 ORIG-A.
WINDSOR LOCKS
BRADLEY INTL
Connecticut
ILS RWY 24 AMDT 7...
FDC Date: 08/21/96
FDC 6/6385/BDL/ FI/P BRADLEY INTL, WINDSOR LOCKS, CT. ILS RWY 24
AMDT 7...CHANGE MISSED APPROACH TO READ...CLIMB TO 3000 VIA BDL VOR/
DME R-229 TO DITTI INT/BDL 10.3 DME AND HOLD. THIS IS ILS RWY 24
AMDT 7A.
WINDSOR LOCKS
BRADLEY INTL
Connecticut
VOR RWY 15 ORIG...
FDC Date: 08/21/96
FDC 6/6386/BDL/ FI/P BRADLEY INTL, WINDSOR LOCKS, CT. VOR RWY 15
ORIG...CHANGE MISSED APPROACH TO READ...CLIMB TO 3000 VIA BDL VOR/
DME R-149 TO DODAY INT/BDL 11.2 DME AND HOLD. THIS IS VOR RWY 15
ORIG-A.
ATLANTA
PEACHTREE CITY-FALCON FIELD
Georgia
NDB RWY 31 AMDT 1...
FDC Date: 07/25/96
THIS NOTAM CORRECTS 6/5239 IN TL 96-18
FDC 6/5239/FFC/ FI/P PEACHTREE CITY-FALCON FIELD, ATLANTA, GA.
NDB RWY 31 AMDT 1...CHANGE ALTIMETER NOTE TO READ...IF LOCAL
ALTIMETER SETTING NOT RECEIVED, USE ATLANTA ALTIMETER SETTING AND
INCREASE ALL MDAS 80 FT. DELETE...ATLANTA ALTIMETER SETTING MINIMUMS
BLOCK.
MARIETTA
COBB COUNTY-MCCOLLUM FIELD
Georgia
VOR/DME OR CPS RWY 9 ORIG-A...
FDC Date: 08/16/96
FDC 6/6161/RYY/ FI/P COBB COUNTY-MCCOLLUM FIELD, MARIETTA, GA.
VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 9 ORIG-A...CHANGE ALTM NOTE TO READ...IF LOCAL
ALSTG NOT RECEIVED, USE FULTON COUNTY/BROWN FIELD ALSTG AND INCREASE
ALL MDA'A 80 FEET. THIS IS VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 9 ORIG-B.
OSCODA
OSCODA-WURTSMITH
Michigan
VOR OR GPS RWY 6, ORIG...
FDC Date: 08/16/96
FDC 6/6163/OSC/ FI/P OSCODA-WURTSMITH, OSCODA, MI. VOR OR GPS
RWY 6, ORIG...PROFILE NOTE...DELETE *1760 WHEN USING ALPENA ALSTG.
THIS IS VOR OR GPS RWY 6 ORIG-A.
JACKSON
JACKSON INTL
Mississippi
LOC BC RWY 15R AMDT 4...
FDC Date: 08/19/96
FDC 6/6274/JAN/ FI/P JACKSON INTL, JACKSON, MS. LOC BC RWY 15R
AMDT 4...RWY 33L-15R NOW RWY 34L-16R. CHANGE ALL REFERENCES FROM 33L
TO 34L AND 15R TO 16R. THIS IS LOC BC RWY 15R AMDT 4A.
JACKSON
JACKSON INTL
Mississippi
ILS RWY 33L AMDT 4...
FDC Date: 08/19/96
FDC 6/6275/JAN/ FI/P JACKSON INTL, JACKSON, MS. ILS RWY 33L AMDT
4...RWY 33L-15R NOW RWY 34L-16R. CHANGE ALL REFERENCES FROM 33L TO
34L AND 15R TO 16R. THIS IS ILS RWY 34L AMDT 4A.
JACKSON
JACKSON INTL
Mississippi
ILS RWY 15L AMDT 7A...
FDC Date: 08/22/96
FDC 6/6407/JAN/ FI/P JACKSON INTL, JACKSON, MS. ILS RWY 15L AMDT
7A...RWY 15L-33R NOW RWY 16L-34R. CHANGE ALL REFERENCES FROM 15L TO
16L AND 33R TO 34R. THIS IS ILS RWY 16L AMDT 7B.
[[Page 46710]]
JACKSON
JACKSON INTL
Mississippi
NDB OR GPS RWY 15L AMDT 4...
FDC Date: 08/22/96
FDC 6/6408/JAN/ FI/P JACKSON INTL, JACKSON, MS. NDB OR GPS RWY
15L AMDT 4...RWY 15L-33R NOW RWY 16L-34R. CHANGE ALL REFERENCES FROM
15L TO 16L AND 33R TO 34R. THIS IS NDB OR GPS RWY 16L AMDT 4A.
RUTHERFORDTON
RUTHERFORDTON COUNTY
North Carolina
NDB RWY 1, AMDT 4B...
FDC Date: 08/08/96
FDC 6/5824/57A/ FI/P RUTHERFORDTON COUNTY, RUTHERFORDTON, NC.
NDB RWY 1, AMDT 4B...REVISED MISSED APPROACH TO READ...CLIMB TO 2000
THEN CLIMBING LEFT TURN TO 3000 DIRECT RFE NDB AND HOLD. THIS IS NDB
RWY 1 AMDT 4C.
LEBANON
LEBANON MUNI
New Hampshire
ILS RWY 18 AMDT 3...
FDC Date: 08/13/96
THIS REPLACES NOTAM 6/5297 LEB
FDC 6/5996/LEB/ FI/P LEBANON MUNI/LEBANON, NH. ILS RWY 18 AMDT
3...ADD NOTE...WHEN CONTROL TOWER CLOSED, EXCEPT FOR OPERATORS WITH
APPROVED WEATHER REPORTING SERVICE PROC NA. THIS IS ILS RWY 18, AMDT
3A.
LEBANON
LEBANON MUNI
New Hampshire
VOR OR GPS RWY 25 ORIG...
FDC Date: 08/13/96
THIS REPLACES NOTAM 6/5251 LEB
FDC 6/5997/LEB/ FI/P LEBANON MUNI, LEBANON, NH. VOR OR GPS RWY
25 ORIG...ADD NOTE...WHEN CONTROL TOWER CLOSED, EXCEPT FOR OPERATORS
WITH APPROVED WEATHER REPORTING SERVICE, PROC NA. THIS IS VOR OR GPS
RWY 25, ORIG-A.
LEBANON
LEBANON MUNI
New Hampshire
VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 7, ORIG...
FDC Date: 08/13/96
THIS REPLACES NOTAM 6/5250 LEB
FDC 6/5999/LEB/ FI/P LEBANON MUNI, LEBANON, NH. VOR/DME OR GPS
RWY 7, ORIG...ADD NOTE...WHEN CONTROL TOWER CLOSED, EXCEPT FOR
OPERATORS WITH APPROVED WEATHER REPORTING SERVICE, PROC NA. THIS IS
NOR/DME OR GPS RWY 7 ORIG-A.
NEW YORK
JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL
New York
ILS RWY 4L AMDT 8...
FDC Date: 07/17/96
FDC 6/4927/JFK/ FI/P JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL, NEW YORK, NY. ILS RWY
4L AMDT 8...DH 223/HAT 211 ALL CATS. CIRCLING MDA 640/HAA 627 ALL
CATS, CAT C VIS 1 3/4. ALTN MNMS ILS 700-2. THIS IS ILS RWY 4L AMDT
8A.
DURANT
EAKER FIELD
Oklahoma
NDB OR GPS RWY 35, AMDT 5...
FDC DATE: 08/20/96
FDC 6/6355/DUA/ FI/P EAKER FIELD, DURANT, OK. NDB OR GPS RWY 35,
AMDT 5...DELETE TERMINAL ROUTE FROM BLUE RIDGE /BUJ/ VORTAC. DELETE
TERMINAL ROUTE FROM RADEX INTERSECTION. THIS IS NDB OR GPS RWY 35,
AMDT 5A.
SAN JUAN
LUIS MUNOZ MARTIN INTL
Puerto Rico
NDB RWY 8 AMDT 7...
FDC Date: 08/16/96
FDC 6/6158/SJU/ FI/P LUIS MUNOZ MARIN INTL, SAN JUAN, PR. NDB
RWY 8 AMDT 7...MISSED APCH...CLIMB TO 2000 THEN CLIMBING LEFT TURN
TO 3000 VIA SJU R-004 TO CARIB INT/SJU 15 DME AND HOLD N RT 184
INBOUND. THIS BECOMES NDB RWY 8 AMDT 7A.
SAN JUAN
LUIS MUNOZ MARIN INTL
Puerto Rico
VOR RWY 8/10 AMDT 9...
FDC Dare: 08/16/96
FDC 6/6159/SJU/ FI/P LUIS MUNOZ MARIN INTL, SAN JUAN, PR. VOR
RWY 8/10 AMDT 9...MISSED APCH...CLIMB TO 2000 THEN CLIMBING LEFT
TURN TO 3000 VIA SJU R-004 TO CARIB INT/SJU 15 DME AND HOLD N RT 184
INBOUND. THIS BECOMES VOR RWY 8/10 AMDT 9A.
SAN JUAN
LUIS MUNOZ MARIN INTL
Puerto Rico
VOR OR GPS RWY 26 AMDT 18...
FDC Date: 08/16/96
FDC 6/6160/SJU/ FI/P LUIS MUNOZ MARIN INTL, SAN JUAN, PR. VOR OR
GPS RWY 26 AMDT 18...MISSED APCH...CLIMB TO 2000 THEN CLIMBING RIGHT
TURN TO 3000 VIA SJU R-004 TO CARIB INT/SJU 15 DME AND HOLD N RT 184
INBOUND. THIS BECOMES VOR OR GPS RWY 26 AMDT 18A.
SAN JUAN
LUIS MUNOZ MARIN INTL
Puerto Rico
NDB RWY 10 AMDT 5...
FDC Date: 08/16/96
FDC 6/6189/SJU/ FI/P LUIS MUNOZ MARIN INTL, SAN JUAN, PR. NDB
RWY 10 AMDT 5...MISSED APCH...CLIMB TO 2000 THEN CLIMBING LEFT TURN
TO 3000 VIA SJU R-004 TO CARIB INT/SJU 15 DME AND HOLD N RT 184
INBOUND. THIS BECOMES NDB RWY 10 AMDT 5A.
SAN JUAN
LUIS MUNOZ MARIN INTL
Puerto Rico
ILS RWY 8 AMDT 15...
FDC Date: 08/16/96
FDC 6/6190/SJU/ FI/P LUIS MUNOZ MARIN INTL, SAN JUAN, PR. ILS
RWY 8 AMDT 15...MISSED APCH...CLIMB TO 2000 THEN CLIMBING LEFT TURN
TO 3000 VIA SJU R-004 TO CARIB INT/SJU 15 DME AND HOLD N RT 184
INBOUND. THIS BECOMES ILS RWY 8 AMDT 15A.
SAN JUAN
LUIS MUNOZ MARIN INTL
Puerto Rico
RNAV RWY 10 AMDT 7...
FDC Date: 08/16/96
FDC 6/6195/SJU/ FI/P LUIS MUNOZ MARIN INTL, SAN JUAN, PR. RNAV
RWY 10 AMDT 7...MISSED APCH...CLIMB TO 2000 THEN CLIMBING LEFT TURN
TO 3000 VIA SJU R-004 TO CARIB INT/SJU 15 DME AND HOLD N RT 184
INBOUND. THIS BECOMES RNAV RWY 10 AMDT 7A.
SAN JUAN
LUIS MUNOZ MARIN INTL
Puerto Rico
ILS RWY 10 AMDT 4...
FDC Date: 08/19/96
FDC 6/6286/SJU/ FI/P LUIS MONOZ MARIN INTL, SAN JUAN, PR. ILS
RWY 10 AMDT 4...MISSED APPROACH... CLIMB TO 2000, THEN CLIMBING LEFT
TURN TO 3000 VIA SJU R-004 TO CARIB INT/ SJU 15 DME AND HOLD N, RT,
184 INBOUND. THIS BECOMES ILS RWY 10 AMDT 4A.
PROVIDENCE
THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN STATE
Rhode Island
VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 23 AMDT 6...
FDC Date: 08/20/96
FDC 6/6349/PVD/ FI/P THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN STATE, PROVIDENCE,
RI. VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 23 AMDT 6...S-23... MDA 440/HAT 389 ALL CATS.
VSBY CATS A/B/C RVR 4000. CIRCLING... CATS A/B MDA 560/HAA 505.
CHANGE NOTE TO READ... FOR INOP MALSR INCREASE S-23 CATS A/B/C VSBY
TO RVR 5000. CAT D VSBY TO RVR 6000. THIS IS VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 23
AMDT 6A.
DARLINGTON
DARLINGTON COUNTY JETPORT
South Carolina
NDB OR GPS RWY 23, ORIG. DELETE NOTE...
FDC Date: 08/08/96
FDC 6/5838/04J/ FI/P DARLINGTON COUNTY JETPORT, DARLINGTON, SC.
NDB OR GPS RWY 23, ORIG. DELETE NOTE... FIRST 1200 FT RWY 23 AND
FIRST 800 FT RWY 5 NOT LIGHTED. THIS IS NDB OR GRPS RWY 23, ORIG-A.
DARLINGTON
DARLINGTON COUNTY JETPORT
South Carolina
VOR/DME OR GPS-A, AMDT 6. DELETE NOTE...
FDC Date: 08/08/96
FDC 6/5839/04J/FI/P DARLINGTON COUNTY JETPORT, DARLINGTON, SC.
[[Page 46711]]
VOR/DME OR GPS-A, AMDT 6. DELETE NOTE... FIRST 800 FT RWY 5 AND
FIRST 1200 FT RWY 23 NOT LIGHTED. THIS IS VOR/DME OR GPS-A, AMDT 6A.
FORT STOCKTON
FORT STOCKTON-PECOS COUNTY
Texas
GPS RWY 12, ORIG...
FDC Date: 08/19/96
FDC 6/6279/FST/ FI/P FORT STOCKTON-PECOS COUNTY, FORT STOCKTON,
TX. GPS RWY 12, ORIG... REMOVE NOTE... OBTAIN LOCAL ALTIMETER ON
CTAF, WHEN NOT RECEIVED PROCEDURE NOT AUTHORIZED. THIS IS GPS RWY
12, ORIG-A.
FORT WORTH
FORT WORTH MEACHAM INTL
Texas
ILS RWY 34R, ORIG...
FDC Date: 08/19/96
FDC 6/6296/FTW/ FI/P FORT WORTH MEACHAM INTL, FORT WORTH, TX.
ILS RWY 34R. ORIG... GLIDEPATH ALTITUDE AT FAF 1860. IN THE PROFILE
VIEW, AT THE THRESHOLD, DELETE I-UXT 0.3 DME. THIS IS ILS RWY 34R,
ORIG-A.
DALLAS-FORT WORTH
DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL
Texas
ILS RWY 17L, ORIG...
FDC Date: 08/20/96
FDC 6/6358/DFW/ FI/P DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL, DALLAS-FORT WORTH,
TX. ILS RWY 17L, ORIG... TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS STANDARD. THIS IS ILS RWY
17L, ORIG-A.
DALLAS-FORT WORTH
DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL
Texas
ILS RWY 35R, ORIG...
FDC Date: 08/20/96
FDC 6/6359/DFW/FI/P DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL, DALLAS-FORT WORTH,
TX. ILS RWY 35R, ORIG... TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS STANDARD. CHANGE S-LOC
35R HAT TO 464 ALL CATS. CHANGE TDZE TO 576 FT. THIS IS ILS RWY 35R,
ORIG-A.
BLUEFIELD
MERCER COUNTY
West Virginia
ILS RWY 23 AMDT 14A...
FDC Date: 08/19/96
FDC 6/6306/BLF/FI/P MERCER COUNTY, BLUEFIELD, WV. ILS RWY 23
AMDT 14A... ALTN MNMS NA. THIS IS ILS RWY 23 AMDT 14B.
BLUEFIELD
MERCER COUNTY
West Virginia
VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 23 AMDT 4...
FDC Date: 08/19/96
FDC 6/6310/BLF/ FI/P MERCER COUNTY, BLUEFIELD, WV. VOR/DME OR
GPS RWY 23 AMDT 4... ALTN MNMS NA WHEN CLASS E AIRSPACE NOT IN
EFFECT. THIS IS VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 23 AMDT 4A.
BLUEFIELD
MERCER COUNTY
West Virginia
VOR RWY 23 AMDT 8...
FDC Date: 08/19/96
FDC 6/6322/BLF/ FI/P MERCER COUNTY, BLUEFIELD, WV. VOR RWY 23
AMDT 8... ALTN MNMS NA WHEN CLASS E AIRSPACE NOT IN EFFECT. THIS IS
VOR RWY 23 AMDT 8A.
[FR Doc. 96-22544 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22543 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46711-46713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22543]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 97
[Docket No. 28665; Amdt. No. 1748]
RIN 2120-AA65
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at
certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the
adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in
the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new
navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air
traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight
operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
DATES: An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory
provisions.
Incorporation by reference-approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
For Examination--
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
For Purchase-- Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.
By Subscription-- Copies of all SIAPs, mailed once every 2 weeks,
are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Best, Flight Procedures
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Technical Programs Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 97 of the Federal
Aviation Regulation (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or
revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete
regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and Sec. 97.20 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms
8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are
available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR
(and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs.
This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure
identification and the amendment number.
The Rule
This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each
separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may
have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP
[[Page 46712]]
amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For
the remaining SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after
publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Approach Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS
criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the
affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship
between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and
contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause
exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 97
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air).
Issued in Washington, DC on August 23, 1996.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, part 97 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as
follows:
PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 97 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; and 14
CFR 11.49(b)(2).
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
Secs. 917.213, 917.25, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35
[Amended]
By amending: Sec. 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec. 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec. 97.27
NDB, NDB/DME; Sec. 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec. 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec. 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec. 97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, identified as follows:
* * *Effective July 18, 1996
Chico, CA, Chico Muni, ILS RWY 13L, Amdt 10
* * *Effective September 12, 1996
Deadhorse, AK, Deadhorse, VOR/DME or TACAN RWY 4L, Orig
Deadhorse, AK, Deadhorse, VOR/DME or TACAN or GPS RWY 22L, Amdt 1
* * *Effective October 10, 1996
Albertville, AL, The Albertville Muni-Thomas J. Brumlik Fld, GPS RWY
23, Orig
Brewton, AL, Brewton Muni, VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 30, Amdt 7
Carlisle, AR, Carlisle Muni, VOR/DME RWY 9, Amdt 1
Carlisle, AR, Carlisle Muni, GPS RWY 9, Orig
Newport, AR, Newport Muni, GPS RWY 36, Orig
Coolidge, AZ, Coolidge Muni, VOR/DME RWY 5, Orig
Coolidge, AZ, Coolidge Muni, GPS RWY 23, Orig
Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix-Deer Valley Muni, GPS RWY 7R, Orig
Oakland, CA, Metropolitan Oakland Intl, GPS RWY 11, Orig
Oakland, CA, Metropolitan Oakland Intl, GPS RWY 29, Orig
Washington, DC, Washington Dulles Intl, ILS/DME RWY 1L, Amdt 4
Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, GPS RWY 5, Orig
Marco Island, FL, Marco Island, VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 17, Amdt 6
Marco Island, FL, Marco Island, NDB OR GPS RWY 35, Amdt 6
Naples, FL, Naples Muni, VOR OR GPS RWY 5, Amdt 5
Naples, FL, Naples Muni, VOR OR GPS RWY 23, Amdt 6
Naples, FL, Naples Muni, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 7
Naples, FL, Naples Muni, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 8
Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, ILS RWY 13L, Amdt 7
Marshfield, MA, Marshfield, NDB RWY 6, Amdt 4
Marshfield, MA, Marshfield, NDB OR GPS RWY 24, Amdt 1
Belmar-Farmingdale, NJ, Belmar/Allaire, LOC RWY 14, Orig
Belmar-Farmingdale, NJ, Belmar/Allaire, LOC/DME RWY 14, Orig,
CANCELLED
Carlsbad, NM, Cavern City Air Trml, GPS RWY 21, Orig
Brockport, NY, Ledgedale Airpark, GPS RWY 28, Orig
Norwich, NY, Lt Warren Eaton, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 4
Norwich, NY, Lt Warren Eaton, GPS RWY 1, Orig
Norwich, NY, Lt Warren Eaton, VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 19, Amdt 2
Plattsburgh, NY, Clinton County, VOR/DME OR GPS-A, Amdt 1
Plattsburgh, NY, Clinton County, VOR OR GPS RWY 19, Amdt 2
Plattsburgh, NY, Clinton County, ILS RWY 1, Amdt 3
Weedsport, NY, Whitfords, VOR/DME-A, Orig
Albemarle, NC, Stanly County, GPS RWY 4, Orig
Beaufort, NC, Michael J. Smith Field, GPS RWY 14, Orig
Edenton, NC, Northeastern Rgnl, GPS RWY 1, Orig
Dickinson, ND, Dickinson Muni, VOR or GPS-A, Amdt 5
Dickinson, ND, Dickinson Muni, VOR/DME RNAV or GPS RWY 14, Amdt 5
Las Vegas, NV, North Las Vegas, GPS RWY 12, Orig
Las Vegas, NV, North Las Vegas, GPS RWY 30, Orig
Reno, NV, Reno/Tahoe Intl, ILS RWY 16R, Amdt 10
Oklahoma City, OK, Will Rogers World, ILS RWY 17L, Orig
Dalhart, TX, Dalhart Muni, GPS RWY 17, Orig
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, NDB OR GPS
RWY 17R, Amdt 7
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, NDB OR GPS
RWY 35C, Amdt 9
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, ILS RWY 13R,
Amdt 4
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, CONVERGING
ILS RWY 13R, Amdt 4
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, ILS RWY 17R,
Amdt 18
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, CONVERGING
ILS RWY 17R, Amdt 5
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, ILS RWY 17C,
Amdt 6
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, CONVERGING
ILS RWY 17C, Amdt 4
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, ILS RWY 18R,
Amdt 5
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, CONVERGING
ILS RWY 18R, Amdt 3
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, ILS RWY 18L,
Amdt 16
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, CONVERGING
ILS RWY 18L, Amdt 3
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, ILS RWY 31R,
Amdt 8
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, CONVERGING
ILS RWY 31R, Amdt 3
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, ILS RWY 35L,
Amdt 1
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, CONVERGING
ILS RWY 35L, Amdt 1
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, ILS RWY 35C,
Amdt 6
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, CONVERGING
ILS RWY 35C, Amdt 4
[[Page 46713]]
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, ILS RWY 36R,
Amdt 2
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, CONVERGING
ILS RWY 36R, Amdt 1
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, ILS RWY 36L,
Amdt 5
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Dallas-Fort Worth International, CONVERGING
ILS RWY 36L, Amdt 3
Del Rio, TX, Del Rio Intl, GPS RWY 13, Orig
Forth Worth, TX, Luck Field, VOR/DME OR GPS-A, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Levelland, TX, Levelland Muni, GPS RWY 17, Orig
Levelland, TX, Levelland Muni, GPS RWY 35, Orig
Longview, TX, Gregg County, RADAR-1, Amdt 3 CANCELLED
Palacios, TX, Palacios Muni, GPS RWY 13, Orig
Tyler, TX, Tyler Pounds Field, GPS RWY 31, Orig
Barre-Montpelier, VT, Edward F. Knapp State, NDB RWY 35, Amdt 3,
CANCELLED
Barre-Montpelier, VT, Edward F. Knapp State, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 3
Barre-Montpelier, VT, Edward F. Knapp State, VOR/DME RWY 35, Amdt 1
Barre-Montpelier, VT, Edward F. Knapp State, ILS RWY 17, Amdt 5
Danville, VA, Danville Regional, VOR RWY 2, Amdt 13
Danville, VA, Danville Regional, VOR RWY 20, Amdt 1
Danville, VA, Danville Regional, ILS RWY 2, Amdt 2
Danville, VA, Danville Regional, GPS RWY 20, Orig
Richmond/Ashland, VA, Hanover County Muni, GPS RWY 16, Orig
* * *Effective December 5, 1996
Columbia, CA, Columbia, GPS RWY 35, Orig
Richlands, VA, Tazewell County, GPS RWY 25, Orig
* * *Effective Upon Publication
Greenville, SC, Donaldson Center, NDB or GPS RWY 5, Amdt 5
Greenville, SC, Donaldson Center, ILS RWY 5, Amdt 4
Note: The FAA published a Procedure in Docket No. 28657, Amdt
No. 1745 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Vol 61, FR
No. 160, Page 42553, dated 16 August 1996 Section 97.25 Effective 10
Oct 96 which is hereby amended:
Change effective date to PROPOSED 10 OCT 96 for the following
procedure:
Amarillo, TX, Amarillo Intl, LDA/DME RWY 22, Orig.
[FR Doc. 96-22543 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22539 Manufacturing Incentives for Alternative Fuel Vehicles
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46740-46741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22539]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 538
[Docket No. 94-96; Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AF18
Manufacturing Incentives for Alternative Fuel Vehicles
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the denial of a petition for
reconsideration of the agency's decision to set a 200 mile minimum
driving range for dual fueled passenger automobiles other than electric
vehicles.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590:
For non-legal issues: Ms. Henrietta L. Spinner, Consumer Programs
Division, Office of Planning and Consumer Programs, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC
20590, (202) 366-4802.
For legal issues: Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, telephone (202) 366-5253, facsimile (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Establishment of a Minimum Driving Range for Dual Fueled
Vehicles
On April 2, 1996, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register
(61 FR 14507) announcing a final rule establishing a minimum driving
range for dual fueled vehicles other than electric vehicles. This
notice also established gallons equivalent measurements for gaseous
fuels other than natural gas and eliminated provisions relating to the
granting of alternative range requirements for alternative fueled
vehicles not powered by electricity.
The agency promulgated this rule in response to amendments in the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) (P.L. 102-486) expanding the scope of
the alternative fuels promoted by section 513 of the Motor Vehicle and
Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act), now recodified as 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 32905. Section 32901(c), the replacement section for section
513(h)(2), requires dual fueled passenger automobiles to meet specified
criteria, including meeting a minimum driving range, in order to
qualify for special treatment in the calculation of their fuel economy
for purposes of the CAFE standards.
One change made by EPACT concerning driving ranges was that, under
section 32901(c), the minimum driving range set by NHTSA for dual
fueled passenger automobiles other than electric vehicles could not be
less than 200 miles. The EPACT amendments also provided that the agency
may not, in response to petitions from manufacturers, set an
alternative range for a particular model or models that is lower than
200 miles, except for electric vehicles.
The EPACT amendments necessitated amending Part 538. In response,
the agency established gallons equivalent measurements for the wider
range of alternative fuels included in the EPACT amendments and deleted
provisions relating to the establishment of alternative minimum driving
ranges for non-electric alternative-fueled vehicles. In regard to the
minimum driving range, NHTSA concluded that both the text and the
legislative history of these amendments indicated that the agency was
required to set a minimum driving range of not less than 200 miles for
all dual passenger automobiles other than electric vehicles.
II. Petition for Reconsideration of the Minimum Driving Range
On April 19, 1996, the agency received a petition from Volvo Cars
of North America, Inc., (Volvo) requesting reconsideration of NHTSA's
decision to set a minimum driving range of 200 miles for all dual
fueled passenger automobiles other than electric vehicles.
Volvo's petition argues that a 200 mile driving range is too
stringent for compressed natural gas (CNG) passenger automobiles. The
petition indicates Volvo believes that attaining a 200 mile range in a
CNG vehicle would require large fuel storage cylinders. These large
cylinders, in Volvo's view, would increase vehicle weight and cost
while reducing usable space in the vehicle. The combination of
increased weight and cost with decreased utility would discourage
consumers from purchasing these passenger automobiles.
III. Response To Petition for Reconsideration
In response to the petition, the agency has reconsidered its
decision to set a 200 mile minimum driving range for non-electric dual
fueled passenger automobiles when operating on an alternative fuel. As
explained below, the
[[Page 46741]]
agency is, on reconsideration, reaffirming that decision.
The petition raises several points that are not disputed by NHTSA;
however, the agency does not have the discretion to set a lower range
for these vehicles. NHTSA's examination of the EPACT amendments and
their legislative history indicates that the agency is required by the
amendment to Section 513(h)(2) of the Cost Savings Act to set a minimum
driving range of not less than 200 miles for all alternative fueled
passenger automobiles other than electric vehicles. The agency does not
dispute that the 200 mile minimum driving range will place increased
fuel storage demands on gaseous fueled vehicles and that these
increased demands, particularly in the case of CNG powered passenger
automobiles, will increase weight and cost while decreasing usable
vehicle space. Nonetheless, the explicit language of the EPACT
amendments, the legislative history, and the congressional
determination contained in those amendments to restrict the exemption
from the minimum driving range requirements to electric passenger
automobiles, compels the conclusion that NHTSA does not have the
discretion to set the range below 200 miles. Accordingly, the agency is
denying the petition.
Issued on: August 29, 1996.
Patricia Breslin,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-22539 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22525 Fellowship Program Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46734-46740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22525]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MADISON MEMORIAL FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION
45 CFR Part 2400
Fellowship Program Requirements
AGENCY: James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The following are revised regulations governing the annual
competition for James Madison Fellowships and the obligations of James
Madison Fellows. These regulations update and replace several aspects
of the the Foundation's existing regulations as implemented by the
James Madison Memorial Fellowship Act of 1986. These revised
regulations govern the qualifications and applications of candidates
for fellowships; the selection of Fellows by the Foundation; the
graduate programs Fellows must pursue; the terms and conditions
attached to awards; the Foundation's annual Summer Institute on the
Constitution; and related requirements and expectations regarding
fellowships.
DATES: September 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation, 2000 K Street,
NW, Suite 303, Washington, DC 20006-1809.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lewis F. Larsen, (202) 653-8700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reason for the changes to the
Foundation's regulations comes as a result of the Foundation's desire
to clarify several of the rules and regulations which James Madison
Fellows must observe when accepting their fellowships. Although many of
the changes are minor insertions of words and punctuation, this
document specifically expands the definition section to include further
detailed definitions on Credit Hour Equivalent, Incomplete, Repayment,
Satisfactory Progress, Stipend, Teaching Obligation, Termination and
Withdrawal. The Foundation now encourages James Madison Fellows to
choose a graduate program which does not include the writing of a
thesis. Graduate programs for which Fellows may apply have been
broadened to include political science. Finally, a section entitled
``Teaching Obligation'' was added to further clarify the obligation to
teach, required by the Foundation once each fellow has earned a
master's degree.
The Foundation did not receive any comments regarding these
regulations during the public comment period.
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 2400
Education, Fellowships.
Dated: August 26, 1996.
Paul A. Yost, Jr.,
President.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under authority of 20
U.S.C. 4501 et seq., Chapter XXIV, Title 45 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended by revising part 2400 to read as follows:
CHAPTER XXIV--JAMES MADISON MEMORIAL FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION
Part 2400--Fellowship Program Requirements
Subpart A--General
2400.1 Purposes.
2400.2 Annual competition.
2400.3 Eligibility.
2400.4 Definitions.
Subpart B--Application
2400.10 Application.
2400.11 Faculty representatives.
Subpart C--Application Process
2400.20 Preparation of application.
2400.21 Contents of application.
2400.22 Application deadline.
Subpart D--Selection of Fellows
2400.30 Selection criteria.
2400.31 Selection process.
Subpart E--Graduate Study
2400.40 Institutions of graduate study.
2400.41 Degree programs.
2400.42 Approval of Plan of Study.
2400.43 Required courses of graduate study.
2400.44 Commencement of graduate study.
2400.45 Special consideration: Junior Fellows' Plan of study.
2400.46 Special consideration: second master's degrees.
2400.47 Summer Institute's relationship to fellowship.
2400.48 Fellows' participation in the Summer Institute.
2400.49 Contents of the Summer Institute.
2400.50 Allowances and Summer Institute costs.
2400.51 Summer Institute accreditation.
Subpart F--Fellowship Stipend
2400.52 Amount of stipend.
2400.53 Duration of stipend.
2400.54 Use of stipend.
2400.55 Certification for stipend.
2400.56 Payment of stipend.
2400.57 Termination of stipend.
2400.58 Repayment of stipend.
Subpart G--Special Conditions
2400.59 Other awards.
2400.60 Renewal of award.
2400.61 Postponement of award.
2400.62 Evidence of master's degree.
2400.63 Excluded graduate study.
2400.64 Alterations to Plan of Study.
2400.65 Teaching obligation.
2400.66 Completion of fellowship.
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 2400.1 Purposes.
(a) The purposes of the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Program
are to:
(1) Provide incentives for master's degree level graduate study of
the history, principles, and development of the United States
Constitution by outstanding in-service teachers of American history,
American government, social studies, and political science in grades 7-
12 and by outstanding college graduates who plan to become teachers of
the same subjects; and
(2) Strengthen teaching in the nation's secondary schools about the
principles, framing, ratification, and subsequent history of the United
States Constitution.
(b) The Foundation may from time to time operate its own programs
and undertake other closely-related activities to fulfill these goals.
Sec. 2400.2 Annual competition.
To achieve its principal purposes, the Foundation holds an annual
national competition to select teachers in grades 7-12, college
seniors, and college graduates to be James Madison Fellows.
Sec. 2400.3 Eligibility.
Individuals eligible to apply for and hold James Madison
Fellowships are United States citizens, United States nationals, or
permanent residents of the Northern Mariana Islands who are:
(a) Teachers of American history, American government, social
studies, or political science in grades 7-12 who:
(1) Are teaching full time during the year in which they apply for
a fellowship;
(2) Are under contract, or can provide evidence of being under
prospective contract, to teach full time as teachers of American
history, American government, social studies, or political science in
grades 7-12;
(3) Have demonstrated records of willingness to devote themselves
to civic responsibilities and to professional and collegial activities
within their schools and school districts;
[[Page 46735]]
(4) Are highly recommended by their department heads, school heads,
school district superintendents, or other supervisors;
(5) Qualify for admission with graduate standing at accredited
universities of their choice that offer master's degree programs
allowing at least 12 semester hours or their equivalent of study of the
origins, principles, and development of the Constitution of the United
States and of its comparison with the constitutions of other forms of
government;
(6) Are able to complete their proposed courses of graduate study
within five calendar years from the commencement of study under their
fellowships, normally through part-time study during summers or in
evening or weekend programs;
(7) Agree to attend the Foundation's four-week Summer Institute on
the Constitution, normally during the summer following the commencement
of study under their fellowships; and
(8) Sign agreements that, after completing the education for which
the fellowship is awarded, they will teach American history, American
government, social studies, or political science full time in secondary
schools for a period of not less than one year for each full academic
year of study for which assistance was received, preferably in the
state listed as their legal residence at the time of their fellowship
award. For the purposes of this provision, a full academic year of
study is the number of credit hours determined by each university at
which Fellows are studying as constituting a full year of study at that
university. Fellows' teaching obligations will be figured at full
academic years of study; and when Fellows have studies for partial
academic years, those years will be rounded upward to the nearest one-
half year to determine Fellows' total teaching obligations.
(b) Those who aspire to become full-time teachers of American
history, American government, social studies, or political science in
grades 7-12 who:
(1) Are matriculated college seniors pursuing their baccalaureate
degrees full time and will receive those degrees no later than August
31st of the year of the fellowship competition in which they apply or
prior recipients of baccalaureate degrees;
(2) Plan to begin graduate study on a full-time basis;
(3) Have demonstrated records of willingness to devote themselves
to civic responsibilities;
(4) Are highly recommended by faculty members, deans, or other
persons familiar with their potential for graduate study of American
history and government and with their serious intention to enter the
teaching profession as secondary school teachers of American history,
American government, social studies, or political science in grades 7-
12;
(5) Qualify for admission with graduate standing at accredited
universities of their choice that offer master's degree programs that
allow at least 12 semester hours or their equivalent of study of the
origins, principles, and development of the Constitution of the United
States and of its comparison with the constitutions and history of
other forms of government;
(6) Are able to complete their proposed courses of graduate study
in no more than two calendar years from the commencement of study under
their fellowships, normally through full-time study;
(7) Agree to attend the Foundation's four-week Summer Institute on
the Constitution, normally during the summer following the commencement
of study under their fellowships; and
(8) Sign an agreement that, after completing the education for
which the fellowship is awarded, they will teach American history,
American government, social studies, or political science full time in
secondary schools for a period of not less than one year for each full
academic year of study for which assistance was received, preferably in
the state listed as their legal residence at the time of their
fellowship award. For the purposes of this provision, a full academic
year of study is the number of credit hours determined by each
university at which Fellows are studying as constituting a full year of
study at that university. Fellows' teaching obligations will be figured
at full academic years of study; and when Fellows have studies for
partial academic years, those years will be rounded upward to the
nearest one-half year to determine Fellows' total teaching obligations.
Sec. 2400.4 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Academic year means the period of time in which a full-time student
would normally complete two semesters, two trimesters, three quarters,
or their equivalent of study.
Act means the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Act.
College means an institution of higher education offering only a
baccalaureate degree or the undergraduate division of a university in
which a student is pursuing a baccalaureate degree.
Credit Hour Equivalent means the number of graduate credit hours
obtained in credits, courses or units during a quarter, a trimester, or
a semester which are needed to equal a specific number of semester
graduate credit hours.
Fee means a typical and usually non-refundable charge levied by an
institution of higher education for a service, privilege, or use of
property which is required for a Fellow's enrollment and registration.
Fellow means a recipient of a fellowship from the Foundation.
Fellowship means an award, called a James Madison Fellowship, made
to a person by the Foundation for graduate study.
Foundation means the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation.
Full-time study means study for an enrolled student who is carrying
a full-time academic workload as determined by the institution under a
standard applicable to all students enrolled in a particular
educational program.
Graduate study means the courses of study beyond the baccalaureate
level, which are offered as part of a university's master's degree
program and which lead to a master's degree.
Incomplete means a course which the Foundation has paid for but the
Fellow has received an incomplete grade or the Fellow has not received
graduate credit for the course.
Institution of higher education has the meaning given in Section
1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
Junior Fellowship means a James Madison Fellowship granted either
to a college senior or to a college graduate who has received a
baccalaureate degree and who seeks to become a secondary school teacher
of American history, American government, social studies, or political
science for full-time graduate study toward a master's degree whose
course of study emphasizes the framing, principles, history, and
interpretation of the United States Constitution.
Master's degree means the first pre-doctoral graduate degree
offered by a university beyond the baccalaureate degree, for which the
baccalaureate degree is a prerequisite.
Matriculated means formally enrolled in a master's degree program
in a university.
Repayment means if the fellowship is relinquished by the fellow or
is terminated by the Foundation prior to the completion of the Fellow's
degree, and/or the Fellow fails to fulfill the teaching obligation
after the graduate degree is awarded, the Fellow must repay to the
Foundation all Fellowship
[[Page 46736]]
costs received plus interest at a rate of 6% per annum and, if
applicable, reasonable collection fees.
Resident means a person who has legal residence in the state,
recognized under state law. If a question arises concerning a Fellow's
state of residence, the Foundation determines, for the purposes of this
program, of which state the person is a resident, taking into account
the Fellow's place of registration to vote, his or her parent's place
of residence, and the Fellow's eligibility for in-state tuition rates
at public institutions of higher education.
Satisfactory progress for a Junior Fellow means the completion of
the number of required courses normally expected of full-time master's
degree candidates at the university that the Fellow attends, with
grades acceptable to that university, in not more than two calendar
years from the commencement of that study. Satisfactory progress for a
Senior Fellow means the completion each year of a specific number of
required courses in the Fellow's master's degree program, as agreed
upon each year with the Foundation and outlined on the Plan of Study
form, with grades acceptable to the Fellow's university, in not more
than five calendar years from the commencement of that study.
Secondary school means grades 7 through 12.
Senior means a student at the academic level recognized by an
institution of higher education as being the last year of study before
receiving the baccalaureate degree.
Senior Fellowship means a James Madison Fellowship granted to a
secondary school teacher of American history, American government,
social studies, or political science for part-time graduate study
toward a master's degree whose course of study emphasizes the framing,
principles, history, and interpretation of the United States
Constitution.
State means each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and, considered as a single entity, Guam,
the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, and, until adoption of its Compact of
Free Association, the Republic of Palau.
Stipend means the amount paid by the Foundation to a Fellow or on
his or her behalf to pay the allowable costs of graduate study which
have been approved under the fellowship.
Teaching Obligation means that a Fellow, upon receiving a master's
degree, must teach American history, American government, social
studies, or political science on a full-time basis to students in
secondary school for a period of not less than one year for each year
for which financial assistance was received.
Term means the period--semester, trimester, or quarter--used by an
institution of higher education to divide its academic year.
Termination means the non-voluntary ending of a fellowship by the
Foundation when the Fellow has not complied with the rules and
regulations of the fellowship or has not made satisfactory progress in
his or her program of study.
University means an institution of higher education that offers
post-baccalaureate degrees.
Withdrawal means the voluntary relinquishment or surrender of a
Fellowship by the Fellow.
Subpart B--Application
Sec. 2400.10 Application.
Eligible applicants for fellowships must apply directly to the
Foundation.
Sec. 2400.11 Faculty Representatives.
Each college and university that chooses to do so may annually
appoint or reappoint a faculty representative who will be asked to
identify and recruit fellowship applicants on campus, publicize the
annual competition on campus, and otherwise assist eligible candidates
in preparation for applying. In order to elicit the appointment of
faculty representatives, the Foundation will each year request the head
of each college and university campus to appoint or reappoint a faculty
representative and to provide the Foundation with the name, business
address, and business telephone number of a member of its faculty
representative on forms provided for that purpose.
Subpart C--Application Process
Sec. 2400.20 Preparation of application.
Applications, on forms mailed directly by the Foundation to those
who request applications, must be completed by all fellowship
candidates in order that they be considered for an award.
Sec. 2400.21 Contents of application.
Applications must include for
(a) Senior Fellowships:
(1) Supporting information which affirms an applicant's wish to be
considered for a fellowship; provides information about his or her
background, interests, goals, and the school in which he or she
teaches; and includes a statement about the applicant's educational
plans and specifies how those plans will enhance his or her career as a
secondary school teacher of American history, American government,
social studies, or political science;
(2) An essay of up to 600 words that explains the importance of the
study of the Constitution to:
(i) Young students;
(ii) The applicant's career aspirations and his or her
contributions to public service; and
(iii) Citizenship generally in a constitutional republic;
(3) The applicant's proposed course of graduate study, including
the name of the degree to be sought, the required courses to be taken,
as well as information about the specific degree sought;
(4) Three evaluations, one from an immediate supervisor, that
attest to the applicant's strengths and abilities as a teacher in
grades 7-12; and
(5) A copy of his or her academic transcript.
(b) Junior Fellowships:
(1) Supporting information which affirms an applicant's wish to be
considered for a fellowship; provides information about the applicant's
background, interests, goals, and the college which he or she attends
or attended; and includes a statement about the applicant's educational
plans and specifies how those plans will lead to a career as a teacher
of American history, American government, social studies, or political
science in grades 7-12;
(2) An essay of up to 600 words that explains the importance of the
study of the Constitution to:
(i) Young students;
(ii) The applicant's career aspirations and his or her contribution
to public service; and
(iii) Citizenship generally in a constitutional republic;
(3) Applicant's proposed course of graduate study, including the
name of the degree sought, the name of the required courses to be
taken, and information about the specific degree sought;
(4) Three evaluations that attest to the applicant's academic
achievements and to his or her potential to become an outstanding
secondary school teacher; and
(5) A copy of his or her academic transcript.
Sec. 2400.22 Application deadline.
Completed applications must be received by the Foundation no later
than March 1st of each year preceding the start of the academic year
for which candidates are applying.
[[Page 46737]]
Subpart D--Selection of Fellows
Sec. 2400.30 Selection criteria.
Applicants will be evaluated, on the basis of materials in their
applications, as follows:
(a) Demonstrated commitment to teaching American history, American
government, social studies, or political science at the secondary
school level;
(b) Demonstrated intention to pursue a program of graduate study
that emphasizes the Constitution and to offer classroom instruction in
that subject;
(c) Demonstrated record of willingness to devote themselves to
civic responsibility;
(d) Outstanding performance or potential of performance as
classroom teachers;
(e) Academic achievements and demonstrated capacity for graduate
study; and
(f) Proposed courses of graduate study, especially the nature and
extent of their subject matter components, and their relationship to
the enhancement of applicants' teaching and professional activities.
Sec. 2400.31 Selection process.
(a) An independent Fellow Selection Committee will evaluate all
valid applications and recommend to the Foundation the most outstanding
applicants from each state for James Madison Fellowships.
(b) From among candidates recommended for fellowships by the Fellow
Selection Committee, the Foundation will name James Madison Fellows.
The selection procedure will assure that at least one James Madison
Fellow, junior or senior, is selected from each state in which there
are at least two legally resident applicants who meet the eligibility
requirements set forth in Sec. 2400.3 and are judged favorably against
the selection criteria in Sec. 2400.30.
(c) The Foundation may name, from among those applicants
recommended by the Fellow Selection Committee, an alternate or
alternates for each fellowship. An alternate will receive a fellowship
if the person named as a James Madison Fellow declines the award or is
not able to pursue graduate study as contemplated at the time the
fellowship was accepted. An alternate may be named to replace a Fellow
who declines or relinquishes an award until, but no later than, March
1st following the competition in which the alternate has been selected.
(d) Funds permitting, the Foundation may also select, from among
those recommended by the Fellow Selection Committee, Fellows at large.
Subpart E--Graduate Study
Sec. 2400.40 Institutions of graduate study.
Fellowship recipients may attend any accredited university in the
United States with a master's degree program offering courses or
training that emphasize the origins, principles, and development of the
Constitution of the United States and its comparison with the
constitutions and history of other forms of government.
Sec. 2400.41 Degree programs.
(a) Fellows may pursue a master's degree in history or political
science (including government or politics), the degree of Master of
Arts in Teaching in history or political science (including government
or politics), or a related master's degree in education that permits a
concentration in American history, American government, social studies,
or political science. Graduate degrees under which study is excluded
from fellowship support are indicated in Sec. 2400.63.
(b) A master's degree pursued under a James Madison Fellowship may
entail either one or two years or their equivalent of study, according
to the requirements of the university at which a Fellow is enrolled.
Sec. 2400.42 Approval of Plan of Study.
The Foundation must approve each Fellow's Plan of Study. To be
approved, the plan must:
(a) On a part-time or full-time basis lead to a master's degree in
history or political science, the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching
in history or political science, or a related master's degree in
education that permits a concentration in American history, American
government, social studies, or political science;
(b) Include courses, graduate seminars, or opportunities for
independent study in topics directly related to the framing and history
of the constitution of the United States;
(c) Be pursued at a university that assures a willingness to accept
up to 6 semester hours of accredited transfer credits from another
graduate institution for a Fellow's satisfactory completion of the
Foundation's Summer Institute on the Constitution. For the Foundation's
purposes, these 6 semester hours may be included in the required
minimum of 12 semester hours or their equivalent of study of the United
States Constitution; and
(d) Be pursued at a university that encourages the Fellow to
enhance his or her capacities as a teacher of American history,
American government, social studies, or political science and to
continue his or her career as a secondary school teacher. The
Foundation reserves the right to refuse to approve a Fellow's Plan of
Study at a university that will not accept on transfer the 6 credits
for the Institute.
Sec. 2400.43 Required courses of graduate study.
(a) To be acceptable to the Foundation, those courses related to
the Constitution referred to in Sec. 2400.43(b) must amount to at least
12 semester or 18 quarter hours or their credit hour equivalent of
study of topics directly related to the United States Constitution.
More than 12 semester hours or their credit hour equivalent of such
study is strongly encouraged.
(b) The courses that fulfill the required minimum of 12 semester
hours or their credit hour equivalent of study of the United States
Constitution must cover one or more of the following subject areas:
(1) The history of colonial America leading up to the framing of
the Constitution;
(2) The Constitution itself, its framing, the history and
principles upon which it is based, its ratification, the Federalist
Papers, Anti-Federalist writings, and the Bill of Rights;
(3) The historical development of political theory, constitutional
law, and civil liberties as related to the Constitution;
(4) Interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court and
other branches of the federal government;
(5) Debates about the Constitution in other forums and about the
effects of constitutional norms and decisions upon American society and
culture; and
(6) Any other subject clearly related to the framing, history, and
principles of the Constitution.
(c) If a master's degree program in which a Fellow is enrolled
requires a master's thesis in place of a course or courses, the Fellow
will have the option of writing the thesis based on the degree
requirements. The preparation of a master's thesis should not add
additional required credits to the minimum number of credits required
for the master's degree. If a Fellow must write a thesis, the topic of
the thesis must relate to subjects concerning the framing, principles,
or history of the United States Constitution. If the Fellow can choose
between two degree tracks, a thesis track or a non-thesis track, the
Foundation strongly encourages the non-thesis track.
Sec. 2400.44 Commencement of Graduate Study.
(a) Fellows may commence study under their fellowships as early as
the
[[Page 46738]]
summer following the announcement of their award. Fellows are normally
expected to commence study under their fellowships in the fall term of
the academic year following the date on which their award is announced.
However, as indicated in Sec. 2400.6, they may seek to postpone the
commencement of fellowship study under extenuating circumstances.
(b) In determining the two- and five-year fellowship periods of
Junior and Senior Fellows respectively, the Foundation will consider
the commencement of the fellowship period to be the date on which each
Fellow commences study under a fellowship.
Sec. 2400.45 Special consideration: Junior Fellows' Plan of Study.
Applicants for Junior Fellowships who seek or hold baccalaureate
degrees in education are strongly encouraged to pursue master's degrees
in history or political science. Those applicants who hold
undergraduate degrees in history, political science, government, or any
other subjects may take some teaching methods and related courses,
although the Foundation will not pay for them unless they are required
for the degree for which the Fellow is matriculated. The Foundation
will review each proposed Plan of Study for an appropriate balance of
subject matter and other courses based on the Fellow's goals,
background, and degree requirements.
Sec. 2400.46 Special consideration: second master's degree.
The Foundation may award Senior Fellowships to applicants who are
seeking their second master's degrees providing that the applicants'
first master's degree was obtained at least five years prior to the
year in which the applicants would normally commence study under a
fellowship. In evaluating applications from individuals intending to
pursue a second master's degree, the Fellow Selection Committee will
favor those applicants who are planning to become American history,
American government, social studies, or political science teachers
after having taught another subject and applicants whose initial
master's degree was in a subject different from that sought under the
second master's degree.
Sec. 2400.47 Summer Institute's relationship to fellowship.
Each year, the Foundation offers, normally during July, a four-week
graduate-level Institute on the principles, framing, ratification, and
implementation of the United States Constitution at an accredited
university in the Washington, DC area. The Institute is an integral
part of each fellowship.
Sec. 2400.48 Fellows' participation in the Summer Institute.
Each Fellow is required as part of his or her fellowship to attend
the Institute, normally during the summer following the Fellow's
commencement of graduate study under a fellowship.
Sec. 2400.49 Contents of the Summer Institute.
The principal element of the Institute is a graduate history
course, ``Foundations of American Constitutionalism.'' Other components
of the Institute include study visits to sites associated with the
lives and careers of members of the founding generation.
Sec. 2400.50 Allowances and Summer Institute costs.
For their participation in the Institute, Fellows are paid an
allowance to help offset income foregone by their required attendance.
The Foundation also funds the costs of the Institute and Fellows'
round-trip transportation to and from the Institute site. The costs of
tuition, required fees, books, room, and board entailed by the
Institute will be paid for by the Foundation directly but may be offset
against fellowship award limits if the credits earned for the Institute
are included within the Fellows' degree requirements.
Sec. 2400.51 Summer Institute accreditation.
The Institute is accredited for six graduate semester credits by
the university at which it is held. It is expected that the
universities at which Fellows are pursuing their graduate study will,
upon Fellows' satisfactory completion of the Institute, accept these
credits or their credit-hour equivalent upon transfer from the
university at which the Institute is held in fulfillment of the minimum
number of credits required for Fellows' graduate degrees. Satisfactory
completion of the Institute will fulfill 6 of the Foundation's 12
semester credits required in graduate study of the history and
development of the Constitution. Fellows, with the Foundation's
assistance, are strongly encouraged to make good faith efforts to have
their universities incorporate the Institute into their Plan of Study
and accept the 6 Institute credits toward the minimum number of credits
required for their master's degrees.
Subpart F--Fellowship Stipend
Sec. 2400.52 Amount of stipend.
Junior and Senior Fellowships carry a stipend of up to a maximum of
$24,000 pro-rated over the period of Fellows' graduate study. In no
case shall the stipend for a fellowship exceed $12,000 per academic
year. Within this limit, stipends will be pro-rated over the period of
Fellows' graduate study as follows: a maximum of $6,000 per academic
semester or trimester of full-time study, and a maximum of $4,000 per
academic quarter of full-time study. Stipends for part-time study will
be pro rata shares of those allowable for full-time study.
Sec. 2400.53 Duration of stipend.
Stipends for Junior Fellowships may be payable over a period up to
2 calendar years of full-time graduate study, and those for Senior
Fellowships may be payable over a period of not more than 5 calendar
years of part-time graduate study, beginning with the dates under which
Fellows commence their graduate study under their fellowships. However,
the duration of stipend payments will be subject to the maximum payment
limits, the length of award time limits, and the completion of the
minimum degree requirements, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2400.54 Use of stipend.
Stipends shall be used only to pay the costs of tuition, required
fees, books, room, and board associated with graduate study under a
fellowship. The costs allowed for a Fellow's room and board will be the
amount the Fellow's university reports to the Foundation as the cost of
room and board for a graduate student if that student were to share a
room at the student's university. If no shared graduate housing exists,
then costs for regular shared student housing will be used. If no
campus housing exists, the equivalent room and board costs at
neighboring universities will be used. Stipends for room, board, and
books will be pro-rated for Fellows enrolled in study less than full
time. The Foundation will not reimburse Fellows for any portion of
their master's degree study, that Fellows may have completed prior to
the commencement of their fellowships. Nor will the Foundation
reimburse Fellows for any credits acquired above the minimum number of
credits required for the degree. If a Fellow has already taken and paid
for courses that can be credited toward the Fellow's graduate degree
under a fellowship, those must be credited to the degree; the remaining
required courses will be paid for by the Foundation.
[[Page 46739]]
Sec. 2400.55 Certification for stipend.
In order to receive a fellowship stipend, a Fellow must submit the
following nine items in writing:
(a) An acceptance of the terms and conditions of the fellowship
including a completed certificate of compliance form;
(b) Evidence of admission to an approved graduate program;
(c) Certified copies of undergraduate and, if any, graduate
transcripts;
(d) A certified payment request form indicating the estimated costs
for tuition, required fees, books, room, and board;
(e) a photo copy of the university's bulletin of cost information;
(f) the amount of income from any other grants or awards;
(g) information about the Fellow's degree requirements, including
the number of required credits to fulfill the degree;
(h) a statement of the university's willingness to accept the
transfer of 6 credits toward the Fellow's degree requirements for the
Fellow's satisfactory completion of the Summer Institute (see
Sec. 2400. 51); and
(i) a full Plan of Study over the duration of the fellowship,
including information on the contents of required courses. Senior
Fellows must provide evidence of their continued full-time employment
as teachers in grades 7-12.
Sec. 2400.56 Payment of stipend.
Payment for tuition, required fees, books, room, and board subject
to the limitations in Sec. 2400.52 through Sec. 2400.55 and
Sec. 2400.59 through Sec. 2400.60 will be paid to each Fellow at the
beginning of each term of enrollment upon the Fellow's submission of a
completed Payment Request Form and the University bulletin of cost
information.
Sec. 2400.57 Termination of stipend.
(a) The Foundation may suspend or terminate the payment of a
stipend if a Fellow fails to meet the criteria set forth in
Sec. 2400.40 through Sec. 2400.44 and Sec. 2400.60, except as provided
for in Sec. 2400.61. Before it suspends or terminates a fellowship
under these circumstances, the Foundation will give notice to the
Fellow, as well as the opportunity to be heard with respect to the
grounds for suspension or termination.
(b) The Foundation will normally suspend the payment of a stipend
if a Fellow has more than one grade of ``Incomplete'' in courses for
which the Foundation has made payment to the Fellow.
Sec. 2400.58 Repayment of stipend.
(a) If a Fellow fails to secure a master's degree, fails to teach
American history, American government, social studies, or political
science on a full-time basis in a secondary school for at least one
school year for each academic year for which assistance was provided
under a fellowship, fails to secure fewer than 12 semester hours or
their credit hour equivalent for study of the Constitution as indicated
in Sec. 2400.43(b), or fails to attend the Foundation's Summer
Institute on the Constitution, the Fellow must repay all of the
fellowship costs received plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum or
as otherwise authorized and, if applicable, reasonable collection fees,
as prescribed in Section 807 of the Act (20 U.S.C. 4506(b)).
(b) If a Fellow withdraws from the fellowship or has a fellowship
terminated by the Foundation, the Foundation will seek to recover all
fellowship funds which have been remitted to the Fellow or on his or
her behalf under a fellowship.
Subpart G--Special Conditions
Sec. 2400.59 Other awards.
Fellows may accept grants from other foundations, institutions,
corporations, or government agencies to support their graduate study or
to replace any income foregone for study. However, the stipend paid by
the Foundation for allowable costs indicated in Sec. 2400.52 will be
reduced to the extent these costs are paid from other sources, and in
no case will fellowship funds be paid to Fellows to provide support in
excess of their actual total costs of tuition, required fees, books,
room, and board. The Foundation may also reduce a Fellow's stipend if
the Fellow is remunerated for the costs of tuition under a research or
teaching assistantship or a work-study program. In such a case, the
Foundation will require information from a Fellow's university about
the intended use of assistantship or work-study support before
remitting fellowship payments.
Sec. 2400.60 Renewal of award.
(a) Provided that Fellows have submitted all required documentation
and are making satisfactory academic progress, it is the intent of the
Foundation to renew Junior Fellowship awards annually for a period not
to exceed two calendar years or the completion of their graduate
degrees, whichever comes first, and Senior Fellowships for a period not
to exceed 5 calendar years (except when those periods have been altered
because of changes in Fellows' Plan of Study as provided for in
Sec. 2400.64), or until a Fellow has completed all requirements for a
master's degree, whichever comes first. In no case, however, will the
Foundation continue payments under a fellowship to a Fellow who has
reached the maximum payments under a fellowship as indicated in
Sec. 2400.52, or completed the minimum number of credits required for
the degree. Although Fellows are not discouraged in taking courses in
addition to those required for the degree or required to maintain full-
time status, the Foundation will not in such cases pay for those
additional courses unless they are credited to the minimum number of
credits required for the degree.
(b) Fellowship renewal will be subject to an annual review by the
Foundation and certification by an authorized official of the
university at which a Fellow is registered that the Fellow is making
satisfactory progress toward the degree and is in good academic
standing according to the standards of each university.
(c) As a condition of renewal of awards, each Fellow must submit an
annual activity report to the Foundation by July 15th. That report must
indicate, through submission of a copy of the Fellow's most recent
transcript, courses taken and grades achieved; courses planned for the
coming year; changes in academic or professional plans or situations;
any awards, recognitions, or special achievements in the Fellow's
academic study or school employment; and such other information as may
relate to the fellowship and its holder.
Sec. 2400.61 Postponement of award.
Upon application to the Foundation, a Fellow may seek postponement
of his or her fellowship because of ill health or other mitigating
circumstances, such as military duty, temporary disability, necessary
care of an immediate family member, or unemployment as a teacher.
Substantiation of the reasons for the requested postponement of study
will be required.
Sec. 2400.62 Evidence of master's degree.
At the conclusion of graduate studies, each Fellow must provide a
certified transcript which indicates that he or she has secured an
approved master's degree as set forth in the Fellow's original Plan of
Study or approved modifications thereto.
Sec. 2400.63 Excluded graduate study.
James Madison Fellowships do not provide support for study toward
doctoral degrees, for the degree of master of arts in public affairs or
public
[[Page 46740]]
administration, or toward the award of teaching certificates. Nor do
fellowships support practice teaching required for professional
certification or other courses related to teaching unless those courses
are required for the degree. In those cases, however, the Foundation
will provide reimbursement only toward those courses related to
teaching that fall within the minimum number of courses required for
the degree, not in addition to that minimum.
Sec. 2400.64 Alterations to Plan of Study.
Although Junior Fellows are expected to pursue full-time study and
Senior Fellows to pursue part-time study, the Foundation may permit
Junior Fellows with an established need (such as the need to accept a
teaching position) to study part time and Senior Fellows with
established need (such as great distance between the Fellow's residence
and the nearest university, thus necessitating a full-time leave of
absence from employment in order to study) to study full time.
Sec. 2400.65 Teaching obligation.
Upon receiving a Master's degree, each Fellow must teach American
history, American government, social studies, or political science on a
full-time basis to students in secondary school for a period of not
less than one year for each academic year for which financial
assistance was received. Each Fellow will be required to provide the
Foundation with an annual certification from an official of the
secondary school where the Fellow is employed indicating the teaching
activities of the Fellow during the past year. This same certification
will be required each year until the Fellow's teaching obligation is
completed. Any teaching done by the Fellow prior to or during graduate
studies does not count towards meeting this teaching obligation.
Sec. 2400.66 Completion of fellowship.
A Fellow will be deemed to have satisfied all terms of a fellowship
and all obligations under it when the Fellow has completed no fewer
than 12 graduate semester hours or the equivalent of study of the
Constitution, formally secured the masters degree, attended the
Foundation's Summer Institute on the Constitution, completed teaching
for the number of years and fractions thereof required as a condition
of accepting Foundation support for study, and submitted all required
reports.
[FR Doc. 96-22525 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22510 Attestations by Employers Using Alien Crewmembers for Longshore Activities in U.S. Ports
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46988-46991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22510]
[[Page 46987]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
20 CFR Part 655
Wage and Hour Division
29 CFR Part 506
_______________________________________________________________________
Attestations by Employers Using Alien Crewmembers for Longshore
Activities in U.S. Ports; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 173 / Thursday, September 5, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 46988]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
20 CFR Part 655
RIN 1205-AB03
Wage and Hour Division
29 CFR Part 506
RIN 1215-AA90
Attestations by Employers Using Alien Crewmembers for Longshore
Activities in U.S. Ports
AGENCIES: Employment and Training Administration and Wage and Hour
Division, Employment Standards Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and the
Employment Standards Administration (ESA) of the Department of Labor
(DOL or Department) are promulgating regulations to implement
amendments to existing regulations governing the filing and enforcement
of attestations by employers seeking to use alien crewmembers to
perform longshore work in the U.S. The amendments relate to employers'
use of alien crewmembers to perform longshore work at locations in the
State of Alaska. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, employers,
in certain circumstances, are required to submit attestations to DOL in
order to be allowed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
to use alien crewmembers to perform specified longshore activities at
locations in the State of Alaska. The attestation process is
administered by ETA, while complaints and investigations regarding the
attestations are handled by ESA.
DATES: Effective Date: The final rule promulgated in this document is
effective on October 7, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: On 20 CFR part 655, subpart F, and 29
CFR part 506, subpart F, contact Flora T. Richardson, Chief, Division
of Foreign Labor Certifications, U.S. Employment Service, Employment
and Training Administration, Department of Labor, Room N-4456, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 219-
5263 (this is not a toll-free number).
On 20 CFR part 655, subpart G, and 29 CFR part 506, subpart G,
contact R. Thomas Shierling, Immigration Team, Office of Enforcement
Policy, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration,
Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 501-3884 (this is not a toll-
free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements of the Form ETA 9033-A
under the Alaska exception and contained in this rule have been
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and
have been assigned OMB Control No. 1205-0352. The information
collection requirements of the Form ETA 9033 under the prevailing
practice exception, assigned OMB Control No. 1205-0309, remain
unchanged by this rulemaking. The Form ETA 9033-A was published in the
Federal Register with the interim final rule to implement the Alaska
exception on January 19, 1995 (60 FR 3950). The Form ETA 9033 was
published in the Federal Register with the final rule to implement the
prevailing practice exception on September 8, 1992 (57 FR 40966).
The Employment and Training Administration estimates that employers
will be submitting up to 350 attestations per year under the Alaska
exception. The public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 3 hours per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing information/data
sources, gathering and maintaining the information/data needed, and
completing and reviewing the attestation. It is likely that the burden
will be considerably less in the second and subsequent years in which
an employer submits an attestation.
II. Background
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-206, 107
Stat. 2419 (Coast Guard Act), was enacted on December 20, 1993. Among
other things, the Coast Guard Act amended section 258 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) which
places limitations on the performance of longshore work by alien
crewmembers in U.S. ports.
The loading and unloading of vessels in U.S. ports had
traditionally been performed by U.S. longshore workers. However, until
passage of the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT '90), Pub. L. 101-649,
104 Stat. 4978, alien crewmembers had also been allowed by Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) regulation to do this kind of work in
U.S. ports because longshore work was considered to be within the scope
of permitted employment for alien crewmembers. The IMMACT '90 limited
this practice in order to provide greater protection to U.S. longshore
workers.
Prior to the Coast Guard Act's enactment, section 258 of the INA
permitted alien crewmembers admitted with D-visas to perform longshore
work only in four specific instances: (a) Where the vessel's country of
registration does not prohibit U.S. crewmembers from performing
longshore work in that country's ports and nationals of a country which
does not prohibit U.S. crewmembers from performing longshore work in
that country's ports hold a majority of the ownership interest in the
vessel; (b) where there is in effect in a local port one or more
collective bargaining agreement(s), each covering at least thirty
percent of the longshore workers at a particular port and each
permitting the activity to be performed by alien crewmembers; (c) where
there is no collective bargaining agreement covering at least thirty
percent of the longshore workers and an attestation has been filed with
the Department which states that the use of alien crewmembers to
perform longshore work is permitted under the prevailing practice of
the port, that the use of alien crewmembers is not during a strike or
lockout, that such use is not intended or designed to influence the
election of a collective bargaining representative, and that notice has
been provided to longshore workers at the port; and (d) where the
activity is performed with the use of automated self-unloading conveyor
belts or vacuum-actuated systems; provided that, the Secretary of Labor
(Secretary) has not found that an attestation is required because it
was not the prevailing practice to utilize alien crewmembers to perform
the activity or because the activity was performed during a strike or
lockout or in order to influence the election of a collective
bargaining representative. For this purpose, the term ``longshore
work'' does not include the loading or unloading of hazardous cargo, as
determined by the Secretary of Transportation, for safety and
environmental protection and no attestations were or are necessary for
the loading and unloading of such cargo.
The Department published final regulations in the Federal Register
on September 8, 1992 (57 FR 40966), to implement the prevailing
practice exception under IMMACT '90. The fishing industry and the
carriers worked together to comply with the law by
[[Page 46989]]
filing the necessary attestations to qualify under the prevailing
practice exception. The International Longshore and Warehousemen's
Union responded to protect the jurisdiction of U.S. longshore workers
by filing complaints pursuant to the attestations and seeking cease and
desist orders to halt the performance of longshore work by the
carrier's alien crewmembers.
The basic problem was that the prevailing practice exception was
apparently designed for established port areas. A lack of flexibility
in the remote areas of Alaska where the longshore work needed to be
performed, in some cases, prevented carriers from complying with
Departmental regulations. As a result, even where there were no U.S.
longshore workers available for the particular employment, employers in
some of these remote areas were prohibited from performing the
necessary longshore work, resulting in potential adverse impacts on the
Alaskan fishing industry including the loss of American jobs. In order
to remedy the situation, Congress consulted with representatives of the
longshoremen's unions and the carriers and enacted special provisions
recognizing the unique character of Alaskan ports.
The Coast Guard Act amended the INA by establishing a new Alaska
exception to the general prohibition on the performance of longshore
work by alien crewmembers in U.S. ports. The Alaska exception provides
that the prohibition does not apply where the longshore work is to be
performed at a particular location in the State of Alaska and an
attestation with accompanying documentation has been filed by the
employer with the Department of Labor. The INA provides, however, that
longshore work consisting of the use of an automated self-unloading
conveyor belt or vacuum-actuated system on a vessel shall continue to
be governed by section 258(c) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1288(c)), even at
locations in the State of Alaska. If, however, it is determined that an
attestation is required for longshore work at locations in the State of
Alaska consisting of the use of automated equipment, i.e., because the
Administrator has determined, pursuant to a complaint, that it is not
the prevailing practice to use alien crewmembers to perform the
longshore activity(ies) through the use of the automated equipment, or
was during a strike or lockout or intended to influence an election of
a bargaining representative for workers in the local port, or if the
Administrator issues a cease and desist order against use of the
automated equipment without such attestation, the required attestation
shall be filed by the employer under the Alaska exception and not under
the prevailing practice exception. The amended INA provides that the
prevailing practice exception no longer applies in case of longshore
work to be performed at a particular location in the State of Alaska.
As a result, U.S. ports in the State of Alaska which were previously
listed in Appendix A, ``U.S. Seaports,'' were removed from the Appendix
in the interim final rule.
The Alaska exception is intended to provide a preference for hiring
United States longshoremen over the employer's alien crewmembers. The
employer must attest that, before using alien crewmen to perform the
activity specified in the attestation, the employer will make a bona
fide request for and employ United States longshore workers who are
qualified and available in sufficient numbers from contract stevedoring
companies and private dock operators. The employer must also provide
notice of filing the attestation to such contract stevedoring companies
and private dock operators, and to labor organizations recognized as
exclusive bargaining representatives of United States longshore
workers. Finally, the employer must attest that the use of alien
crewmembers to perform longshore work is not intended or designed to
influence the election of a bargaining representative for workers in
the State of Alaska.
III. Analysis of Comments on the Interim Final Rule
Comments regarding the January 19, 1995, interim final rule were
received from 3 entities; a member of the general public through a U.S.
Senator; a law firm; and a Federal government agency. None of the 3
comments received concerned the same issue so each will be discussed in
turn.
A law firm submitted a comment on behalf of certain foreign
carriers involved in longshore operations in Alaska. The firm's comment
concerned the reporting and recordkeeping burden of the Department's
Attestation by Employers Using Alien Crewmembers for Longshore
Activities at Locations in the State of Alaska (Form ETA 9033-A).
The firm proposed that the Form ETA 9033-A be amended to allow
employers to file attestations with multiple validity periods and to
further amend the attestation to add a new box ``(e)'' to Item 8, to be
entitled ``Supplemental Attestation.'' If adopted, in the event of a
change in circumstances, an existing attestation would be photocopied,
box ``(e)'' checked, and a narrative description of the changed
circumstances attached, rather than the employer having to file a new
attestation.
With regard to the first suggestion, section 258(d)(4) of the INA
(8 U.S.C. 1288) provides that ``attestations filed under [the Alaska
exception] shall expire at the end of the 1-year period beginning on
the date the employer anticipates the longshore work to begin, as
specified in the attestations filed with the Secretary of Labor.'' We
believe that this statutory provision would preclude the Department
from incorporating the suggested change. Further, ETA, the agency which
will process such attestations, indicates that allowing multiple
validity periods to apply to a single attestation would be extremely
burdensome to administer. In the interim final rule, and continued here
in the final rule, the regulations provided that an employer may file a
single attestation for multiple locations in the State of Alaska,
unlike attestations under the prevailing practice exception which are
filed for a particular port. The Department believes this provision is
a reasonable accommodation to employers of alien crewmembers and feels
the suggested change would render this accommodation unpalatable.
The Department also opposes the second proposed change. First, it
is not clear what a ``change in circumstances'' means. The Department
believes that the example provided by the commenter, which concerned
the opening of a new dock or facility in a new location, should
necessitate filing of a new attestation by the employer. The fourth
attestation element under the INA, provision of notice, is based upon
actions taken by an employer to comply with the terms of the
attestation on or before the date the attestation is filed. Therefore,
if a new private dock opened in a new location, an employer should be
required to submit a new attestation, attesting that notice of filing
has been provided to the operator of the new private dock. The
requirement that an employer provide notice of filing and request
confirmation of coverage under the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act is the only pre-filing requirement contained in the
regulation, the other three attestation elements being prospective in
nature. Since an employer must provide the required notice to the
operator of the new private dock, whether the suggestion is adopted or
not, we believe that the burden incurred by filing a new attestation,
as compared to filing an amendment to an existing attestation with a
narrative description of the change, is a nominal one. It should be
noted that, as a matter of enforcement policy, an employer will
[[Page 46990]]
not be required to submit a new attestation in the event that a new
private dock opened in a previously disclosed location. In that event,
an employer will be considered to be in compliance as long as the
required notice is provided to the operator of the new private dock and
such is properly documented by the employer.
The second comment, filed by a member of the general public through
the office of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), concerned longshore work
performed by Greek and Russian vessels operating in the Aleutian
Islands off Alaska under the reciprocity exception. See 8 U.S.C.
1288(e). The Department has no role in administering the reciprocity
exception, which allows employers to use alien crewmembers to perform
longshore activities in U.S. ports if the vessel is registered in a
country which by law, regulation, or in practice does not prohibit such
activity by crewmembers aboard U.S. vessels, and nationals of such a
country own a majority of the ownership interest in the vessel.
The final comment received was from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy,
Small Business Administration, who expressed concern that the
regulations governing the Alaska exception may indeed have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
businesses, contrary to the Department's certification under 5 U.S.C.
605(b). Further, the Chief Counsel questioned the Department's
authority to publish the regulation as an interim final rule without a
prior notice of proposed rulemaking.
As described above, due to a lack of flexibility in the remote
areas of Alaska under the pre-existing ``prevailing practice
exception'' to the general prohibition, representatives of the
longshoremen's unions and the carriers, working in concert with the
Alaskan Congressional delegation, enacted special provisions
recognizing the unique character of Alaskan sea ports. The statute was
a direct result of these negotiations between the affected parties.
Departmental officials worked closely with all relevant parties in
drafting the rule, both union and carrier representatives, including
meeting on two separate occasions to discuss implementation of the
statutory provisions.
Specific language in the statute prohibited employers from filing
attestations for locations in the State of Alaska under the pre-
existing prevailing practice exception, resulting in an adverse impact
on the Alaskan fishing industry and potential loss of jobs and revenue
for both U.S. workers and employers. Further, some employers may have
been encouraged by economic exigencies to utilize foreign crewmembers
in longshore work illegally or to reflag their vessels to qualify for
the ``reciprocity exception.'' Either of these actions by shippers
would have diminished employment opportunities for Alaskan workers
seeking longshore work, contrary to the purposes of the Coast Guard
Act. The Department received evidence from union representatives that
delay in implementing the Alaska exception would indeed have had an
adverse impact on the employment opportunities of Alaskan workers
seeking longshore work. Consequently, at the time, the Department, for
good cause, determined that the potential harm made it impracticable
and contrary to the public interest to delay implementation by
publishing the rule as a proposed rule.
The Department believes the program and the regulations will in
fact have a positive economic impact on small businesses such as
contract stevedoring companies. These firms will benefit from an
increase in their business opportunities which would not occur but for
the Department's regulations to implement the Alaska exception. The
purpose of the Alaska exception is to insure that, to the extent
possible, U.S. contract stevedoring companies and private dock
operators, some of which may be small businesses, are given a chance to
compete for jobs which would otherwise go to foreign nationals. The
only burden imposed by the regulations will fall upon foreign shippers
who seek to employ alien workers in longshore work on foreign-flagged
vessels which are registered in countries that do not afford similar
work opportunities for U.S. longshoremen.
Finally, it is noted that other than the Chief Counsel's letter and
despite the fact that the Department notified all relevant parties of
the publication of the interim final rule in the Federal Register, the
two comments described above were the only others received, neither of
which concerned the economic impact of the rule on small businesses.
This is a new program and we believe that the paperwork burden will
be reduced in subsequent years due to increased familiarity with the
provisions contained in the regulations. The Department is very
concerned about the reporting and record keeping burden on the
regulated community, including small businesses, and is fully committed
to reducing this burden where appropriate. In the instant case,
however, we believe that the reporting and record keeping requirements
under the Alaska exception and contained herein are required to
maintain the program's integrity and to effectively carry out the
Secretary's responsibilities in protecting the wages and working
conditions of U.S. workers under the INA.
The regulations for the attestation program for employers using
alien crewmembers for longshore work in the United States are published
at 20 CFR part 655, subparts F and G, and 29 CFR part 506, subparts F
and G, 60 FR 3950 (January 19, 1995).
Regulatory Impact and Administrative Procedure
E.O. 12866
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the Department of Labor
has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action as
defined in section 3(f) of the Order.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of Labor has notified the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy, Small Business Administration, and made the certification
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the
rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number
This program is not listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance.
List Of Subjects
20 CFR Part 655
Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Aliens,
Crewmembers, Employment, Enforcement, Fashion Models, Forest and Forest
products, Guam, Health professions, Immigration, Labor, Longshore work,
Migrant labor, Nurse, Penalties, Registered nurse, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Specialty occupation, Students, Wages.
29 CFR Part 506
Administrative practice and procedures, Aliens, Crewmembers,
Employment, Enforcement, Immigration, Labor, Longshore work, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Adoption of the Joint Final Rule
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 20 CFR part 655,
subparts F and G, and 29 CFR part 506, subparts F and G, which was
published at 60 FR 3950 on January 19, 1995, is adopted as a final rule
without change.
[[Page 46991]]
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1288(c) and (d).
Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of August, 1996.
Robert B. Reich,
Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 96-22510 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P; 4510-27-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22262 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and - 15 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46704-46706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22262]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-204-AD; Amendment 39-9735; AD 96-18-11]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and -
15 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and -15 series
airplanes, that requires repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the
bulkhead tee caps, and repair and follow-on actions, if necessary. It
also provides for an optional terminating modification for the
repetitive inspections. This amendment is prompted by reports of
cracking in the bulkhead tee caps at a fuselage station in the area of
certain longerons due to fatigue. The actions specified by this AD are
intended to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could result in loss
of pressurization and damage to adjacent structure.
DATES: Effective October 10, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen Moreland, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone
(310) 627-5238; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model
DC-10-10 and -15 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register
on March 28, 1995 (61 FR 13787). That action proposed to require
repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the bulkhead tee caps, and
repair and follow-on actions, if necessary. The proposal would also
provide for an optional terminating modification for the repetitive
inspections.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the
[[Page 46705]]
making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the
comments received.
Support for the Proposal
Two commenters support the proposal.
Request to Ensure that Parts are Available
One commenter who supports the proposal is concerned that enough
replacement parts may not be available to support the repair
requirements of the proposed rule.
The FAA responds to this concern by stating that the manufacturer
has advised that ample replacement tee cap splices will be available to
the U.S. fleet in support of any necessary repair that may be required
as a result of the inspection required by this rule.
Request for a Revision of Initial Inspection Interval
Two commenters request that the proposed rule be revised to extend
the initial inspection interval for airplanes on which the modification
specified in the manufacturer's Structural Repair Manual (SRM), Chapter
53-40-00, Volume 1, has been accomplished. This modification involves
installing an arrowhead doubler at station Y=1156.000. For airplanes
with this modification, the commenters request that the initial
inspection interval be changed from the proposed 1,500 landings to
2,200 landings. The commenters state that this extension will allow the
inspection to be accomplished during regularly scheduled maintenance
(i.e., a ``C'' check) at a main base. One commenter states that trying
to accomplish a radiographic inspection at a field station (rather than
at a main base) is very difficult and, if cracks are detected during
the inspection, it is nearly impossible to repair them at a field
station since trained personnel and appropriate equipment may not be
available.
The FAA does not concur with the commenters' request for two
reasons:
First, the accomplishment of the SRM modification specified by the
commenters has been determined--via an assessment by both the airframe
manufacturer and the FAA--to have no effect on the time that cracks may
initiate and grow in the bulkhead tee caps at fuselage station
Y=1156.00. Although the McDonnell Douglas service bulletin cited in
this rule does refer to that SRM modification, the reference is made
only to discuss the fact that the accomplishment of the SRM
modification affects the methodology that must be used for the
inspection and installation of a preventative modification of the
bulkhead tee cap. Therefore, there is no basis to connect the
inspection times required by this AD to whether or not the SRM
modification has been accomplished.
Second, the compliance time for the initial inspection required by
this AD is based on the reports of fatigue cracking in the bulkhead tee
caps on airplanes that had accumulated between 56,394 and 72,931 total
flight hours and between 21,629 and 26,094 total landings. The FAA has
determined that inspections of this area by the time the airplane has
accumulated at least 20,000 total landings will ensure that fatigue
cracking is detected before it reaches a critical length.
The ``1,500 landings'' specified in the AD's compliance time is a
``grace period'' that was established to preclude grounding airplanes
that have exceeded the 20,000-landing threshold. In determining an
appropriate ``grace period'' for this action, the FAA not only
considered the degree of urgency associated with addressing the unsafe
condition, but normal scheduled maintenance for the majority of
affected operators, recommendations of the manufacturer, analysis of
the rate of crack growth, and reports of cracking found in the in-
service fleet. In consideration of all of these factors, the FAA finds
that the 1,500-landing ``grace period'' for initiating the required
inspections on higher-time airplanes to be warranted, in that it
represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for airplanes to
continue to operate without compromising safety.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 133 Model McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10
and -15 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet.
The FAA estimates that 121 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected
by this AD, that it will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane
to accomplish the required inspections, and that the average labor rate
is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD
on U.S. operators is estimated to be $21,780, or $180 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-18-11 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-9735. Docket 95-NM-204-AD.
Applicability: Model DC-10-10 and -15 series airplanes, as
listed in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-53-168, dated
August 9, 1995; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability
[[Page 46706]]
provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified,
altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this
AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so
that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the
owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of
compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request
should include an assessment of the effect of the modification,
alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD;
and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request
should include specific proposed actions to address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent fatigue cracking, which could result in loss of
pressurization and damage to adjacent structure, accomplish the
following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total landings, or
within 1,500 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, perform an eddy current and radiographic inspection,
as applicable, to detect cracks in the bulkhead tee caps (left and
right sides) in the area of longerons 38.0 through 41.0 at fuselage
station Y=1156.000, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin DC10-53-168, dated August 9, 1995.
(1) If no cracks are detected, repeat the inspections thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 2,600 landings until paragraph (b) of
this AD is accomplished.
(2) If any crack is detected, prior to further flight,
accomplish the repair specified in either paragraph (a)(2)(i) or
(a)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Splice in a new bulkhead tee cap section at cracked area of
bulkhead tee cap in accordance with the service bulletin. Within
20,000 total landings after accomplishing this repair, perform eddy
current inspections to detect cracks in accordance with the service
bulletin. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 2,600 landings until paragraph (b) of this AD is
accomplished. If any crack is detected, prior to further flight,
repair it in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate.
(ii) Repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Los Angeles ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(b) Terminating action for the repetitive inspections required
by paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i) of this AD is as follows:
(1) Accomplish the preventative modification and eddy current
open hole inspection in accordance with Condition 1 (no cracks in
bulkhead tee cap), Option 2, of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
DC10-53-168, dated August 9, 1995. And
(2) Within 14,450 total landings following accomplishment of the
modification specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this AD, perform an
eddy current and radiographic inspection to detect cracks, in
accordance with Condition 1 (no cracks in bulkhead tee cap), Option
2, of the service bulletin.
(i) If no cracks are detected, repeat the inspections thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 3,950 landings.
(ii) If any crack is detected, prior to further flight, repair
it in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles
ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) The inspections shall be done in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-53-168, dated August 9, 1995. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention:
Technical Publications Business Administration, Department C1-L51
(2-60). Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on October 10, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 26, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22262 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22144 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320-111, -211, and -231 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46703-46704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22144]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-249-AD; Amendment 39-9730; AD 96-18-06]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320-111, -211, and -231
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Airbus Model A320-111, -211, and -231 series
airplanes, that requires visual inspections to detect cracks of the
fittings of the pressurized floor at frame 36, and renewal of the zone
protective finish or replacement of fittings with new fittings, if
necessary. This amendment is prompted by a report of fatigue cracking
found on the pressurized floor fitting at frame 36 under the lower
surface panel. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent
such fatigue cracking, which could result in failure of a floor fitting
and subsequent depressurization of the fuselage.
DATES: Effective October 10, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2797; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A320-111, -
211, and -231 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on
April 19, 1996 (61 FR 17257). That action proposed to require visual
inspection(s) to detect cracks of the six fittings of the pressurized
floor at frame 36 under the lower surface panel, and renewing the zone
protective finish or replacement of the fittings with new fittings, if
necessary.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the two comments received.
Both commenters support the proposed rule.
New Service Information
Airbus has issued Revision 1 of Service Bulletin A320-57-1028,
dated April 19, 1996. This revision is essentially identical in its
technical content as the original version, which was cited in the
proposal as the appropriate source of service information. The
Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the
airworthiness authority for France, has classified this revised service
bulletin as mandatory. Accordingly, this final rule has been revised to
reference Revision 1 of the service bulletin. It has also been revised
to note that any of the required actions that were performed in
accordance with the originally issued service bulletin prior to the
effective date of the final rule are considered acceptable for
compliance with this AD.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the change previously
described. The FAA has determined that this change will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 22 Airbus Model A320-111, -211, and -231
series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it
will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the
required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $3,960, or $180 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
[[Page 46704]]
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-18-06 Airbus Industrie: Amendment 39-9730. Docket 95-NM-249-AD.
Applicability: Model A320-111, -211, and -231 series airplanes;
manufacturer's serial numbers 002 through 008 inclusive, 010 through
014 inclusive, 016 through 078 inclusive, and 080 through 104
inclusive; on which Airbus Modification 21282P01497 (reference
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1029) has not been installed;
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent fatigue cracking on the pressurized floor fitting at
frame 36 under the lower surface panel, which could result in
failure of a fitting and subsequent depressurization of the
fuselage, accomplish the following:
Note 2: Inspections and replacement(s) that were performed prior
to the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-57-1028, dated April 12, 1996, are considered
acceptable for compliance with this AD.
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 16,000 total landings, or
within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, perform a visual inspection to detect cracks of the 6
fittings of the pressurized floor at frame 36 under the lower
surface panel, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-
1028, Revision 1, dated April 19, 1996.
(1) If no cracking is found, prior to further flight, renew the
zone protective finish in accordance with the service bulletin.
Repeat the visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
12,000 landings.
(2) If only 1 of the 6 fittings is found to be cracked and that
crack is less than or equal to 0.59 inch (15 mm) in length, prior to
further flight, replace the cracked fitting with a new fitting in
accordance with the service bulletin. Thereafter, prior to the
accumulation of 500 landings following accomplishment of this
replacement, replace the remaining 5 fittings with new fittings in
accordance with the service bulletin.
(3) If only 1 of the 6 fittings is found to be cracked and that
crack is greater than 0.59 inch (15 mm) in length, prior to further
flight, replace all six fittings with new fittings in accordance
with the service bulletin.
(4) If 2 or more fittings are found to be cracked, prior to
further flight, replace all 6 fittings with new fittings in
accordance with the service bulletin.
(b) Replacement of all 6 fittings with new fittings in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 1,
dated April 19, 1996, constitutes terminating action for the
inspection requirements of this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(d) The actions shall be done in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 1, dated April 19, 1996, which
contains the following list of effective pages:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision level
Page number shown on page Date shown on page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-3............................ 1.............. Apr. 19, 1996.
4-15........................... Original....... Aug. 12, 1991.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on October 10, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 23, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22144 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-21941 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 173 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46906-46985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21941]
[[Page 46905]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 63
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions:
Group I Polymers and Resins; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 173 / Thursday, September 5, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 46906]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-5543-1]
RIN 2060-AE37
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) from existing and new plant sites
that emit organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) identified on the
EPA's list of 189 HAP. The organic HAP are emitted during the
manufacture of one or more elastomers.
In the production of elastomers, a variety of organic HAP are used
as monomers or process solvents. Available emissions data gathered in
conjunction with the development of the elastomer standards show that
the following organic HAP are those which have the potential for
reduction by implementation of the standard: Styrene, n-hexane, 1,3-
butadiene, acrylonitrile, methyl chloride, hydrogen chloride, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroprene, and toluene. Some of these pollutants are
considered to be mutagens and carcinogens, and all can cause reversible
or irreversible toxic effects following exposure. The potential toxic
effects include eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation; liver and
kidney toxicity, and neurotoxicity. These effects can range from mild
to severe. The rule is estimated to reduce organic HAP emissions from
existing affected sources by over 6,300 megagrams per year (Mg/yr). The
majority of the organic HAP regulated by these standards are also
volatile organic compounds (VOC). In reducing emissions of organic HAP,
VOC are also reduced.
The rule implements section 112(d) of the Act, which requires the
Administrator to regulate emissions of HAP listed in section 112(b) of
the Act. The intended effect of this rule is to protect the public by
requiring the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of organic HAP
from new and existing major sources that the Administrator determines
is achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction, and any nonair quality, health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 1996. See the Supplementary Information
section concerning judicial review.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-92-44, containing information
considered by the EPA in development of the promulgated standards, is
available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, at the following address in room M-1500,
Waterside Mall (ground floor): U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street
SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning applicability
and other rule determinations, inquiries should be directed to the
appropriate regional office contact listed below:
Greg Roscoe, Air Programs Compliance, Branch Chief, U.S. EPA Region I,
5EA, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-3221.
Kenneth Eng, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA Region II, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4000.
Bernard Turlinski, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA Region III
(3AT10), 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 597-3989.
Jewell A. Harper, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. EPA Region IV, 3345
Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347-2904.
George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA Region
V (5AE-26), 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-2088.
John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA Region VI, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-7220.
Donald Toensing, Chief, Air Permitting and Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA
Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-
7446.
Douglas M. Skie, Air and Technical Operations, Branch Chief, U.S. EPA
Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303)
312-6432.
Colleen W. McKaughan, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1198.
Christopher Hall, Air Toxics Program Manager, U.S. EPA Region X, 1200
Sixth Avenue, OAQ-107, Seattle, WA 98101-9797, (206) 553-1949.
For information concerning the technical analysis for this rule,
contact Mr. Robert Rosensteel at (919) 541-5608, Organic Chemicals
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated entities. Entities potentially
regulated by this action are elastomer product process units (EPPUs)
manufacturing the same primary product and located at a plant site that
is a major source of HAP. Regulated categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................ Producers of butyl rubber, halobutyl
rubber, epichlorohydrin elastomers,
ethylene propylene rubber, HypalonTM,
neoprene, nitrile butadiene rubber,
nitrile butadiene latex, polysulfide
rubber, polybutadiene rubber/styrene
butadiene rubber by solution, styrene
butadiene latex, and styrene
butadiene rubber by emulsion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.480 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.
Response to Comment Document. The response to comment document for
the promulgated standards contains: (1) A summary of the public
comments made on the proposed standards and the Administrator's
response to the comments; and (2) A summary of the changes made to the
standards since proposal. The document may be obtained from the U.S.
EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone (919) 541-2777; or from the National Technical Information
Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151, telephone
(703) 487-4650. Please refer to ``Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
from Process Units in the Elastomers Manufacturing Industry--Basis and
Purpose Document for Final Standards, Summary of Public Comments and
[[Page 46907]]
Responses'' (EPA-453/R-96-006b; May 1996). This document is also
located in the docket (Docket Item No. V-C-1) and is available for
downloading from the Technology Transfer Network. The Technology
Transfer Network is one of the EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The
Technology Transfer Network provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The service is free
except for the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a
14,400 bps modem. If more information on the Technology Transfer
Network is needed, call the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Previous Background Documents. The following is a listing of
background documents pertaining to this rulemaking. The complete title,
EPA publication number, publication date, and docket number are
included. Where appropriate, the abbreviated descriptive title is used
to refer to the document throughout this notice.
(1) Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Process Units in the
Elastomer Manufacturing Industry--Supplementary Information Document
for Proposed Standards. EPA-453/R-95-005a, May 1995; Docket number A-
92-44, item number III-B-2.
(2) Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Process Units in the
Elastomer Manufacturing Industry--Basis and Purpose Document for
Proposed Standards. EPA-453/R-95-006a, May 1995; Docket number A-92-44,
item number III-B-1.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial
review of the final rule is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit within 60 days of today's publication of this final rule. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements that are the subject of
today's notice may not be challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Summary of Considerations Made in Developing This Standard
A. Background and Purpose of the Regulation
B. Source of Authority
C. Technical Basis of Regulation
D. Stakeholder and Public Participation
II. Summary of Promulgated Standards
A. Storage Vessel Provisions
B. Front-End Process Vent Provisions
C. Back-end Process Provisions
D. Wastewater Provisions
E. Equipment Leak Provisions
F. Emissions Averaging Provisions
G. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions and Monitoring
Requirements
H. Recordkeeping and Reporting Provisions
III. Summary of Impacts
A. Facilities Affected by these NESHAP
B. Primary Air Impacts
C. Other Environmental Impacts
D. Energy Impacts
E. Cost Impacts
F. Economic Impacts
IV. Significant Comments and Changes to the Proposed Standards
A. Applicability Provisions and Definitions
B. Storage Vessel Provisions
C. Continuous Front-end Process Vent Provisions
D. Batch Front-end Process Vent Provisions
E. Back-end Process Operation Provisions
F. Wastewater Operations Provisions
G. Equipment Leak Provisions
H. Emissions Averaging Provisions
I. Monitoring
J. Recordkeeping and Reporting
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12866
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA)
F. Unfunded Mandates
I. Summary of Considerations Made in Developing This Standard
A. Background and Purpose of Regulation
The Clean Air Act was created in part ``to protect and enhance the
quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public
health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population''
(CAA, section 101(b)(1)). Section 112(b) lists 189 HAP believed to
cause adverse health or environmental effects. Section 112(d) requires
that emission standards be promulgated for all categories and
subcategories of major sources of these HAP and for many smaller
``area'' sources listed for regulation, pursuant to section 112(c).
Major sources are defined as those that emit or have the potential to
emit at least 10 tons per year of any single HAP or 25 tons per year of
any combination of HAP.
On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the EPA published a list of
categories of sources slated for regulation. This list included all
nine of the source categories regulated by the standards being
promulgated today. The statute requires emissions standards for the
listed source categories to be promulgated between November 1992 and
November 2000. On December 3, 1993, the EPA published a schedule for
promulgating these standards (58 FR 83841). Standards for the nine
source categories covered by today's rule were proposed on June 12,
1995 (60 FR 30801).
For the purpose of this rule, the EPA has separated the 9 Group 1
polymers into 12 elastomer products (i.e., subcategories). These
products are butyl rubber (BR), halobutyl rubber (HBR), epichlorohydrin
elastomers (EPI), ethylene propylene rubber (EPR), HypalonTM
(HYP), neoprene (NEO), nitrile butadiene rubber (NBR), nitrile
butadiene latex (NBL), polysulfide rubber (PSR), polybutadiene rubber/
styrene butadiene rubber by solution (PBR/SBRS), styrene butadiene
latex (SBL), and styrene butadiene rubber by emulsion (SBRE).
In the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress specified
that each standard for major sources must require the maximum reduction
in emissions of HAP that the EPA determines is achievable, considering
cost, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements. In essence, these Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards would ensure that all major sources of air toxics
achieve the level of control already being achieved by the better
controlled and lower emitting sources in each category. This approach
provides assurance to citizens that each major source of toxic air
pollution will be required to employ good control measures to limit its
emissions.
Available emission data, collected during the development of this
rule, shows that pollutants that are listed in section 112(b)(1) and
are emitted by Group I Polymer and Resins sources include n-hexane,
styrene, 1,3-butadiene, acrylonitrile, methyl chloride, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroprene, and toluene. Some of these pollutants are
considered to be probable human carcinogens when inhaled, and all can
cause reversible and irreversible toxic effects following exposure.
These effects include respiratory and skin irritation, effects upon the
eye, various systemic effects including effects upon the liver, kidney,
heart and circulatory systems, neurotoxic effects, and in extreme
cases, death.
The EPA does recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health
can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the
health effects may be experienced is dependent upon (1) the ambient
concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as influenced by emission
rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain), (2) the frequency of
and duration of exposures, (3) characteristics of the exposed
individuals (e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and
lifestyle) which vary significantly with the
[[Page 46908]]
population, and (4) pollutant specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity,
half-life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence).
Due to the volatility and relatively low potential for
bioaccumulation of these pollutants, air emissions are not expected to
deposit on land or water and cause subsequent adverse health or
ecosystem effects.
The alternatives considered in the development of this regulation,
including those alternatives selected as standards for new and existing
elastomer sources, are based on process and emissions data received
from every existing elastomer facility known to be in operation at the
time of the initial data collection. During the development of today's
rule, the EPA met with industry several times to discuss this data. In
addition, facilities and State regulatory authorities had the
opportunity to comment on draft versions of the proposed regulation and
to provide additional information. The EPA published the proposed rule
for comment on June 12, 1995 (60 FR 30801). The public comments that
were received on the proposed rule are summarized in the Basis and
Purpose Document for Final Standards, Summary of Public Comments and
Responses (Docket Item No. V-C-1). These comments were considered, and
in some cases, today's standards reflect these comments. Of major
concern to commenters were the reporting and recordkeeping burden and
the requirements for back-end process operations and wastewater
control.
The final standards give existing sources 3 years from the date of
promulgation to comply. Subject to certain limited exceptions, this is
the maximum amount of time allowed under the Clean Air Act. New sources
are required to comply with the standard upon startup. The EPA believes
these standards to be achievable for affected sources within the
timeframes provided. The number of existing sources affected by this
rule is less than 50; therefore, the EPA does not believe that required
retrofits or other actions cannot be achieved in the time frame
allotted.
Included in the final rule are methods for determining initial
compliance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. All of these components are necessary to ensure that
sources will comply with the standards both initially and over time.
However, the EPA has made every effort to simplify the requirements in
the rule. The Agency has also attempted to maintain consistency with
existing regulations by either incorporating text from existing
regulations or referencing the applicable sections, depending on which
method would be least confusing for a given situation.
As described in the ``Basis and Purpose Document for Proposed
Standards'' (EPA-453/R-95-006a), regulatory alternatives were
considered that included a combination of requirements equal to, and
above, the MACT floor. Cost-effectiveness was a factor considered in
evaluating options above the floor; in cases where options more
stringent than the floor were selected, they were judged to have a
reasonable cost effectiveness. For epichlorohydrin rubber (EPR),
polybutadiene rubber (PBR)/styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) (by
solution), and SBR (by emulsion) the estimated cost effectiveness was
found to be relatively high at the MACT floor level due to the
requirements for process back-end operations. However, the back-end
provisions of the regulation contain several options for compliance
that will allow facilities to select the most cost-effective option
based on facility-specific considerations.
Representatives from other interested EPA offices and programs are
included in the regulatory development process as members of the Work
Group. The Work Group is involved in the regulatory development
process, and must review and concur with the regulation before proposal
and promulgation. Therefore, the EPA believes that the implications to
other EPA offices and programs have been adequately considered during
the development of these standards.
B. Source of Authority
National emission standards for new and existing sources of HAP
established under section 112(d) reflect MACT or
* * * the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the HAP *
* * that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is
achievable for new or existing sources in the category or
subcategory to which such emission standard applies * * * (42 U.S.C.
7412(d)(2)).
For new sources, section 112(d)(3) provides that the standards for
a source category or subcategory ``shall not be less stringent than the
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled
similar source, as determined by the Administrator.'' Section 112(d)(3)
provides further that for existing sources the standards shall be no
less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for source
categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources or the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources for
source categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. These
two minimum levels of control define the MACT floor for new and
existing sources.
The regulatory alternatives considered in the development of this
regulation, including those regulatory alternatives selected as
standards for new and existing affected sources, are based on process
and emissions data received from the existing plant sites known by the
EPA to be in operation.
As stated above, the MACT floor represents the least stringent
standard permitted by law for new and existing sources. The EPA may
establish standards more stringent than the MACT floor when it
determines that such standards are achievable, ``taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any
nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements'' (42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(2)). In a few instances, the
standards in today's rule are more stringent than the MACT floor. In
each case, the EPA determined, based on available data, that such
standards were achievable within the meaning of section 112(d). Table 1
shows the subcategory-specific instances where an option was selected
that was more stringent than the MACT floor, along with the
corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness from the MACT floor.
Table 1.--Incremental Cost Effectiveness Values of Regulatory Options More Stringent Than the MACT Floor a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental cost effectiveness b ($/Mg)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Front-end process
Storage vents Back-end process Wastewater Equipment leaks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butyl.............................. floor................. $3,100................ floor................ $1,600............... $1,700
[[Page 46909]]
Epichlorohydrin.................... floor................. floor................. floor................ floor................ $2,000
Ethylene propylene................. floor................. floor................. floor................ floor................ $2,000
Halobutyl.......................... $300.................. $1,400................ floor................ floor................ $1,100
Hypalon.................. floor................. floor................. floor................ floor................ floor
Neoprene........................... floor................. $2,900................ floor................ floor................ c $1,600
Nitrile butadiene latex............ floor................. floor................. floor................ floor................ c $2,600
Nitrile butadiene rubber........... floor................. floor................. floor................ floor................ c $1,200
Polybutadiene/styrene butadiene floor................. floor................. floor................ floor................ c $2,600
rubber by solution.
Polysulfide........................ floor................. floor................. floor................ floor................ floor
Styrene butadiene latex............ floor................. floor................. floor................ floor................ floor
Styrene butadiene rubber by floor................. floor................. floor................ floor................ floor
emulsion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a In the table, ``floor'' indicates that the level of the promulgated standard is equivalent to the MACT floor.
b The incremental cost effectiveness reflects the cost and emission reduction from the MACT floor to the level of the promulgated standard.
c Equipment leak control programs at elastomer production facilities consisted of a complex combination of controls for the numerous components that can
leak and cause HAP emissions. This complexity made it impractical to define a MACT floor ``program'' for which impacts could be assessed for multiple-
plant subcategories. Therefore, the cost effectiveness values shown in the table represent the incremental cost effectiveness values from baseline.
C. Technical Basis of Regulation
Potential regulatory alternatives were developed based on the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) (subparts F, G, and H of 40 CFR part
63), and the Batch Processes Alternative Control Techniques (ACT)
document (EPA 453/R-93-017; November 1993). The HON was selected as a
basis for regulatory alternatives because: (1) The characteristics of
the emissions from storage vessels, continuous front-end process vents,
equipment leaks, and wastewater at Group I elastomer facilities are
similar or identical to those addressed by the HON; and (2) the levels
of control required under the HON were already determined through
extensive analyses to be reasonable from a cost and impact perspective.
Finally, the Batch Processes ACT was selected to identify
regulatory alternatives for batch process vents, which are not
addressed by the HON. The Batch Processes ACT addresses the control of
VOC emissions, and all of the organic HAP identified for the Group I
elastomers facilities are also VOC. Unlike the HON, the Batch Processes
ACT is not a regulation and, therefore, does not specify a level of
control that must be met. Instead, the Batch Processes ACT provides
information on potential levels of control, their costs, etc. Based on
the review of the Batch Processes ACT, the EPA selected a level of
control equivalent to 90 percent reduction for batch front-end process
vents. This level of control was selected for regulatory analysis
purposes because it represents a reasonable level of control
considering costs and other impacts.
D. Stakeholder and Public Participation
In the development of this standard, numerous representatives of
the elastomers industry were consulted. Industry representatives have
included trade associations and elastomer producers responding to
section 114 questionnaires and information collection requests (ICR's).
The EPA also received input from representatives from State and
Regional environmental agencies. Representatives from other interested
EPA offices and programs participated in the regulatory development
process as members of the Work Group. The Work Group is involved in the
regulatory development process, and is given opportunities to review
and comment on the standards before proposal and promulgation.
Therefore, the EPA believes that the impact on other EPA offices and
programs has been adequately considered during the development of these
standards. In addition, the EPA has met with members of industry
concerning these standards. Finally, industry representatives,
regulatory authorities, and environmental groups had the opportunity to
comment on the proposed standards and to provide additional information
during the public comment period that followed proposal.
The standards were proposed in the Federal Register on June 12,
1995 (60 FR 30801). The preamble to the proposed standards described
the rationale for the proposed standards. Public comments were
solicited at the time of proposal. To provide interested persons the
opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments
concerning the proposed standards, a public hearing was offered at
proposal. However, the public did not request a hearing and, therefore,
one was not held. The public comment period was from June 12, 1995 to
August 11, 1995. A total of twenty-nine comment letters were received.
Commenters included industry representatives and State agencies. The
comments were carefully considered, and changes were made in the
proposed standards when determined by the EPA to be appropriate. A
detailed discussion of these comments and responses can be found in the
Basis and Purpose Document for Final Standards, which is referenced in
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. The summary of comments and
responses in the Basis and Purpose Document for the Final Standards
serves as the basis for the revisions that have been made to the
standards between proposal and promulgation. Section IV of this
preamble discusses some of the major changes made to the standards.
II. Summary of Promulgated Standards
Emissions of specific organic HAP from the following types of
emission points (i.e., emission source types) are being covered by the
final standard: Storage vessels, continuous front-end process vents,
batch front-end process vents, back-end processes operations, equipment
leaks, and wastewater operations. The organic HAP emitted and required
to be controlled by these standards vary by subcategory. Each of the
twelve elastomer products constitutes a separate subcategory, each of
which belongs to one of the nine
[[Page 46910]]
source categories regulated by these standards.
The existing affected source is defined as each group of one or
more EPPUs that manufacture the same elastomer product as their primary
product, and (1) are located at a major source plant site, (2) are not
exempt, and (3) are not part of a new affected source. This means that
each plant site will have only one existing affected source in any
given subcategory.
If a plant site with an existing affected source producing
elastomer A as its primary product constructs a new EPPU also producing
elastomer A as its primary product, the new EPPU is a new affected
source if the new EPPU has the potential to emit more than 10 tons per
year of a single HAP, or 25 tons per year of all HAP. In this
situation, the plant site would have an existing affected source
producing elastomer A, and a new affected source producing elastomer A.
Each subsequent new EPPU with potential HAP emissions above the levels
cited above would be a separate new affected source.
New affected sources are also created when an EPPU is constructed
at a major source plant site where the elastomer product was not
previously produced, with no regard to the potential HAP emissions from
the EPPU. Another instance where a new affected source is created is if
a new EPPU is constructed at a new plant site (i.e., green field site)
that will be a major source. The final manner in which a new affected
source is created is when an existing affected source undergoes
reconstruction, thus making the previously existing source subject to
new source standards.
With relatively few exceptions, the final standards for storage
vessels, continuous front-end process vents, equipment leaks, and
wastewater streams are the same as those promulgated for the
corresponding types of emission points at facilities subject to the
HON. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, some subcategories have requirements
that differ from the HON; these cases are designated by ``MACT Floor.''
These different requirements are specified in the final standards.
As in the HON, if an emission point within an affected source meets
the applicability criteria and is required to be controlled under the
standard, it is referred to as a Group 1 emission point. If an emission
point within the affected source is not required to apply controls, it
is referred to as a Group 2 emission point.
A. Storage Vessel Provisions
For all subcategories, the storage vessel requirements are
identical to the HON storage vessel requirements in subpart G. A
storage vessel means a tank or other vessel that is associated with an
elastomer product process unit and that stores a liquid containing one
or more organic HAP. The rule specifies assignment procedures for
determining whether a storage vessel is associated with an elastomer
product process unit. The storage vessel provisions do not apply to the
following: (1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles, (2)
pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kpa (29.7 psia)
and without emissions to the atmosphere, (3) vessels with capacities
smaller than 38 m\3\ (10,000 gal), (4) vessels and equipment storing
and/or handling material that contains no detectable organic HAP, and/
or organic HAP as impurities only, (5) surge control vessels and
bottoms receiver tanks, and (6) wastewater storage tanks. An impurity
is produced coincidentally with another chemical substance and is
processed, used, or distributed with it.
In addition to those vessels that do not meet the definition of
storage vessels, the standards exempt certain storage vessels
containing latex. Specifically, storage vessels containing a latex,
located downstream of the stripping operations, all storage vessels
containing styrene butadiene latex, and storage vessels containing
styrene, acrylamide, and epichlorohydrin, are exempt from the storage
vessel requirements of the final rule.
The owner or operator must determine whether a storage vessel is
Group 1 or Group 2; Group 1 storage vessels require control. The
criteria for determining whether a storage vessel is Group 1 or Group 2
are the same as the HON criteria.
Table 2.--Summary of Final Standards for Existing Affected Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of final standard a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Back-end process
Storage Front-end process vents emissions Wastewater Equipment leaks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BR, HBR.......................... HON................. HON/ACT, exempting halogenated no control.......... HON................. HON.
vent streams controlled by
flare or boiler before June
12, 1995.
EPI, HYP, NEO, NBL, NBR, PSR, SBL HON................. HON/ACT....................... no control.......... HON................. HON.
EPR.............................. HON................. HON/ACT, exempting halogenated MACT floor residual HON................. HON.
vent streams controlled by HAP limit.
flare or boiler before June
12, 1995.
PBR/SBRS, SBRE................... HON................. HON/ACT....................... MACT floor residual HON................. HON.
HAP limit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a HON=the level of the standard is equivalent to existing source provisions of subpart G of 40 CFR 63 for storage and wastewater, and subpart H of 40
CFR 63 for equipment leaks.
HON/ACT=the level of the standard for continuous front-end process vents is equal to the existing source process vent provisions in subpart G of 40 CFR
63, and the level of the standard for batch front-end process vents is equal to the 90 percent control level from the Batch Processes ACT.
[[Page 46911]]
Table 3.--Summary of Final Standards for New Affected Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of standard a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Front-end process Back-end process
Storage vents emissions Wastewater Equipment leaks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BR, EPI, HBR, HYP, NEO, NBL, NBR, New source HON........ New source HON/ACT.... No control........... Existing source HON.. New source HON
SBL.
EPR, PBR/SBRS, SBRE................ New source HON........ New source HON/ACT.... New source floor Existing source HON.. New source HON
residual HAP limit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a HON=the level of the standard is equivalent to the provisions of subpart G of 40 CFR 63 for storage and wastewater, and subpart H of 40 CFR 63 for
equipment leaks.
HON/ACT=the level of the standard for continuous front-end process vents is equal to the new source process vent provisions in subpart G of 40 CFR 63,
and the level of the standard for batch front-end process vents is equal to the 90 percent control level from the Batch Processes ACT.
The storage provisions require that one of the following control
systems be applied to Group 1 storage vessels: (1) An internal floating
roof with proper seals and fittings; (2) an external floating roof with
proper seals and fittings; (3) an external floating roof converted to
an internal floating roof with proper seals and fittings; or (4) a
closed vent system with a 95-percent efficient control device. The
storage provisions give details on the types of seals and fittings
required. Monitoring and compliance provisions include periodic visual
inspections of vessels, roof seals, and fittings, as well as internal
inspections. If a closed vent system and control device is used, the
owner or operator must establish appropriate monitoring procedures.
Reports and records of inspections, repairs, and other information
necessary to determine compliance are also required by the storage
provisions. No controls are required for Group 2 storage vessels.
B. Front-End Process Vent Provisions
There are separate provisions in the rule for front-end process
vents that originate from unit operations operated in a continuous
mode, and those from unit operations operated in a batch mode. An
affected source could be subject to both the continuous and batch
front-end process vent provisions if front-end operations at an
elastomer production process unit consist of a combination of
continuous and batch unit operations. The continuous provisions would
be applied to those vents from continuous unit operations, and the
batch provisions to vents from batch unit operations.
1. Continuous Front-End Process Vent Provisions
The provisions in the final rule for continuous front-end process
vents are the same as the HON process vent provisions in subpart G.
Continuous front-end process vents are gas streams that originate from
continuously operated units in the front-end of an elastomer process,
and include gas streams discharged directly to the atmosphere and gas
streams discharged to the atmosphere after diversion through a product
recovery device. The continuous front-end process vent provisions apply
only to vents that emit gas streams containing more than 0.005 weight-
percent HAP.
A Group 1 continuous front-end process vent is defined as a
continuous front-end process vent with a flow rate greater than or
equal to 0.005 scmm, an organic HAP concentration greater than or equal
to 50 ppmv, and a total resource effectiveness (TRE) index value less
than or equal to 1.0. The continuous front-end process vent provisions
require the owner or operator of a Group 1 continuous front-end process
vent stream to: (1) Reduce the emissions of organic HAP using a flare;
(2) reduce emissions of organic HAP by 98 weight-percent or to a
concentration of 20 ppmv or less; or (3) achieve and maintain a TRE
index above 1. Performance test provisions are included for Group 1
continuous front-end process vents to verify that the control device
achieves the required performance.
The organic HAP reduction is based on the level of control achieved
by the reference control technology. Group 2 continuous front-end
process vent streams with TRE index values between 1.0 and 4.0 are
required to monitor those process vent streams to ensure those streams
do not become Group 1, which require control.
The owner or operator can calculate a TRE index value to determine
whether each process vent is a Group 1 or Group 2 continuous front-end
process vent, or the owner or operator can elect to comply directly
with the control requirements without calculating the TRE index. The
TRE index value is determined after the final recovery device in the
process or prior to venting to the atmosphere. The TRE calculation
involves an emissions test or engineering assessment and use of the TRE
equations in Sec. 63.115 of subpart G.
The rule encourages pollution prevention through product recovery
because an owner or operator of a Group 1 continuous front-end process
vent may add recovery devices or otherwise reduce emissions to the
extent that the TRE becomes greater than 1.0 and the Group 1 continuous
front-end process vent becomes a Group 2 continuous front-end process
vent.
Group 1 halogenated streams controlled using a combustion device
must vent the emissions from the combustor to an acid gas scrubber or
other device to limit emissions of halogens prior to venting to the
atmosphere. The control device must reduce the overall emissions of
hydrogen halides and halogens by 99 percent or reduce the outlet mass
emission rate of total hydrogen halides and halogens to less than 0.45
kg/hr.
The rule exempts certain halogenated process vent streams from the
requirement to control the halogens at the exit from a combustion
device. Specifically, halogenated continuous front-end process vents at
existing affected sources producing butyl rubber, halobutyl rubber, or
ethylene-propylene rubber are exempt from the requirements to control
hydrogen halides and halogens from the outlet of combustion devices.
However, the rule requires that these vent streams be controlled in
accordance with the other Group 1 requirements for continuous front-end
process vents.
Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions necessary to
demonstrate compliance are also included in the continuous front-end
process vent provisions. Compliance with the monitoring provisions is
based on a comparison of daily average monitored values to enforceable
parameter ``levels'' established by the owner or operator.
[[Page 46912]]
2. Batch Front--End Process Vent Provisions
Process vents that include gas streams originating from batch unit
operations in the front-end of an elastomer product process unit are
subject to the batch front-end process vent provisions of the rule.
Consistent with provisions in the rule for other emission source types,
batch front-end process vents are classified as Group 1 or Group 2,
with control being required for Group 1 batch front-end process vents.
An important aspect of the batch front-end process vent provisions
is that applicability is on an individual vent basis. All batch
emission episodes that are emitted to the atmosphere through the vent
are to be considered in the group determination. The rule does not
require that emissions from similar batch unit operations emitted from
different vents be combined for applicability determinations. In other
words, if a process included four batch reactors, and each reactor had
a dedicated vent to the atmosphere, applicability would be determined
for each reactor.
The applicability criteria of the batch front-end process vent
provisions are from the Batch Processes ACT, and are based on annual
emissions of the HAP emitted from the vent, and the average flow rate
of the vent stream. The vent stream characteristics are determined at
the exit from the batch unit operation before any emission control or
recovery device. The rule specifies that reflux condensers, condensers
recovering monomer or solvent from a batch stripping operation, and
condensers recovering monomer or solvent from a batch distillation
operation are considered part of the unit operation. Therefore, the
batch front-end process vent applicability criteria would be applied
after these condensers.
The first step in the applicability determination is to calculate
the annual HAP emissions. Annual HAP emissions may be calculated using
equations contained in the regulation (which are from the Batch
Processes ACT). Testing or engineering assessment may also be used if
the equations are not appropriate. Batch front-end process vents with
annual HAP emissions less than 225 kilograms per year are exempt from
all batch front-end process vent requirements, other than the
requirement to estimate annual HAP emissions.
There are two tiers of Group 2 batch front-end process vents.
First, if the annual HAP emissions of a vent are below specified cutoff
levels, the batch front-end process vent is classified as a Group 2
vent, and a batch cycle limitation must be established (discussed
below). The cutoff emission level is 11,800 kilograms HAP per year.
If annual HAP emissions are greater than the cutoff emission level
specified above, the owner must determine the annual average flow rate
of the batch front-end process vent, and the ``cutoff flow rate'' using
the equation in Sec. 63.488(f). The Group 1/Group 2 classification is
then based on a comparison between the actual annual average flow rate,
and the cutoff flow rate. If the actual flow rate is less than the
calculated cutoff flow rate, then the batch process vent is a Group 1
vent, and control is required. If the actual flow rate is greater than
the calculated cutoff flow rate, then the batch process vent is a Group
2 batch front-end process vent, and the owner or operator must
establish a batch cycle limitation.
Owners and operators of Group 2 batch front-end process vents must
establish a batch cycle limitation that ensures that HAP emissions from
the vent do not increase to a level that would make the batch front-end
process vent Group 1. The batch cycle limitation is an enforceable
restriction on the number of batch cycles that can be performed in a
year. An owner or operator has two choices regarding the level of the
batch cycle limitation. The limitation may be set to maintain emissions
below the annual emission cutoff level listed above, or the limitation
may be set to ensure that annual emissions do not increase to a level
that makes the calculated cutoff flow rate increase beyond the actual
annual average flow rate. The advantage to the first option is that the
owner or operator would not be required to determine the annual average
flow rate of the vent. A batch cycle limitation does not limit
production to any previous production level, but is based on the number
of cycles necessary to exceed one of the two batch front-end process
vent applicability criteria discussed above.
The batch front-end process vent provisions require the owner or
operator of a Group 1 batch front-end process vent stream to: (1)
Reduce the emissions of organic HAP using a flare or (2) reduce
emissions of organic HAP by 90 weight-percent over each batch cycle
using a control or recovery device. If a halogenated batch vent stream
(defined as a vent that has a mass emission rate of halogen atoms in
organic compounds of 3,750 kilograms per year or greater) is sent to a
combustion device, the outlet stream must be controlled to reduce
emissions of hydrogen halides and halogens by 99 percent. Control could
be achieved at varying levels for different emission episodes as long
as the required level of control for the batch cycle was achieved. The
owner or operator could even elect to control some emission episodes
and by-pass control for others. Performance test provisions are
included for Group 1 batch front-end process vents to verify that the
control device achieves the required performance.
Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions necessary to
demonstrate compliance are also included in the batch front-end process
vent provisions. These provisions are modeled after the analogous
continuous process vent provisions in the HON. Compliance with the
monitoring provisions is based on a comparison of batch cycle daily
average monitored values to enforceable parameter monitoring levels
established by the owner or operator.
The provisions for batch front-end process vents contain three
conditions that can greatly simplify compliance. First, an owner or
operator can control a batch front-end process vent in accordance with
the Group 1 batch front-end process vent requirements and bypass the
applicability determination. Second, if a batch front-end process vent
is combined with a continuous vent stream before a recovery or control
device, the owner or operator is exempt from all batch front-end
process vent requirements. However, applicability determinations and
performance tests for the continuous vent must be conducted at
conditions when the addition of the batch vent streams makes the HAP
concentration in the combined stream greatest. Finally, if batch front-
end process vents combine to create a ``continuous'' flow to a control
or recovery device, the less complicated continuous process vent
monitoring requirements are used.
C. Back-End Process Provisions
Back-end process operations include all operations at an EPPU that
occur after the stripping operations. These operations include, but are
not limited to, filtering, drying, separating, and other finishing
operations, as well as product storage.
The back-end process provisions contain residual HAP limitations
for three subcategories: EPR, PBR/SBRS, and SBRE. The limitations for
EPR and PBR/SBRS are in units of kilograms HAP per megagram of crumb
rubber dry weight (crumb rubber dry weight means the weight of the
polymer, minus the weight of water and residual organics), and the
limitation for SBRE is in units of kilogram HAP per megagram latex.
[[Page 46913]]
The limitation is a monthly average weighted based on the weight of
rubber or latex processed in the stripper. Two methods of compliance
are available: (1) Stripping the polymer to remove the residual HAP to
the levels in the standards, on a monthly weighted average basis, or
(2) reducing emissions using add-on control to a level equivalent to
the level that would be achieved if stripping was used.
1. Compliance Using Stripping Technology
If stripping is the method of compliance selected, the rule allows
two options for demonstrating compliance: by sampling and by monitoring
stripper operating parameters. If compliance is demonstrated by
sampling, samples of the stripped wet crumb or stripped latex must be
taken as soon as safe and feasible after the stripping operation, but
no later than the entry point for the first unit operation following
the stripper (e.g., the watering screen), and analyzed to determine the
residual HAP content. For styrene-butadiene rubber produced by the
emulsion process, the sample of latex shall be taken just prior to
entering the coagulation operations.
A sample must be taken once per day for continuous processes, or
once per batch for batch processes. The sample must be analyzed to
determine the residual HAP content, and the corresponding weight of
rubber or latex processed in the stripper must be recorded. This
information is then used to calculate a monthly weighted average. A
monthly weighted average that is above the limitation is a violation of
the standard, as is a failure to sample and analyze at least 75 percent
of the samples required during the month. The EPA is in the process of
approving test methods that will be used to determine compliance with
the standard. These methods are being promulgated separately by the
EPA. Records of each test result would be required, along with the
corresponding weight of the polymer processed in the stripper. Records
of the monthly weighted averages must also be maintained.
An owner or operator complying using stripping can also demonstrate
compliance by continuously monitoring stripper operating parameters. If
using this approach, the owner or operator must establish stripper
operating parameters for each grade of polymer processed in the
stripper, along with the corresponding residual HAP content of that
grade. The parameters that must be monitored include, at a minimum,
temperature, pressure, steaming rates (for steam strippers), and some
parameter that is indicative of residence time. The HAP content of the
grade must be determined initially using the residual HAP test methods
discussed above. The owner or operator can elect to establish a single
set of stripper operating parameters for multiple grades.
The EPA believes that computer predictive modeling may be an
attractive alternative to the periodic sampling and stripper parametric
monitoring options in the rule, but did not specifically include
provisions for these options, because the use of computer predictive
modeling is so site-specific that it was not possible to include
general requirements for its use in subpart U. However, the rule does
allow the opportunity for site-specific approval of the use of computer
predictive modeling, stack test monitoring, or other alternative means
of compliance through the submittal of an alternative compliance plan.
The difference in the demonstration of compliance by sampling, and
the demonstration of compliance by monitoring stripping parameters, is
that the monitoring option is entirely based on a grade or batch. To
further explain, if a particular grade of polymer is processed in the
stripper continuously for 32 hours, a sample of that grade is required
to be taken each operating day, if the sampling compliance
demonstration option is selected. However, if the stripping parameter
monitoring option is selected, the entire length of time the grade is
being processed in the stripper is treated as a single unit.
During the operation of the stripper, the parameters must be
continuously monitored, with a reading of each parameter taken at least
once every 15 minutes. If, during the processing of a grade, all hourly
average parameter values are in accordance with the established levels,
the owner or operator can use the HAP content determined initially in
the calculation of the monthly weighted average, and sampling is not
required. However, if one hourly average value for any parameter is not
in accordance with the established operating parameter, a sample must
be taken and the HAP content determined using specified test methods.
Records of the initial residual HAP content results, along with the
corresponding stripper parameter monitoring results for the sample,
must be maintained. The hourly average monitoring results are required
to be maintained, along with the results of any HAP content tests
conducted due to exceedance of the established parameter monitoring
levels. Records must also be kept of the weight of polymer processed in
each grade, and the monthly weighted average values.
If complying with the residual HAP limitations using stripping
technology, and demonstrating compliance by monitoring stripper
parameters, there are three ways a facility can be in violation of the
standard. First, a monthly weighted average that is above the
limitation is a violation of the standard, as is a failure to sample
and analyze a sample for a grade with an hourly average parameter value
not in accordance with the established monitoring parameter levels. The
third way for a facility to be out of compliance is if the stripper
monitoring data are not sufficient for at least 75 percent of the
grades produced during the month. Stripper data are considered
insufficient if monitoring parameters are obtained for less than 75
percent of the 15-minute periods during the processing of a grade.
2. Compliance Using Add-On Control
If add-on control is the method of compliance selected, there are
two levels of compliance. Initial compliance is based on a source test,
and continuous compliance is based on the daily average of parameter
monitoring results for the control or recovery device.
The initial performance test must consist of three 1-hour runs or
three complete batch cycles, if the duration of the batch cycle is less
than 1 hour. The test runs must be conducted during processing of
``worst-case'' grade, which means the grade with the highest residual
HAP content leaving the stripper. The ``uncontrolled'' residual HAP
content in the latex or wet crumb rubber must be determined, using the
test methods, after the stripper. Then, when the crumb for which the
uncontrolled residual HAP was determined is being processed in the
back-end unit operation being controlled, the inlet and outlet
emissions for the control or recovery device must be determined using
Method 18 or Method 25A. The uncontrolled HAP content is then adjusted
to account for the reduction in emissions by the control or recovery
device, and compared to the levels in the standard. For initial
compliance, the adjusted residual HAP content level for each test run
must be less than the level in today's standards.
During the initial test, the appropriate parameter must be
monitored, and an enforceable ``level'' established as a maximum or
minimum operating parameter based on this monitoring. As
[[Page 46914]]
with continuous front-end process vents, the level is established as
the average of the maximum (or minimum) point values for the three test
runs.
Continuous monitoring must be conducted on the control or recovery
device, and compliance is based on the daily average of the monitoring
results. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions are
the same as the process vent provisions in the HON, which are required
for continuous front-end process vents in today's final standard.
3. Carbon Disulfide Limitations For Styrene Butadiene Rubber By
Emulsion Producers
Today's regulation would reduce carbon disulfide (CS2)
emissions from styrene butadiene rubber producers using an emulsion
process by limiting the concentration of CS2 in the dryer vent
stacks to 45 ppmv. Sulfur-containing shortstopping agents used to
produce certain grades of rubber have been determined to be the source
of CS2 in the dryer stacks. Owners or operators would be required
to develop standard operating procedures for each grade that uses a
sulfur-containing shortstopping agent. These standard operating
procedures would specify the type and amount of agent added, and the
point in the process where the agent is added. One standard operating
procedure can be used for more than one grade if possible.
The owner or operator is required to validate each standard
operating procedure through either a performance test or a
demonstration using engineering assessment. The facility would be in
compliance with this the regulation if the appropriate standard
operating procedure is followed whenever a sulfur-containing
shortstopping agent is used. Facilities that route dryer vents to a
combustion device would be exempt from Sec. 63.500 of the regulation.
D. Wastewater Provisions
Except for back-end wastewater streams originating from equipment
that only produces latex products and back-end wastewater streams at
affected sources that are subject to the residual organic HAP
limitation, the standards require owners and operators to comply with
the wastewater provisions in the HON. Owners and operators of new and
existing sources are required to make a group determination for each
wastewater stream based on the existing source applicability criteria
in the HON: Flow rate and organic HAP concentration. The level of
control required for Group 1 wastewater streams is dependent upon the
organic HAP constituents in the wastewater stream.
The standards also require owners and operators to comply with the
maintenance wastewater requirements in Sec. 63.105 of subpart F. These
provisions require owners and operators to include a description of
procedures for managing wastewaters generated during maintenance in
their startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
E. Equipment Leak Provisions
For all subcategories, both existing and new affected sources are
required to comply with the equipment leak standards specified in
subpart H of 40 CFR part 63. In general, subpart H requires owners and
operators to implement a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program,
including various work practice and equipment standards. The subpart H
standards are applicable to equipment in volatile HAP service for 300
or more hours per year (hr/yr). The standards define ``in volatile
organic HAP service'' as being in contact with or containing process
fluid that contains a total of 5 percent or more total HAP. Equipment
subject to the standards are: Valves, pumps, compressors, connectors,
pressure relief devices, open-ended valves or lines, sampling
connection systems, instrumentation systems, agitators, surge control
vessels, bottoms receivers, and closed-vent systems and control
devices.
A few differences to the subpart H standards are contained in this
final rule. These differences include not requiring the submittal of an
Initial Notification or Implementation Plan and allowing 150 days
(rather than 90 days) to submit the Notification of Compliance Status.
In addition, the exemptions discussed earlier for storage vessels are
also applicable for surge control vessels and bottoms receivers.
Affected sources subject to today's final rule and currently
complying with the NESHAP for Certain Processes Subject to the
Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart I)
are required to continue to comply with subpart I until the compliance
date of this final rule, at which point in time they must comply with
today's rule and are no longer subject to subpart I. Further, affected
sources complying with subpart I through a quality improvement program
are allowed to continue these programs without interruption as part of
complying with today's rule. In other words, becoming subject to
today's standards does not restart or reset the ``compliance clock'' as
it relates to reduced burden earned through a quality improvement
program.
F. Emissions Averaging Provisions
The EPA is allowing emissions averaging among continuous front-end
process vents, batch front-end process vents, aggregate batch vents,
back-end process operations, storage vessels, and wastewater streams
within an existing affected source. New affected sources are not
allowed to use emissions averaging. Emissions averaging is not allowed
between subcategories; it is only allowed between emission points
within the same affected source. Under emissions averaging, a system of
``credits'' and ``debits'' is used to determine whether an affected
source is achieving the required emission reductions. Twenty emission
points per plant site are allowed in the set of emissions averaging
plans submitted for the plant site, with an additional 5 emission
points allowed if pollution prevention measures are used.
G. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions and Monitoring
Requirements
Compliance and performance test provisions and monitoring
requirements contained in the final standards are very similar to those
found in the HON. Each type of emission point included in the standards
is discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. Also, significant
differences from the parameter monitoring requirements found in the HON
are discussed.
1. Storage Vessels
Monitoring and compliance provisions for storage vessel
improvements include periodic visual inspections of vessels, roof
seals, and fittings, as well as internal inspections. If a control
device is used, the owner or operator must identify the appropriate
monitoring procedures to be followed in order to demonstrate
compliance. Monitoring parameters and procedures for many of the
control devices likely to be used are identified in the final
standards. Reports and records of inspections, repairs, and other
information necessary to determine compliance are also required by the
final standards.
2. Continuous Front-end Process Vents
The final standards for continuous front-end process vents require
the owner or operator to either calculate a TRE index value to
determine the group status of each continuous front-end process vent or
to comply with the control requirements. The TRE index value is
determined after the last recovery device in the process or prior to
venting to the atmosphere. The TRE calculation involves an emissions
test or
[[Page 46915]]
engineering assessment and use of the TRE equations specified in the
final standards.
Performance test provisions are included for Group 1 continuous
front-end process vents to verify that control devices or recovery
achieve the required performance. Monitoring provisions necessary to
demonstrate compliance are also included in the standards.
3. Batch Front-End Process Vents
Similar to the provisions for continuous front-end process vents,
there is a procedure for determining the group status of batch front-
end process vents. This procedure is based on annual emissions and
annual average flow rate of the batch front-end process vent. Equations
for estimating and procedures for measuring annual emissions and annual
average flow rates are provided in the final standards. The use of
engineering assessment for the group determination is also allowed.
Performance test provisions are included for Group 1 batch front-
end process vents to verify that control devices achieve the required
performance. Monitoring provisions necessary to demonstrate compliance
are also included in the final standard.
For Group 2 batch front-end process vents, the standard requires
owners and operators to establish a batch cycle limitation. The batch
cycle limitation restricts the number of batch cycles that can be
accomplished per year. This enforceable limitation ensures that a Group
2 batch front-end process vent does not become a Group 1 batch front-
end process vent as a result of running more batch cycles than
anticipated when the group determination was made. The determination of
the batch cycle limitation is not tied to any previous production
amounts. An affected source may set the batch cycle limitation at any
level it desires as long as the batch front-end process vent remains a
Group 2 batch front-end process vent. Alternatively the standards would
allow owners or operators to declare any Group 2 batch front-end
process vent to be a Group 1 batch front-end process vent. In such
cases, control of the batch process front-end vent is required.
4. Back-End Process Vents
The final rule specifies the performance tests, test methods (with
the exception of residual HAP reference test methods), and monitoring
requirements necessary to determine that the allowed back-end emission
limitations are achieved. The following paragraphs discuss each of
these.
Performance tests and test methods for residual HAP limitations.
Initial performance tests, in the traditional sense, are required for
facilities complying with the back-end operations provisions using add-
on control. Testing is required for all control and recovery devices,
other than flares and certain boilers and process heaters. The back-end
process provisions require the use of approved test methods.
Initial tests are required for facilities complying by using
stripper parameter monitoring. The purpose of this initial testing is
to establish correlations between residual HAP contents and stripper
operating parameters. Within a few months of the promulgation of this
regulation, the EPA will promulgate test methods for determining the
residual HAP content in crumb and latex.
If an owner or operator complies with the back-end standards by
sampling, periodic sampling and testing is required. The residual HAP
test methods would also be used for these analyses.
Performance tests and test methods for carbon disulfide emission
limitations for SBRE facilities. Initial performance tests are one
option for ``verifying'' each standard operating procedure as an
acceptable procedure that results in carbon disulfide concentrations of
45 ppmv or less in the dryer stacks at SBRE facilities. Standard
operating procedures may also be verified through engineering
assessments. If the performance testing option is selected, one
performance test is required for each standard operating procedure.
Method 18 or 25A is specified to measure the carbon disulfide
concentration. Additional verifications are not required unless a new
standard operating procedure is added, or an existing standard
operating procedure is revised.
Monitoring requirements. Control and recovery devices and strippers
used to comply with the final rule need to be maintained and operated
properly if the required level of control is to be achieved on a
continuing basis. Monitoring of control and recovery device and
stripper parameters can be used to ensure that such proper operation
and maintenance are occurring.
For control and recovery devices, the back-end process operation
standard uses the same list of parameters discussed above for
continuous front-end process vents. For strippers, the regulation
requires the monitoring of temperature, pressure, steaming rates, and a
parameter indicative of residence time.
5. Wastewater
For demonstrating compliance with the various requirements, the
final standard allows the owners or operators to either conduct
performance tests or to document compliance using engineering
calculations. Appropriate compliance and monitoring provisions are
included in the final standard.
6. Equipment Leaks
The final standard retains the use of Method 21 to detect leaks.
Method 21 requires a portable organic vapor analyzer to monitor for
leaks from equipment in use. A ``leak'' is a concentration specified in
the regulation for the type of equipment being monitored and is based
on the instrument response to methane (the calibration gas) in the air.
The observed screening value may require adjustment for the response
factor relative to methane if the weighted response factor of the
stream exceeds a specified multiplier. The final rule requires the use
of Method 18 or Method 25A to determine the organic content of a
process stream. To test for leaks in a batch system, test procedures
using either a g
FR Doc. 96-21941 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
as or a liquid for pressure testing the batch system
are specified to test for leaks.
7. Continuous Parameter Monitoring
The final standards require owners or operators to establish
parameter monitoring levels. The standards provide the owner or
operator the flexibility to establish the levels based on site-specific
information. Site-specific levels can best accommodate variation in
emission point characteristics and control device designs. Three
procedures for establishing these levels are provided in the final
standards. They are based on performance tests; engineering
assessments, performance tests, and/or manufacturer's recommendations;
and engineering assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations.
While the establishment of a level based solely on performance tests is
preapproved by the Administrator, values determined using the last two
procedures, which may or may not use the results of performance tests,
must be approved by the Administrator for each individual case.
The final standards require the availability of at least 75 percent
of monitoring data to constitute a valid day's worth of data for
continuous and batch front-end process vents. Failure to have a valid
day's worth of monitoring data is considered an excursion. The criteria
for determining a valid day's or
[[Page 46916]]
hour's worth of data are provided in the final standards. A certain
number of excused excursions have been allowed for in the final
standards; these provisions are the same as the provisions in the HON.
The standards allow a maximum of 6 excused excursions for the first
semiannual reporting period, decreasing by 1 excursion each semiannual
reporting period. Starting with the sixth semiannual reporting period
(i.e., the end of the third year of compliance) and thereafter,
affected sources are allowed one excused excursion per semiannual
reporting period. As is always the case, a State has the discretion to
impose more stringent requirements than the requirements of NESHAP and
other federal requirements and could choose not to allow the excused
excursion provisions contained in these final standards.
H. Recordkeeping and Reporting Provisions
The final standards require owners or operators of affected sources
to maintain required records for a period of at least 5 years. The
final standards require that the following reports be submitted, as
applicable: (1) Precompliance Report, (2) Emissions Averaging Plan, (3)
Notification of Compliance Status report, (4) Periodic Reports, and (5)
other reports (e.g., notifications of storage vessel internal
inspections).
Specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specified in
each section that addresses an individual emission point (e.g.,
Sec. 63.486 for batch front-end process vents). The recordkeeping and
reporting provisions related to the affected source as a whole (e.g.,
types of reports, such as the Notification of Compliance Status) are
found in Sec. 63.506. For example, Sec. 63.491 requires an owner or
operator to record the batch cycle limitation for each Group 2 batch
front-end process vent. Section 63.492 goes on to require the owner or
operator to submit this information in the Notification of Compliance
Status as specified in Sec. 63.506. Finally, Sec. 63.506 requires
submittal of the information specified in Sec. 63.492.
III. Summary of Impacts
This section presents a summary of the air, non-air environmental
(waste and solid waste), energy, cost, and economic impacts resulting
from the control of HAP emissions under this final rule.
A. Facilities Affected by These NESHAP
The promulgated rule would affect BR, EPI, EPR, HYP, NEO, NBR, PBR,
PSR, and SBR facilities that are major sources in themselves, or that
are located at a major source. Based on available information, all of
the facilities at which these elastomers are produced were judged to be
major sources for the purpose of developing these standards. (Final
determination of major source status occurs as part of the compliance
determination process undertaken by each individual source.)
Impacts are presented relative to a baseline reflecting the level
of control in the absence of the rule. The current level of control was
well understood, because emissions and control data were collected on
each facility included in the analysis. The impacts for existing
sources were estimated by bringing each facility's control level up to
today's standards.
Impacts are not assessed for new sources because it was projected
that no new sources are expected to begin operation through 1999. For
more information on this projection, see the New Source Memo in the
SID.
B. Primary Air Impacts
Today's standards are estimated to reduce HAP emissions from all
existing sources of listed elastomers by 6,400 Mg/yr. This represents a
48 percent reduction from baseline. Table 4 summarizes the HAP emission
reductions for each individual subcategory.
C. Other Environmental Impacts
The total criteria air pollutant emissions resulting from process
vent and wastewater control of today's standards are estimated to be
around 178 Mg/yr, with NOX emissions from incinerators and boilers
accounting for around 155 Mg/yr. Minimal wastewater or solid and
hazardous waste impacts are projected.
D. Energy Impacts
The total nationwide energy demands that would result from
implementing the process vent and wastewater controls are around 1.10
x 1012 Btu annually.
Table 4. HAP Emission Reduction by Subcategory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAP emission reduction (Mg/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percentage
Subcategory Front-end Back-end reduction
Storage process process Wastewater Equipment Total from
vents operations operations leaks baseline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butyl rubber................................................. 0 211 0 102 293 606 64
Epichlorohydrin elastomer.................................... 4 0 0 0 120 124 77
Ethylene propylene rubber.................................... 2 85 979 0 1,020 2,012 62
Halobutyl rubber............................................. 62 38 0 0 233 335 26
HypalonTM.................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neoprene..................................................... 0 258 0 0 96 354 48
Nitrile butadiene latex...................................... 0 0 0 94 41 135 85
Nitrile butadiene rubber..................................... 1 0 0 0 364 365 62
Polybutadiene rubber/styrene butadiene rubber by solution.... 0 0 882 0 637 1,519 44
Polysulfide rubber........................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Styrene butadiene latex...................................... 0 22 0 272 332 627 44
Styrene butadiene rubber by emulsion......................... 0 0 195 48 0 243 23
Total--(percent of total reduction).......................... 69, (1) 615, (10) 2,056, (32) 516, (8) 3,136, (49) 6,392 48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Cost Impacts
Cost impacts include the capital costs of new control equipment,
the cost of energy (supplemental fuel, steam, and electricity) required
to operate control equipment, operation and maintenance costs, and the
cost savings generated by reducing the loss of valuable product in the
form of emissions. Also, cost impacts include the costs of monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting associated with today's standards. Average
cost
[[Page 46917]]
effectiveness ($/Mg of pollutant removed) is also presented as part of
cost impacts and is determined by dividing the annual cost by the
annual emission reduction. Table 5 summarizes the estimated capital and
annual costs and average cost effectiveness by subcategory.
Under the promulgated rule, it is estimated that total capital
costs for existing sources would be $26 million (1989 dollars), and
total annual costs would by $18.4 million (1989 dollars) per year. It
is expected that the actual compliance cost impacts of the rule would
be less than presented because of the potential to use common control
devices, upgrade existing control devices, use other less expensive
control technologies, implement pollution prevention technologies, or
use emissions averaging. Because the effect of such practices is highly
site-specific and data were unavailable to estimate how often the lower
cost compliance practices could be utilized, it is not possible to
quantify the amount by which actual compliance costs would be reduced.
Table 5. Summary of Regulatory Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAC b-- AER c--(Mg/ CE d--($/
TCI a-- (1000$/yr) yr) Mg)
-------------------------------------------------------------------(1000$)--------------------------------------
Butyl......................................................... 691 1,316 606 2,200
Epichlorohydrin............................................... 491 241 124 1,900
Ethylene Propylene............................................ 5,854 3,506 2,012 1,700
Halobutyl..................................................... 328 322 335 1,000
Hypalon............................................. 0 0 0 N/A
Neoprene...................................................... 560 897 354 2,500
Nitrile butadiene latex....................................... 465 243 135 1,800
Nitrile butadiene rubber...................................... 397 444 365 1,200
Polybutadine/styrene butadiene rubber by solution............. 11,780 8,335 1,519 e 5,500
Polysulfide................................................... 0 0 0 N/A
Styrene butadiene latex....................................... 1,480 1,028 627 1,600
Styrene butadiene rubber by emulsion.......................... 3,942 2,112 243 e8,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a ``TCI'' represents Total Capital Investment.
b ``TAC'' represents Total Annualized Cost, including the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting cost.
c ``AER'' represents the Annual Emission Reduction.
d ``CE'' represents Cost-Effectiveness.
e This cost-effectiveness is primarily due to the high costs estimated to control back-end process emissions to
the MACT floor level. The costs developed are costs for incineration devices to sufficient back-end vents so
that emissions will be reduced to a level equivalent to the level achieved by meeting the residual HAP limit
by stripping. Extrapolation of industry estimates of the cost of enhanced stripping place the cost of enhanced
stripping as low as 10 percent of the cost of incineration.
F. Economic Impacts
Economic impacts for the regulatory alternatives analyzed at
proposal show that the estimated price increases for the affected
chemicals range from 0.2 percent for nitrile butadiene latex (NBL) to
2.5 percent for BR. Estimated decreases in production range from 0.7
percent for NBL to 5.0 percent for BR. With the reduced estimate in
costs from proposal, the economic impacts of the final rule should be
lower than those estimated at proposal. No closures of facilities are
expected as a result of the standard.
Three aspects of the analysis are likely to lead to an overestimate
of the impacts. First, the economic analysis model assumes that all
affected firms compete in a national market, though in reality some
firms may be protected from competitors by regional or local trade
barriers. Second, facilities with the highest control cost per unit of
production are assumed to also have the highest baseline production
costs per unit. This assumption may not always be true, because the
baseline production costs per unit are not known, and thus, the
estimated impacts, particularly for the smaller firms, may be too high.
Finally, economic impacts may be overstated, because the alternative
for halobutyl rubber and butyl rubber that was used in this analysis is
more stringent and more costly than the selected regulatory
alternative.
For more information regarding the impacts of the final standards,
consult the Basis and Purpose Document (see the Supplementary
Information section near the beginning of the preamble).
IV. Significant Comments and Changes to the Proposed Standards
In response to comments received on the proposed standards, changes
have been made to the final standards. While several of these changes
are clarifications designed to make the EPA's intent clearer, a number
of them are significant changes to the requirements of the proposed
standards. A summary of the substantive comments and/or changes made
since the proposal are described in the following sections. The
rationale for these changes and detailed responses to public comments
are included in the Basis and Purpose Document for the final standards.
Additional information is contained in the docket for these final
standards (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
from the Production of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) Resin,
Styrene Acrylonitrile (SAN) Resin, Methyl Methacrylate Acrylonitrile
Butadiene Styrene (MABS) Resin, Methyl Methacrylate Butadiene Styrene
(MBS) Resin, Polystyrene Resin, Poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET)
Resin, and Nitrile Resin (Group IV Polymers and Resins) (40 CFR part
63, subpart JJJ), were developed concurrently with subpart U. Many of
the basic requirements of the two rules are alike, and in some cases
they are identical. Subpart V was proposed on March 29, 1995, and
comments from the public were received. In many instances, similar
comments were received on analogous sections of subparts U and V. In
these instances, the responses to comments and appropriate rule changes
were coordinated. However, in some instances, comments were received on
subpart V, and not on subpart U, that were applicable to provisions of
subpart U. A summary of these comments can be found in the ``Hazardous
Air Pollutant Emissions from Process Units in the Thermoplastics
Manufacturing Industry--Basis and Purpose Document for Final Standards,
Summary of Public Comments and Responses'' (EPA-453/R-96-001b, May
1996; Docket Number
[[Page 46918]]
A-92-45, Item Number V-C-1). In a few cases, the EPA decided that a
change to subpart U based on these comments was appropriate. These
changes did not result in a change in the stringency of the subpart U
provisions, but were typically changes to improve the clarity of the
rule. The one area where a subpart V comment resulted in a tangible
change to subpart U was in the batch vent applicability determination;
that is, an affected source is allowed to determine the group status of
a batch front-end process vent based on its primary product.
A. Applicability Provisions and Definitions
1. Designation of Affected Source and the Definition of EPPU
Commenters expressed confusion about the definitions of affected
source and EPPU in the proposed rule. The EPA reviewed both definitions
and agreed the definitions needed clarification. Therefore, the EPA has
revised the language describing affected source and EPPU in the final
rule. The definition of affected source has been clarified, as
discussed in section II and paragraph A.3 of this section.
The definition of EPPU was revised and now includes a list of the
equipment that comprises an EPPU. Because wastewater operations are
ancillary equipment and are often used by more than one EPPU and may be
used by more than one affected source, they are not included as part of
the EPPU.
2. Definition of Organic HAP
Numerous commenters recommended that the EPA restrict the list of
organic HAP in the final rule to those that are used or are present in
significant quantities at EPPUs or those that are listed in the HON,
subpart F, table 2. The EPA agreed with the commenters that a table
providing a listing of the specific organic HAP expected to be
regulated for each subcategory covered by the rule should be included
in the final rule. Therefore, the definition of organic HAP was revised
to specify those organic HAP known to be used or present in significant
quantities for each subcategory. This list is provided in table 7 of
the final rule.
This revised definition of organic HAP was developed using
available process description information received from industry and
gathered from available literature. Because there may be additional
organic HAP present at an affected source, the final rule requires
owners or operators to notify the EPA of the presence of any additional
organic HAP based on the following criteria: (1) Organic HAP is
knowingly introduced into the manufacturing process, or has been or
will be reported under any Federal or State program, such as TRIS or
Title V; and (2) Organic HAP is presented in Table 2 of subpart F.
3. Determining New Source Status
The EPA received comments regarding the process for determining if
new or existing source requirements would apply to a particular EPPU.
In response to those comments, the EPA has revised the provisions in
the final standards. Under the final standards, new affected sources
are created under each of the following four situations: (1) If a plant
site with an existing affected source producing an elastomer product as
its primary product constructs a new EPPU also producing the same
elastomer product as it primary product, the new EPPU is a new affected
source if the new EPPU has the potential to emit more than 10 tons per
year of a single HAP, or 25 tons per year of all HAP; (2) when an EPPU
is constructed at a major source plant site where the elastomer product
was not previously produced; (3) if a new EPPU is constructed at a new
plant site (i.e., green field site) that will be a major source; and
(4) when an existing affected source undergoes reconstruction, thus
making the previously existing source subject to new source standards.
This approach to defining a new affected source was selected in
order to make subpart U more consistent with the HON. This standard
differs from the HON, however, in that it applies to multiple source
categories. Thus, unlike the HON, a newly added EPPU at a facility is
covered by this rule even if that EPPU is in a different source
category from the existing EPPUs at the facility. It is the EPA's
position that the addition of a process unit in a different source
category is a new source and must meet the requirements for new sources
even though the EPPU may have the potential to emit less than 10 tons
per year of a single HAP or 25 tons per year of all HAP. Indeed, if a
source covered by another MACT standard (i.e., a different source
category) were built at a HON facility, that source would be subject to
the new source requirements under that MACT standard.
4. Flexible Operation Units
The final rule has retained the HON concept of flexible operation
units, but the language in the final rule has been significantly
modified to more adequately address polymer production facilities. The
final provisions require flexible operation units with an elastomer as
the primary product to commit to complying with the elastomers rule at
all times, regardless of what product they are producing at any
particular time. The primary product for a flexible operation unit is
determined based on projected production for the next 5 years.
B. Storage Vessel Provisions
In comments received on the storage tank provisions, the EPA noted
a common misinterpretation of the proposed regulation related to the
distinction between a ``storage vessel'' and a ``surge control
vessel''. The EPA determined that many of the comments received on
``storage vessels'' were in fact referring to vessels that fall under
the definition of surge control vessel. The EPA suggests that owners
and operators of facilities subject to subpart U pay careful attention
to these definitions.
1. Applicability Requirements
Several comments were received requesting that the EPA consider the
exemption of vessels storing specific HAP or products. In fact, one
commenter indicated that the EPA should conduct a full floor analysis
for new and existing storage vessels, considering each chemical
separately and the various sizes of tanks for each subcategory. Other
commenters supported the exemption of stripped latex storage tanks from
control requirements, but also declared that high conversion SBR or
polybutadiene latex storage tanks should also be exempt. Another
commenter stated that tanks downstream of EPR stripping operations
should be exempt from storage vessel requirements, just as those
containing latex downstream of stripping operations are exempt.
The EPA does not believe that the floor analyses for each HAP
stored at elastomer production facilities are required to be conducted
under the Act, nor should they be conducted. The Act requires the EPA
to set emission standards for HAP on a source category (or subcategory)
basis; it does not compel the EPA to establish separate control
measures for each HAP emitted by a source in the category. As suggested
by the commenter, this approach could result in an incomplete standard,
since it would not include a standard for a listed HAP that may be used
in the future by elastomer facilities. Further, consideration of
individual HAP storage vessel controls would not be representative of
facility-wide storage vessel control levels.
[[Page 46919]]
However, the EPA believes that it is reasonable to exempt a storage
vessel from the final regulation when it is clear that the vessel would
never be a Group 1 storage vessel. The EPA determined that the
following HAP used in the elastomer industry have low enough vapor
pressures that vessels storing these HAP would never be Group 1:
acrylamide, epichlorohydrin, and styrene. Therefore, the final rule
exempts storage vessels containing these HAP at existing sources. This
exemption is also extended to surge control vessels and bottoms
receivers at existing sources.
In addition, the EPA is convinced that an SBL storage vessel (high
conversion or otherwise) would never contain sufficient HAP to exceed
the vapor pressure cutoff for Group 1 storage vessels. This is
primarily due to the low vapor pressure of styrene. Therefore, the
final rule exempts all SBL storage vessels, surge control vessels, and
bottoms receivers from the requirements of Secs. 63.484 and 63.502.
Finally, the EPA agrees that storage vessels, surge control
vessels, and bottoms receivers downstream of stripping operations at
ethylene-propylene rubber facilities that are in compliance with the
provisions of Sec. 63.494 through the use of stripping technology
should be exempt from the storage vessel, surge control vessel, and
bottoms receiver requirements. Further, the EPA believes that these
exemptions should also extend to the other subcategories required to
comply with the residual organic HAP limitations in Sec. 63.494(a)(1)-
(3). However, since the residual organic HAP content of rubber leaving
the stripping operations at ethylene propylene rubber and
polybutadiene/ styrene-butadiene rubber by solution facilities
complying with these provisions through the use of add-on control is
not restricted, these exemptions are not available to these facilities.
2. Emission Limits
Commenters requested that the regulation allow the use of
alternative storage vessel/surge control vessel control techniques. Two
commenters described specific control systems present at their
facilities, and asked that the EPA include allowances for these systems
in the rule. They stressed that such allowances should consider the
overall effectiveness of the control system, and not just the
efficiency of the control or recovery device.
The EPA agrees that it is reasonable to consider the overall
effectiveness of a control ``system'' in determining compliance with
the rule, and that such systems that have been demonstrated to be
equivalent to the reference control technology should be allowed. While
the EPA believes the system described by the commenter could be
demonstrated to be equivalent to the reference control technology for
surge control vessels, the commenter did not provide sufficient
documentation to allow a complete evaluation of equivalence.
However, the EPA maintains that subpart U, as proposed, already
provides the opportunity for the commenter, as well as other elastomer
production facilities, to demonstrate equivalency of alternative
control techniques. For storage vessels, Sec. 63.121 of subpart G
addresses the procedures to obtain approval of alternative means of
emission limitations. For surge control vessels and bottoms receivers,
these procedures are contained in Sec. 63.177 of subpart H. In summary,
these sections specify that the owner or operator must submit
documentation of the equivalency determination to the Administrator.
C. Continuous Front-end Process Vent Provisions
1. Applicability Requirements
Several commenters stated that the exemption from halide controls
for butyl/halobutyl production should be extended to all rubber
manufacturers, since halogen-containing compounds or by-products have
historically been routed to flares. Another commenter agreed with the
exemptions for butyl and halobutyl production facilities, but pointed
out that this exemption should only be applicable to existing sources.
Only one existing facility was identified in each the halobutyl and
the butyl rubber subcategories. At both of these facilities,
halogenated vent streams were vented to a flare and/or boiler. Since
both of these subcategories were single-facility subcategories, the
MACT floor was determined to be the existing level of control. The EPA
examined the impacts of requiring halogenated vent streams at the
halobutyl and butyl rubber facilities to comply with the proposed
requirements for all other elastomer subcategories (i.e, the HON-level
of control). The EPA concluded that the costs associated with this
level of control were not reasonable, given the associated emission
reduction. Therefore, the proposed regulation allowed halogenated
streams at halobutyl and butyl rubber facilities that were routed to a
flare or boiler prior to proposal to continue to be controlled with
these combustion devices, without additional control for the resulting
halides.
Prior to proposal, the EPA was aware of one EPR facility that also
routed a halogenated vent stream to a boiler. However, since only one
of five EPR facilities reported this situation, the EPA concluded that
this level of control was not the MACT floor for EPR. Other EPR
producers claimed that they also had halogenated streams at their
facilities, but none offered any information to quantify the amount of
halogens in the stream to determine if the streams could be classified
as halogenated.
After proposal, the EPA learned that chlorinated organic compounds
are present in streams at all of the EPR facilities. These compounds
are a by-product of the polymerization reaction, resulting from a
chlorinated catalyst. At all four of the facilities contacted, the
streams containing the chlorinated compounds are routed to either a
flare or boiler. Due to the widely varying concentration in the stream,
all facilities indicated that it was difficult, if not impossible, to
accurately determine the halogen atom concentration in the vent stream.
However, all expressed confidence that at times, the halide threshold
in the incoming stream was exceeded.
Therefore, the EPA concluded that four of the five EPR facilities
have halogenated streams that are routed to either a boiler or flare.
For this reason, the EPA has determined that the floor for EPR is the
existing level of control for these halogenated vent streams. In
addition, as with halobutyl and butyl rubber, the EPA does not believe
that it would be cost-effective to require new incinerators and
scrubbers to be installed at these facilities, when the only net
emission reduction would be the reduction of the hydrochloric acid,
since the reduction of the halogenated organic compound in the
incinerator would be the same as was already being achieved in the
boiler or flare. However, as noted above, sufficient stream-specific
information was not available to conduct this analysis. Therefore, the
final rule has been changed to extend the exemption for existing
halogenated streams routed to a boiler or flare to EPR producers.
Further, the final rule specifies that this exemption does not apply to
new sources.
2. Emission Limits
Based on a commenter's request, the final rule exempts a vent
stream routed to an internal combustion engine as primary fuel from
source testing requirements. The final rule also requires that the on/
off status of internal
[[Page 46920]]
combustion be monitored as a means of demonstrating compliance with
these control requirements.
D. Batch Front-End Process Vent Provisions
Commenters believed that batch front-end process vent provisions
were inappropriate and unnecessarily burdensome. Several commenters
disagreed with the EPA's reliance on the Batch Processes ACT document
in the development of the batch vent provisions, claiming that it was
not appropriate to the elastomer manufacturing industry.
The EPA believes that the potential for HAP emissions from batch
operations at elastomer production facilities warrant control. While
the EPA disagrees with the statement that the provisions are
inappropriate, the EPA agrees with comments regarding the complexity of
the proposed batch vent provisions. Therefore, in the final rule these
provisions were simplified. Many of these changes are discussed below.
In response to comments on the batch front-end process vent
applicability provisions, the volatility class concept has been
eliminated. The Batch Processes ACT developed an annual threshold
emission level for each of three volatility classes. The EPA initially
judged that selection of a single annual threshold emission level would
not be appropriate and included all three levels in the proposed
standards. However, upon further review, the EPA found no adverse
impact would result from the use of a single annual threshold emission
level and, indeed, the final standards have been significantly
simplified. Besides removing the requirement to determine the
volatility class, the final standards contain only one equation for
determining the cutoff flow rate (Sec. 63.488(f)) which is the last
step in the group determination process.
A commenter on the proposed Polymers and Resins IV (40 CFR part 63,
subpart V) regulation suggested changing the batch vent group
determination provisions to only utilize emissions data from an EPPU's
primary product. The EPA agreed that to base the group determination on
a single product could, if appropriately applied, provide acceptable
results from an environmental perspective, while simplifying the
compliance requirements for and improving the enforceability of the
batch front-end process vent standards. Therefore, the final standards
contain provisions allowing the owner or operator of an affected source
to perform the group determination for batch front-end process vents
based on annualized production of a single batch product. However, the
EPA does not consider it to be appropriate from an environmental
perspective to allow anything other than the worst-case HAP emitting
batch product to be considered when basing applicability on a single
product. Therefore, the final standards specify that the worst-case HAP
emitting batch product be used when an owner or operator chooses to
annualize a single product for purposes of determining applicability.
The final standards define the worst-case HAP emitting product and
describe how emissions are to be annualized to represent full-time
production, where full-time production does not necessarily mean
operating at maximum production rate. Since the proposed batch vent
provisions were similar between subparts U and V, the EPA decided that
this change was also appropriate for subpart U.
Several commenters stated that the proposed provisions for the
methods allowed for the calculation of batch front-end process vent
emissions were overly restrictive. The proposed rule required that
emissions be calculated using either the emission estimation equations
or source testing. If the owner or operator could demonstrate that both
the equations and source testing were inappropriate, then they were
allowed to use engineering assessment to calculate HAP emissions. The
commenters believed that an affected source should be allowed to use
engineering assessments without having to demonstrate that source
testing was inappropriate.
The EPA maintains that it is imperative that a consistent technique
for the estimation of batch front-end process vent emissions be used,
which is provided through the emission estimation equations. The EPA
believes the data required to use the batch front-end process vent
emissions estimation equations should be obtainable with reasonable
effort. The final standards continue to require use of the emissions
estimation equations, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that
these equations are inappropriate.
However, the EPA has concluded that direct measurement of emissions
through testing may prove to be difficult and may or may not provide an
increased assurance of accuracy over the use of engineering assessment.
Therefore, if an owner or operator can demonstrate that the emissions
estimation equations are not appropriate, the final standards allow the
selection of either direct measurement or engineering assessment.
Further, criteria for demonstrating that the emissions estimation
equations are not appropriate to a specific batch emissions episode
have been added to the final standards. These criteria require either:
(1) The availability of test data that demonstrate a greater than 20
percent discrepancy between the test value and the estimated value, or
(2) that the owner or operator demonstrate to the Administrator that
the emissions estimation equations are not appropriate for a given
batch emissions episode.
E. Back-End Process Operation Provisions
The back-end process operation provisions received the majority of
the comments on the proposed rule. Significant comments were received
on practically every aspect of these provisions. Following is a summary
of the comments that resulted in notable changes to the back-end
process operation requirements.
1. Averaging Period
Several commenters declared that compliance based on a weekly
average HAP limitation was unreasonable, and that compliance should be
demonstrated on the basis of a monthly (or 30-day) rolling average
instead. These commenters claimed that requiring compliance based on a
weekly average fails to provide adequate operational flexibility for
manufacturers to produce different grades of polymers in accordance
with customer demands.
Upon investigation of this issue, the EPA concluded that a monthly
averaging period for the residual HAP limitations was more appropriate.
Changing to a monthly averaging period would provide more operational
flexibility to elastomer producers, while maintaining the same annual
emission reduction.
2. Residual Organic HAP Limitations
Commenters objected to numerous aspects of the residual organic HAP
limitations. Most of these comments were directed towards the methods
used to determine the back-end MACT floors. Discussed below are
comments on definitions, test methods, and other areas that affect the
determination of the residual organic HAP limitations. The EPA
addressed these comments and re-assessed the MACT floors.
Definition of crumb rubber dry weight. Comments stated that, for
solution processes, the definition of ``crumb rubber dry weight''
should not exclude extender oils and carbon black for compliance
purposes, because these are an integral part of the polymer. The EPA
agrees with these comments, and has
[[Page 46921]]
revised the definition of crumb rubber dry weight to reflect this
decision.
Residual organic HAP test methods. Concurrent with the proposal of
subpart U, the EPA proposed three residual HAP test methods--one each
for SBRE, PBR/SBRS, and EPR. Several commenters stated that no single
analytical method would produce consistent results for all polymers,
and consequently, each company should be allowed to demonstrate
compliance using a company-specific method that is comparable to the
EPA test method.
After careful review and consideration of this issue, the EPA
agreed with the commenters and has undergone an extensive effort to
rectify this situation. The EPA concluded that it was appropriate to
allow every interested company to validate their own test method using
a modified version of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, Method 301.
A total of nine test methods were submitted (three for EPR, three
for SBRE, and three for PBR/SBRS). The modified Method 301 analysis
performed allows each company to validate their own test method, and
seven of the ten affected companies have done so. Therefore, each
source has a compliance method available for determining residual HAP.
The EPA believes that it would be helpful if the industry had access to
all validated test methods, and is in the process of reviewing the
methods and validation data that were submitted, and has preliminarily
indicated that approval of all nine methods is anticipated. The EPA
intends to promulgate these methods as appendix A Methods 310 a, b, and
c for EPR, Methods 312 a, b, and c for SBRE, and Methods 313 a, b, and
c for PBR/SBRS. However, since the approval and subsequent promulgation
of the methods has not yet occurred, this final rule does not stipulate
the methods to be used to determine residual organic HAP. Upon
promulgation of these methods, the Agency will propose modifications to
subpart U to specify that these methods be used to determine residual
organic HAP.
Furthermore, the affected industry has been intimately involved
with all activity associated with the EPA's promulgation of the
residual organic HAP test methods. The EPA held meetings with industry
representatives to discuss their comments on the proposed methods, and
to discuss procedures for validating company test methods. Every
company that was expected to be subject to the back-end residual
organic HAP limitations was invited to these meetings. As noted above,
a total of nine test methods were submitted. These methods were from
seven companies, leaving only three affected companies that decided not
to submit methods. Representatives of each of those three companies
which did not submit test methods were in attendance at one or more of
the meetings and are therefore knowledgeable about the test methods.
Since industry's submittal of the test methods, the EPA has worked
closely with industry representatives to finalize the methods.
Therefore, the EPA contends that all affected companies should be well
aware of the methods that will be promulgated.
As noted earlier, the final approval of these test methods is
upcoming. It is anticipated that these methods will be promulgated in
the autumn of 1996. The EPA does not believe that the interval between
the promulgation of subpart U and the promulgation of these residual
organic HAP test methods impairs the ability of any source to comply
with the requirements by the specified compliance date. This is the
case because affected sources are not required to be in compliance
until three years after promulgation of the rule.
MACT floor determination. Commenters indicated that the selection
of a MACT floor ``somewhere between the mean, median, and mode'' did
not represent central tendency. They maintained that a mean is the
correct approach for establishing the MACT floor. The EPA agreed that
one measure of central tendency should be used to establish the average
and decided that the mean was the most appropriate measure for the
residual organic HAP limitations floor determinations. In some
situations, the use of the mean can result in a floor level of control
that is not represented by any available control technology. However,
this did not apply to this situation, where the emissions used to
determine the floor were a result of process-specific stripping
techniques, and not specific add-on control technologies.
For EPR and PBR/SBRS, commenters stated that combining data
received from different companies using different sampling and
analytical methods, without establishing whether the methods achieve
comparable results, was not an appropriate way to establish residual
HAP limits. The commenters stated that if production figures and dryer
stack testing results were used to establish these limits, these
results cannot be equated to those from crumb sampling at the EPA's
designated sampling point, because there are numerous potential
emission sources between the proposed sampling point and the stack
testing locations. In addition, commenters indicated that the proposed
limitation did not recognize the fact that residual HAP may remain in
the polymer after finishing. Finally, the commenters also stated that
using annual emissions and limited weekly data to establish weekly
limits is inherently uncertain, and may have resulted in an
inappropriate standard.
In the original MACT floor analyses, the EPA presumed that the
back-end emission factor calculated from the reported emissions and
production was equivalent to the residual HAP levels in the crumb
leaving the stripping operations. Inherent in this analysis was the
assumption that the companies reported total HAP emissions from all
back-end emission sources, rather than only a portion of these sources.
Upon receipt of these comments, the EPA again contacted each EPR
and PBR/SBRS production facility to (1) verify the emissions numbers
used to determine the back-end emission factor, (2) discuss the
correlation of the methods used to estimate the original emission
estimates and the residual organic HAP test methods undergoing
validation, (3) determine the appropriate production, including oil
extender weight, to use in determining the emission factor, (4) obtain
information related to residual HAP remaining in the product after
finishing, and (5) obtain short-term residual HAP information to be
used in the adjustment of annual emissions to monthly.
After obtaining this information, the EPA recalculated the MACT
floors for each subcategory. It should be noted that only one facility
indicated that the original emission estimates were calculated in a
manner that was inconsistent with the residual organic HAP test
methods. Two PBR/SBRS companies and one EPR company provided detailed
short-term residual HAP data to allow the conversion of the annual data
to a monthly limit. The resulting monthly limits were 8 kg/Mg for EPR
and 10 kg/Mg for PBR/SBRS.
While no comments were received criticizing the MACT floor analysis
for SBRE, the change to a monthly average limit resulted in a change in
the SBRE limit. In the determination of the original SBRE back-end MACT
floor, residual HAP data were used from three of the four facilities.
The fourth facility provided residual HAP data, but it was in a monthly
average format and could not be used in the determination of a weekly
limit. However, the change to a monthly limit meant that the data from
this facility could also be used, resulting in a monthly limit of 0.4
kg styrene per
[[Page 46922]]
Mg latex leaving the stripping operation for existing SBRE sources.
3. Monitoring Requirements
Several comments were received regarding the proposed crumb and
latex sampling requirements. In both instances, the EPA decided that
the changes suggested by the commenters were technically appropriate,
and they did not result in any detrimental environmental impact.
Specifically, commenters found the requirement to sample ``before
any opportunity for emissions to the atmosphere'' to be either
infeasible or unsafe for PBR/SBRS and EPR and suggested modifications
to the proposed sampling provisions. In response to these comments, the
final rule states that PBR/SBRS or EPR crumb samples must be taken ``as
soon as safe and feasible after the stripping operation, but no later
than the entry point for the first unit operation following the
stripper (e.g., the dewatering screen).''
For SBRE, commenters pointed out that a more logical sampling
location for determining the initial HAP concentration in the SBL is
the mixed latex in the storage tank feeding the coagulator (rather than
directly after the stripper). The EPA agreed with these comments, and
the final rule has revised the SBL sampling location to be ``prior to
any coagulation operations.''
Comments were also received opposing the proposed crumb or latex
sampling frequency provisions. Commenters believed that it is
impractical to take a rubber sample each operating day for every grade
of elastomer produced, because of the time required to reach
representative operating conditions and to run an accurate analytical
test. Suggested alternatives included one test per day, one test per
``campaign,'' daily sampling that is reduced to weekly sampling upon
demonstration of daily compliance, and daily sampling with the
exception of grades produced for less than 4 hours in a day. Since the
variability of the residual HAP contents between elastomer grades is
relatively small, and since production schedules typically produce very
similar grades of polymer for extended periods of time, the EPA
concluded that reducing the sampling frequency to once per day for
continuous processes would greatly simplify the rule, while still
ensuring that practically all grades of elastomer are represented by
such sampling. This change is reflected in the final rule.
Some commenters were concerned that compliance would be based on
one sample per day, and requested that an owner or operator be allowed
to sample crumb or latex more frequently, and include the residual
organic HAP results of these samples in the average. While the EPA
believes that the proposed rule did not preclude a company from using
more than one sample per day in determining the (weekly) average, the
EPA has revised the language in the final rule to make this opportunity
clearer.
Several commenters stated that the rule should provide an allowance
for missed or invalid crumb or latex samples. The proposed rule
designated the failure to collect any single sample as an excursion.
These commenters suggested that the EPA should require 75 percent of
samples to be collected.
The EPA recognizes that a number of circumstances could occur that
cause a sample not to be analyzed in accordance with the rule. These
may be in the form of sampling system malfunctions, mis-analysis, or
other problems. The EPA realizes that there are unique challenges
associated with the sampling of solid polymer, and agrees that problems
could occur that would cause a sample to be missed. The EPA also
recognizes that some of the test methods being validated to analyze the
residual organic HAP in the crumb take long periods of time to perform,
meaning that the opportunity to obtain a second sample may not be
available if a mis-analysis in the laboratory occurs. While the EPA
expects that sound company procedures could eliminate most of these and
other problems, the EPA agrees that it is unreasonable to expect that
no problems would ever occur that result in a missed sample. Therefore,
an excursion for back-end process operations is defined in the final
rule as when either (1) the monthly weighted average is above the
applicable limit, or (2) when less than 75 percent of the required
samples are taken, analyzed, and included in the monthly average.
At proposal, the EPA specifically requested comments on the
feasibility of the use of computer predictive modeling as an
alternative to the daily crumb or latex sampling, or the stripper
parametric monitoring compliance alternatives. Numerous commenters
supported the allowance of such systems, while other expressed
reservations. While the EPA believes that computer predictive modeling
may be an attractive alternative to the periodic sampling and stripper
parametric monitoring compliance options, the EPA is convinced that the
use of computer predictive modeling is so site-specific that it is not
possible to include general requirements for the use of such a system
in subpart U. Nevertheless, the EPA believes that facilities should
have the opportunity to utilize techniques that are equivalent to the
two options of compliance provided in the proposed rule for facilities
using stripping technology. Therefore, the EPA has included a third
option that provides the opportunity for the site-specific approval of
alternative means of compliance through the submittal of an alternative
compliance plan.
F. Wastewater Operations Provisions
Several commenters pointed out that the wastewater provisions of
subpart G that are referenced in Sec. 63.501 of subpart U are the
subject of litigation brought by the Chemical Manufacturers'
Association against the EPA. Consequently, sources subject to these
provisions cannot know what the final wastewater provisions, proposed
to be incorporated into subpart U, will be. These commenters believed
that the EPA should ``reserve'' the provisions of Sec. 63.501 pending
the outcome of the litigation.
As part of the HON litigation proposal, the EPA will request
comments specific to the elastomers rule. If comments specific to the
elastomers rule are received they will be addressed as part of the HON
rulemaking actions or in actions specific to the elastomers rule,
depending on the comments. Therefore, the comment period for this rule
will not be reopened.
The EPA believes that the wastewater provisions and the other HON
provisions should be referenced in the elastomers rule so that final
resolutions of the HON litigation will be automatically included in the
elastomers rule. However, changes made to the HON will be evaluated by
the EPA for applicability to this rule. The ``automatic'' part refers
to the fact that text changes will not need to be made to this rule
once the EPA, following notice and an opportunity for comment, finds
the HON changes to be applicable. If the EPA determines that any
changes to the HON are not applicable to this rule, the elastomers rule
will be revised accordingly.
Comments were received that the VOHAP threshold for regulation of
new source wastewater streams (10 ppmw) was too restrictive, and that
the EPA has not provided an economic justification regarding the
achievability of the limit. Another comment was received stating that
many elastomer product process wastewater streams will have VOHAP
concentrations less than 50 ppmw, and monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements are not needed for these streams. This comment recommended
that the EPA exempt from regulation
[[Page 46923]]
``any process stream at an affected source with an average flow rate of
less than 0.02 liters per minute or an average VOHAP concentration of
less than 50 ppmw.''
The EPA evaluated the new source MACT floor determinations for
wastewater, and determined that no facility in any subcategory reported
wastewater controls equivalent to the new source levels. In fact, no
facility-wide wastewater controls greater than the existing source HON
limitations were reported. Therefore, the EPA believes that this
comment is valid, and has changed the final rule so that the new
sources are subject to the same wastewater requirements as existing
sources.
In the proposed rule, the definition of ``wastewater'' stated that
a stream must contain at least 5 ppmw of VOHAP and have a flow rate of
0.02 liter per minute. Given the change in the definition of a Group 1
wastewater stream for new sources, the EPA believes that it is
reasonable to revise the definition of wastewater in accordance with
the commenter's suggestion and therefore the wastewater definition has
been revised in the final rule.
G. Equipment Leak Provisions
One commenter requested that the proposed rule include an exclusion
for reciprocating pumps that must leak small quantities of product to
lubricate and cool the shaft and seal areas. The EPA agrees that an
exemption for the situation described by the commenter is reasonable.
The EPA reached a similar conclusion in the proposed Polymers and
Resins IV regulation (subpart V). Therefore, Sec. 63.502(d) has been
added to the final rule that exempts these reciprocating pump systems.
Several commenters stated that 3 years should be allowed for
compliance with equipment leak provisions for compressors (instead of 6
months) under certain circumstances. The EPA agrees with the
commenters, and has amended the compliance schedule for compressors in
the following situations: (1) Existing reciprocating compressors which
would require design modifications to connect to a closed-vent or
recovery system; and (2) systems where existing compressors would be
replaced.
H. Emissions Averaging Provisions
Several commenters requested that batch front-end process vents be
eligible to average emissions. The EPA had not allowed emissions
averaging of batch front-end process vents at proposal because the EPA
considered the accuracy and consistency needed for emissions averaging
to be greater than that needed for applicability determinations.
However, upon reconsideration, the EPA determined that the accuracy and
consistency needs of emissions averaging could be met by applying a
``discount'' factor (10 percent) to calculated emissions or by
requiring direct measurement of emissions. Therefore, the final rule
allows emissions averaging of existing batch front-end process vents.
I. Monitoring
Many commenters requested that the proposed rule allow excused
excursions in the same way that the HON rule allows excused excursions.
In the final rule, the EPA decided to excuse a certain number of
excursions for each reporting period. This decision was based on data
and information presented during public comment on the HON and
reiterated in public comments received on this rule, and during
industry meetings held subsequent to proposal that indicated that a
certain number of excursions could be expected even with properly
operated pollution control devices. The EPA also concluded that not
allowing excused excursions would impose significant additional capital
and operating costs on the affected source for only negligible
corresponding reductions in air emissions. As is always the case, a
State has the discretion to impose more stringent requirements than the
requirements of NESHAP and other Federal requirements and could choose
not to allow the excused excursion provisions of this rule.
The EPA considered the number of excused excursions that would be
most appropriate for this standard and determined that the number of
excursions allowed in the HON would be reasonable. Therefore, the final
provisions allow a maximum of 6 excused excursions for the first
semiannual reporting period, decreasing by 1 excursion each semiannual
reporting period. Starting with the sixth semiannual reporting period
(i.e., the end of the third year of compliance) and thereafter,
affected sources are allowed one excused excursion per semiannual
reporting period.
J. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Several commenters stated that the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the proposed rule were extremely burdensome and
requested that the EPA reduce the burden. The EPA reexamined the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the rule after proposal and
determined that burden reductions were warranted. The EPA considers the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the final rule the minimum
necessary to ensure compliance with the final standards. The following
changes were made to reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden:
(1) The requirement to submit an Initial Notification has been
eliminated;
(2) The requirement to submit an Implementation Plan has been
eliminated;
(3) The requirement to record monitored parameters every 15 minutes
has been removed. The final rule requires hourly recording of monitored
parameters in place of the 15 minute records required in the proposed
rule.
Although the above changes will reduce the burden on industry, the
level of this reduction was not quantified.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of
the final standards. The principal purposes of the docket are:
(1) To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can intelligently and effectively participate in
the rulemaking process; and
(2) To serve as the record in case of judicial review (except for
interagency review materials as provided for in section 307(d)(7)(A)).
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173 (October 4, 1993)), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in
standards that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the
[[Page 46924]]
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, the OMB has notified
the EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action''
within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA submitted this
action to the OMB for review. Changes made in response to suggestions
or recommendations from the OMB were documented and included in the
public record.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements for this NESHAP have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by the
EPA (ICR No. 1746.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,
OPPE Regulatory Information Division (2137), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, or by
calling (202) 260-2740.
The public recordkeeping and reporting burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average approximately 587 hours per
respondent for each of the first 3 years following promulgation of the
rule. These estimates include time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the recordkeeping and reporting burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Chief, Information
Policy Branch (2137), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC
20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. The
EPA has also determined that this rule will not have a significant
adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Consistent with Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards, an
elastomer producing firm is classified as a small entity if it has less
than 750 employees and is unaffiliated with a larger domestic entity.
Based upon this standard, three of the eighteen elastomer producing
firms are classified as small entities (i.e., having fewer than 750
employees). The EPA determined that annual compliance costs as a
percentage of sales are less than one percent for all of the small
entities affected by this regulation. This does not qualify as a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
businesses.
E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
Pursuant to Subtitle E of SBREFA, this rule, which is nonmajor, was
submitted to Congress before publication in the Federal Register.
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final standards that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, of, in the aggregate, $100 million or more. Under
section 205, the EPA must select the most cost effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the standard and
is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA
to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments
that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the standards.
The EPA has determined that the final standards do not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of, in the
aggregate, $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, nor do the standards
significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because they
contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose
obligations upon them. Therefore, the requirements of the Unfunded
Mandates Act do not apply to this final rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 15, 1996.
Fred Hansen,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR AFFECTED SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart U to read as follows:
Subpart U--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
Sec.
63.480 Applicability and designation of affected sources.
63.481 Compliance schedule and relationship to existing applicable
rules.
63.482 Definitions.
63.483 Emission standards.
63.484 Storage vessel provisions.
63.485 Continuous front-end process vent provisions.
63.486 Batch front-end process vent provisions.
63.487 Batch front-end process vents--reference control technology.
63.488 Methods and procedures for batch front-end process vent
group determination.
63.489 Batch front-end process vents--monitoring requirements
63.490 Batch front-end process vents--performance test methods and
procedures to determine compliance.
63.491 Batch front-end process vents--recordkeeping requirements.
63.492 Batch front-end process vents--reporting requirements.
63.493 Standards for back-end processes.
63.494 Back-end process provisions--residual organic HAP
limitations.
63.495 Back-end process provisions--procedures to determine
compliance using stripping technology.
63.496 Back-end process provisions--procedures to determine
compliance using control or recovery devices.
63.497 Back-end process provisions--monitoring provisions for
control and recovery devices.
63.498 Back-end process provisions--recordkeeping.
63.499 Back-end process provisions--reporting.
63.500 Back-end process provisions--carbon disulfide limitations
for styrene butadiene rubber by emulsion processes.
63.501 Wastewater provisions.
63.502 Equipment leak provisions.
63.503 Emissions averaging provisions.
63.504 Additional test methods and procedures.
63.505 Parameter monitoring levels and excursions.
63.506 General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.
[[Page 46925]]
Subpart U--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
Sec. 63.480 Applicability and designation of affected sources.
(a) Definition of affected source. The provisions of this subpart
apply to each affected source. An affected source is either an existing
affected source or a new affected source. Existing affected source is
defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and new affected source is
defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The affected source also
includes all wastewater streams and wastewater operations associated
with the elastomer product process unit(s) (EPPUs) included in the
affected source.
(1) Except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section, an existing affected source is defined as each group of one or
more EPPUs that is not part of a new affected source, as defined in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and that is manufacturing the same
primary product and located at a plant site that is a major source.
(2) Except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section, a new affected source is defined as a source meeting the
criteria of paragraph (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), or (a)(2)(iii) of this
section.
(i) At a plant site previously without HAP emission points, each
group of one or more EPPUs manufacturing the same primary product that
is part of a major source on which construction commenced after June
12, 1995,
(ii) An EPPU meeting the criteria in paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this
section, or
(iii) A reconstructed affected source meeting the criteria in
paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section.
(b) EPPUs exempted from the affected source. EPPUs that do not use
any organic HAP may be excluded from the affected source, provided that
the owner or operator complies with the requirements of paragraphs
(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section, if requested to do so by the
Administrator.
(1) Retain information, data, and analyses used to document the
basis for the determination that the EPPU does not use any organic HAP.
Types of information that could document this determination include,
but are not limited to, records of chemicals purchased for the process,
analyses of process stream composition, or engineering calculations.
(2) When requested by the Administrator, demonstrate that the EPPU
does not use any organic HAP.
(c) Emission points exempted from the affected source. The affected
source does not include the emission points listed in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(6) of this section:
(1) Stormwater from segregated sewers;
(2) Water from fire-fighting and deluge systems in segregated
sewers;
(3) Spills;
(4) Water from safety showers;
(5) Vessels and equipment storing and/or handling material that
contains no organic HAP or organic HAP as impurities only; and
(6) Equipment that is intended to operate in organic HAP service
for less than 300 hours during the calendar year.
(d) Processes exempted from the affected source. The processes
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section are not
part of the affected source.
(1) Research and development facilities;
(2) Equipment that is located within an EPPU that is subject to
this subpart but does not contain organic HAP; and
(3) Solvent reclamation, recovery, or recycling operations at
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF)
requiring a permit under 40 CFR part 270 that are separate entities and
not part of an EPPU to which this subpart applies.
(e) Applicability determination of elastomer equipment included in
a process unit producing a non-elastomer product. If an elastomer
product that is subject to this subpart is produced within a process
unit that is subject to subpart V of this part, and at least 50 percent
of the elastomer is used in the production of the product manufactured
by the subpart V process unit, the unit operations involved in the
production of the elastomer are considered part of the process unit
that is subject to subpart V, and not this subpart.
(f) Primary product determination and applicability. The primary
product of a process unit shall be determined according to the
procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.
Paragraphs (f)(3) through (f)(4) of this section describe whether or
not a process unit is subject to this subpart. Paragraphs (f)(5)
through (f)(7) of this section discuss compliance for those EPPUs
operated as flexible operation units, as specified in paragraph (f)(2)
of this section.
(1) If a process unit only manufactures one product, then that
product shall represent the primary product of the process unit.
(2) If a process unit is designed and operated as a flexible
operation unit, the primary product shall be determined as specified in
paragraphs (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this section based on the
anticipated operations for the 5 years following September 5, 1996 for
existing affected sources and for the first 5 years after initial
startup for new affected sources.
(i) If the flexible operation unit will manufacture one product for
the greatest operating time over the five-year period, then that
product shall represent the primary product of the flexible operation
unit.
(ii) If the flexible operation unit will manufacture multiple
products equally based on operating time, then the product with the
greatest production on a mass basis over the five-year period shall
represent the primary product of the flexible operation unit.
(3) If the primary product of a process unit is an elastomer
product, then that process unit is considered an EPPU. If that EPPU
meets all the criteria of paragraph (a) of this section, it is either
an affected source or is part of an affected source comprised of other
EPPU subject to this rule at the same plant site with the same primary
product. The status of a process unit as an EPPU, and as an affected
source or part of an affected source shall not change regardless of
what products are produced in the future by the EPPU, with the
exception noted in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section.
(i) If a process unit terminates the production of all elastomer
products and does not anticipate the production of any elastomer
product in the future, the process unit is no longer an EPPU and is not
subject to the provisions of this subpart after notification is made as
specified in paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section.
(ii) The owner or operator of a process unit that wi
FR Doc. 96-21941 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
shes to remove
the EPPU designation from the process unit, as specified in paragraph
(f)(3)(i) of this section, shall notify the Administrator. This
notification shall be accompanied by rationale for why it is
anticipated that no elastomer products will be produced in the process
unit in the future.
(iii) If a process unit meeting the criteria of paragraph (f)(3)(i)
of this section begins the production of an elastomer product in the
future, the owner or operator shall use the procedures in paragraph
(f)(4)(i) of this section to determine if the process unit is re-
designated as an EPPU.
(4) If the primary product of a process unit is not an elastomer
product, then that process unit is not an affected source, nor is it
part of any affected source subject to this rule. The process unit is
not subject to this rule at any time, regardless of what product is
being produced. The status of the process unit
[[Page 46926]]
as not being an EPPU, and therefore not being an affected source or
part of an affected source subject to this subpart, shall not change
regardless of what products are produced in the future by the EPPU,
with the exception noted in paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section.
(i) If, at any time beginning September 5, 2001, the owner or
operator determines that an elastomer product is the primary product
for the process unit based on actual production data for any preceding
consecutive five-year period, then the process unit shall be classified
as an EPPU. If an EPPU meets all the criteria in paragraph (a) of this
section, it is either an affected source or part of an affected source
and shall be subject to this rule.
(ii) If a process unit meets the criteria of paragraph (f)(4)(i) of
this section, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator
within 6 months of making this determination. The EPPU, as the entire
affected source or part of an affected source, shall be in compliance
with the provisions of this rule within 3 years from the date of such
notification.
(iii) If a process unit is re-designated as an EPPU but does not
meet all the criteria of paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or
operator shall notify the Administrator within 6 months of making this
determination. This notification shall include documentation justifying
the EPPU's status as not being an affected source or not being part of
an affected source.
(5) Once the primary product of a process unit has been determined
to be an elastomer product and it has been determined that all the
criteria of paragraph (a) of this section are met for the EPPU, the
owner or operator of the affected source shall comply with the
standards for the primary product. Owners or operators of flexible
operation units shall comply with the standards for the primary product
as specified in either paragraph (f)(5)(i) or (f)(5)(ii) of this
section, except as specified in paragraph (f)(5)(iii) of this section.
(i) Each owner or operator shall determine the group status of each
emission point that is part of that flexible operation unit based on
emission point characteristics when the primary product is being
manufactured. Based on this finding, the owner or operator shall comply
with the applicable standards for the primary product for each emission
point, as appropriate, at all times, regardless of what product is
being produced.
(ii) Alternatively, each owner or operator shall determine the
group status of each emission point that is part of the flexible
operation unit based on the emission point characteristics when each
product produced by the flexible operation unit is manufactured,
regardless of whether the product is an elastomer product or not. Based
on these findings, the owner or operator shall comply with the
applicable standards, as appropriate, regardless of what product is
being produced.
Note: Under this scenario, it is possible that the group status,
and therefore the requirement to achieve emission reductions, for an
emission point may change depending on the product being
manufactured.]
(iii) Whenever a flexible operation unit manufactures a product
that meets the criteria of paragraph (b) of this section (i.e., does
not use or produce any organic HAP), all activities associated with the
manufacture of the product, including the operation and monitoring of
control or recovery devices, shall be exempt from the requirements of
this rule.
(6) The determination of the primary product for a process unit, to
include the determination of applicability of this subpart to process
units that are designed and operated as flexible operation units, shall
be reported in the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.506(e)(5) when the primary product is determined to be an
elastomer product. The Notification of Compliance Status shall include
the information specified in either paragraph (e)(6)(i) or (e)(6)(ii)
of this section. If the primary product is determined to be something
other than an elastomer product, the owner or operator shall retain
information, data, and analysis used to document the basis for the
determination that the primary product is not an elastomer product.
(i) If the EPPU manufactures only one elastomer product,
identification of that elastomer product.
(ii) If the EPPU is designed and operated as a flexible operation
unit, the information specified in paragraphs (f)(6)(ii)(A) through
(f)(6)(ii)(C) of this section, as appropriate.
(A) Identification of the primary product.
(B) Information concerning operating time and/or production mass
for each product that was used to make the determination of the primary
product under paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this section.
(C) Identification of which compliance option, either paragraph
(f)(5)(i) or (f)(5)(ii) of this section, has been selected by the owner
or operator.
(7) To demonstrate compliance with the rule during those periods
when a flexible operation unit that is subject to this subpart is
producing a product other than an elastomer product or is producing an
elastomer product that is not the primary product, the owner or
operator shall comply with either paragraphs (f)(7)(i) and (f)(7)(ii)
or paragraph (f)(7)(iii) of this section.
(i) Establish parameter monitoring levels as specified in
Sec. 63.505, for those emission points designated as Group 1, as
appropriate.
(ii) Submit the parameter monitoring levels developed under
paragraph (f)(7)(i) of this section and the basis for them in the
Notification of Compliance Status report, as specified in
Sec. 63.506(e)(5).
(iii) Demonstrate that the parameter monitoring levels established
for the primary product are also appropriate for those periods when
products other than the primary product are being produced. Material
demonstrating this finding shall be submitted in the Notification of
Compliance Status report as specified in Sec. 63.506(e)(5).
(g) Storage vessel ownership determination. The owner or operator
shall follow the procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through
(g)(8) of this section to determine to which process unit a storage
vessel shall belong.
(1) If a storage vessel is already subject to another subpart of 40
CFR part 63 on September 5, 1996, that storage vessel shall belong to
the process unit subject to the other subpart.
(2) If a storage vessel is dedicated to a single process unit, the
storage vessel shall belong to that process unit.
(3) If a storage vessel is shared among process units, then the
storage vessel shall belong to that process unit located on the same
plant site as the storage vessel that has the greatest input into or
output from the storage vessel (i.e., the process unit has the
predominant use of the storage vessel).
(4) If predominant use cannot be determined for a storage vessel
that is shared among process units and if only one of those process
units is an EPPU subject to this subpart, the storage vessel shall
belong to that EPPU.
(5) If predominant use cannot be determined for a storage vessel
that is shared among process units and if more than one of the process
units are EPPUs that have different primary products and that are
subject to this subpart, then the owner or operator shall assign the
storage vessel to any one of the EPPUs sharing the storage vessel.
(6) If the predominant use of a storage vessel varies from year to
year, then predominant use shall be determined based on the utilization
that occurred during the year preceding September 5, 1996 or based on
the expected
[[Page 46927]]
utilization for the 5 years following September 5, 1996 for existing
affected sources, whichever is more representative of the expected
operations for that storage vessel, and based on the expected
utilization for the 5 years after initial startup for new affected
sources. The determination of predominant use shall be reported in the
Notification of Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.506(e)(5)(vii).
If the predominant use changes, the redetermination of predominant use
shall be reported in the next Periodic Report.
(7) If the storage vessel begins receiving material from (or
sending material to) another process unit; ceases to receive material
from (or send material to) a process unit; or if the applicability of
this subpart to a storage vessel has been determined according to the
provisions of paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(6) of this section and
there is a significant change in the use of the storage vessel that
could reasonably change the predominant use, the owner or operator
shall reevaluate the applicability of this subpart to the storage
vessel.
(8) Where a storage vessel is located at a major source that
includes one or more process units which place material into, or
receive materials from the storage vessel, but the storage vessel is
located in a tank farm, the applicability of this subpart shall be
determined according to the provisions in paragraphs (g)(8)(i) through
(g)(8)(iv) of this section.
(i) The storage vessel may only be assigned to a process unit that
utilizes the storage vessel and does not have an intervening storage
vessel for that product (or raw materials, as appropriate). With
respect to any process unit, an intervening storage vessel means a
storage vessel connected by hard-piping to the process unit and to the
storage vessel in the tank farm so that product or raw material
entering or leaving the process unit flows into (or from) the
intervening storage vessel and does not flow directly into (or from)
the storage vessel in the tank farm.
(ii) If there is no process unit at the major source that meets the
criteria of paragraph (g)(8)(i) of this section with respect to a
storage vessel, this subpart does not apply to the storage vessel.
(iii) If there is only one process unit at the major source that
meets the criteria of paragraph (g)(8)(i) of this section with respect
to a storage vessel, the storage vessel shall be assigned to that
process unit. Applicability of this subpart to the storage vessel shall
then be determined according to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section.
(iv) If there are two or more process units at the major source
that meet the criteria of paragraph (g)(8)(i) of this section with
respect to a storage vessel, the storage vessel shall be assigned to
one of those process units according to the provisions of paragraph
(g)(6) of this section. The predominant use shall be determined among
only those process units that meet the criteria of paragraph (g)(8)(i)
of this section.
(h) Recovery operation equipment ownership determination. The owner
or operator shall follow the procedures specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (h)(7) of this section to determine to which process unit
recovery operation equipment shall belong.
(1) If recovery operation equipment is already subject to another
subpart of 40 CFR part 63 on September 5, 1996, that recovery operation
equipment shall belong to the process unit subject to the other
subpart.
(2) If recovery operation equipment is used exclusively by a single
process unit, the recovery operation shall belong to that process unit.
(3) If recovery operation equipment is shared among process units,
then the recovery operation equipment shall belong to that process unit
located on the same plant site as the recovery operation equipment that
has the greatest input into or output from the recovery operation
equipment (i.e., that process unit has the predominant use of the
recovery operation equipment).
(4) If predominant use cannot be determined for recovery operation
equipment that is shared among process units and if one of those
process units is an EPPU subject to this subpart, the recovery
operation equipment shall belong to the EPPU subject to this subpart.
(5) If predominant use cannot be determined for recovery operation
equipment that is shared among process units and if more than one of
the process units are EPPUs that have different primary products and
that are subject to this subpart, then the owner or operator shall
assign the recovery operation equipment to any one of those EPPUs.
(6) If the predominant use of recovery operation equipment varies
from year to year, then the predominant use shall be determined based
on the utilization that occurred during the year preceding September 5,
1996 or based on the expected utilization for the 5 years following
September 5, 1996 for existing affected sources, whichever is the more
representative of the expected operations for the recovery operations
equipment, and based on the expected utilization for the first 5 years
after initial startup for new affected sources. This determination
shall be reported in the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.506(e)(5)(viii). If the predominant use changes, the
redetermination of predominant use shall be reported in the next
Periodic Report.
(7) If there is an unexpected change in the utilization of recovery
operation equipment that could reasonably change the predominant use,
the owner or operator shall redetermine to which process unit the
recovery operation belongs by reperforming the procedures specified in
paragraphs (h)(2) through (h)(6) of this section.
(i) Changes or additions to plant sites. The provisions of
paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(4) of this section apply to owners or
operators that change or add to their plant site or affected source.
Paragraph (i)(5) provides examples of what are and are not considered
process changes for purposes of paragraph (i) of this section.
(1) Adding an EPPU to a plant site. The provisions of paragraphs
(i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(ii) of this section apply to owners or
operators that add EPPUs to a plant site.
(i) If an EPPU is added to a plant site, the addition shall be a
new affected source and shall be subject to the requirements for a new
affected source in this subpart upon initial startup or by September 5,
1996, whichever is later, if the addition meets the criteria specified
in paragraphs (i)(1)(i)(A) through (i)(1)(i)(B) and either (i)(1)(i)(C)
or (i)(1)(i)(D) of this section:
(A) It is an addition that meets the definition of construction in
Sec. 63.2 of subpart A;
(B) Such construction commenced after June 12, 1995; and
(C) The addition has the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more
of any HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP, and
the primary product of the addition is currently produced at the plant
site as the primary product of an affected source; or
(D) The primary product of the addition is not currently produced
at the plant site as the primary product of an affected source, and the
plant site meets, or after the addition is constructed will meet, the
definition of a major source in Sec. 63.2 of subpart A.
(ii) If an EPPU is added to a plant site, the addition shall be
subject to the requirements for an existing affected source in this
subpart upon initial startup or by 3 years after September 5, 1996,
whichever is later, if the addition does not meet the criteria
specified in
[[Page 46928]]
paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section and the plant site meets, or after
the addition is completed will meet, the definition of major source.
(2) Adding emission points or making process changes to existing
affected sources. The provisions of paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through
(i)(2)(ii) of this section apply to owners or operators that add
emission points or make process changes to an existing affected source.
(i) If any process change is made or emission point is added to an
existing affected source, or if a process change creating one or more
additional Group 1 emission point(s) is made to an existing affected
source, the entire affected source shall be a new affected source and
shall be subject to the requirements for a new affected source in this
subpart upon initial startup or by September 5, 1996, whichever is
later, if the process change or addition meets the criteria specified
in paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(A) through (i)(2)(i)(B) of this section:
(A) It is a process change or addition that meets the definition of
reconstruction in Sec. 63.2 of subpart A; and
(B) Such reconstruction commenced after June 12, 1995.
(ii) If any process change is made or emission point is added to an
existing affected source, or if a process change creating one or more
additional Group 1 emission point(s) is made to an existing affected
source and the process change or addition does not meet the criteria
specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(A) and (i)(2)(i)(B) of this section,
the resulting emission point(s) shall be subject to the requirements
for an existing affected source in this subpart. The resulting emission
point(s) shall be in compliance upon initial startup or by 3 years
after September 5, 1996, whichever is later, unless the owner or
operator demonstrates to the Administrator that achieving compliance
will take longer than making the process change or addition. If this
demonstration is made to the Administrator's satisfaction, the owner or
operator shall follow the procedures in paragraphs (i)(2)(iii)(A)
through (i)(2)(iii)(C) of this section to establish a compliance date.
(iii) To establish a compliance date for an emission point or
points specified in paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section, the
procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(iii)(A) through
(i)(2)(iii)(C) of this section shall be followed.
(A) The owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator for
approval a compliance schedule, along with a justification for the
schedule.
(B) The compliance schedule shall be submitted within 180 days
after the process change or addition is made or the information
regarding the change or addition is known to the owner or operator,
unless the compliance schedule has been previously submitted to the
permitting authority. The compliance schedule may be submitted in the
next Periodic Report if the process change or addition is made after
the date the Notification of Compliance Status report is due.
(C) The Administrator shall approve the compliance schedule or
request changes within 120 calendar days of receipt of the compliance
schedule and justification.
(3) Existing source requirements for Group 2 emission points that
become Group 1 emission points. If a process change or addition that
does not meet the criteria in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this
section is made to an existing plant site or existing affected source,
and the change causes a Group 2 emission point to become a Group 1
emission point, for that emission point the owner or operator shall
comply with the requirements of this subpart for existing Group 1
emission points. Compliance shall be achieved as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than 3 years after the emission
point becomes a Group 1 emission point.
(4) Existing source requirements for some emission points that
become subject to subpart H requirements. If a surge control vessel or
bottoms receiver becomes subject to Sec. 63.170 of subpart H, or if a
compressor becomes subject to Sec. 63.164 of subpart H, the owner or
operator shall be in compliance upon initial startup or by 3 years
after September 5, 1996, whichever is later, unless the owner or
operator demonstrates to the Administrator that achieving compliance
will take longer than making the change. If this demonstration is made
to the Administrator's satisfaction, the owner or operator shall follow
the procedures in paragraphs (i)(2)(iii)(A) through (i)(2)(iii)(C) of
this section to establish a compliance date.
(5) Determining what are and are not process changes. For purposes
of paragraph (i) of this section, examples of process changes include,
but are not limited to, changes in production capacity, feedstock type,
or catalyst type, or whenever there is a replacement, removal, or
addition of recovery equipment. For purposes of paragraph (i) of this
section, 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 report required by Sec. 63.506(e)(5).
(j) Applicability of this subpart except during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. Each provision set forth in this subpart or
referred to in this subpart shall apply at all times except during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction if the startup, shutdown,
or malfunction precludes the ability of a particular emission point at
an affected source to comply with one or more specific provisions to
which it is subject.
Sec. 63.481 Compliance schedule and relationship to existing
applicable rules.
(a) Affected sources are required to achieve compliance on or
before the dates specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section. Paragraph (e) of this section provides information on
requesting compliance extensions. Paragraphs (f) through (i) of this
section discuss the relationship of this subpart to subpart A and to
other applicable rules. Where an override of another authority of the
Act is indicated in this subpart, only compliance with the provisions
of this subpart is required. Paragraph (j) of this section specifies
the meaning of time periods.
(b) New affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after June 12, 1995 shall be in compliance with this
subpart upon initial startup or September 5, 1996, whichever is later,
as provided in Sec. 63.6(b) of subpart A.
(c) Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with this
subpart (except for Sec. 63.502 for which compliance is covered by
paragraph (d) of this section) no later than 3 years after September 5,
1996, as provided in Sec. 63.6(c) of subpart A, unless an extension has
been granted as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
(d) Except as provided for in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) of
this section, existing affected sources shall be in compliance with
Sec. 63.502 no later than March 5, 1997 unless a request for a
compliance extension is granted pursuant to section 112(i)(3)(B) of the
Act, as discussed in Sec. 63.182(a)(6) of subpart H.
(1) Compliance with the compressor provisions of Sec. 63.164 of
subpart H shall occur no later than September 5, 1997 for any
compressor meeting one or more of the criteria in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)
through (d)(1)(iii) of this section, if the work can be accomplished
without a process unit shutdown, as defined in Sec. 63.161 of subpart
H.
(i) The seal system will be replaced;
[[Page 46929]]
(ii) A barrier fluid system will be installed; or
(iii) A new barrier fluid will be utilized which requires changes
to the existing barrier fluid system.
(2) Compliance with the compressor provisions of Sec. 63.164 of
subpart H shall occur no later than March 5, 1998, for any compressor
meeting all the criteria in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(iv) of
this section.
(i) The compressor meets one or more of the criteria specified in
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iii) of this section;
(ii) The work can be accomplished without a process unit shutdown
as defined in Sec. 63.161 of subpart H;
(iii) The additional time is actually necessary, due to the
unavailability of parts beyond the control of the owner or operator;
and
(iv) The owner or operator submits the request for a compliance
extension to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional
Office at the addresses listed in Sec. 63.13 of subpart A no later than
45 days before March 5, 1997. The request for a compliance extension
shall contain the information specified in Sec. 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A), (B),
and (D) of subpart A. Unless the EPA Regional Office objects to the
request for a compliance extension within 30 calendar days after
receipt of the request, the request shall be deemed approved.
(3) If compliance with the compressor provisions of Sec. 63.164 of
subpart H cannot reasonably be achieved without a process unit
shutdown, as defined in Sec. 63.161 of subpart H, the owner or operator
shall achieve compliance no later than September 8, 1998. The owner or
operator who elects to use this provision shall submit a request for an
extension of compliance in accordance with the requirements of
paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section.
(4) Compliance with the compressor provisions of Sec. 63.164 of
subpart H shall occur not later than September 6, 1999 for any
compressor meeting one or more of the criteria in paragraphs (d)(4)(i)
through (d)(4)(iii) of this section. The owner or operator who elects
to use these provisions shall submit a request for an extension of
compliance in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d)(2)(iv)
of this section.
(i) Compliance cannot be achieved without replacing the compressor;
(ii) Compliance cannot be achieved without recasting the distance
piece; or
(iii) Design modifications are required to connect to a closed-vent
or recovery system.
(5) Compliance with the surge control vessel and bottoms receiver
provisions of Sec. 63.170 of subpart H shall occur no later than
September 6, 1999.
(e) Pursuant to section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act, an owner or
operator may request an extension allowing the existing source up to 1
additional year to comply with section 112(d) standards. For purposes
of this subpart, a request for an extension shall be submitted to the
operating permit authority as part of the operating permit application
or to the Administrator as a separate submittal or as part of the
Precompliance Report. Requests for extensions shall be submitted no
later than the date on which the Precompliance Report is required to be
submitted in Sec. 63.506(e)(3)(i). The dates specified in Sec. 63.6(i)
of subpart A for submittal of requests for extensions shall not apply
to this subpart.
(1) A request for an extension of compliance shall include the data
described in Sec. 63.6(i)(6)(i) (A), (B), and (D) of subpart A.
(2) The requirements in Sec. 63.6(i)(8) through Sec. 63.6(i)(14) of
subpart A shall govern the review and approval of requests for
extensions of compliance with this subpart.
(f) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
that apply and those that do not apply to owners and operators of
affected sources subject to this subpart. For the purposes of this
subpart, Table 3 of subpart F is not applicable.
(g) Table 2 of this subpart summarizes the provisions of subparts
F, G, and H that apply and those that do not apply to owners and
operators of affected sources subject to this subpart.
(h)(1) After the compliance dates specified in this section, an
affected source subject to this subpart that is also subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart I, is required to comply only
with the provisions of this subpart.
(2) Sources subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart I that have elected
to comply through a quality improvement program, as specified in
Sec. 63.175 or Sec. 63.176 or both of subpart H, may elect to continue
these programs without interruption as a means of complying with this
subpart. In other words, becoming subject to this subpart does not
restart or reset the ``compliance clock'' as it relates to reduced
burden earned through a quality improvement program.
(i) After the compliance dates specified in this section, a storage
vessel that belongs to an affected source subject to this subpart that
is also subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb is
required to comply only with the provisions of this subpart. After the
compliance dates specified in paragraph (d) of this section, that
storage vessel shall no longer be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Kb.
(j) All terms in this subpart that define a period of time for
completion of required tasks (e.g., monthly, quarterly, annual), unless
specified otherwise in the section or subsection that imposes the
requirement, refer to the standard calendar periods.
(1) Notwithstanding time periods specified in this subpart for
completion of required tasks, such time periods may be changed by
mutual agreement between the owner or operator and the Administrator,
as specified in subpart A of this part (e.g., a period could begin on
the compliance date or another date, rather than on the first day of
the standard calendar period). For each time period that is changed by
agreement, the revised period shall remain in effect until it is
changed. A new request is not necessary for each recurring period.
(2) Where the period specified for compliance is a standard
calendar period, if the initial compliance date occurs after the
beginning of the period, compliance shall be required according to the
schedule specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this
section, as appropriate.
(i) Compliance shall be required before the end of the standard
calendar period within which the compliance deadline occurs, if there
remain at least 2 weeks for tasks that must be performed monthly, at
least 1 month for tasks that must be performed each quarter, or at
least 3 months for tasks that must be performed annually; or
(ii) In all other cases, compliance shall be required before the
end of the first full standard calendar period after the period within
which the initial compliance deadline occurs.
(3) In all instances where a provision of this subpart requires
completion of a task during each multiple successive period, an owner
or operator may perform the required task at any time during the
specified period, provided that the task is conducted at a reasonable
interval after completion of the task during the previous period.
Sec. 63.482 Definitions.
(a) The following terms used in this subpart shall have the meaning
given them in subparts A (Sec. 63.2), F (Sec. 63.101), G (Sec. 63.111),
and H (Sec. 63.161) as specified after each term:
Act (subpart A)
Administrator (subpart A)
Automated monitoring and recording system (subpart G)
Average concentration (subpart G)
Boiler (subpart G)
Bottoms receiver (subpart H)
[[Page 46930]]
By compound (subpart G)
By-product (subpart F)
Car-seal (subpart G)
Chemical manufacturing process unit (subpart F)
Closed-vent system (subpart G)
Co-product (subpart F)
Combustion device (subpart G)
Commenced (subpart A)
Compliance date (subpart A)
Compliance schedule (subpart A)
Connector (subpart H)
Construction (subpart A)
Continuous monitoring system (subpart A)
Continuous record (subpart G)
Continuous recorder (subpart G)
Cover (subpart G)
Distillation unit (subpart G)
Emission standard (subpart A)
Emissions averaging (subpart A)
EPA (subpart A)
Equipment (subpart H)
Equipment leak (subpart F)
Existing source (subpart A)
External floating roof (subpart G)
Fill (subpart G)
Fixed roof (subpart G)
Flame zone (subpart G)
Flexible operation unit (subpart F)
Floating roof (subpart G)
Flow indicator (subpart G)
Halogens and hydrogen halides (subpart G)
Hazardous air pollutant (subpart A)
Heat exchange system (subpart F)
Impurity (subpart F)
Incinerator (subpart G)
In organic hazardous air pollutant service (subpart H)
Instrumentation system (subpart H)
Internal floating roof (subpart G)
Lesser quantity (subpart A)
Maintenance wastewater (subpart F)
Major source (subpart A)
Malfunction (subpart A)
Mass flow rate (subpart G)
Maximum true vapor pressure (subpart G)
New source (subpart A)
Open-ended valve or line (subpart H)
Operating permit (subpart F)
Organic HAP service (subpart H)
Organic monitoring device (subpart G)
Owner or operator (subpart A)
Performance evaluation (subpart A)
Performance test (subpart A)
Permitting authority (subpart A)
Plant site (subpart F)
Point of generation (subpart G)
Potential to emit (subpart A)
Primary fuel (subpart G)
Process heater (subpart G)
Process unit shutdown (subpart H)
Process wastewater (subpart F)
Process wastewater stream (subpart G)
Product separator (subpart F)
Reactor (subpart G)
Reconstruction (subpart A)
Recovery device (subpart G)
Reference control technology for process vents (subpart G)
Reference control technology for storage vessels (subpart G)
Reference control technology for wastewater (subpart G)
Relief valve (subpart G)
Research and development facility (subpart F)
Residual (subpart G)
Run (subpart A)
Secondary fuel (subpart G)
Sensor (subpart H)
Shutdown (subpart A)
Specific gravity monitoring device (subpart G)
Startup (subpart A)
Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (subpart F)
State (subpart A)
Surge control vessel (subpart H)
Temperature monitoring device (subpart G)
Test method (subpart A)
Total resource effectiveness index value (subpart G)
Treatment process (subpart G)
Unit operation (subpart F)
Vent stream (subpart G)
Visible emission (subpart A)
Waste management unit (subpart G)
Wastewater (subpart F)
Wastewater stream (subpart G)
(b) All other terms used in this subpart shall have the meaning
given them in this section. If a term is defined in a subpart
referenced above and in this section, it shall have the meaning given
in this section for purposes of this subpart.
Affected source is defined in Sec. 63.480(a).
Aggregate batch vent stream means a gaseous emission stream
containing only the exhausts from two or more batch front-end process
vents that are ducted together before being routed to a control device
that is in continuous operation.
Average flow rate, as used in conjunction with wastewater
provisions, is defined in and determined by the specifications in
Sec. 63.144(c) of subpart G; or, as used in conjunction with the batch
front-end process vent provisions, is defined in and determined by the
specifications in Sec. 63.488(e).
Back-end refers to the unit operations in an EPPU following the
stripping operations. Back-end process operations include, but are not
limited to, filtering, coagulation, blending, concentration, drying,
separating, and other finishing operations, as well as latex and crumb
storage.
Batch cycle means the operational step or steps, from start to
finish, that occur as part of a batch unit operation.
Batch cycle limitation means an enforceable restriction on the
number of batch cycles that can be performed in a year for an
individual batch front-end process vent.
Batch emission episode means a discrete emission venting episode
associated with a single batch unit operation. Multiple batch emission
episodes may occur from a single batch unit operation.
Batch front-end process vent means a point of emission from a batch
unit operation having a gaseous emission stream with annual organic HAP
emissions greater than 225 kilograms per year and located in the front-
end of a process unit. Batch front-end process vents exclude relief
valve discharges and leaks from equipment regulated under Sec. 63.502.
Batch process means a discontinuous process involving the bulk
movement of material through sequential manufacturing steps. Mass,
temperature, concentration, and other properties of the process vary
with time. Addition of raw material and withdrawal of product do not
typically occur simultaneously in a batch process. For the purposes of
this subpart, a process producing polymers is characterized as
continuous or batch based on the operation of the polymerization
reactors.
Batch unit operation means a unit operation operated in a batch
process mode.
Butyl rubber means a copolymer of isobutylene and other monomers.
Typical other monomers include isoprene and methylstyrenes. A typical
composition of butyl rubber is approximately 85 to 99 percent
isobutylene and one to fifteen percent other monomers. Most butyl
rubber is produced by precipitation polymerization, although other
methods may be used.
Compounding unit means a unit of operation which blends, melts, and
resolidifies solid polymers for the purpose of incorporating additives,
colorants, or stabilizers into the final elastomer product. A unit
operation whose primary purpose is to remove residual monomers from
polymers is not a compounding unit.
Continuous front-end process vent means a point of emission from a
continuous process unit operation within an affected source having a
gaseous emission stream with a flow rate greater than or equal to 0.005
standard cubic meter per minute and with a total organic HAP
concentration greater than or equal to 50 parts per million by volume.
Continuous front-end process vents exclude relief valve
[[Page 46931]]
discharges and leaks from equipment regulated under Sec. 63.502.
Continuous process means a process where the inputs and outputs
flow continuously through sequential manufacturing steps throughout the
duration of the process. Continuous processes typically approach
steady-state conditions. Continuous processes typically involve the
simultaneous addition of raw material and withdrawal of product. For
the purposes of this subpart, a process producing polymers is
characterized as continuous or batch based on the operation of the
polymerization reactors.
Continuous unit operation means a unit operation operated in a
continuous process mode.
Control device is defined in Sec. 63.111 of subpart G, except that
the term ``process vent'' shall be replaced with the term ``continuous
front-end process vent'' for the purpose of this subpart.
Crumb rubber dry weight means the weight of the polymer, minus the
weight of water and residual organics.
Drawing unit means a unit operation which converts polymer into a
different shape by melting or mixing the polymer and then pulling it
through an orifice to create a continuously extruded product.
Elastomer means any polymer having a glass transition temperature
lower than -10 deg.C, or a glass transition temperature between
-10 deg.C and 25 deg.C that is capable of undergoing deformation
(stretching) of several hundred percent and recovering essentially when
the stress is removed. For the purposes of this subpart, resins are not
considered to be elastomers.
Elastomer product means one of the following 12 types of products,
as they are defined in this section:
(1) Butyl Rubber,
(2) Halobutyl Rubber,
(3) Epichlorohydrin Elastomers,
(4) Ethylene Propylene Rubber,
(5) HypalonTM,
(6) Neoprene,
(7) Nitrile Butadiene Rubber,
(8) Nitrile Butadiene Latex,
(9) Polybutadiene Rubber/Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Solution,
(10) Polysulfide Rubber,
(11) Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Emulsion, and
(12) Styrene Butadiene Latex.
Elastomer product process unit (EPPU) means a collection of
equipment assembled and connected by pipes or ducts used to process raw
materials and to manufacture an elastomer product as its primary
product. This collection of equipment includes process vents; storage
vessels, as determined in Sec. 63.480(g); and the equipment (i.e.,
pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, sampling
connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors,
instrumentation systems, surge control vessels, and bottoms receivers
that are associated with the elastomer product process unit) that are
subject to the equipment leak provisions as specified in Sec. 63.502.
Compounding units, spinning units, drawing units, extruding units, and
other finishing steps are not part of an EPPU. In addition, a solid
state polymerization unit is not part of an EPPU.
Elastomer type means one of the elastomers defined under
``elastomer product'' in this section. Each elastomer identified in
that definition represents a different elastomer type.
Emission point means an individual continuous front-end process
vent, batch front-end process vent, back-end process vent, storage
vessel, wastewater stream, or equipment leak.
Emulsion process means a process carried out with the reactants in
an emulsified form (e.g., polymerization reaction).
Epichlorohydrin elastomer means an elastomer formed from the
polymerization or copolymerization of epichlorohydrin (EPI). The main
epichlorohydrin elastomers are polyepichlorohydrin, epi-ethylene oxide
(EO) copolymer, epi-allyl glycidyl ether (AGE) copolymer, and epi-EO-
AGE terpolymer. Epoxy resins produced by the copolymerization of EPI
and bisphenol A are not epichlorohydrin elastomers.
Ethylene-propylene rubber means an ethylene-propylene copolymer or
an ethylene-propylene terpolymer. Ethylene-propylene copolymers (EPM)
result from the polymerization of ethylene and propylene and contain a
saturated chain of the polymethylene type. Ethylene-propylene
terpolymers (EPDM) are produced in a similar manner as EPM, except that
a moderate amount of the third monomer is added to the reaction
sequence. Typical third monomers include ethylidene norbornene, 1,4-
hexadiene, or dicyclopentadiene. Ethylidene norbornene is the most
commonly used. The production process includes, but is not limited to,
polymerization, recycle, recovery, and packaging operations. The
polymerization reaction may occur in either a solution process or a
suspension process.
Extruding unit means a unit operation which converts polymer into a
different shape by melting or mixing the polymer and then forcing it
through an orifice to create a continuously extruded product.
Front-end refers to the unit operations in an EPPU prior to, and
including, the stripping operations. The process front-end includes all
activity from raw material storage through the stripping operation,
including pre-polymerization blending, reactions, etc. For all gas-
phased reaction processes, all unit operations are considered to be
front-end.
Gas-phased reaction process means an elastomer production process
where the reaction occurs in a gas phase, fluidized bed.
Grade means the subdivision of an elastomer product type by
different characteristics such as molecular weight, monomer
composition, significant mooney values, and the presence or absence of
extender oil and/or carbon black.
Group 1 batch front-end process vent means a batch front-end
process vent releasing annual organic HAP emissions greater than or
equal to 11,800 kg/yr and with a cutoff flow rate, calculated in
accordance with Sec. 63.488(f), greater than or equal to the annual
average flow rate.
Group 2 batch front-end process vent means a batch front-end
process vent that does not fall within the definition of a Group 1
batch front-end process vent.
Group 1 continuous front-end process vent means a continuous front-
end process vent releasing a gaseous emission stream that has a total
resource effectiveness index value, calculated according to Sec. 63.115
of subpart G, less than or equal to 1.0.
Group 2 continuous front-end process vent means a continuous front-
end process vent that does not fall within the definition of a Group 1
continuous front-end process vent.
Group 1 storage vessel means a storage vessel at an existing
affected source that meets the applicability criteria specified in
Table 3 of this subpart, or a storage vessel at a new affected source
that meets the applicability criteria specified in Table 4 of this
subpart.
Group 2 storage vessel means a storage vessel that does not fall
within the definition of a Group 1 storage vessel.
Group 1 wastewater stream means a process wastewater stream from an
elastomer product process unit at an existing or new source with a
total volatile organic hazardous air pollutant average concentration
greater than or equal to 10,000 parts per million by weight of
compounds listed in table 9 of subpart G at any flowrate; or a process
wastewater stream from a process unit at an existing or new source that
has an average flow rate greater than or equal to 10 liters per minute
and a total volatile organic hazardous air pollutant
[[Page 46932]]
concentration greater than 1,000 parts per million by weight of
compounds listed in table 9 of subpart G.
Group 2 wastewater stream means any process wastewater stream that
does not meet the definition of a Group 1 wastewater stream.
Halobutyl rubber means a butyl rubber elastomer produced using
halogenated copolymers.
Halogenated aggregate batch vent stream means an aggregate batch
vent stream determined to have a total mass emission rate of halogen
atoms contained in organic compounds of 3,750 kg/yr or greater
determined by the Procedures presented in Sec. 63.488(h).
Halogenated batch front-end process vent means a batch front-end
process vent determined to have a mass emission rate of halogen atoms
contained in organic compounds of 3,750 kg/yr or greater determined by
the procedures presented in Sec. 63.488(h).
Halogenated continuous front-end process vent means a continuous
front-end process vent determined to have a mass emission rate of
halogen atoms contained in organic compounds of 0.45 kg/hr or greater
determined by the procedures presented in Sec. 63.115(d)(2)(v) of
subpart G.
High conversion latex means a latex where all monomers are reacted
to at least 95 percent conversion.
Hypalon TM means a chlorosulfonated polyethylene that is a
synthetic rubber produced for uses such as wire and cable insulation,
shoe soles and heels, automotive components, and building products.
Latex means a colloidal aqueous emulsion of elastomer. A latex may
be further processed into finished products by direct use as a coating
or as a foam, or it may be precipitated to separate the rubber
particles, which are then used in dry state to prepare finished
products.
Latex weight includes the weight of the polymer and the weight of
the water solution.
Mass process means a process carried out through the use of thermal
energy (e.g., polymerization reaction). Mass processes do not utilize
emulsifying or suspending agents, but can utilize catalysts or other
additives.
Material recovery section means the equipment that recovers
unreacted or by-product materials from any process section for return
to the EPPU, off-site purification or treatment, or sale. Equipment
designed to separate unreacted or by-product material from the polymer
product is to be included in this process section, provided that at the
time of initial compliance some of the material is recovered for reuse
in the process, off-site purification or treatment, or sale. Otherwise,
such equipment is to be assigned to one of the other process sections,
as appropriate. If equipment is used to recover unreacted or by-product
material and return it directly to the same piece of process equipment
from which it was emitted, then the recovery equipment is considered to
be part of the process section that contains the process equipment. On
the other hand, if equipment is used to recover unreacted or by-product
material and return it to a different piece of process equipment in the
same process section, the recovery equipment is considered to be part
of a material recovery section. Equipment that treats recovered
materials is to be included in this process section, but equipment that
also treats raw materials is not to be included in this process
section. The latter equipment is to be included in the raw materials
preparation section.
Month means either a calendar month or a repeating 30-day period.
For the purposes of compliance with the back-end limitations in
Sec. 63.506, a month can begin on any day of the month (i.e., starting
on the 15th and ending on the 14th of the following month),
as long as the month never contains more than 31 calendar days.
Neoprene means a polymer of chloroprene (2-chloro-1,3-butadiene).
The free radical emulsion process is generally used to produce
neoprene, although other methods may be used.
Nitrile butadiene latex means a polymer consisting primarily of
unsaturated nitriles and dienes, usually acrylonitrile and 1,3-
butadiene, that is sold as a latex.
Nitrile butadiene rubber means a polymer consisting primarily of
unsaturated nitriles and dienes, usually acrylonitrile and 1,3-
butadiene, not including those facilities that produce nitrile
butadiene latex.
Organic hazardous air pollutant(s) (organic HAP) means one or more
of the chemicals listed in Table 5 of this subpart or any other
chemical which:
(1) Is knowingly introduced into the manufacturing process other
than as an impurity, or has been or will be reported under any Federal
or State program, such as EPCRA section 311, 312, or 313 or Title V;
and
(2) Is listed in Table 2 of subpart F of this part.
Polybutadiene rubber/styrene butadiene rubber by solution means a
polymer of 1,3-butadiene produced using a solution process, and/or a
polymer that consists primarily of styrene and butadiene monomer units
and is produced using a solution process.
Polymerization reaction section means the equipment designed to
cause monomer(s) to react to form polymers, including equipment
designed primarily to cause the formation of short polymer chains
(e.g., oligomers or low polymers), but not including equipment designed
to prepare raw materials for polymerization (e.g., esterification
vessels). For the purposes of this subpart, the polymerization reaction
section begins with the equipment used to transfer the materials from
the raw materials preparation section and ends with the last vessel in
which polymerization occurs.
Polysulfide rubber means a polymer produced by reacting sodium
polysulfide and chloroethyl formal. Polysulfide rubber may be produced
as latexes or solid product.
Primary product is defined in and determined by the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.480(f).
Process section means the equipment designed to accomplish a
general but well-defined task in polymers production. Process sections
include raw materials preparation, polymerization reaction, and
material recovery. A process section may be dedicated to a single EPPU
or may be common to more than one EPPU.
Process unit means a collection of equipment assembled and
connected by pipes or ducts to process raw materials and to manufacture
a product.
Process vent means a point of emission from a unit operation having
a gaseous emission stream. Typical process vents include condenser
vents, dryer vents, vacuum pumps, steam ejectors, and atmospheric vents
from reactors and other process vessels, but do not include pressure
relief valves.
Product means a compound or material which is manufactured by a
process unit. By-products, isolated intermediates, impurities, wastes,
and trace contaminants are not considered products.
Raw materials preparation section means the equipment at a polymer
manufacturing plant designed to prepare raw materials, such as monomers
and solvents, for polymerization. For the purposes of this standard,
this process section begins with the equipment used to transfer raw
materials from storage and/or the equipment used to transfer recovered
material from the material recovery process sections, and ends with the
last piece of equipment that prepares the material for polymerization.
The raw materials preparation section may include equipment that is
used to purify, dry, or otherwise treat raw materials or raw and
recovered
[[Page 46933]]
materials together; to activate catalysts; and to promote
esterification including the formation of some short polymer chains
(oligomers). The raw materials preparation section does not include
equipment that is designed primarily to accomplish the formation of
oligomers, the treatment of recovered materials alone, or the storage
of raw materials.
Recovery operations equipment means the equipment used to separate
the components of process streams. Recovery operations equipment
includes distillation units, condensers, etc. Equipment used for
wastewater treatment shall not be considered recovery operations
equipment.
Resin means a polymer that is not an elastomer. The following are
characteristics of resins and the production of resins:
(1) The polymer is a block polymer;
(2) The manufactured polymer does not require vulcanization to make
useful products;
(3) The polymer production process is operated to achieve at least
99 percent monomer conversion; and
(4) The polymer process unit does not recycle unreacted monomer
back to the process.
Solid state polymerization unit means a unit operation which,
through the application of heat, furthers the polymerization (i.e.,
increases the intrinsic viscosity) of polymer chips.
Solution process means a process where both the monomers and the
resulting polymers are dissolved in an organic solvent.
Steady-state conditions means that all variables (temperatures,
pressures, volumes, flow rates, etc.) in a process do not vary
significantly with time; minor fluctuations about constant mean values
can occur.
Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel that is used to store
liquids that contain one or more organic HAP and that has been
assigned, according to the procedures in Sec. 63.480(g), to an EPPU
that is subject to this subpart. Storage vessels do not include:
(1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicles such as trucks,
railcars, barges, or ships;
(2) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere;
(3) Vessels with capacities smaller than 38 cubic meters;
(4) Vessels and equipment storing and/or handling material that
contains no organic HAP, or organic HAP as impurities only;
(5) Surge control vessels and bottoms receiver tanks; and
(6) Wastewater storage tanks.
Stripping technology means the removal of organic compounds from a
raw elastomer product by the use of heat and/or vacuum. Stripping
technology includes steam stripping, direct volatilization, chemical
stripping, and other methods of devolatilization.
Styrene butadiene latex means a polymer consisting primarily of
styrene and butadiene monomer units produced using an emulsion process
and sold as a latex.
Styrene butadiene rubber by emulsion means a polymer consisting
primarily of styrene and butadiene monomer units produced using an
emulsion process. Styrene butadiene rubber by emulsion does not include
styrene butadiene latex.
Suspension process means a process carried out with the reactants
in a state of suspension, typically achieved through the use of water
and/or suspending agents (e.g., polymerization reaction).
Total organic compounds (TOC) means those compounds, excluding
methane and ethane, measured according to the procedures of Method 18
or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Year means any consecutive 12-month period or 365 rolling days. For
the purposes of emissions averaging, the term year applies to any 12-
month period selected by the facility and defined in its Emissions
Averaging Plan. For the purposes of batch cycle limitations, the term
year applies to the 12-month period defined by the facility in its
Notification of Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.483 Emission standards.
(a) Except as allowed under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
the owner or operator of an existing or new affected source shall
comply with the provisions in:
(1) Section 63.484 for storage vessels;
(2) Section 63.485 for continuous front-end process vents;
(3) Sections 63.486 through 63.492 for batch front-end process
vents;
(4) Sections 63.493 through 63.500 for back-end process operations;
(5) Section 63.501 for wastewater;
(6) Section 63.502 for equipment leaks;
(7) Section 63.504 for additional test methods and procedures;
(8) Section 63.505 for monitoring levels and excursions; and
(9) Section 63.506 for general reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(b) Instead of complying with Secs. 63.484, 63.485, 63.493, and
63.501, the owner or operator of an existing affected source may elect
to control any or all of the storage vessels, continuous front-end
process vents, batch front-end process vents, aggregate batch vent
streams, and back-end process emissions within the affected source,
plus any or all process wastewater streams associated with the affected
source, to different levels using an emissions averaging compliance
approach that uses the procedures specified in Sec. 63.503. An owner or
operator electing to use emissions averaging must still comply with the
provisions of Secs. 63.484, 63.485, 63.486, 63.493, and 63.501 for
affected source emission points not included in the emissions average.
(c) A State may decide not to allow the use of the emissions
averaging compliance approach specified in paragraph (b) of this
section as a compliance option for an existing affected source.
Sec. 63.484 Storage vessel provisions.
(a) For each storage vessel located at an affected source, except
for those storage vessels exempted by paragraph (b) of this section,
the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements of
Secs. 63.119 through 63.123 and Sec. 63.148 of subpart G, with the
differences noted in paragraphs (c) through (q) of this section.
(b) Storage vessels described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7)
of this section are exempt from the storage vessel requirements of this
section.
(1) Storage vessels containing styrene-butadiene latex;
(2) Storage vessels containing other latex products and located
downstream of the stripping operations;
(3) Storage vessels containing high conversion latex products;
(4) Storage vessels located downstream of the stripping operations
at affected sources subject to the back-end residual organic HAP
limitation located in Sec. 63.494, that are complying through the use
of stripping technology, as specified in Sec. 63.495;
(5) Storage vessels containing styrene;
(6) Storage vessels containing acrylamide; and
(7) Storage vessels containing epichlorohydrin.
(c) When the term ``storage vessel'' is used in Secs. 63.119
through 63.123 and 63.148 of subpart G, the definition of this term in
Sec. 63.482 shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(d) When the term ``Group 1 storage vessel'' is used in
Secs. 63.119 through 63.123 and Sec. 63.148 of subpart G, the
definition of this term in Sec. 63.482 shall apply for the purposes of
this subpart.
(e) When the term ``Group 2 storage vessel'' is used in
Secs. 63.119 through
[[Page 46934]]
63.123 and Sec. 63.148 of subpart G, the definition of this term in
Sec. 63.482 shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(f) When the emissions averaging provisions of Sec. 63.150 of
subpart G are referred to in Sec. 63.119 and Sec. 63.123 of subpart G,
the emissions averaging provisions contained in Sec. 63.503 shall apply
for the purposes of this subpart.
(g) When December 31, 1992 is referred to in Sec. 63.119 of subpart
G, it shall be replaced with June 12, 1995 for the purposes of this
subpart.
(h) When April 22, 1994 is referred to in Sec. 63.119 of subpart G,
it shall be replaced with September 5, 1996 for the purposes of this
subpart.
(i) Each owner or operator shall comply with this paragraph instead
of Sec. 63.120(d)(1)(ii) of subpart G for the purposes of this subpart.
If the control device used to comply with this section is also used to
comply with Secs. 63.485 through Sec. 63.501, the performance test
required for these sections is acceptable for demonstrating compliance
with Sec. 63.119(e) of subpart G for the purposes of this subpart. The
owner or operator will not be required to prepare a design evaluation
for the control device as described in Sec. 63.120(d)(1)(i) of subpart
G, if the performance test meets the criteria specified in paragraphs
(i)(1) and (i)(2) of this section.
(1) The performance test demonstrates that the control device
achieves greater than or equal to the required control efficiency
specified in Sec. 63.119(e)(1) or Sec. 63.119(e)(2) of subpart G, as
applicable; and
(2) The performance test is submitted as part of the Notification
of Compliance Status required by Sec. 63.506(e)(5).
(j) When the term ``operating range'' is used in
Sec. 63.120(d)(3)(i) of subpart G, it shall be replaced with the term
``level,'' for the purposes of this subpart. This level shall be
established using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.505.
(k) When the Notification of Compliance Status requirements
contained in Sec. 63.152(b) of subpart G are referred to in
Secs. 63.120, 63.122, and 63.123 of subpart G, the Notification of
Compliance Status requirements contained in Sec. 63.506(e)(5) shall
apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(l) When the Periodic Report requirements contained in
Sec. 63.152(c) of subpart G are referred to in Secs. 63.120, 63.122,
and 63.123 of subpart G, the Periodic Report requirements contained in
Sec. 63.506(e)(6) shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(m) When other reports as required in Sec. 63.152(d) of subpart G
are referred to in Sec. 63.122 of subpart G, the reporting requirements
contained in Sec. 63.506(e)(7) shall apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
(n) When the Implementation Plan requirements contained in
Sec. 63.151(c) of subpart G are referred to in Sec. 63.119 through
Sec. 63.123 of subpart G, for the purposes of this subpart the owner or
operator of an affected source need not comply.
(o) When the Initial Notification Plan requirements contained in
Sec. 63.151(b) of subpart G are referred to in Sec. 63.119 through
Sec. 63.123 of subpart G, for the purposes of this subpart the owner or
operator of an affected source need not comply.
(p) When the determination of equivalence criteria in
Sec. 63.102(b) of subpart F are referred to in Sec. 63.121(a) of
subpart G, the provisions in Sec. 63.6(g) of subpart A shall apply for
the purposes of this subpart.
(q) The compliance date for storage vessels at affected sources
subject to the provisions of this section is specified in Sec. 63.481.
Sec. 63.485 Continuous front-end process vent provisions.
(a) For each continuous front-end process vent located at an
affected source, the owner or operator shall comply with the
requirements of Secs. 63.113 through 63.118 of subpart G, except as
provided for in paragraphs (b) through (s) of this section. Continuous
front-end process vents that are combined with one or more batch front-
end process vents shall comply with paragraph (m) or (n) of this
section.
(b) When the term ``process vent'' is used in Secs. 63.113 through
63.118 of subpart G, it shall be replaced with the term ``continuous
front-end process vent,'' and the definition of this term in
Sec. 63.482 shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(c) When the term ``halogenated process vent'' is used in
Secs. 63.113 through 63.118 of subpart G, it shall be replaced with the
term ``halogenated continuous front-end process vent,'' and the
definition of this term in Sec. 63.482 shall apply for the purposes of
this subpart.
(d) When the term ``Group 1 process vent'' is used in Secs. 63.113
through 63.118 of subpart G, it shall be replaced with the term ``Group
1 continuous front-end process vent,'' and the definition of this term
in Sec. 63.482 shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(e) When the term ``Group 2 process vent'' is used in Secs. 63.113
through 63.118 of subpart G, it shall be replaced with the term ``Group
2 continuous front-end process vent,'' and the definition of this term
in Sec. 63.482 shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(f) When December 31, 1992 is referred to in Sec. 63.113 of subpart
G, it shall be replaced with June 12, 1995 for the purposes of this
subpart.
(g) When Secs. 63.151(f), alternative monitoring parameters, and
63.152(e), submission of an operating permit, of subpart G are referred
to in Secs. 63.114(c) and 63.117(e) of subpart G, Sec. 63.506(f),
alternative monitoring parameters, and Sec. 63.506(e)(8), submission of
an operating permit, respectively, shall apply for the purposes of this
subpart.
(h) When the Notification of Compliance Status requirements
contained in Sec. 63.152(b) of subpart G are referred to in
Secs. 63.114, 63.117, and 63.118 of subpart G, the Notification of
Compliance Status requirements contained in Sec. 63.506(e)(5) shall
apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(i) When the Periodic Report requirements contained in
Sec. 63.152(c) of subpart G are referred to in Secs. 63.117 and 63.118
of subpart G, the Periodic Report requirements contained in
Sec. 63.506(e)(6) shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(j) When the definition of excursion in Sec. 63.152(c)(2)(ii)(A) of
subpart G is referred to in Sec. 63.118(f)(2) of subpart G, the
definition of excursion in Sec. 63.505(g) and (h) shall apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
(k) For the purposes of this subpart, owners and operators shall
comply with Sec. 63.505, parameter monitoring levels and excursions,
instead of Sec. 63.114(e) of subpart G. When the term ``range'' is used
in Sec. 63.117(f), Sec. 63.118(a)(2)(iv), (b)(2)(iv), (f)(1), and
(f)(6) of subpart G, it shall be replaced with the term ``level.'' This
level is determined in accordance with Sec. 63.505.
(l) When reports of process changes are required under Sec. 63.118
(g), (h), (i), and (j) of subpart G, paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(4)
of this section shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(1) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec. 63.115(e) of
subpart G, is made that causes a Group 2 continuous front-end process
vent to become a Group 1 continuous front-end process vent, the owner
or operator shall submit the following information in the first
periodic report following the process change, as specified in
Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2):
(i) A description of the process change; and
(ii) A schedule for compliance with Sec. 63.113(a) of subpart G, as
required under Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2).
(2) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec. 63.115(e) of
subpart G, is made that causes a Group 2 continuous front-end process
vent with a TRE greater than 4.0 to become a Group 2
[[Page 46935]]
continuous front-end process vent with a TRE less than 4.0, the owner
or operator shall submit the following information in the first
periodic report following the process change, as specified in
Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2):
(i) A description of the process change; and
(ii) A schedule for compliance with the provisions of
Sec. 63.113(d) of subpart G, as required under
Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2).
(3) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec. 63.115(e) of
subpart G, is made that causes a Group 2 continuous front-end process
vent with a flow rate less than 0.005 standard cubic meter per minute
(scmm) to become a Group 2 continuous front-end process vent with a
flow rate of 0.005 scmm or greater and a TRE index value less than or
equal to 4.0, the owner or operator shall submit the following
information in the first periodic report following the process change,
as specified in Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2):
(i) A description of the process change; and
(ii) A schedule for compliance with two provisions of
Sec. 63.113(d) of subpart G, as required under
Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2).
(4) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec. 63.115(e) of
subpart G, is made that causes a Group 2 continuous front-end process
vent with an organic HAP concentration less than 50 parts per million
by volume (ppmv) to become a Group 2 continuous front-end process vent
with an organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv or greater and a TRE index
value less than or equal to 4.0, the owner or operator shall submit the
following information in the first periodic report following the
process change, as specified in Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2):
(i) A description of the process change; and
(ii) A schedule for compliance with the provisions of
Sec. 63.113(d) of subpart G, as required under
Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2).
(m) If a batch front-end process vent is combined with a continuous
front-end process vent prior to being routed to a control device, the
combined vent stream shall comply with either paragraph (m)(1) or
(m)(2) of this section, as appropriate.
(1) If the continuous front-end process vent is a Group 1
continuous front-end process vent, the combined vent stream shall
comply with all requirements for a Group 1 continuous process vent
stream in Secs. 63.113 through 63.118 of subpart G, with the
differences noted in paragraphs (b) through (l) of this section.
(2) If the continuous front-end process vent is a Group 2
continuous front-end process vent, the TRE index value shall be
calculated during maximum representative operating conditions. For
combined streams containing continuous front-end and batch front-end
process vents, the maximum representative operating conditions shall be
during periods when batch emission episodes are venting to the control
device resulting in the highest concentration of organic HAP in the
combined vent stream.
(n) If a batch front-end process vent is combined with a continuous
front-end process vent prior to being routed to a recovery device, the
TRE index value shall be calculated at the exit of the recovery device
at maximum representative operating conditions. For combined vent
streams containing continuous front-end and batch front-end process
vents, the maximum representative operating conditions shall be during
periods when batch emission episodes are venting to the recovery device
resulting in the highest concentration of organic HAP in the combined
vent stream.
(o) Group 1 halogenated continuous front-end process vents at
affected existing sources producing butyl rubber, halobutyl rubber, or
ethylene propylene rubber are exempt from the requirements to control
hydrogen halides and halogens from the outlet of combustion devices
contained in Sec. 63.113(c) of subpart G, if the conditions in
paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this section are met. Affected new
sources are not exempt from these provisions.
(1)(i) For affected sources producing butyl rubber, halobutyl
rubber, or ethylene propylene rubber using a solution process, if the
halogenated continuous front-end process vent stream was controlled by
a combustion device prior to June 12, 1995, or
(ii) For affected sources producing ethylene propylene rubber using
a gas-phased reaction process, if the halogenated continuous front-end
process vent stream was controlled by a combustion device since
startup.
(2) The combustion device meets the requirements of
Sec. 63.113(a)(1)(i), Sec. 63.113(a)(2), Sec. 63.113(a)(3), or
Sec. 63.113(b) of subpart G.
(p) The compliance date for continuous front-end process vents
subject to the provisions of this section is specified in Sec. 63.481.
This replaces the reference to Sec. 63.100 of subpart F in
Sec. 63.115(e)(2) of subpart G.
(q) Internal combustion engines. In addition to the three options
for the control of a Group 1 continuous front-end process vent listed
in Sec. 63.113(a) (1)-(3) of subpart G, an owner or operator can route
emissions of organic HAP to an internal combustion engine, provided the
conditions listed in paragraphs (q)(1) through (q)(3) of this section
are met.
(1) The vent stream routed to the internal combustion engine shall
not be a halogenated continuous front-end process vent stream.
(2) The organic HAP is introduced with the primary fuel.
(3) The owner or operator continuously monitors the on/off status
of the internal combustion engine.
(4) If an internal combustion engine meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (q) (1) through (3) of this section is used to comply with
the provisions of Sec. 63.113(a) of subpart G, the internal combustion
engine is exempt from the source testing requirements of Sec. 63.116 of
subpart G.
(r) When the provisions of Sec. 63.116 (c)(3) and (c)(4) of subpart
G specify that Method 18 shall be used, Method 18 or Method 25A may be
used for the purposes of this subpart. The use of Method 25A shall
comply with paragraphs (r)(1) and (r)(2) of this section.
(1) The organic HAP used as the calibration gas for Method 25A
shall be the single organic HAP representing the largest percent by
volume of the emissions.
(2) The use of Method 25A is acceptable if the response from the
high-level calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation
of the response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is
zeroed on the most sensitive scale.
(s) When the provisions of Sec. 63.116(b) identify conditions under
which a performance test is not required, for purposes of this subpart,
the exemption in paragraph (s)(1) of this section shall also apply.
Further, if a performance test meeting the conditions specified in
paragraph (s)(2) of this section has been conducted by the owner or
operator, the results of that performance test shall suffice, for the
purposes of this section.
(1) An inci
FR Doc. 96-21941 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
nerator burning hazardous waste for which the owner or
operator complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O.
(2) Performance tests done for other subparts in part 60 or part 63
where total organic HAP or TOC was measured, provided that the owner or
operator can demonstrate that operating conditions for the process and
control or recovery device during the performance test are
representative of current operating conditions.
[[Page 46936]]
Sec. 63.486 Batch front-end process vent provisions.
(a) Batch front-end process vents. Except as specified in paragraph
(b) of this section, owners and operators of new and existing affected
sources with batch front-end process vents shall comply with the
requirements in Secs. 63.487 through 63.492. The batch front-end
process vent group status shall be determined in accordance with
Sec. 63.488. Batch front-end process vents classified as Group 1 shall
comply with the reference control technology requirements for Group 1
batch front-end process vents in Sec. 63.487, the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.489, the performance test methods and
procedures to determine compliance requirements in Sec. 63.490, the
recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 63.491, and the reporting
requirements in Sec. 63.492. All Group 2 batch front-end process vents
shall comply with the applicable reference control technology
requirements in Sec. 63.487, the recordkeeping requirements in
Sec. 63.491, and the reporting requirements in Sec. 63.492.
(b) Aggregate batch vent streams. Aggregate batch vent streams, as
defined in Sec. 63.482, are subject to the control requirements for
individual batch front-end process vents, as specified in
Sec. 63.487(b), as well as the monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements specified in Sec. 63.489 through Sec. 63.492.
Sec. 63.487 Batch front-end process vents--reference control
technology.
(a) Batch front-end process vents. The owner or operator of a Group
1 batch front-end process vent, as determined using the procedures in
Sec. 63.488, shall comply with the requirements of either paragraph
(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section. Compliance can be based on either
organic HAP or TOC.
(1) For each batch front-end process vent, reduce organic HAP
emissions using a flare.
(i) The flare shall comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b)
of subpart A.
(ii) Halogenated batch front-end process vents, as defined in
Sec. 63.482, shall not be vented to a flare.
(2) For each batch front-end process vent, reduce organic HAP
emissions for the batch cycle by 90 weight percent using a control
device. Owners or operators may achieve compliance with this paragraph
through the control of selected batch emission episodes or the control
of portions of selected batch emission episodes. Documentation
demonstrating how the 90 weight percent emission reduction is achieved
is required by Sec. 63.490(c)(2).
(b) Aggregate batch vent streams. The owner or operator of an
aggregate batch vent stream that contains one or more Group 1 batch
front-end process vents shall comply with the requirements of either
paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section. Compliance can be based on
either organic HAP or TOC.
(1) For each aggregate batch vent stream, reduce organic HAP
emissions using a flare.
(i) The flare shall comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b)
of subpart A.
(ii) Halogenated aggregate batch vent streams, as defined in
Sec. 63.482, shall not be vented to a flare.
(2) For each aggregate batch vent stream, reduce organic HAP
emissions by 90 weight percent on a continuous basis using a control
device.
(c) Halogenated emissions. Halogenated Group 1 batch front-end
process vents, halogenated aggregate batch vent streams, and
halogenated continuous front-end process vents that are combusted as
part of complying with paragraph (a)(2) or (b)(2) of this section,
shall be controlled according to either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of
this section.
(1) If a combustion device is used to comply with paragraph (a)(2)
or (b)(2) of this section for a halogenated batch front-end process
vent or halogenated aggregate batch vent stream, the emissions shall be
ducted from the combustion device to an additional control device that
reduces overall emissions of hydrogen halides and halogens by 99
percent before those emissions are discharged to the atmosphere.
(2) A control device may be used to reduce the halogen atom mass
emission rate to less than 3,750 kg/yr for batch front-end process
vents or aggregate batch vent streams and thus make the batch front-end
process vent or aggregate batch vent stream nonhalogenated. The
nonhalogenated batch front-end process vent or aggregate batch vent
stream must then comply with the requirements of either paragraph (a)
or (b) of this section, as appropriate.
(d) If a boiler or process heater is used to comply with the
percent reduction requirement specified in paragraph (a)(2) or (b)(2)
of this section, the batch front-end process vent or aggregate batch
vent stream shall be introduced into the flame zone of such a device.
(e) Combination of batch front-end process vents or aggregate batch
vent streams with continuous front-end process vents. A batch front-end
process vent or aggregate batch vent stream combined with a continuous
front-end process vent stream is not subject to the provisions of
Secs. 63.488 through 63.492, providing the requirements of paragraphs
(e)(1), (e)(2), and either (e)(3) or (e)(4) of this section are met.
(1) The batch front-end process vent is combined with a continuous
front-end process vent prior to routing the continuous front-end
process vent to a control or recovery device. In this paragraph, the
definitions of control device and recovery device as they relate to
continuous front-end process vents shall be used.
(2) The only emissions to the atmosphere from the batch front-end
process vent or aggregate batch vent stream prior to being combined
with the continuous front-end process vent are from equipment subject
to and in compliance with Sec. 63.502.
(3) If the batch front-end vent stream or aggregate batch vent
stream is combined with a continuous front-end process vent stream
prior to being routed to a control device, the combined vent stream
shall comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.485(m). In this
paragraph, the definition of control device as it relates to continuous
front-end process vents shall be used.
(4) If the batch front-end process vent or aggregate batch vent
stream is combined with a continuous front-end process vent stream
prior to being routed to a recovery device, the combined vent stream
shall comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.485(n). In this
paragraph, the definition of recovery device as it relates to
continuous front-end process vents shall be used.
(f) Group 2 batch front-end process vents with annual emissions
greater than or equal to the level specified in Sec. 63.488(d). The
owner or operator of a Group 2 batch front-end process vent with annual
emissions greater than or equal to the level specified in
Sec. 63.488(d) shall comply with the provisions of paragraphs (f)(1)
and (f)(2) of this section.
(1) Establish a batch cycle limitation that ensures that the Group
2 batch front-end process vent does not become a Group 1 batch front-
end process vent, and
(2) Comply with the recordkeeping requirements in
Sec. 63.491(d)(2), and the reporting requirements in Sec. 63.492(a)(3)
and (b).
(g) Group 2 batch front-end process vents with annual emissions
less than the level specified in Sec. 63.488(d). The owner or operator
of a Group 2 batch front-end process vent with annual organic HAP
emissions less than the level specified in Sec. 63.488(d), shall comply
with either paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section or with
[[Page 46937]]
paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.
(1) Establish a batch cycle limitation that ensures emissions do
not exceed the appropriate level specified in Sec. 63.488(d), and
(2) Comply with the recordkeeping requirements in
Sec. 63.491(d)(1), and the reporting requirements in Sec. 63.492(a)(2),
(b), and (c).
Sec. 63.488 Methods and procedures for batch front-end process vent
group determination.
(a) General requirements. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section, the owner or operator of batch front-end process vents at
affected sources shall determine the group status of each batch front-
end process vent in accordance with the provisions of this section.
This determination may be based on either organic HAP or TOC emissions.
(1) The procedures specified in paragraphs (b) through (i) shall be
followed for the expected mix of products for a given batch front-end
process vent, as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, or
for the worst-case HAP emitting batch unit operation, as specified in
paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) through (a)(1)(iv) of this section. ``Worst-case
HAP emitting product'' is defined in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this
section.
(i) If an owner or operator chooses to follow the procedures
specified in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section for the
expected mix of products, an identification of the different products
and the number of batch cycles accomplished for each is required as
part of the group determination documentation.
(ii) If an owner or operator chooses to follow the procedures
specified in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section for the worst-
case HAP emitting product, documentation identifying the worst-case HAP
emitting product is required as part of the group determination
documentation.
(iii) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) of this
section, the worst-case HAP emitting product is as defined in paragraph
(a)(1)(iii)(A) of this section.
(A) The worst-case HAP emitting product is the one with the highest
mass emission rate (kg organic HAP per hour) averaged over the entire
time period of the batch cycle.
(B) Alternatively, when one product is produced more than 75
percent of the time, accounts for more than 75 percent of the annual
mass of product, and the owner or operator can show that the mass
emission rate (kg organic HAP per hour) averaged over the entire time
period of the batch cycle can reasonably be expected to be similar to
the mass emission rate for other products having emissions from the
same batch front-end process vent, that product may be considered the
worst-case HAP emitting product.
(C) An owner or operator shall determine the worst-case HAP
emitting product for a batch front-end process vent as specified in
paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(C)(1) through (a)(1)(iii)(C)(3) of this section.
(1) The emissions per batch emission episode shall be determined
using any of the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
The mass emission rate (kg organic HAP per hour) averaged over the
entire time period of the batch cycle shall be determined by summing
the emissions for each batch emission episode making up a complete
batch cycle and dividing by the total duration in hours of the batch
cycle.
(2) To determine the worst-case HAP emitting product as specified
under paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, the mass emission rate
for each product shall be determined and compared.
(3) To determine the worst-case HAP emitting product as specified
under paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) of this section, the mass emission rate
for the product meeting the time and mass criteria of paragraph
(a)(1)(iii)(B) of this section shall be determined, and the owner or
operator shall provide adequate information to demonstrate that the
mass emission rate for said product is similar to the mass emission
rates for the other products having emissions from the same batch
process vent. In addition, the owner or operator shall provide
information demonstrating that the selected product meets the time and
mass criteria of paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) of this section.
(iv) The annual production of the worst-case HAP emitting product
shall be determined by ratioing the production time of the worst-case
product up to a 12 month period of actual production. It is not
necessary to ratio up to a maximum production rate (i.e., 8,760 hours
per year at maximum design production).
(2) The annual uncontrolled organic HAP or TOC emissions and
average flow rate shall be determined at the exit from the batch unit
operation. For the purposes of these determinations, the primary
condenser operating as a reflux condenser on a distillation column, the
primary condenser recovering monomer or solvent from a batch stripping
operation, and the primary condenser recovering monomer or solvent from
a batch distillation operation shall be considered part of the batch
unit operation. All other devices that recover or oxidize organic HAP
or TOC vapors shall be considered control devices as defined in
Sec. 63.482.
(3) The owner or operator of a batch front-end process vent
complying with the flare provisions in Sec. 63.487(a)(1) or
Sec. 63.487(b)(1) or routing the batch front-end process vent to a
control device to comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.487(a)(2) or
Sec. 63.487(b)(2) is not required to perform the batch front-end
process vent group determination described in this section, but shall
comply with all requirements applicable to Group 1 batch front-end
process vents.
(b) Determination of annual emissions. The owner or operator shall
calculate annual uncontrolled TOC or organic HAP emissions for each
batch front-end process vent using the methods described in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(8) of this section. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4)
of this section present procedures that can be used to calculate the
emissions from individual batch emission episodes. Emissions from batch
front-end processes involving multicomponent systems are to be
calculated using the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of
this section. Individual HAP partial pressures in multicomponent
systems shall be determined by the following methods: If the components
are miscible in one another, use Raoult's law to calculate the partial
pressures; if the solution is a dilute aqueous mixture, use Henry's law
constants to calculate partial pressures; if Raoult's law or Henry's
law are not appropriate or available, use experimentally obtained
activity coefficients, Henry's law constants, or solubility data; if
Raoult's law or Henry's law are not appropriate, use models, such as
the group-contribution models, to predict activity coefficients; and if
Raoult's law or Henry's law are not appropriate, assume the components
of the system behave independently and use the summation of all vapor
pressures from the HAP's as the total HAP partial pressure. Chemical
property data can be obtained from standard reference texts. Paragraph
(b)(5) of this section describes how direct measurement can be used to
estimate emissions. If the owner or operator can demonstrate that the
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section are not
appropriate to estimate emissions from a batch front-end process
emission episode, emissions may be estimated using engineering
assessment, as described in paragraph (b)(6) of this section. Owners or
operators are not required to demonstrate that direct measurement is
[[Page 46938]]
not appropriate before utilizing engineering assessment. Paragraph
(b)(6)(ii) of this section describes how an owner or operator shall
demonstrate that the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of
this section are not appropriate. Emissions from a batch cycle shall be
calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(7) of this section, and
annual emissions from the batch front-end process vent shall be
calculated in accordance with paragraph (b)(8) of this section.
(1) TOC or organic HAP emissions from the purging of an empty
vessel shall be calculated using Equation 1. This equation does not
take into account evaporation of any residual liquid in the vessel.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.000
where:
Eepisode=Emissions, kg/episode.
Vves=Volume of vessel, m3.
P=TOC or total organic HAP partial pressure, kPa.
MWWAVG=Weighted average molecular weight of TOC or organic HAP in
vapor, determined in accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this
section, kg/kmol.
R=Ideal gas constant, 8.314 m3kPa/kmol deg.K.
T=Temperature of vessel vapor space, deg.K.
m=Number of volumes of purge gas used.
(2) TOC or organic HAP emissions from the purging of a filled
vessel shall be calculated using Equation 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.001
where:
Eepisode=Emissions, kg/episode.
y=Saturated mole fraction of all TOC or organic HAP in vapor phase.
Vdr=Volumetric gas displacement rate, m3/min.
P=Pressure in vessel vapor space, kPa.
MWWAVG=Weighted average molecular weight of TOC or organic HAP in
vapor, determined in accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this
section, kg/kmol.
R=Ideal gas constant, 8.314 m3kPa/kmol deg.K.
T=Temperature of vessel vapor space, deg.K.
Pi=Vapor pressure of TOC or individual organic HAP i, kPa.
xi=Mole fraction of TOC or organic HAP i in the liquid.
n=Number of organic HAP in stream.
Note: Summation not required if TOC emissions are being estimated.
Tm=Minutes/episode.
(3) Emissions from vapor displacement due to transfer of material
into or out of a vessel shall be calculated using Equation 3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.002
where:
Eepisode=Emissions, kg/episode.
y=Saturated mole fraction of all TOC or organic HAP in vapor phase.
V=Volume of gas displaced from the vessel, m3.
P=Pressure of vessel vapor space, kPa.
MWWAVG=Weighted average molecular weight of TOC or organic HAP in
vapor, determined in accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this
section, kg/kmol.
R=Ideal gas constant, 8.314 m3kPa/kmol deg.K.
T=Temperature of vessel vapor space, deg.K.
(4) Emissions caused by the heating of a vessel shall be calculated
using the procedures in either paragraph (b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(ii), or
(b)(4)(iii) of this section, as appropriate.
(i) If the final temperature to which the vessel contents is heated
is lower than 50 K below the boiling point of the HAP in the vessel,
then emissions shall be calculated using the equations in paragraphs
(b)(4)(i)(A) through (b)(4)(i)(D) of this section.
(A) Emissions caused by heating of a vessel shall be calculated
using Equation 4. The assumptions made for this calculation are
atmospheric pressure of 760 mm Hg and the displaced gas is always
saturated with VOC vapor in equilibrium with the liquid mixture.
[[Page 46939]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.003
where:
Eepisode=Emissions, kg/episode.
(Pi)T1, (Pi)T2=Partial pressure (kPa) TOC or each organic HAP
in the vessel headspace at initial (T1) and final (T2) temperature.
n=Number of organic HAP in stream. Note: Summation not required if TOC
emissions are being estimated.
=Number of kilogram-moles (kg-moles) of gas
displaced, determined in accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(i)(B) of this
section.
101.325=Constant, kPa.
(MWWAVG,T1), (MWWAVG,T2)=Weighted average molecular weight of
TOC or organic HAP in vapor, determined in accordance with paragraph
(b)(4)(iii) of this section.
(B) The moles of gas displaced, , is calculated
using equation 5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.004
where:
=Number of kg-moles of gas displaced.
Vfs=Volume of free space in the vessel, m3.
R=Ideal gas constant, 8.314 m3kPa/kmolK.
Pa1=Initial noncondensible gas pressure in the vessel, kPa.
Pa2=Final noncondensible gas pressure, kPa.
T1=Initial temperature of vessel, K.
T2=Final temperature of vessel, K.
(C) The initial and final pressure of the noncondensible gas in the
vessel shall be calculated using equation 6.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.005
where:
Pa=Initial or final partial pressure of noncondensible gas in the
vessel headspace, kPa.
101.325=Constant, kPa.
(Pi)T=Partial pressure of TOC or each organic HAP i in the vessel
headspace, kPa, at the initial or final temperature (T1 or
T2).
n=Number of organic HAP in stream. Note: Summation not required if TOC
emissions are being estimated.
(D) The weighted average molecular weight of organic HAP in the
displaced gas, MWHAP, shall be calculated using equation 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.006
where:
c=TOC or organic HAP component
n=Number of TOC or organic HAP components in stream.
(ii) If the vessel contents are heated to a temperature greater
than 50 K below the boiling point, then emissions from the heating of a
vessel shall be calculated as the sum of the emissions calculated in
accordance with paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A) and (b)(4)(ii)(B) of this
section.
(A) For the interval from the initial temperature to the
temperature 50 K below the boiling point, emissions shall be calculated
using Equation 4, where T2 is the temperature 50 K below the
boiling point.
(B) For the interval from the temperature 50 K below the boiling
point to the final temperature, emissions shall be calculated as the
summation of emissions for each 5 K increment, where the emissions for
each increment shall be calculated using Equation 4.
(1) If the final temperature of the heatup is lower than 5 K below
the boiling point, the final temperature for the last increment shall
be the final temperature for the heatup, even if the last increment is
less than 5 K.
(2) If the final temperature of the heatup is higher than 5 K below
the boiling point, the final temperature for the last increment shall
be the temperature 5 K below the boiling point, even if the last
increment is less than 5 K.
(3) If the vessel contents are heated to the boiling point and the
vessel is not operating with a condenser, the final temperature for the
final increment shall be the temperature 5 K below the boiling point,
even if the last increment is less than 5 K.
(iii) If the vessel is operating with a condenser, and the vessel
contents are heated to the boiling point, the primary condenser is
considered part of the process, as described in Sec. 63.488(a)(2).
Emissions shall be calculated as the sum of Equation 4, which
calculates emissions due to heating the vessel contents to the
temperature of the gas
[[Page 46940]]
exiting the condenser, and Equation 3, which calculates emissions due
to the displacement of the remaining saturated noncondensible gas in
the vessel. The final temperature in Equation 4 shall be set equal to
the exit gas temperature of the condenser. Equation 3 shall be used as
written below in Equation 3a, using free space volume, and T2 is
set equal to the condenser exit gas temperature.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.007
where:
Eepisode=Organic HAP emissions, kg/episode.
yi=Saturated mole fraction of organic HAP in the vapor phase.
Vfs=Volume of the free space in the vessel, m3.
PT=Pressure of the vessel vapor space, kPa.
MWHAP=Weighted average molecular weight of organic HAP in vapor,
determined in accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section.
R=Ideal gas constant, 8.314 m3kPa/kmolK.
T=Temperature of condenser exit stream K.
n=Number of organic HAP in stream.
(5) The owner or operator may estimate annual emissions for a batch
emission episode by direct measurement. If direct measurement is used,
the owner or operator shall either perform a test for the duration of a
representative batch emission episode or perform a test during only
those periods of the batch emission episode for which the emission rate
for the entire episode can be determined or for which the emissions are
greater than the average emission rate of the batch emission episode.
The owner or operator choosing either of these options must develop an
emission profile for the entire batch emission episode, based on either
process knowledge or test data collected, to demonstrate that test
periods are representative. Examples of information that could
constitute process knowledge include calculations based on material
balances and process stoichiometry. Previous test results may be used
provided the results are still relevant to the current batch process
vent conditions. Performance tests shall follow the procedures
specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii) of this section.
The procedures in either paragraph (b)(5)(iv) or (b)(5)(v) of this
section shall be used to calculate the emissions per batch emission
episode.
(i) Method 1 or 1A, as appropriate, shall be used for selection of
the sampling sites if the flow measuring device is a pitot tube. No
traverse is necessary when Method 2A or 2D is used to determine gas
stream volumetric flow rate.
(ii) Gas stream volumetric flow rate and/or average flow rate shall
be determined as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
(iii) Method 18 or Method 25A, of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, shall
be used to determine the concentration of TOC or organic HAP, as
appropriate. The use of Method 25A shall comply with paragraphs
(b)(5)(iii)(A) and (b)(5)(iii)(B) of this section.
(A) The organic HAP used as the calibration gas for Method 25A
shall be the single organic HAP representing the largest percent by
volume of the emissions.
(B) The use of Method 25A is acceptable if the response from the
high-level calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation
of the response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is
zeroed on the most sensitive scale.
(iv) If an integrated sample is taken over the entire batch
emission episode to determine TOC or average total organic HAP
concentration, emissions shall be calculated using Equation 8.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.008
where:
Eepisode=Emissions, kg/episode
K=Constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (ppmv) -1 (gm-mole/scm) (kg/gm)
(min/hr), where standard temperature is 20 deg.C.
Cj=Average concentration of TOC or sample organic HAP component j
of the gas stream for the batch emission episode, dry basis, ppmv.
Mj=Molecular weight of TOC or sample component j of the gas
stream, dry basis, gm/gm-mole.
AFR=Average flow rate of gas stream, dry basis, scmm.
Th=Hours/episode
n=Number of organic HAP in stream. Note: Summation not required if TOC
emissions are being estimated using a TOC concentration measured using
Method 25A.
(v) If grab samples are taken to determine TOC or average total
organic HAP concentration, emissions shall be calculated according to
paragraphs (b)(5)(v)(A) and (b)(5)(v)(B) of this section.
(A) For each measurement point, the emission rate shall be
calculated using Equation 9.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.009
where:
Epoint=Emission rate for individual measurement point, kg/hr.
K=Constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (ppmv)-1 (gm-mole/scm) (kg/gm)
(min/hr), where standard temperature is 20 deg.C.
Cj=Concentration of TOC or sample component j of the gas stream,
dry basis, ppmv.
Mj=Molecular weight of TOC or sample component j of the gas
stream, gm/gm-mole.
FR=Flow rate of gas stream for the measurement point, dry basis, scmm.
n=Number of organic HAP in stream. Note: Summation not required if TOC
emissions are being estimated using a TOC concentration measured using
Method 25A.
(B) The emissions per batch emission episode shall be calculated
using Equation 10.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.010
where:
Eepisode=Emissions, kg/episode.
DUR=Duration of the batch emission episode, hr/episode.
Ei=Emissions for measurement point i, kg/hr.
n=Number of measurements.
(6) If the owner or operator can demonstrate that the methods in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section are not appropriate to
estimate emissions for a batch emissions episode, the owner or operator
may use engineering assessment to estimate emissions as specified in
paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (b)(6)(ii) of this section. All data,
assumptions, and procedures used in an engineering assessment shall be
documented.
(i) Engineering assessment includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
(A) Previous test results, provided the tests are representative of
current operating practices.
(B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the
process under representative operating conditions.
(C) Flow rate, TOC emission rate, or organic HAP emission rate
specified or implied within a permit limit applicable to the batch
front-end process vent.
(D) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering
principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not
limited to:
[[Page 46941]]
(1) Use of material balances,
(2) Estimation of flow rate based on physical equipment design,
such as pump or blower capacities, and
(3) Estimation of TOC or organic HAP concentrations based on
saturation conditions.
(ii) The emissions estimation equations in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(4) of this section shall be considered inappropriate for
estimating emissions for a given batch emissions episode if one or more
of the criteria in paragraphs (b)(6)(ii)(A) through (b)(6)(ii)(B) of
this section are met.
(A) Previous test data are available that show a greater than 20
percent discrepancy between the test value and the estimated value.
(B) The owner or operator can demonstrate to the Administrator
through any other means that the emissions estimation equations are not
appropriate for a given batch emissions episode.
(C) Data or other information supporting a finding that the
emissions estimation equations are inappropriate as specified under
paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(A) of this section shall be reported in the
Notification of Compliance Status, as required in Sec. 63.506(e)(5).
(D) Data or other information supporting a finding that the
emissions estimation equations are inappropriate as specified under
paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(B) of this section shall be reported in the
Precompliance Report, as required in Sec. 63.506(e)(3).
(7) For each batch front-end process vent, the TOC or organic HAP
emissions associated with a single batch cycle shall be calculated
using Equation 11.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.011
where:
Ecycle=Emissions for an individual batch cycle, kg/batch cycle.
Eepisodei=Emissions from a batch emission episode i, kg/episode.
n=Number of batch emission episodes for the batch cycle.
(8) Annual TOC or organic HAP emissions from a batch front-end
process vent shall be calculated using Equation 12.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.012
where:
AE=Annual emissions from a batch front-end process vent, kg/yr.
Ni=Number of type i batch cycles performed annually, cycles/year.
Ecyclei=Emissions from the batch front-end process vent associated
with single type i batch cycle, as determined in paragraph (b)(7) of
this section, kg/batch cycle.
n=Number of different types of batch cycles that cause the emission of
TOC or organic HAP from the batch front-end process vent.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Minimum emission level exemption. A batch front-end process
vent with annual emissions less than 11,800 kg/yr is considered a Group
2 batch front-end process vent and the owner or operator of that batch
front-end process vent shall comply with the requirements in
Sec. 63.487 (f) or (g). The owner or operator of that batch front-end
process vent is not required to comply with the provisions in
paragraphs (e) through (g) of this section.
(e) Determination of average flow rate. The owner or operator shall
determine the average flow rate for each batch emission episode in
accordance with one of the procedures provided in paragraphs (e)(1)
through (e)(2) of this section. The annual average flow rate for a
batch front-end process vent shall be calculated as specified in
paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(1) Determination of the average flow rate for a batch emission
episode by direct measurement shall be made using the procedures
specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iii) of this section.
(i) The vent stream volumetric flow rate (Qs) for a batch
emission episode, in scmm at 20 deg.C, shall be determined using
Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as appropriate.
(ii) The volumetric flow rate of a representative batch emission
episode shall be measured every 15 minutes.
(iii) The average flow rate for a batch emission episode shall be
calculated using Equation 13.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.013
where:
AFRepisode=Average flow rate for the batch emission episode, scmm.
FRi=Flow rate for individual measurement i, scmm.
n=Number of flow rate measurements taken during the batch emission
episode.
(2) The average flow rate for a batch emission episode may be
determined by engineering assessment, as defined in paragraph (b)(6)(i)
of this section. All data, assumptions, and procedures used shall be
documented.
(3) The annual average flow rate for a batch front-end process vent
shall be calculated using Equation 14.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.014
where:
AFR=Annual average flow rate for the batch front-end process vent,
scmm.
DURi=Duration of type i batch emission episodes annually, hr/yr.
AFRepisode,i=Average flow rate for type i batch emission episode,
scmm.
n=Number of types of batch emission episodes venting from the batch
front-end process vent.
(f) Determination of cutoff flow rate. For each batch front-end
process vent, the owner or operator shall calculate the cutoff flow
rate using Equation 15.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.015
where:
CFR=Cutoff flow rate, scmm.
AE=Annual TOC or organic HAP emissions, as determined in paragraph
(b)(8) of this section, kg/yr.
(g) Group 1/Group 2 status determination. The owner or operator
shall compare the cutoff flow rate, calculated in accordance with
paragraph (f) of this section, with the annual average flow rate,
determined in accordance with paragraph (e)(3) of this section. The
group determination status for each batch front-end process vent shall
be made using the criteria specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of
this section.
(1) If the cutoff flow rate is greater than or equal to the annual
average flow rate of the stream, the batch front-end process vent is
classified as a Group 1 batch front-end process vent.
(2) If the cutoff flow rate is less than the annual average flow
rate of the stream, the batch front-end process vent is classified as a
Group 2 batch front-end process vent.
(h) Determination of halogenation status. To determine whether a
batch front-end process vent or an aggregate batch vent stream is
halogenated, the annual mass emission rate of halogen atoms contained
in organic compounds shall be calculated using the procedures specified
in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section.
(1) The concentration of each organic compound containing halogen
atoms (ppmv, by compound) for each batch emission episode shall be
determined based on the following procedures:
[[Page 46942]]
(i) Process knowledge that no halogens or hydrogen halides are
present in the process may be used to demonstrate that a batch emission
episode is nonhalogenated. Halogens or hydrogen halides that are
unintentionally introduced into the process shall not be considered in
making a finding that a batch emission episode is nonhalogenated.
(ii) Engineering assessment as discussed in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of
this section.
(iii) Concentration of organic compounds containing halogens and
hydrogen halides as measured by Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A.
(iv) Any other method or data that has been validated according to
the applicable procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of this part.
(2) The annual mass emissions of halogen atoms for a batch front-
end process vent shall be calculated using Equation 16.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.016
where:
Ehalogen=Mass of halogen atoms, dry basis, kg/yr.
K=Constant, 0.022 (ppmv)-1 (kg-mole per scm) (min/yr), where
standard temperature is 20 deg.C.
AFR=Annual average flow rate of the batch front-end process vent,
determined according to paragraph (e) of this section, scmm.
Mj,i=Molecular weight of halogen atom i in compound j, kg/kg-mole.
Lj,i=Number of atoms of halogen i in compound j.
n=Number of halogenated compounds j in the batch front-end process
vent.
m=Number of different halogens i in each compound j of the batch front-
end process vent.
Cavgj=Average annual concentration of halogenated compound j in
the batch front-end process vent, as determined by using Equation 17,
dry basis, ppmv.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.017
where:
DURi=Duration of type i batch emission episodes annually, hr/yr.
Ci=Average concentration of halogenated compound j in type i batch
emission episode, ppmv.
n=Number of types of batch emission episodes venting from the batch
front-end process vent.
(3) The annual mass emissions of halogen atoms for an aggregate
batch vent stream shall be the sum of the annual mass emissions of
halogen atoms for all batch front-end process vents included in the
aggregate batch vent stream.
(i) Process changes affecting Group 2 batch front-end process
vents. Whenever process changes, as described in paragraph (i)(1) of
this section, are made that affect one or more Group 2 batch front-end
process vents, the owner or operator shall comply with paragraphs
(i)(2) and (i)(3) of this section.
(1) Examples of process changes include, but are not limited to,
changes in production capacity, production rate, feedstock type, or
catalyst type; or whenever there is replacement, removal, or
modification of recovery equipment considered part of the batch unit
operation as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. An increase
in the annual number of batch cycles beyond the batch cycle limitation
constitutes a process change. For purposes of this paragraph, process
changes do not include: Process upsets; unintentional, temporary
process changes; and changes that are within the margin of variation on
which the original group determination was based.
(2) For each batch front-end process vent affected by a process
change, the owner or operator shall redetermine the group status by
repeating the procedures specified in paragraphs (b) through (g) of
this section, as applicable. Alternatively, engineering assessment, as
described in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section, can be used to
determine the effects of the process change.
(3) Based on the results of paragraph (i)(2) of this section,
owners or operators shall comply with either paragraph (i)(3) (i),
(ii), or (iii) of this section.
(i) If the redetermination described in paragraph (i)(2) of this
section indicates that a Group 2 batch front-end process vent has
become a Group 1 batch front-end process vent as a result of the
process change, the owner or operator shall submit a report as
specified in Sec. 63.492(b) and shall comply with the Group 1
provisions in Sec. 63.487 through Sec. 63.492 in accordance with the
compliance schedule described in Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2).
(ii) If the redetermination described in paragraph (i)(2) of this
section indicates that a Group 2 batch front-end process vent with
annual emissions less than the applicable level specified in paragraph
(d) of this section, and that is in compliance with Sec. 63.487(g), now
has annual emissions greater than or equal to the applicable level
specified by paragraph (d) of this section but remains a Group 2 batch
front-end process vent, the owner or operator shall submit a report as
specified in Sec. 63.492(c) and shall comply with Sec. 63.487(f) in
accordance with the compliance schedule required by
Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2).
(iii) If the redetermination described in paragraph (i)(2) of this
section indicates no change in group status or no change in the
relation of annual emissions to the levels specified in paragraph (d)
of this section, the owner or operator is not required to submit a
report, as described in Sec. 63.492(d).
Sec. 63.489 Batch front-end process vents--monitoring requirements.
(a) General requirements. Each owner or operator of a batch front-
end process vent or aggregate batch vent stream that uses a control
device to comply with the
[[Page 46943]]
requirements in Sec. 63.487(a)(2) or Sec. 63.487(b)(2) shall install
the monitoring equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) This monitoring equipment shall be in operation at all times
when batch emission episodes, or portions thereof, that the owner or
operator has selected to control are vented to the control device, or
at all times when an aggregate batch vent stream is vented to the
control device.
(2) The owner or operator shall operate control devices such that
monitored parameters remain above the minimum level or below the
maximum level, as appropriate, established as specified in paragraph
(e) of this section.
(b) Batch front-end process vent and aggregate batch vent stream
monitoring parameters. The monitoring equipment specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(8) of this section shall be installed as specified
in paragraph (a) of this section. The parameters to be monitored are
specified in Table 6 of this subpart.
(1) Where an incinerator is used, a temperature monitoring device
equipped with a continuous recorder is required.
(i) Where an incinerator other than a catalytic incinerator is
used, the temperature monitoring device shall be installed in the
firebox or in the ductwork immediately downstream of the firebox in a
position before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
(ii) Where a catalytic incinerator is used, temperature monitoring
devices shall be installed in the gas stream immediately before and
after the catalyst bed.
(2) Where a flare is used, a device (including, but not limited to,
a thermocouple, ultra-violet beam sensor, or infrared sensor) capable
of continuously detecting the presence of a pilot flame is required.
(3) Where a boiler or process heater of less than 44 megawatts
design heat input capacity is used, a temperature monitoring device in
the firebox equipped with a continuous recorder is required. Any boiler
or process heater in which all batch front-end process vents or
aggregate batch vent streams are introduced with the primary fuel or
are used as the primary fuel is exempt from this requirement.
(4) Where a scrubber is used with an incinerator, boiler, or
process heater in concert with the combustion of halogenated batch
front-end process vents, the following monitoring equipment is required
for the scrubber:
(i) A pH monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder to
monitor the pH of the scrubber effluent; and
(ii) A flow meter equipped with a continuous recorder shall be
located at the scrubber influent to monitor the scrubber liquid flow
rate.
(5) Where an absorber is used, a scrubbing liquid temperature
monitoring device and a specific gravity monitoring device are
required, each equipped with a continuous recorder.
(6) Where a condenser is used, a condenser exit temperature
(product side) monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder is
required.
(7) Where a carbon adsorber is used, an integrating regeneration
stream flow monitoring device having an accuracy of 10
percent, capable of recording the total regeneration stream mass flow
for each regeneration cycle; and a carbon bed temperature monitoring
device, capable of recording the carbon bed temperature after each
regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any cooling cycle are
required.
(8) As an alternate to paragraphs (b)(5) through (b)(7) of this
section, the owner or operator may install an organic monitoring device
equipped with a continuous recorder.
(c) Alternative monitoring parameters. An owner or operator of a
batch front-end process vent or aggregate batch vent stream may request
approval to monitor parameters other than those required by paragraph
(b) of this section. The request shall be submitted according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.506(f). Approval shall be requested if
the owner or operator:
(1) Uses a control device other than those included in paragraph
(b) of this section; or
(2) Uses one of the control devices included in paragraph (b) of
this section, but seeks to monitor a parameter other than those
specified in Table 6 of this subpart and paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Monitoring of bypass lines. The owner or operator of a batch
front-end process vent or aggregate batch vent stream using a vent
system that contains bypass lines that could divert emissions away from
a control device used to comply with Sec. 63.487(a) or Sec. 63.487(b)
shall comply with either paragraph (d)(1), (d)(2), or (d)(3) of this
section. Equipment such as low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer
vents, open-ended valves or lines, and pressure relief valves needed
for safety purposes are not subject to this paragraph.
(1) Properly install, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that
takes a reading at least once every 15 minutes. Records shall be
generated as specified in Sec. 63.491(e)(3). The flow indicator shall
be installed at the entrance to any bypass line that could divert
emissions away from the control device and to the atmosphere; or
(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the non-diverting position with
a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of
the seal or closure mechanism shall be performed at least once every
month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the non-diverting
position and emissions are not diverted through the bypass line.
Records shall be generated as specified in Sec. 63.491(e)(4).
(3) Continuously monitor the bypass line damper or valve position
using computer monitoring and record any periods when the position of
the bypass line damper or valve has changed as specified in
Sec. 63.491(e)(4).
(e) Establishment of parameter monitoring levels. Parameter
monitoring levels for batch front-end process vents and aggregate batch
vent streams shall be established as specified in paragraphs (e)(1)
through (e)(3) of this section.
(1) For each parameter monitored under paragraph (b) of this
section, the owner or operator shall establish a level, defined as
either a maximum or minimum operating parameter as denoted in Table 7
of this subpart, that indicates proper operation of the control device.
The level shall be established in accordance with the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.505.
(i) For batch front-end process vents using a control device to
comply with Sec. 63.487(a)(2), the established level shall reflect the
control efficiency established as part of the initial compliance
demonstration specified in Sec. 63.490(c)(2).
(ii) For aggregate batch vent streams using a control device to
comply with Sec. 63.487(b)(2), the established level shall reflect the
control efficiency requirement specified in Sec. 63.487(b)(2).
(2) The established level, along with supporting documentation,
shall be submitted in the Notification of Compliance Status or the
operating permit application as required in Sec. 63.506(e)(5) or
Sec. 63.506(e)(8), respectively.
(3) The operating day shall be defined as part of establishing the
parameter monitoring level and shall be submitted with the information
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. The definition of operating day
shall specify the times at which an operating day begins and ends. The
operating day shall not exceed 24 hours.
[[Page 46944]]
Sec. 63.490 Batch front-end process vents--performance test methods
and procedures to determine compliance.
(a) Use of a flare. When a flare is used to comply with
Sec. 63.487(a)(1) or Sec. 63.487(b)(1), the owner or operator shall
comply with the flare provisions in Sec. 63.11(b) of subpart A.
(b) Exceptions to performance tests. An owner or operator is not
required to conduct a performance test when a control device specified
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section is used to comply
with Sec. 63.487(a)(2).
(1) A boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity of
44 megawatts or greater.
(2) A boiler or process heater where the vent stream is introduced
with the primary fuel or is used as the primary fuel.
(3) A control device for which a performance test was conducted for
determining compliance with a new source performance standard (NSPS)
and the test was conducted using the same procedures specified in this
section and no process changes have been made since the test.
(4) A boiler or process heater burning hazardous waste for which
the owner or operator:
(i) Has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and
complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H; or
(ii) Has certified compliance with the interim status requirements
of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H.
(5) An incinerator burning hazardous waste for which the owner or
operator complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O.
(6) Performance tests done for other subparts in part 60 or part 63
where total organic HAP or TOC was measured, provided that the owner or
operator can demonstrate that operating conditions for the process and
control device during the performance test are representative of
current operating conditions.
(c) Batch front-end process vent testing and procedures for
compliance with Sec. 63.487(a)(2). Except as provided in paragraph (b)
of this section, an owner or operator using a control device to comply
with Sec. 63.487(a)(2) shall conduct a performance test using the
procedures specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section in order to
determine the control efficiency of the control device. An owner or
operator shall determine the percent reduction for the batch cycle
using the control efficiency of the control device as specified in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(iii) of this section and the
procedures specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. Compliance
may be based on either total organic HAP or TOC. For purposes of this
paragraph and all paragraphs that are part of paragraph (c) of this
section, the term ``batch emission episode'' shall have the meaning
``period of the batch emission episode selected for control,'' which
may be the entire batch emission episode or may only be a portion of
the batch emission episode.
(1) Performance tests shall be conducted as specified in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(v) of this section.
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of this section,
a test shall be performed for the entire period of each batch emission
episode in the batch cycle that the owner or operator selects to
control as part of achieving the required 90 percent emission reduction
for the batch cycle specified in Sec. 63.487(a)(2). Only one test is
required for each batch emission episode selected by the owner or
operator for control. The owner or operator shall follow the procedures
listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(B) through (c)(1)(i)(D) of this section.
(A) Alternatively, an owner or operator may choose to test only
those periods of the batch emission episode during which the emission
rate for the entire episode can be determined or during which the
emissions are greater than the average emission rate of the batch
emission episode. The owner or operator choosing either of these
options must develop an emission profile for the entire batch emission
episode, based on either process knowledge or test data collected, to
demonstrate that test periods are representative. Examples of
information that could constitute process knowledge include
calculations based on material balances and process stoichiometry.
Previous test results may be used, provided the results are still
relevant to the current batch front-end process vent conditions.
(B) Method 1 or 1A, as appropriate, shall be used for selection of
the sampling sites if the flow measuring device is a pitot tube. No
traverse is necessary when Method 2A or 2D is used to determine gas
stream volumetric flow rate. Inlet sampling sites shall be located as
specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(B)(1) and (c)(1)(i)(B)(2) of this
section. Outlet sampling sites shall be located at the outlet of the
final control device prior to release to the atmosphere.
(1) The control device inlet sampling site shall be located at the
exit from the batch unit operation before any control device. Section
63.488(a)(2) describes those recovery devices considered part of the
unit operation. Inlet sampling sites would be after these specified
recovery devices.
(2) If a batch process vent is introduced with the combustion air
or as a secondary fuel into a boiler or process heater with a design
capacity less than 44 megawatts, selection of the location of the inlet
sampling sites shall ensure the measurement of total organic HAP or TOC
(minus methane and ethane) concentrations in all batch front-end
process vents and primary and secondary fuels introduced into the
boiler or process heater.
(C) Gas stream volumetric flow rate and/or average flow rate shall
be determined as specified in Sec. 63.488(e).
(D) Method 18 or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, shall be
used to determine the concentration of organic HAP or TOC, as
appropriate. The use of Method 25A shall comply with paragraphs
(c)(1)(i)(D)(1) and (c)(1)(i)(D)(2) of this section.
(1) The organic HAP used as the calibration gas for Method 25A
shall be the single organic HAP representing the largest percent by
volume of the emissions.
(2) The use of Method 25A is acceptable if the response from the
high-level calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation
of the response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is
zeroed on the most sensitive scale.
(ii) If an integrated sample is taken over the entire batch
emission episode to determine TOC or average total organic HAP
concentration, emissions per batch emission episode shall be calculated
using Equations 18 and 19.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.018
[[Page 46945]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.019
where:
Eepisode=Inlet or outlet emissions, kg/episode.
K=Constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (ppmv)-1 (gm-mole/scm) (kg/gm)
(min/hr), where standard temperature is 20 deg.C.
Cj=Average inlet or outlet concentration of TOC or sample
component j of the gas stream for the batch emission episode, dry
basis, ppmv.
Mj=Molecular weight of TOC or sample component j of the gas
stream, gm/gm-mole.
AFR=Average inlet or outlet flow rate of gas stream for the batch
emission episode, dry basis, scmm.
Th=Hours/episode.
n=Number of organic HAP in stream. Note: Summation not required if TOC
emissions are being estimated using a TOC concentration measured using
Method 25A.
(iii) If grab samples are taken to determine TOC or total organic
HAP concentration, emissions shall be calculated according to
paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A) and (c)(1)(iii)(B) of this section.
(A) For each measurement point, the emission rates shall be
calculated using Equations 20 and 21.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.050
where:
Epoint=Inlet or outlet emission rate for the measurement point,
kg/hr.
K=Constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (ppmv)-1 (gm-mole/scm) (kg/gm) (min/
hr), where standard temperature is 20 deg.C.
Cj=Inlet or outlet concentration of TOC or sample organic HAP
component j of the gas stream, dry basis, ppmv.
Mj=Molecular weight of TOC or sample organic HAP component j of
the gas stream, gm/gm-mole.
FR=Inlet or outlet flow rate of gas stream for the measurement point,
dry basis, scmm.
n=Number of organic HAP in stream.
Note: Summation not required if TOC emissions are being
estimated using a TOC concentration measured using Method 25A.
(B) The emissions per batch emission episode shall be calculated
using Equations 22 and 23.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.022
where:
Eepisode=Inlet or outlet emissions, kg/episode.
DUR=Duration of the batch emission episode, hr/episode.
Epoint,i=Inlet or outlet emissions for measurement point i, kg/hr.
n=Number of measurements.
(iv) The control efficiency for the control device shall be
calculated using Equation 24.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.023
Where:
R=Control efficiency of control device, percent.
Einleti=Mass rate of TOC or total organic HAP for batch emission
episode i at the inlet to the control device as calculated under
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) or (c)(1)(iii) of this section, kg/hr.
Eoutleti=Mass rate of TOC or total organic HAP for batch emission
episode i at the outlet of the control device, as calculated under
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) or (c)(1)(iii) of this section, kg/hr.
n=Number of batch emission episodes in the batch cycle selected to be
controlled.
(v) If the batch front-end process vent entering a boiler or
process heater with a design capacity less than 44 megawatts is
introduced with the combustion air or as a secondary fuel, the weight-
percent reduction of total organic HAP or TOC across the device shall
be determined by comparing the TOC or total organic HAP in all
combusted batch front-end process vents and primary and secondary fuels
with the TOC or total organic HAP exiting the combustion device,
respectively.
(2) The percent reduction for the batch cycle shall be determined
using Equation 25 and the control device efficiencies specified in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(iii) of this section. All
information used to calculate the batch cycle percent reduction,
including a definition of the batch cycle identifying all batch
emission episodes, must be recorded as specified in Sec. 63.491(b)(2).
This information shall include identification of those batch emission
episodes, or portions thereof, selected for control.
[[Page 46946]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.024
where:
Eunc=Mass rate of TOC or total organic HAP for uncontrolled batch
emission episode i, kg/hr.
Einletcon=Mass rate of TOC or total organic HAP for controlled
batch emission episode i at the inlet to the control device, kg/hr.
R=Control efficiency of control device as specified in paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(iii) of this section.
n=Number of uncontrolled batch emission episodes, controlled batch
emission episodes, and control devices. The value of n is not
necessarily the same for these three items.
(i) If a performance test is required by paragraph (c) of this
section, the control efficiency of the control device shall be as
determined in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section.
(ii) If a performance test is not required by paragraph (c) of this
section for a combustion control device, as specified in paragraph (b)
of this section, the control efficiency of the control device shall be
98 percent. The control efficiency for a flare shall be 98 percent.
(iii) If a performance test is not required by paragraph (c) of
this section for a noncombustion control device, the control efficiency
shall be determined by the owner or operator based on engineering
assessment.
(d) Batch process vent and aggregate batch vent stream testing for
compliance with Sec. 63.487(c) [halogenated emission streams]. An owner
or operator controlling halogenated emissions in compliance with
Sec. 63.487(c) shall conduct a performance test to determine compliance
with the control efficiency specified in Sec. 63.487(c)(1) or the
emission limit specified in Sec. 63.487(c)(2) for hydrogen halides and
halogens.
(1) Sampling sites shall be located at the inlet and outlet of the
scrubber or other control device used to reduce halogen emissions in
complying with Sec. 63.487(c)(1) or at the outlet of the control device
used to reduce halogen emissions in complying with Sec. 63.487(c)(2).
(2) The mass emissions of each hydrogen halide and halogen compound
for the batch cycle or aggregate batch vent stream shall be calculated
from the measured concentrations and the gas stream flow rate(s)
determined by the procedures specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and
(d)(2)(ii) of this section, except as specified in paragraph (d)(5) of
this section.
(i) Method 26 or Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, shall be
used to determine the concentration, in Mg per dry scm, of total
hydrogen halides and halogens present in the emissions stream.
(ii) Gas stream volumetric flow rate and/or average flow rate shall
be determined as specified in Sec. 63.488(e).
(3) To determine compliance with the percent reduction specified in
Sec. 63.487(c)(1), the mass emissions for any hydrogen halides and
halogens present at the inlet of the scrubber or other control device
shall be summed together. The mass emissions of any hydrogen halides or
halogens present at the outlet of the scrubber or other control device
shall be summed together. Percent reduction shall be determined by
subtracting the outlet mass emissions from the inlet mass emissions and
then dividing the result by the inlet mass emissions.
(4) To determine compliance with the emission limit specified in
Sec. 63.487(c)(2), the annual mass emissions for any hydrogen halides
and halogens present at the outlet of the control device and prior to
any combustion device shall be summed together and compared to the
emission limit specified in Sec. 63.487(c)(2).
(5) The owner or operator may use any other method to demonstrate
compliance if the method or data has been validated according to the
applicable procedures of Method 301 of appendix A.
(e) Aggregate batch vent stream testing for compliance with
Sec. 63.487(b)(2). Owners or operators of aggregate batch vent streams
complying with Sec. 63.487(b)(2) shall conduct a performance test using
the performance testing procedures for continuous front-end process
vents in Sec. 63.116(c) of subpart G. For the purposes of this subpart,
when the provisions of Sec. 63.116(c) specify that Method 18 shall be
used, Method 18 or Method 25A may be used. The use of Method 25A shall
comply with paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section.
(1) The organic HAP used as the calibration gas for Method 25A
shall be the single organic HAP representing the largest percent by
volume of the emissions.
(2) The use of Method 25A is acceptable if the response from the
high-level calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation
of the response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is
zeroed on the most sensitive scale.
(f) Batch cycle limitation. The batch cycle limitation required by
Sec. 63.487(f)(1) and Sec. 63.487(g)(1) shall be established as
specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section and shall include the
elements specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(1) The batch cycle limitation shall be determined by the owner or
operator such that annual emissions for the batch front-end process
vent remain less than the level specified in Sec. 63.488(d) when
complying with Sec. 63.487(g). Alternatively, when complying with
Sec. 63.487(f), the batch cycle limitation shall ensure that annual
emissions remain at a level such that the batch front-end process vent
remains a Group 2 batch front-end process vent, given the actual annual
flow rate for that batch front-end process vent determined according to
Sec. 63.488(e)(3). The batch cycle limitation shall be determined using
the same basis, as described in Sec. 63.488(a)(1), used to make the
group determination (i.e., expected mix of products or worst-case HAP
emitting product). The establishment of the batch cycle limitation is
not dependent upon any past production or activity level.
(i) If the expected mix of products serves as the basis for the
batch cycle limitation, the batch cycle limitation shall be determined
such that any foreseeable combination of products which the owner or
operator desires the flexibility to manufacture shall be allowed.
Combinations of products not accounted for in the documentation
required by paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of this section shall not be allowed
within the restrictions of the batch cycle limitation.
(ii) If, for a batch front-end process vent with more than one
product, a single worst-case HAP emitting product serves as the basis
for the batch cycle limitation, the batch cycle limitation shall be
determined such that the maximum number of batch cycles the owner or
operator desires the flexibility to accomplish, using the worst-case
[[Page 46947]]
HAP emitting product and ensuring that the batch front-end process vent
remains a Group 2 batch front-end process vent or that emissions remain
less than the level specified in Sec. 63.488(d), shall be allowed. This
value shall be the total number of batch cycles allowed within the
restrictions of the batch cycle limitation regardless of which products
are manufactured.
(2) Documentation supporting the establishment of the batch cycle
limitation shall include the information specified in paragraphs
(f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(v) of this section, as appropriate.
(i) Identification that the purpose of the batch cycle limitation
is to comply with Sec. 63.487(f)(1) or (g)(1).
(ii) Identification that the batch cycle limitation is based on a
single worst-case HAP emitting product or on the expected mix of
products for the batch front-end process vent as allowed under
Sec. 63.488(a)(1).
(iii) Definition of the operating year, for the purposes of
determining compliance with the batch cycle limitation.
(iv) If the batch cycle limitation is based on a single worst-case
HAP emitting product, documentation specified in Sec. 63.488(a)(1)(ii)
describing how the single product meets the requirements for worst-case
HAP emitting product, as specified in Sec. 63.488(a)(1) and the number
of batch cycles allowed under the batch cycle limitation for each
product associated with the batch front-end process vent are required.
(v) If the batch cycle limitation is based on the expected mix of
products, the owner or operator shall provide documentation that
describes as many scenarios for differing mixes of products (i.e., how
many of each type of product) that the owner or operator desires the
flexibility to accomplish. Alternatively, the owner or operator shall
provide a description of the relationship among the mix of products
that will allow a determination of compliance with the batch cycle
limitation under an infinite number of scenarios. For example, if a
batch process vent has two products, each product has the same flow
rate and emits for the same amount of time, and product No. 1 has twice
the emissions as product No. 2, the relationship describing an infinite
number of scenarios would be that the owner or operator can accomplish
two batch cycles of product No. 2 for each batch cycle of product No. 1
within the restriction of the batch cycle limitation.
Sec. 63.491 Batch front-end process vents--recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Group determination records for batch front-end process vents.
Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(7) through (a)(9) of this section,
each owner or operator of an affected source shall maintain the records
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section for each
batch front-end process vent subject to the group determination
procedures of Sec. 63.488. Except for paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
the records required to be maintained by this paragraph are limited to
the information developed and used to make the group determination
under Sec. 63.488(b) through Sec. 63.488(g), as appropriate. The
information required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section is required
for all batch front-end process vents subject to the group
determination procedures of Sec. 63.488. If an owner or operator did
not need to develop certain information (e.g., annual average flow
rate) to determine the group status, this paragraph does not require
that additional information be developed.
(1) An identification of each unique product that has emissions
from one or more batch emission episodes venting from the batch front-
end process vent.
(2) A description of, and an emission estimate for, each batch
emission episode, and the total emissions associated with one batch
cycle for each unique product identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section that was considered in making the group determination under
Sec. 63.488.
(3) Total annual uncontrolled TOC or organic HAP emissions,
determined at the exit from the batch unit operation before any
emission control, as determined in accordance with Sec. 63.488(b).
(i) For Group 2 batch front-end process vents, emissions shall be
determined at the batch cycle limitation.
(ii) For Group 1 batch front-end process vents, emissions shall be
those used to determine the group status of the batch front-end process
vent.
(4) The annual average flow rate for the batch front-end process
vent as determined in accordance with Sec. 63.488(e).
(5) The cutoff flow rate, determined in accordance with
Sec. 63.488(f).
(6) The results of the batch front-end process vent group
determination, conducted in accordance with Sec. 63.488(g).
(7) If a batch front-end process vent is in compliance with
Sec. 63.487(a) or Sec. 63.487(b), and the control device is operating
at all times when batch emission episodes are venting from the batch
front-end process vent, none of the records in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(6) of this section are required.
(8) If a batch front-end process vent is in compliance with
Sec. 63.487(a) or Sec. 63.487(b), but the control device is operated
only during selected batch emission episodes, only the records in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section are required.
(9) If the total annual emissions from the batch front-end process
vent are less than the appropriate level specified in Sec. 63.488(d),
only the records in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section
are required.
(b) Compliance demonstration records. Each owner or operator of a
batch front-end process vent or aggregate batch vent stream complying
with Sec. 63.487(a) or (b), shall keep the following records, as
applicable, up-to-date and readily accessible:
(1) The annual mass emissions of halogen atoms in the batch front-
end process vent or aggregate batch vent stream determined according to
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.488(h)(2).
(2) If a batch front-end process vent is in compliance with
Sec. 63.487(a)(2), records documenting the batch cycle percent
reduction as specified in Sec. 62.486-4(c)(2).
(3) When using a flare to comply with Sec. 63.487(a)(1):
(i) The flare design (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-
assisted);
(ii) All visible emission readings, heat content determinations,
flow rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during
the compliance determination required by Sec. 63.11(b) of subpart A;
and
(iii) All periods during the compliance determination required by
Sec. 63.11(b) of subpart A when the pilot flame is absent.
(4) The following information when using a control device to
achieve compliance with Sec. 63.487(a)(2) or (b)(2):
(i) For an incinerator or non-combustion control device, the
percent reduction of organic HAP or TOC achieved, as determined using
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.490(c) for batch front-end process
vents and Sec. 63.490(e) for aggregate batch vent streams;
(ii) For a boiler or process heater, a description of the location
at which the vent stream is introduced into the boiler or process
heater;
(iii) For a boiler or process heater with a design heat input
capacity of less than 44 megawatts and where the process vent stream is
introduced with combustion air or is used as a secondary fuel and is
not mixed with the primary fuel, the percent reduction of organic HAP
or TOC achieved, as determined
[[Page 46948]]
using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.490(c) for batch front-end
process vents and Sec. 63.490(e) for aggregate batch vent streams; and
(iv) For a scrubber or other control device following a combustion
device to control a halogenated batch front-end process vent or
halogenated aggregate batch vent stream, the percent reduction of total
hydrogen halides and halogens, as determined under Sec. 63.490(d)(3) or
the emission limit determined under Sec. 63.490(d)(4).
(c) Establishment of parameter monitoring level records. For each
parameter monitored according to Sec. 63.489(b) and Table 6 of this
subpart, or for alternate parameters and/or parameters for alternate
control devices monitored according to Sec. 63.492(e) as allowed under
Sec. 63.489(c), maintain documentation showing the establishment of the
level that indicates proper operation of the control device as required
by Sec. 63.489(e) for parameters specified in Sec. 63.489(b) and as
required by Sec. 63.506(f) for alternate parameters. This documentation
shall include the parameter monitoring data used to establish the
level.
(d) Group 2 batch front-end process vent continuous compliance
records. The owner or operator of a Group 2 batch front-end process
vent shall comply with either paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this
section, as appropriate.
(1) The owner or operator of a Group 2 batch front-end process vent
complying with Sec. 63.487(g) shall keep the following records up-to-
date and readily accessible:
(i) Records designating the established batch cycle limitation
required by Sec. 63.487(g)(1) and specified in Sec. 63.490(f).
(ii) Records specifying the number and type of batch cycles
accomplished.
(2) The owner or operator of a Group 2 batch front-end process vent
complying with Sec. 63.487(f) shall keep the following records up-to-
date and readily accessible:
(i) Records designating the established batch cycle limitation
required by Sec. 63.487(f)(1) and specified in Sec. 63.490(f).
(ii) Records specifying the number and type
FR Doc. 96-21941 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
of batch cycles
accomplished for each three month period.
(e) Controlled batch front-end process vent continuous compliance
records. Each owner or operator of a batch front-end process vent that
uses a control device to comply with Sec. 63.487(a) shall keep the
following records up-to-date and readily accessible:
(1) Continuous records of the equipment operating parameters
specified to be monitored under Sec. 63.489(b) as applicable, and
listed in Table 6 of this subpart, or specified by the Administrator in
accordance with Sec. 63.492(e) as allowed under Sec. 63.489(c). These
records shall be kept as specified under Sec. 63.506(d), except as
specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) For flares, the records specified in Table 6 of this subpart
shall be kept rather than averages.
(ii) For carbon adsorbers, the records specified in Table 6 of this
subpart shall be kept rather than averages.
(2) Records of the batch cycle daily average value of each
continuously monitored parameter, except as provided in paragraphs
(e)(2)(iii) of this section, as calculated using the procedures
specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (e)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) The batch cycle daily average shall be calculated as the
average of all parameter values measured during those batch emission
episodes, or portions thereof, in the batch cycle that the owner or
operator has selected to control.
(ii) Monitoring data recorded during periods of monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-
level adjustments shall not be included in computing the batch cycle
daily averages.
(iii) If all recorded values for a monitored parameter during an
operating day are above the minimum or below the maximum level
established in accordance with Sec. 63.489(e), the owner or operator
may record that all values were above the minimum or below the maximum
level established, rather than calculating and recording a batch cycle
daily average for that operating day.
(3) Hourly records of whether the flow indicator for bypass lines
specified under Sec. 63.489(d)(1) was operating and whether flow was
detected at any time during the hour. Also, records of the times and
durations of all periods when the vent is diverted from the control
device, or the flow indicator specified in Sec. 63.489(d)(1) is not
operating.
(4) Where a seal or closure mechanism is used to comply with
Sec. 63.489(d)(2) or where computer monitoring of the position of the
bypass damper or valve is used to comply with Sec. 63.489(d)(3), hourly
records of flow are not required.
(i) For compliance with Sec. 63.489(d)(2), the owner or operator
shall record whether the monthly visual inspection of the seals or
closure mechanism has been done, and shall record the occurrence of all
periods when the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass line valve
position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type configuration
has been checked out, and records of any car-seal that has been broken.
(ii) For compliance with Sec. 63.489(d)(3), the owner or operator
shall record the times of all periods when the bypass line valve
position has changed.
(5) Records specifying the times and duration of periods of
monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero
(low-level) and high level adjustments. In addition, records specifying
any other periods of process or control device operation when monitors
are not operating.
(f) Aggregate batch vent stream continuous compliance records. In
addition to the records specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, each owner or operator of an aggregate batch vent stream using
a control device to comply with Sec. 63.487(b) shall keep records in
accordance with the requirements for continuous process vents in
Sec. 63.118(a) and Sec. 63.118(b) of subpart G, as applicable and
appropriate, except that when complying with Sec. 63.118(b), owners or
operators shall disregard statements concerning TRE index values for
the purposes of this subpart.
Sec. 63.492 Batch front-end process vents--reporting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of a batch front-end process vent at an
affected source shall submit the information specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section, as appropriate, as part of the
Notification of Compliance Status specified in Sec. 63.506(e)(5).
(1) For each batch front-end process vent complying with
Sec. 63.487(a) and each aggregate batch vent stream complying with
Sec. 63.487(b), the information specified in Sec. 63.491(b) and
Sec. 63.491(c), as applicable.
(2) For each Group 2 batch front-end process vent with annual
emissions less than the level specified in Sec. 63.488(d), the
information specified in Sec. 63.491(d)(1)(i).
(3) For each Group 2 batch front-end process vent with annual
emissions greater than or equal to the level specified in
Sec. 63.488(d), the information specified in Sec. 63.491(d)(2)(i).
(4) For each batch process vent subject to the group determination
procedures, the information specified in Sec. 63.491(a), as
appropriate.
(b) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec. 63.488(i)(1), is
made that causes a Group 2 batch front-end process vent to become a
Group 1 batch front-end process vent, the owner or operator shall
submit a report within 180 operating days after the process
[[Page 46949]]
change is made or the information regarding the process change is known
to the owner or operator. This report may be included in the next
Periodic Report, as specified in Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2). The
following information shall be submitted:
(1) A description of the process change; and
(2) A schedule for compliance with the provisions of Sec. 63.487(a)
or Sec. 63.487(b), as appropriate, as required under
Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2).
(c) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec. 63.488(i)(1), is
made that causes a Group 2 batch front-end process vent with annual
emissions less than the level specified in Sec. 63.488(d) that is in
compliance with Sec. 63.487(g) to have annual emissions greater than or
equal to the levels specified in Sec. 63.488(d) but remains a Group 2
batch front-end process vent, the owner or operator shall submit a
report within 180 operating days after the process change is made or
the information regarding the process change is known to the owner or
operator. This report may be included in the next Periodic Report, as
specified in Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2). The following information
shall be submitted:
(1) A description of the process change;
(2) The results of the redetermination of the annual emissions,
average flow rate, and cutoff flow rate required under Sec. 63.488(f)
and recorded under Sec. 63.491 (a)(3) through (a)(5); and
(3) The batch cycle limitation determined in accordance with
Sec. 63.487(f)(1).
(d) The owner or operator is not required to submit a report of a
process change if one of the conditions specified in paragraphs (d)(1)
and (d)(2) of this section is met.
(1) The process change does not meet the description of a process
change in Sec. 63.488(i).
(2) The redetermined group status remains Group 2 for an individual
batch front-end process vent with annual emissions greater than or
equal to the level specified in Sec. 63.488(d), or a Group 2 batch
front-end process vent with annual emissions less than the level
specified in Sec. 63.488(d) complying with Sec. 63.487(g) continues to
have emissions less than the level specified in Sec. 63.488(d).
(e) If an owner or operator uses a control device other than those
specified in Sec. 63.489(b) and listed in Table 6 of this subpart or
requests approval to monitor a parameter other than those specified in
Sec. 63.489(c) and listed in Table 6 of this subpart, the owner or
operator shall submit a description of planned reporting and
recordkeeping procedures, as specified in Sec. 63.506(f), as part of
the Precompliance Report as required under Sec. 63.506(e)(3). The
Administrator will specify appropriate reporting and recordkeeping
requirements as part of the review of the Precompliance Report.
(f) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.489(d), shall comply
with paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section, as appropriate.
(1) Reports of the times of all periods recorded under
Sec. 63.491(e)(3) when the batch front-end process vent is diverted
away from the control device through a bypass line.
(2) Reports of all occurrences recorded under Sec. 63.491(e)(4) in
which the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass line valve position has
changed, or the key to unlock the bypass line valve was checked out.
Sec. 63.493 Back-end process provisions.
Owners and operators of new and existing affected sources shall
comply with the requirements in Sec. 63.494 through Sec. 63.500. Owners
and operators of affected sources that produce only latex products,
liquid rubber products, or products in a gas-phased polymerization
reaction are not subject to the provisions of these sections. Section
63.494 contains residual organic HAP limitations. Compliance with these
residual organic HAP limitations may be achieved by using either
stripping technology, or by using control or recovery devices. If
compliance with these limitations is achieved using stripping
technology, the procedures to determine compliance are specified in
Sec. 63.495. If compliance with these limitations is achieved using
control or recovery devices, the procedures to determine compliance are
specified in Sec. 63.496, and associated monitoring requirements are
specified in Sec. 63.497. Recordkeeping requirements are contained in
Sec. 63.498, and reporting requirements in Sec. 63.499. Section 63.500
contains a limitation on carbon disulfide emissions from affected
sources that produce styrene butadiene rubber using an emulsion
process. Table 8 contains a summary of compliance alternative
requirements for these sections.
Sec. 63.494 Back-end process provisions--residual organic HAP
limitations.
(a) The monthly weighted average residual organic HAP content of
all grades of elastomer processed, measured immediately after the
stripping operation [or the reactor(s) if the plant has no stripper(s)]
is completed, shall not exceed the limits provided in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(4) of this section, as applicable. Owners or operators
shall comply with the requirements of this paragraph using either
stripping technology or control/recovery devices.
(1) For styrene butadiene rubber produced by the emulsion process:
(i) A monthly weighted average of 0.40 kg styrene per megagram (Mg)
latex for existing sources; and
(ii) A monthly weighted average of 0.23 kg styrene per Mg latex for
new sources;
(2) For polybutadiene rubber and styrene butadiene rubber produced
by the solution process:
(i) A monthly weighted average of 10 kg total organic HAP per Mg
crumb rubber (dry weight) for existing sources; and
(ii) A monthly weighted average of 6 kg total organic HAP per Mg
crumb rubber (dry weight) for new sources.
(3) For ethylene-propylene rubber produced by the solution process:
(i) A monthly weighted average of 8 kg total organic HAP per Mg
crumb rubber (dry weight) for existing sources; and
(ii) A monthly weighted average of 5 kg total organic HAP per Mg
crumb rubber (dry weight) for new sources.
(4) There are no back-end process operation residual organic HAP
limitations for neoprene, Hypalon TM, nitrile butadiene rubber,
butyl rubber, halobutyl rubber, epichlorohydrin elastomer, and
polysulfide rubber.
(5) For EPPU that produce both an elastomer product with a residual
organic HAP limitation listed in this section, and a product listed in
paragraphs (a)(5) (i) through (iv) of this section, only the residual
HAP content of the elastomer product with a residual organic HAP
limitation shall be used in determining the monthly average residual
organic HAP content.
(i) Resins;
(ii) Liquid rubber products;
(iii) Latexes from which crumb rubber is not coagulated; or
(iii) Elastomer products listed in paragraph (a)(4) of this
section.
(b) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraph (a) of this section using stripping
technology, compliance shall be demonstrated in accordance with
Sec. 63.495. The owner or operator shall also comply with the
recordkeeping provisions in Sec. 63.498, and the reporting provisions
in Sec. 63.499.
(c) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraph (a) of this section using control or recovery
devices, compliance shall be
[[Page 46950]]
demonstrated using the procedures in Sec. 63.496. The owner or operator
shall also comply with the monitoring provisions in Sec. 63.497, the
recordkeeping provisions in Sec. 63.498, and the reporting provisions
in Sec. 63.499.
Sec. 63.495 Back-end process provisions--procedures to determine
compliance using stripping technology.
(a) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in Sec. 63.494(a) using stripping technology, compliance
shall be demonstrated using the periodic sampling procedures in
paragraph (b) of this section, or using the stripper parameter
monitoring procedures in paragraph (c) of this section. The owner or
operator shall determine the monthly weighted average residual organic
HAP content for each month in which any portion of the back-end of an
elastomer production process is in operation. A single monthly weighted
average shall be determined for all back-end process operations at the
affected source.
(b) If the owner or operator is demonstrating compliance using
periodic sampling, this demonstration shall be in accordance with
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section,
(1) The location of the sampling shall be in accordance with
paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) The frequency of the sampling shall be in accordance with
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) If batch stripping is used, at least one representative sample
is to be taken from every batch of elastomer produced, at the location
specified in paragraph (d) of this section, and identified by elastomer
type and by the date and time the batch is completed.
(ii) If continuous stripping is used, at least one representative
sample is to be taken each operating day. The sample is to be taken at
the location specified in paragraph (d) of this section, and identified
by elastomer type and by the date and time the sample was taken.
(3) The residual organic HAP content in each sample is to be
determined using specified methods.
(4) The quantity of material (weight of latex or dry crumb rubber)
represented by each sample shall be recorded. Acceptable methods of
determining this quantity are production records, measurement of stream
characteristics, and engineering calculations.
(5) The monthly weighted average shall be determined using the
equation in paragraph (f) of this section. All samples taken and
analyzed during the month shall be used in the determination of the
monthly weighted average.
(c) If the owner or operator is demonstrating compliance using
stripper parameter monitoring, this demonstration shall be in
accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall establish stripper operating
parameter levels for each grade in accordance with Sec. 63.505(e).
(2) The owner or operator shall monitor the stripper operating
parameters at all times the stripper is in operation. Readings of each
parameter shall be made at intervals no greater than 15 minutes.
(3) The residual organic HAP content for each grade shall be
determined in accordance with either paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (c)(3)(ii)
of this section.
(i) If during the processing of a grade in the stripper, all hourly
average parameter values are in accordance with operating parameter
levels established in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the owner or
operator shall use the residual organic HAP content determined in
accordance with Sec. 63.505(e)(1).
(ii) If during the processing of a grade in the stripper, the
hourly average of any stripper monitoring parameter is not in
accordance with an established operating parameter level, the residual
organic HAP content shall be determined using the procedures in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of this section.
(4) The monthly weighted average shall be determined using the
equation in paragraph (f) of this section.
(d) The location of the sampling shall be in accordance with
paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section.
(1) For styrene butadiene rubber produced by the emulsion process,
the sample shall be a sample of the latex taken at the location
specified in either paragraph (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), or (d)(1)(iii) of
this section.
(i) When the latex is not blended with other materials or latexes,
the sample shall be taken at a location meeting all of the following
criteria:
(A) After the stripping operation,
(B) Prior to entering the coagulation operations, and
(C) Before the addition of carbon black or oil extenders.
(ii) When two or more latexes subject to this subpart are blended,
samples may be taken in accordance with either paragraph (d)(1)(ii) (A)
or (B) of this section, at a location meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) (A) through (C) of this section.
(A) Individual samples may be taken of each latex prior to
blending, or
(B) A sample of the blended latex may be taken.
(iii) When a latex subject to this subpart is blended with a latex
or material not subject to this subpart, a sample shall be taken of the
latex prior to blending at a location meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) (A) through (C) of this section.
(2) For styrene butadiene rubber produced by the solution process,
polybutadiene rubber produced by the solution process, and ethylene-
propylene rubber produced by the solution process, the sample shall be
a sample of crumb rubber taken as soon as safe and feasible after the
stripping operation, but no later than the entry point for the first
unit operation following the stripper (e.g., the dewatering screen).
(e) Reserved.
(f) The monthly weighted average residual organic HAP content shall
be calculated using Equation 26.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.025
where:
HAPCONTavg,wk = Monthly weighted average organic HAP content for
all rubber processed at the affected source, kg organic HAP per Mg
latex or dry crumb rubber.
n = Number of samples in the month.
Ci = Residual organic HAP content of sample i, determined in
accordance with (b)(3) or (c)(3) of this section, kg organic HAP per Mg
latex or dry crumb rubber.
Pi = Weight of latex or dry crumb rubber represented by sample i.
Pwk = Weight of latex or dry crumb rubber (Mg) processed in the
month.
Sec. 63.496 Back-end process provisions--procedures to determine
compliance using control or recovery devices.
(a) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in Sec. 63.494(a) using control or recovery devices,
compliance shall be demonstrated using the procedures in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section. Previous test results conducted in accordance
with paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section may be used to
determine compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Compliance shall be demonstrated using the provisions in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10) of this section, as applicable.
(1) A test shall be conducted, the duration of which shall be in
accordance with either paragraph
[[Page 46951]]
(b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section, as appropriate.
(i) If the back-end process operations are continuous, the test
shall consist of three separate one hour runs.
(ii) If the back-end process operations are batch, the test shall
consist of three separate one-hour runs, unless the duration of the
batch cycle is less than one-hour, in which case the run length shall
equal the complete duration of the back-end process batch cycle.
(2) The test shall be conducted when the grade of elastomer product
with the highest residual organic HAP content leaving the stripper is
processed in the back-end operations.
(3) The uncontrolled residual organic HAP content in the latex or
dry crumb rubber shall be determined in accordance with
Sec. 63.495(b)(1) and (b)(3). A separate sample shall be taken and
analyzed for each test run. The sample shall be representative of the
material being processed in the back-end operation during the test, and
does not need to be taken during the test.
(4) The quantity of material (weight of latex or dry crumb rubber)
processed during the test run shall be recorded. Acceptable methods of
determining this quantity are production records, measurement of stream
characteristics, and engineering calculations.
(5) The inlet and outlet emissions from the control or recovery
device shall be determined using the procedures in paragraphs (b)(5)(i)
through (b)(5)(v) of this section, with the exceptions noted in
paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(7) of this section. The inlet and outlet
emissions shall be determined when the material for which the
uncontrolled residual organic HAP content is determined in accordance
with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, is being processed in the
equipment controlled by the control or recovery device.
(i) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as appropriate,
shall be used for selection of the sampling sites. Sampling sites shall
be located at the inlet of the control or recovery device as specified
in paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(A) or (b)(5)(i)(B) of this section, and at the
outlet of the control or recovery device.
(A) The inlet sampling site shall be located at the exit of the
back-end process unit operation before any opportunity for emission to
the atmosphere, and before any control or recovery device.
(B) If back-end process vent streams are combined prior to being
routed to control or recovery devices, the inlet sampling site may be
for the combined stream, as long as there is no opportunity for
emission to the atmosphere from any of the streams prior to being
combined.
(ii) The gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using Method
2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as appropriate.
(iii) To determine the inlet and outlet total organic HAP
concentrations, the owner or operator shall use Method 18 or Method 25A
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Alternatively, any other method or data
that has been validated according to the applicable procedures in
Method 301 of appendix A may be used. The minimum sampling time for
each run shall be in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
during which either an integrated sample or grab samples shall be
taken. If grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be taken at
approximately equal intervals during the run, with the time between
samples no greater than 15 minutes.
(iv) The mass rate of total organic HAP shall be computed using
Equations 27 and 28.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.026
where:
Cij, Coj=Concentration of sample component j of the gas
stream at the inlet and outlet of the control or recovery device,
respectively, dry basis, ppmv.
Ei, Eo=Mass rate of total organic HAP at the inlet and outlet
of the control or recovery device, respectively, dry basis, kg per hour
(kg/hr).
Mij, Moj=Molecular weight of sample component j of the gas
stream at the inlet and outlet of the control or recovery device,
respectively, gm/gm-mole.
Qi, Qo=Flow rate of gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the
control or recovery device, respectively, dry standard m\3\/min.
K2=Constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (ppmv)-1 (gm-mole/scm) (kg/
gm) (min/hr), where standard temperature is 20 deg.C.
(v) Inlet and outlet organic HAP emissions for the run shall be
calculated by multiplying the mass rate total inlet and outlet
emissions determined in accordance with paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this
section by the duration of the run (in hours).
(6) If a back-end process vent stream is introduced with the
combustion air, or as a secondary fuel into a boiler or process heater
with a design capacity less than 44 megawatts, the inlet and outlet
emissions shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs (b)(6)(i)
through (b)(6)(iv) of this section.
(i) The inlet organic HAP emissions for the back-end process unit
operation shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (b)(5) of
this section.
(ii) The owner or operator shall also measure total organic HAP (or
TOC, minus methane and ethane) emissions in all process vent streams
and primary and secondary fuels introduced into the boiler or process
heater, using the procedures in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, with
the exceptions noted in paragraphs (b)(6)(ii)(A) through (b)(6)(ii)(C)
of this section.
(A) Selection of the location of the inlet sampling sites shall
ensure the measurement of total organic HAP concentrations in all
process vent streams and primary and secondary fuels introduced into
the boiler or process heater.
(B) Paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of this section is applicable, except
that TOC (minus methane and ethane) may be measured instead of total
organic HAP.
(C) The mass rates shall be calculated in accordance with paragraph
(b)(5)(iv) of this section, except that Cj at the inlet and outlet
of the control device shall be the sum of all total organic HAP (or
TOC, minus methane and ethane) concentrations for all process vent
streams and primary and secondary fuels introduced into the boiler or
process heater.
(iii) The control efficiency of the boiler or process heater shall
be calculated using Equation 29.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.027
[[Page 46952]]
where:
R=Control efficiency of boiler or process heater, percent.
Einlet=Mass rate of total organic HAP or TOC (minus methane and
ethane) for all process vent streams and primary and secondary fuels at
the inlet to the boiler or process heater, kg organic HAP/hr or kg TOC/
hr.
Eoutlet=Mass rate of total organic HAP or TOC (minus methane and
ethane) for all process vent streams and primary and secondary fuels at
the outlet to the boiler or process heater, kg organic HAP/hr or kg
TOC/hr.
(iv) The outlet total organic HAP emissions associated with the
back-end process unit operation shall be calculated using the equation
in paragraph (b)(8) of this section.
(7) An owner or operator is not required to conduct a source test
to determine the outlet organic HAP emissions if any control device
specified in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) through (b)(7)(v) of this section is
used. For these devices, the inlet emissions associated with the back-
end process unit operation shall be determined in accordance with
paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and the outlet emissions shall be
calculated using the equation in paragraph (b)(8) of this section.
(i) A flare, provided the owner or operator complies with the flare
provisions in Sec. 63.11(b) of subpart A. The compliance determination
required by Sec. 63.6(h) of subpart A shall be conducted using Method
22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to determine visible emissions.
Compliance determinations are not necessary for flares already deemed
to be in compliance with the flare provisions in Sec. 63.11(b) of
subpart A.
(ii) A boiler or process heater with a design heat input capacity
of 44 megawatts or greater.
(iii) A boiler or process heater into which the process vent stream
is introduced with the primary fuel or is used as the primary fuel.
(iv) A control device for which a performance test was conducted
for determining compliance with an NSPS and the test was conducted
using the same procedures specified in this section and no process
changes have been made since the test.
(v) A boiler or process heater burning hazardous waste for which
the owner or operator:
(A) Has been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and
complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H, or
(B) Has certified compliance with the interim status requirements
of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H.
(8) If one of the control devices listed in paragraph (b)(6) or
(b)(7) of this section is used, the outlet emissions shall be
calculated using Equation 30.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.028
where:
Eo=Mass rate of total organic HAP at the outlet of the control or
recovery device, respectively, dry basis, kg/hr.
Ei=Mass rate of total organic HAP at the inlet of the control or
recovery device, respectively, dry basis, kg/hr, determined using the
procedures in paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this section.
R=Control efficiency of control device, as specified in paragraph
(b)(8) (i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
(i) If a back-end process vent stream is introduced with the
combustion air, or as a secondary fuel into a boiler or process heater
with a design capacity less than 44 megawatts, the control efficiency
of the boiler or process heater shall be determined using the
procedures in paragraph (b)(6)(iii) of this section.
(ii) If a back-end process vent is controlled using a control
device specified in paragraph (b)(7) (i), (ii), (iii), or (v) of this
section, the control device efficiency shall be assumed to be 98
percent.
(iii) If a back-end process vent is controlled using a control
device specified in paragraph (b)(7)(iv) of this section, the control
device efficiency shall be the efficiency determined in the previous
performance test.
(c) Compliance shall be determined using the procedures in this
paragraph.
(1) For each test run, the residual organic HAP content, adjusted
for the control or recovery device emission reduction, shall be
calculated using Equation 31.
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.029
HAPCONTrun=Factor, kg organic HAP per kg elastomer (latex or dry
crumb rubber).
C=Total uncontrolled organic HAP content, determined in accordance with
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, kg organic HAP per kg latex or dry
crumb rubber.
P=Weight of latex or dry crumb rubber processed during test run.
Ei,run=Mass rate of total organic HAP at the inlet of the control
or recovery device, respectively, dry basis, kg per test run.
Eo,run=Mass rate of total organic HAP at the outlet of the control
or recovery device, respectively, dry basis, kg per test run.
(2) A facility is in compliance if the average of the organic HAP
contents calculated for all three test runs is below the residual
organic HAP limitations in Sec. 63.494(a).
(d) An owner or operator complying with the residual organic HAP
limitations in Sec. 63.494(a) using a control or recovery device, shall
redetermine the compliance status through the requirements described in
paragraph (b) of this section whenever process changes are made. The
owner or operator shall report the results of the redetermination in
accordance with Sec. 63.499(d). For the purposes of this section, a
process change is any action that would reasonably be expected to
impair the performance of the control or recovery device. For the
purposes of this section, the production of an elastomer with a
residual organic HAP content greater than the residual organic HAP
content of the elastomer used in the compliance demonstration
constitutes a process change, unless the overall effect of the change
is to reduce organic HAP emissions from the source as a whole. Other
examples of process changes may include changes in production capacity
or production rate, or removal or addition of equipment. For the
purposes of this paragraph, process changes do not include: Process
upsets; unintentional, temporary process changes; or changes that
reduce the residual organic HAP content of the elastomer.
Sec. 63.497 Back-end process provisions--monitoring provisions for
control and recovery devices.
(a) An owner or operator complying with the residual organic HAP
limitations in Sec. 63.494(a) using control
[[Page 46953]]
or recovery devices, or a combination of stripper technology and
control or recovery devices, shall install the monitoring equipment
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section, as
appropriate.
(1) Where an incinerator is used, a temperature monitoring device
equipped with a continuous recorder is required.
(i) Where an incinerator other than a catalytic incinerator is
used, the temperature monitoring device shall be installed in the
firebox or in the ductwork immediately downstream of the firebox in a
position before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
(ii) Where a catalytic incinerator is used, the temperature
monitoring devices shall be installed in the gas stream immediately
before and after the catalyst bed.
(2) Where a flare is used, a device (including, but not limited to,
a thermocouple, ultra-violet beam sensor, or infrared sensor) capable
of continuously detecting the presence of a pilot flame is required.
(3) Where a boiler or process heater of less than 44 megawatts
design heat input capacity is used, a temperature monitoring device in
the firebox equipped with a continuous recorder is required. Any boiler
or process heater in which all vent streams are introduced with primary
fuel or are used as the primary fuel is exempt from this requirement.
(4) For an absorber, a scrubbing liquid temperature monitoring
device and a specific gravity monitoring device are required, each
equipped with a continuous recorder.
(5) For a condenser, a condenser exit (product side) temperature
monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder is required.
(6) For a carbon adsorber, an integrating regeneration stream flow
monitoring device having an accuracy of at least plus-minus10
percent, capable of recording the total regeneration stream flow for
each regeneration cycle; and a carbon bed temperature monitoring
device, capable of recording the carbon bed temperature after each
regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any cooling cycle are
required.
(b) An owner or operator may request approval to monitor parameters
other than those required by paragraph (a) of this section. The request
shall be submitted according to the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.506(f) or (g). Approval shall be requested if the owner or
operator:
(1) Uses a control or recovery device other than those listed in
paragraph (a) of this section; or
(2) Uses one of the control or recovery devices listed in paragraph
(a) of this section, but seeks to monitor a parameter other than those
specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The owner or operator shall establish a level, defined as
either a maximum or minimum operating parameter, that indicates proper
operation of the control or recovery device for each parameter
monitored under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section. This
level is determined in accordance with Sec. 63.505. The established
level, along with supporting documentation, shall be submitted in the
Notification of Compliance Status or the operating permit application,
as required in Sec. 63.506 (e)(5) or (e)(8), respectively. The owner or
operator shall operate control and recovery devices above or below the
established level, as required, to ensure continued compliance with the
standard.
(d) The owner or operator of a controlled back-end process vent
using a vent system that contains bypass lines that could divert a vent
stream away from the control or recovery device used to comply with
Sec. 63.494(a) shall comply with paragraph (d)(1), (d)(2), or (d)(3) of
this section. Equipment such as low leg drains, high point bleeds,
analyzer vents, open-ended valves or lines, and pressure relief valves
needed for safety purposes are not subject to this paragraph.
(1) Properly install, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that
takes a reading at least once every 15 minutes. Records shall be
generated as specified in Sec. 63.498(d)(5)(iii). The flow indicator
shall be installed at the entrance to any bypass line that could divert
the vent stream away from the control device to the atmosphere; or
(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the non-diverting position with
a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of
the seal or closure mechanism shall be performed at least once every
month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the non-diverting
position and the vent stream is not diverted through the bypass line.
(3) Continuously monitor the bypass line damper or valve position
using computer monitoring and record any periods when the position of
the bypass line valve has changes as specified in
Sec. 63.498(d)(5)(iv).
Sec. 63.498 Back-end process provisions--recordkeeping.
(a) Each owner or operator shall maintain the records specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section for each back-end
process operation at an affected source.
(1) The type of elastomer product processed in the back-end
operation.
(2) The type of process (solution process, emulsion process, etc.)
(3) If the back-end process operation is subject to an emission
limitation in Sec. 63.494(a), whether compliance will be achieved by
stripping technology, or by control or recovery devices.
(b) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using
stripping technology to comply with an emission limitation in
Sec. 63.494(a), and demonstrating compliance using the periodic
sampling procedures in Sec. 63.495(b), shall maintain the records
specified in paragraph (b)(1), and in paragraph (b)(2) or (b)(3) of
this section, as appropriate.
(1) Records associated with each sample taken in accordance with
Sec. 63.495(b). These records shall include the following for each
sample:
(i) Elastomer type,
(ii) The date and time the sample was collected,
(iii) The corresponding quantity of elastomer processed over the
time period represented by the sample. Acceptable methods of
determining this quantity are production records, measurement of stream
characteristics, and engineering calculations.
(A) For emulsion processes, this quantity shall be the weight of
the latex leaving the stripper.
(B) For solution processes, this quantity shall be the crumb rubber
dry weight of the rubber leaving the stripper.
(iv) The organic HAP content of each sample.
(2) The monthly weighted average organic HAP content, calculated in
accordance with Sec. 63.495(f).
(3) If the organic HAP contents for all samples analyzed during a
month are below the appropriate level in Sec. 63.494(a), the owner or
operator may record that all samples were in accordance with the
residual organic HAP limitations in Sec. 63.494(a), rather than
calculating and recording a monthly weighted average.
(c) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using
stripping technology to comply with an emission limitation in
Sec. 63.494(a), and demonstrating compliance using the stripper
parameter monitoring procedures in Sec. 63.495(c), shall maintain the
records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section.
(1) Records associated with the initial, and subsequent,
determinations of the organic HAP content of each grade of elastomer
produced. These records shall include the following:
[[Page 46954]]
(i) An identification of the elastomer type and grade;
(ii) The results of the residual organic HAP analyses, conducted in
accordance with Sec. 63.505(e)(1);
(iii) The stripper monitoring parameters required to be established
in Sec. 63.495(c)(1).
(iv) If re-determinations are made of the organic HAP content, and
re-establishment of the stripper monitoring parameters, records of the
initial determination are no longer required to be maintained.
(2) Records associated with each grade or batch. These records
shall include the following for each grade or batch:
(i) Elastomer type and grade;
(ii) The quantity of elastomer processed;
(A) For emulsion processes, this quantity shall be the weight of
the latex leaving the stripper.
(B) For solution processes, this quantity shall be the crumb rubber
dry weight of the crumb rubber leaving the stripper.
(iii) The hourly average of all stripper parameter results;
(iv) If one or more hourly average stripper monitoring parameters
is not in accordance with the established levels, the results of the
residual organic HAP analysis.
(3) The monthly weighted average organic HAP content, calculated in
accordance with Sec. 63.495(f).
(d) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using
control or recovery devices to comply with an organic HAP emission
limitation in Sec. 63.494(a) shall maintain the records specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of this section.
(1) Results of the testing required by Sec. 63.496(b). These
results shall include the following, for each of the three required
test runs:
(i) The uncontrolled residual organic HAP content in the latex or
dry crumb rubber, as required to be determined by Sec. 63.496(b)(3),
including the test results of the analysis;
(ii) The total quantity of material (weight of latex or dry crumb
rubber) processed during the test run, recorded in accordance with
Sec. 63.496(b)(4),
(iii) The organic HAP emissions at the inlet and outlet of the
control or recovery device, determined in accordance with Sec. 63.496
(b)(5) through (b)(8), including all test results and calculations,
(iv) The residual organic HAP content, adjusted for the control or
recovery device emission reduction, determined in accordance with
Sec. 63.496(c)(1).
(2) The operating parameter level established in accordance with
Sec. 63.497(c), along with supporting documentation.
(3) The following information when using a flare:
(i) The flare design (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-
assisted);
(ii) All visible emission readings, heat content determinations,
flow rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during
the compliance determination; and
(iii) All periods during the compliance determination when the
pilot flame is absent.
(4) When using a boiler or process heater, a description of the
location at which the vent stream is introduced into the boiler or
process heater.
(5) Each owner or operator using a control or recovery device shall
keep the following records up-to-date and readily accessible:
(i) Continuous records of the equipment operating parameters
specified to be monitored under Sec. 63.497(a) or specified by the
Administrator in accordance with Sec. 63.497(b). For flares, the hourly
records and records of pilot flame outages shall be maintained in place
of continuous records.
(ii) Records of the daily average value of each continuously
monitored parameter for each operating day, except as provided in
paragraphs (d)(5)(ii)(D) and (d)(5)(ii)(E) of this section.
(A) The daily average shall be calculated as the average of all
values for a monitored parameter recorded during the operating day,
except as provided in paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(B) of this section. The
average shall cover a 24-hour period if operation is continuous, or the
number of hours of operation per operating day if operation is not
continuous.
(B) Monitoring data recorded during periods of monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-
level adjustments shall not be included in computing the hourly or
daily averages. Records shall be kept of the times and durations of all
such periods and any other periods of process or control device
operation when monitors are not operating.
(C) The operating day shall be the period defined in the operating
permit or the Notification of Compliance Status in Sec. 63.506(e)(8) or
(e)(5). It may be from midnight to midnight or another 24-hour period.
(D) If all recorded values for a monitored parameter during an
operating day are below the maximum, or above the minimum, level
established in the Notification of Compliance Status in
Sec. 63.506(e)(5) or in the operating permit, the owner or operator may
record that all values were below the maximum or above the minimum
level, rather than calculating and recording a daily average for that
operating day.
(E) For flares, records of the times and duration of all periods
during which the pilot flame is absent shall be kept rather than daily
averages. The records specified in this paragraph are not required
during periods when emissions are not routed to the flare, or during
startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions when the owner or operator
complies with the applicable requirements of subpart A of this part, as
directed by Sec. 63.506(b)(1).
(iii) Hourly records of whether the flow indicator specified under
Sec. 63.497(d)(1) was operating and whether a diversion was detected at
any time during the hour, as well as records of the times of all
periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control device or the
flow indicator is not operating.
(iv) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with
Sec. 63.497(d)(2), or where computer monitoring of the position of the
bypass damper or valve is used to comply with Sec. 63.497(d)(3), hourly
records of flow are not required.
(A) For compliance with Sec. 63.497(d)(2), the owner or operator
shall record whether the monthly visual inspection of the seals or
closure mechanisms has been done, and shall record instances when the
seal mechanism is broken, the bypass line valve position has changed,
or the key for a lock-and-key type configuration has been checked out,
and records of any car-seal that has broken.
(B) For compliance with Sec. 63.497(d)(3), the owner or operator
shall record the times of all periods when the bypass line damper or
valve position has changed.
Sec. 63.499 Back-end process provisions--reporting.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected source with back-end
process operations shall submit the information required in
Sec. 63.498(a) as part of the Notification of Compliance Status
specified in Sec. 63.506(e)(5).
(b) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using
stripping to comply with an emission limitation in Sec. 63.494(a), and
demonstrating compliance by stripper parameter monitoring, shall submit
reports as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) As part of the Notification of Compliance Status specified in
[[Page 46955]]
Sec. 63.506(e)(5), the owner or operator shall submit the information
specified in Sec. 63.498(c)(1).
(2) For organic HAP content/stripping monitoring parameter re-
determinations, and the addition of new grades, the information
specified in Sec. 63.498(c)(1) shall be submitted in the next periodic
report specified in Sec. 63.506(e)(6).
(c) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation control
or recovery devices that must comply with an emission limitation in
Sec. 63.494(a) shall submit the information specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section as part of the Notification of
Compliance Status specified in Sec. 63.506(e)(5).
(1) The residual organic HAP content, adjusted for the control or
recovery device emission reduction, determined in accordance with
Sec. 63.496(c)(1), for each test run in the compliance determination.
(2) The operating parameter level established in accordance with
Sec. 63.497(c), along with supporting documentation.
(3) The information specified in Sec. 63.498(d)(3) regarding flares
and Sec. 63.498(d)(4) regarding boilers and process heaters, if
applicable.
(d) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec. 63.496(d), is
made that causes the redetermination of the compliance status for the
back-end process operations, the owner or operator shall submit a
report within 180 calendar days after the process change as specified
in Sec. 63.506(e)(7)(iii). The report shall include:
(1) A description of the process change;
(2) The results of the redetermination of the compliance status,
determined in accordance with Sec. 63.496(b), and recorded in
accordance with Sec. 63.498(d)(1), and
(3) Documentation of the re-establishment of a parameter level for
the control or recovery device, defined as either a maximum or minimum
operating parameter, that indicates proper operation of the control or
recovery device, in accordance with Sec. 63.497(c) and recorded in
accordance with Sec. 63.498(d)(2).
(e) If an owner or operator uses a control or recovery device other
than those listed in Sec. 63.497(a) or requests approval to monitor a
parameter other than those specified in Sec. 63.497(a), the owner or
operator shall submit a description of planned reporting and
recordkeeping procedures as required under Sec. 63.506(e)(3) or (e)(8).
The Administrator will specify appropriate reporting and recordkeeping
requirements as part of the review of the Precompliance Report or
Operating Permit application.
Sec. 63.500 Back-end process provisions--carbon disulfide limitations
for styrene butadiene rubber by emulsion processes.
(a) Owners or operators of sources subject to this subpart
producing styrene butadiene rubber using an emulsion process shall
operate the process such that the carbon disulfide concentration in
each crumb dryer exhausts shall not exceed 45 ppmv.
(1) The owner or operator shall develop standard operating
procedures for the addition of sulfur containing shortstop agents to
ensure that the limitation in paragraph (a) of this section is
maintained. There shall be a standard operating procedure representing
the production of every grade of styrene butadiene rubber produced at
the affected source using a sulfur containing shortstop agent.
(2) A validation of each standard operating procedure shall be
conducted in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this section, to demonstrate compliance
with the limitation in paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) The owner or operator shall operate the process in accordance
with a validated standard operating procedure at all times when styrene
butadiene rubber is being produced using a sulfur containing shortstop
agent. If a standard operating procedure is changed, it must be re-
validated.
(4) Records specified in paragraph (d) of this section shall be
maintained.
(5) Reports shall be submitted in accordance with paragraph (e) of
this section.
(b) Crumb dryers that are vented to a combustion device are not
subject to the provisions in this section.
(c) The owner or operator shall validate each standard operating
procedure to determine compliance with the limitation in paragraph (a)
of this section using the testing procedures in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section or engineering assessment, as described in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall conduct a performance test using
the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(iii) of this
section to demonstrate compliance with the carbon disulfide
concentration limitation in paragraph (a) of this section. One test
shall be conducted for each standard operating procedure.
(i) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as required,
shall be used for selection of the sampling sites.
(ii) The gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using Method
2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as required.
(iii) To determine compliance with the carbon disulfide
concentration limit in paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or
operator shall use Method 18 or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A, to measure carbon disulfide. Alternatively, any other method or data
that has been validated according to the applicable procedures in
Method 301 of appendix A of this part may be used. The following
procedures shall be used to calculate carbon disulfide concentration:
(A) The minimum sampling time for each run shall be 1 hour, in
which either an integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples
shall be taken. If grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be
taken at approximately equal intervals in time, such as 15 minute
intervals during the run.
(B) The concentration of carbon disulfide shall be calculated using
Equation 32.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.030
where:
CCS2=Concentration of carbon disulfide, dry basis, ppmv.
CCS2i=Concentration of carbon disulfide of sample i, dry basis,
ppmv.
n=Number of samples in the sample run.
(2) The owner or operator shall use engineering assessment to
demonstrate compliance with the carbon disulfide concentration
limitation in paragraph (a) of this section. Engineering assessment
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(i) Previous test results, provided the tests are representative of
current operating practices at the process unit.
(ii) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the
process under representative operating conditions.
(iii) Flow rate and/or carbon disulfide emission rate specified or
implied within an applicable permit limit.
(iv) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering
principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not
limited to:
(A) Use of material balances,
(B) Estimation of flow rate based on physical equipment design such
as pump or blower capacities, and
(C) Estimation of carbon disulfide concentrations based on
saturation conditions.
[[Page 46956]]
(v) All data, assumptions, and procedures used in the engineering
assessment shall be documented.
(d) Owners and operators of sources subject to this section shall
maintain the records specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this
section.
(1) Documentation of the results of the testing required by
paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) A description of the standard operating procedure used during
the testing. This description shall include, at a minimum, an
identification of the sulfur containing shortstop added to the styrene
butadiene rubber prior to the dryers, an identification of the point
and time in the process where the sulfur containing shortstop is added,
and an identification of the amount of sulfur containing shortstop
added per unit of latex.
(e) Owners and operators shall submit the reports as specified in
paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section.
(1) As part of the Notification of Compliance Status specified in
Sec. 63.506(e)(5), documentation of the results of the testing required
by paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) If changes are made in the standard operating procedure used
during the compliance test and recorded in accordance with paragraph
(d)(2) of this section, and if those changes have the potential for
increasing the concentration of carbon disulfide in the crumb dryer
exhaust to above the 45 ppmv limit, the owner or operator shall:
(i) Redetermine compliance using the test procedures in paragraph
(c) of this section, and
(ii) Submit documentation of the testing results in the next
periodic report required by Sec. 63.506(e)(6).
Sec. 63.501 Wastewater provisions.
(a) For each process wastewater stream originating at an affected
source, except those wastewater streams exempted by paragraph (c) of
this section, the owner or operator shall comply with the requirements
of Secs. 63.131 through 63.148 of subpart G, with the differences noted
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(11) of this section, for the purposes
of this subpart.
(1) When the determination of equivalence criteria in
Sec. 63.102(b) of subpart F is referred to in Secs. 63.132, 63.133, and
63.137 of subpart G, the provisions in Sec. 63.6(g) of subpart A shall
apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(2) When the storage tank requirements contained in Secs. 63.119
through 63.123 of subpart G are referred to in Secs. 63.132 through
63.148 of subpart G, Secs. 63.119 through 63.123 of subpart G are
applicable, with the exception of the differences referred to in
Sec. 63.484, for the purposes of this subpart.
(3) When the Implementation Plan requirements contained in
Sec. 63.151 in subpart G are referred to in Sec. 63.146 of subpart G,
the owner or operator of an affected source subject to this subpart
need not comply.
(4) When the Initial Notification Plan requirements in
Sec. 63.151(b) of subpart G are referred to in Sec. 63.146 of subpart
G, the owner or operator of an affected source subject to this subpart
need not comply.
(5) When the owner or operator requests to use alternatives to the
continuous operating parameter monitoring and recordkeeping provisions
referred to in Sec. 63.151(g) of subpart G, or the owner or operator
submits an operating permit application instead of an Implementation
Plan as specified in Sec. 63.152(e) of subpart G, as referred to in
Sec. 63.146(a)(3) of subpart G, Sec. 63.506(f) and Sec. 63.506(e)(8),
respectively, shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(6) When the Notification of Compliance Status requirements
contained in Sec. 63.152(b) of subpart G are referred to in
Secs. 63.146 and 63.147 of subpart G, the Notification of Compliance
Status requirements contained in Sec. 63.506(e)(5) shall apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
(7) When the Periodic Report requirements contained in
Sec. 63.152(c) of subpart G are referred to in Secs. 63.146 and 63.147
of subpart G, the Periodic Report requirements contained in
Sec. 63.506(e)(6) shall apply for the purposes of this subpart.
(8) When the term ``range'' is used in Sec. 63.143(f) of subpart G,
the term ``level'' shall be used instead, for the purposes of this
subpart. This level shall be determined using the procedures specified
in Sec. 63.505.
(9) For the purposes of this subpart, owners or operators are not
required to comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.138(e)(2) of subpart
G which specify that owners or operators shall demonstrate that 95
percent of the mass of HAP, as listed in Table 9 of subpart G, is
removed from the wastewater stream or combination of wastewater streams
by the procedure specified in Sec. 63.145(i) of subpart G for a
biological treatment unit.
(10) For the purposes of this subpart, owners or operators are not
required to comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.138(j)(3) of subpart
G which specify that owners or operators shall use the procedures
specified in Appendix C of subpart G to demonstrate compliance when
using a biological treatment unit.
(11) When the provisions of Sec. 63.139(c)(1)(ii) of subpart G or
the provisions of Sec. 63.145(e)(2)(ii)(B) specify that Method 18 shall
be used, Method 18 or Method 25A may be used for the purposes of this
subpart. The use of Method 25A shall comply with paragraphs (a)(11)(i)
and (a)(11)(ii) of this section.
(i) The organic HAP used as the calibration gas for Method 25A
shall be the single organic HAP representing the largest percent by
volume of the emissions.
(ii) The use of Method 25A is acceptable if the response from the
high-level calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation
of the response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is
zeroed on the most sensitive scale.
(b) Except for those streams exempted by paragraph (c) of this
section, the owner or operator of each affected source shall comply
with the requirements for maintenance wastewater in Sec. 63.105 of
subpart F, except that when Sec. 63.105(a) refers to ``organic HAPs,''
the definition of organic HAP in Sec. 63.482 shall apply for the
purposes of this subpart.
(c) The following wastewater streams are exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:
(1) Back-end wastewater streams originating from equipment that
only produces latex products.
(2) Back-end wastewater streams at affected sources that are
subject to a residual organic HAP limitation in Sec. 63.494(a), and
that are complying with these limitations through the use of stripping
technology.
(d) The compliance date for the affected source subject to the
provisions of this section is specified in Sec. 63.481.
Sec. 63.502 Equipment leak provisions.
(a) The owner or operator of each affected source, shall comply
with the requirements of subpart H of this part for all equipment in
organic HAP service, with the exception noted in paragraphs (b) through
(h) of this section.
(b) Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers described in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section are exempt from the
requirements contained in Sec. 63.170 of subpart H.
(1) Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers containing styrene-
butadiene latex;
(2) Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers containing other
latex products and located downstream of the stripping operations;
[[Page 46957]]
(3) Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers containing high
conversion latex products;
(4) Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers located downstream
of the stripping operations at affected sources subject to the back-end
residual organic HAP limitation located in Sec. 63.494, that are
complying through the use of stripping technology, as specified in
Sec. 63.495;
(5) Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers containing styrene;
(6) Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers containing
acrylamide; and
(7) Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers containing
epichlorohydrin.
(c) The compliance date for the equipment leak provisions in this
section is provided in Sec. 63.481.
(d) For an affected source producing polybutadiene rubber and
styrene butadiene rubber by solution, the indications of liquids
dripping, as defined in subpart H of this part, from bleed ports in
pumps and agitator seals in light liquid service, shall not be
considered a leak. For the purposes of this subpart, a ``bleed port''
is a technologically-required feature of the pump or seal whereby
polymer fluid used to provide lubrication and/or cooling of the pump or
agitator shaft exits the pump, thereby resulting in a visible dripping
of fluid.
(e) Affected sources subject to subpart I of this part shall
continue to comply with subpart I until the compliance date specified
in Sec. 63.481. After the compliance date for this section, the source
shall be subject to subpart H of this part and shall no longer be
subject to subpart I.
(f) The owner or operator of each affected source shall comply with
the requirements of Sec. 63.104 of subpart F for heat exchange systems.
(g) Owners and operators of an affected source subject to this
subpart are not required to submit the Initial Notification required by
Sec. 63.182(a)(1) and Sec. 63.182(b) of subpart H.
(h) The Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.182(a)(2) and Sec. 63.182(c) of subpart H shall be submitted
within 150 days (rather than 90 days) of the applicable compliance date
specified in Sec. 63.481 for the equipment leak provisions. The
notification can be submitted as part of the Notification of Compliance
Status required by Sec. 63.506(e)(5).
(i) The Periodic Reports required by Sec. 63.182(a)(3) and
Sec. 63.182(d) of subpart H shall be submitted as part of the Periodic
Reports required by Sec. 63.506(e)(6).
Sec. 63.503 Emissions averaging provisions.
(a) This section applies to owners or operators of existing
affected sources who seek to comply with Sec. 63.483(b) by using
emissions averaging rather than following the provisions of
Secs. 63.484, 63.485, 63.486, 63.494, and 64.488.
(1) The following emission point limitations apply to the use of
these provisions:
(i) All emission points included in an emissions average shall be
from the same affected source. There may be an emissions average for
each individual affected source located at a plant site.
(ii)(A) If a plant site has only one affected source for which
emissions averaging is being used to demonstrate compliance, the number
of emission points allowed to be included in the emission average is
limited to twenty. This number may be increased by up to five
additional points if pollution prevention measures are used to control
five or more of the emission points included in the emissions average.
(B) If a plant site has two or more affected sources for which
emissions averaging is being used to demonstrate compliance, the number
of emission points allowed in the emissions average for those affected
sources is limited to twenty. This number may be increased by up to
five additional emission points if pollution prevention measures are
used to control five or more of the emission points included in the
emissions averages.
(2) Compliance with the provisions of this section can be based on
either organic HAP or TOC.
(3) For the purposes of these provisions, whenever Method 18 is
specified within the paragraphs of this section or is specified by
reference through provisions outside this section, Method 18 or Method
25A may be used. The use of Method 25A shall comply with paragraphs
(a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) The organic HAP used as the calibration gas for Method 25A
shall be the single organic HAP representing the largest percent by
volume of the emissions.
(ii) The use of Method 25A is acceptable if the response from the
high-level calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation
of the response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is
zeroed on the most sensitive scale.
(b) Unless an operating permit application has been submitted, the
owner or operator shall develop and submit for approval an Emissions
Averaging Plan containing all of the information required in
Sec. 63.506(e)(4) for all emission points to be included in an
emissions average.
(c) Paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section describe the
emission points that can be used to generate emissions averaging
credits if control was applied after November 15, 1990 and if
sufficient information is available to determine the appropriate value
of credits for the emission point. Paragraph (c)(5) of this section
discusses the use of pollution prevention in generating emissions
averaging credits.
(1) Storage vessels, batch front-end process vents, aggregate batch
vent streams, continuous front-end process vents, and process
wastewater streams that are determined to be Group 2 emission points.
(2) Storage vessels, continuous front-end process vents, and
process wastewater steams that are determined to be Group 1 emission
points and that are controlled by a technology that the Administrator
or permitting authority agrees has a higher nominal efficiency than the
reference control technology. Information on the nominal efficiencies
for such technologies must be submitted and approved as provided in
paragraph (i) of this section.
(3) Batch front-end process vents and aggregate batch vent streams
that are determined to be Group 1 emission points and that are
controlled to a level more stringent than the applicable standard.
(4) Back-end process operations that are controlled such that
organic HAP emissions from the back-end process operation are less than
would be achieved by meeting the residual organic HAP limits in
Sec. 63.494. For the purposes of the emission averaging provisions in
this section, all back-end process operations at an affected facility
shall be considered a single emission point.
(5) The percent reduction for any storage vessel, batch front-end
process vent, aggregate batch vent stream, continuous front-end process
vent, and process wastewater stream shall be determined using the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this section.
(i) For a Group 1 storage vessel, batch front-end process vent,
aggregate batch vent stream, continuous front-end process vent, or
process wastewater stream, the pollution prevention measure must reduce
emissions more than if the reference control technology or standard had
been applied to the emission point instead of the pollution prevention
measure, except as provided in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section.
(ii) If a pollution prevention measure is used in conjunction with
other controls for a Group 1 storage vessel,
[[Page 46958]]
batch front-end process vent, aggregate batch vent stream, continuous
front-end process vent, or process wastewater stream, the pollution
prevention measure alone does not have to reduce emissions more than
the reference control technology or standard, but the combination of
the pollution prevention measure and other controls must reduce
emissions more than if the applicable reference control technology or
standard had been applied instead of the pollution prevention measure.
(d) The following emission points cannot be used to generate
emissions averaging credits:
(1) Emission points already controlled on or before November 15,
1990 cannot be used to generate credits unless the level of control was
increased after November 15, 1990. In this case, credit will be allowed
only for the increase in control after November 15, 1990.
(2) Group 1 emission points, identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, that are controlled by a reference control technology cannot
be used to generate credits unless the reference control technology has
been approved for use in a different manner and a higher nominal
efficiency has been assigned according to the procedures in paragraph
(i) of this section.
(3) Emission points on nonoperating EPPU cannot be used to generate
credits. EPPU that are shutdown cannot be used to generate credits or
debits.
(4) Maintenance wastewater cannot be used to generate credits.
Wastewater streams treated in biological treatment units cannot be used
to generate credits. These two types of wastewater cannot be used to
generate credits or debits. For the purposes of this section, the terms
wastewater and wastewater stream are used to mean process wastewater.
(5) Emission points controlled to comply with a State or Federal
rule other than this subpart cannot be used to generate credits, unless
the level of control has been increased after November 15, 1990 to a
level above what is required by the other State or Federal rule. Only
the control above what is required by the other State or Federal rule
will be credited. However, if an emission point has been used to
generate emissions averaging credit in an approved emissions average,
and the emission point is subsequently made subject to a State or
Federal rule other than this subpart, the emission point can continue
to generate emissions averaging credit for the purpose of complying
with the previously approved emissions average.
(e) For all emission points included in an emissions average, the
owner or operator shall perform the following tasks:
(1) Calculate and record monthly debits for all Group 1 emission
points that are controlled to a level less stringent than the reference
control technology or standard for those emission points. The Group 1
emission points are identified in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(4) of
this section. Equations in paragraph (g) of this section shall be used
to calculate debits.
(2) Calculate and record monthly credits for all Group 1 and Group
2 emission points that are overcontrolled to compensate for the debits.
Equations in paragraph (h) of this section shall be used to calculate
credits. Emission points and controls that meet the criteria of
paragraph (c) of this section may be included in the credit
calculation, whereas those described in paragraph (d) of this section
shall not be included.
(3) Demonstrate that annual credits calculated according to
paragraph (h) of this section are greater than or equal to debits
calculated for the same annual compliance period according to paragraph
(g) of this section.
(i) The owner or operator may choose to include more than the
required number of credit-generating emission points in an emissions
average in order to increase the likelihood of being in compliance.
(ii) The initial demonstration in the Emissions Averaging Plan or
operating permit application that credit-generating emission points
will be capable of generating sufficient credits to offset the debits
from the debit-generating emission points must be made under
representative operating conditions. After the compliance date, actual
operating data will be used for all debit and credit calculations.
(4) Demonstrate that debits calculated for a quarterly (3-month)
period according to paragraph (g) of this section are not more than
1.30 times the credits for the same period calculated according to
paragraph (h) of this section. Compliance for the quarter shall be
determined based on the ratio of credits and debits from that quarter,
with 30 percent more debits than credits allowed on a quarterly basis.
(5) Record and report quarterly and annual credits and debits in
the Periodic Reports as specified in Sec. 63.506(e)(6). Every fourth
Periodic Report shall include a certification of compliance with the
emissions averaging provisions as required by
Sec. 63.506(e)(6)(vi)(D)(2).
(f) Debits and credits shall be calculated in accordance with the
methods and procedures specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this
section, respectively, and shall not include emissions during the
following periods:
(1) Emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
as described in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan.
(2) Emissions during periods of monitoring excursions, as defined
in Sec. 63.505 (g) or (h). For these periods, the calculation of
monthly credits and debits shall be adjus
FR Doc. 96-21941 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
ted as specified in paragraphs
(f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(iii) of this section.
(i) No credits would be assigned to the credit-generating emission
point.
(ii) Maximum debits would be assigned to the debit-generating
emission point.
(iii) The owner or operator may demonstrate to the Administrator
that full or partial credits or debits should be assigned using the
procedures in paragraph (l) of this section.
(g) Debits are generated by the difference between the actual
emissions from a Group 1 emission point that is uncontrolled or is
controlled to a level less stringent than the applicable reference
control technology or standard and the emissions allowed for the Group
1 emission point. Debits shall be calculated as follows:
(1) Source-wide debits shall be calculated using Equation 33.
Debits and all terms of the equation are in units of megagrams per
month (Mg/month).
[[Page 46959]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.031
where:
ECFEPViACTUAL=Emissions from each Group 1 continuous front-end
process vent i that is uncontrolled or is controlled to a level less
stringent than the applicable reference control technology.
ECFEPViACTUAL is calculated according to paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of
this section.
(0.02)ECFEPViu=Emissions from each Group 1 continuous front-end
process vent i if the applicable reference control technology had been
applied to the uncontrolled emissions. ECFEPViu is calculated
according to paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section.
ESiACTUAL=Emissions from each Group 1 storage vessel i that is
uncontrolled or is controlled to a level less stringent than the
applicable reference control technology or standard. ESiACTUAL is
calculated according to paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(0.05)ESiu=Emissions from each Group 1 storage vessel i if the
applicable reference control technology or standard had been applied to
the uncontrolled emissions. ESiu is calculated according to
paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
EBEPACTUAL=Emissions from back-end process operations that do not
meet the residual organic HAP limits in Sec. 63.494. EBEPACTUAL is
calculated according to paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this section.
EBEPc=Emissions from back-end process operations if the residual
organic HAP limits in Sec. 63.494(a) were met. EBEPc is calculated
according to paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section.
EWWiACTUAL=Emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream i that is
uncontrolled or is controlled to a level less stringent than the
applicable reference control technology. EWW2iACTUAL is calculated
according to paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
EWWic=Emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream i if the
reference control technology had been applied to the uncontrolled
emissions. EWWic is calculated according to paragraph (g)(5) of
this section.
EBFEPViACTUAL=Emissions from each Group 1 batch front-end process
vent stream i that is uncontrolled or is controlled to a level less
stringent than the reference control technology. EBFEPViACTUAL is
calculated according to paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this section.
(0.1)EBFEPViu=Emissions from each Group 1 batch front-end process
vent i if the applicable reference control technology or standard had
been applied to the uncontrolled emissions. EBFEPViu is calculated
according to paragraph (g)(6)(i) of this section.
EABViACTUAL=Emissions from each Group 1 aggregate batch vent
stream i that is uncontrolled or is controlled to a level less
stringent than the applicable reference control technology.
EABViACTUAL is calculated according to paragraph (g)(7)(iii) of
this section.
(0.1)EABViu=Emissions from each Group 1 aggregate batch vent
stream i if the applicable reference control technology had been
applied to the uncontrolled emissions. EABViu is calculated
according to paragraph (g)(7)(ii) of this section.
n=The number of emission points being included in the emissions
average.
(2) Emissions from continuous front-end process vents shall be
calculated as follows:
(i) For purposes of determining continuous front-end process vent
stream flow rate, organic HAP concentrations, and temperature, the
sampling site shall be after the final product recovery device, if any
recovery devices are present; before any control device (for continuous
front-end process vents, recovery devices shall not be considered
control devices); and before discharge to the atmosphere. Method 1 or
1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, shall be used for selection of the
sampling site.
(ii) ECFEPViu for each continuous front-end process vent i
shall be calculated using Equation 34.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.032
where:
ECFEPViu=Uncontrolled continuous front-end process vent emission
rate from continuous front-end process vent i, Mg/month.
Q=Vent stream flow rate, dry standard m3/min, measured using
Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as appropriate.
h=Monthly hours of operation during which positive flow is present in
the continuous front-end process vent, hr/month.
Cj=Concentration, ppmv, dry basis, of organic HAP j as measured by
Method 18 or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
[[Page 46960]]
Mj=Molecular weight of organic HAP j, gram per gram-mole.
n=Number of organic HAP in stream.
(A) The values of Q and Cj shall be determined during a
performance test conducted under representative operating conditions.
The values of Q and Cj shall be established in the Notification of
Compliance Status and must be updated as provided in paragraph
(g)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.
(B) If there is a change in capacity utilization other than a
change in monthly operating hours, or if any other change is made to
the process or product recovery equipment or operation such that the
previously measured values of Q and Cj are no longer
representative, a new performance test shall be conducted to determine
new representative values of Q and Cj. These new values shall be
used to calculate debits and credits from the time of the change
forward, and the new values shall be reported in the next Periodic
Report.
(iii) The following procedures and equations shall be used to
calculate ECFEPViACTUAL:
(A) If the continuous front-end process vent is not controlled by a
control device or pollution prevention measure, ECFEPViACTUAL =
ECFEPViu, where ECFEPViu is calculated according to the
procedures contained in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(B) If the continuous front-end process vent is controlled using a
control device or a pollution prevention measure achieving less than
98-percent reduction, ECFEPViACTUAL is calculated using Equation
35.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.033
Where:
ECFEPViACTUAL = Emissions from each Group 1 continuous front-end
process vent i that is uncontrolled or is controlled to a level less
stringent than the reference control technology.
ECFEPViu = Uncontrolled continuous front-end process vent emission
rate from continuous front-end process vent i, Mg/month.
(1) The percent reduction shall be measured according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.116 of subpart G if a combustion control device
is used. For a flare meeting the criteria in Sec. 63.116(a) of subpart
G, or a boiler or process heater meeting the criteria in Sec. 63.116(b)
of subpart G, the percent reduction shall be 98 percent. If a
noncombustion control device is used, percent reduction shall be
demonstrated by a performance test at the inlet and outlet of the
device, or, if testing is not feasible, by a control design evaluation
and documented engineering calculations.
(2) For determining debits from Group 1 continuous front-end
process vents, product recovery devices shall not be considered control
devices and cannot be assigned a percent reduction in calculating
ECFEPViACTUAL. The sampling site for measurement of uncontrolled
emissions is after the final product recovery device. However, as
provided in Sec. 63.113(a)(3) of subpart G, a Group 1 continuous front-
end process vent may add sufficient product recovery to raise the TRE
index value above 1.0, thereby becoming a Group 2 continuous front-end
process vent. Such a continuous front-end process vent would not be a
Group 1 continuous front-end process vent and would, therefore, not be
included in determining debits under this paragraph.
(3) Procedures for calculating the percent reduction of pollution
prevention measures are specified in paragraph (j) of this section.
(3) Emissions from storage vessels shall be calculated using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.150(g)(3) of subpart G.
(4) Emissions from back-end process operations shall be calculated
as follows:
(i) Equation 36 shall be used to calculate EBEPACTUAL:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.034
where:
EBEPACTUAL = Actual emissions from back-end process operations,
Mg/month.
Ci = Residual organic HAP content of sample i, kg organic HAP per
Mg latex or dry crumb rubber.
Pi = Weight of latex or dry crumb rubber leaving the stripper
represented by sample i, Mg.
(ii) Equation 37 shall be used to calculate EBEPc:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.051
where:
EBEPc = Emissions from back-end process operations if the residual
organic HAP limits in Sec. 63.494(a) were met, Mg/month.
HAPlimit = Residual organic HAP limits in Sec. 63.494 of this
subpart, kg organic HAP per Mg latex or dry crumb rubber.
Pmonth=Weight of latex or dry crumb rubber leaving the stripper in
the month, Mg.
(5) Emissions from wastewater shall be calculated using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.150(g)(5) of subpart G.
(6) Emissions from batch front-end process vents shall be
calculated as follows:
(i) EBFEPViu for each batch front-end process vent i shall be
calculated using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.488(b).
(ii) The following procedures and equations shall be used to
determine EBFEPViACTUAL:
(A) If the batch front-end process vent is not controlled by a
control device or pollution prevention measure,
[[Page 46961]]
EBFEPViACTUAL=EBFEPViu, where EBFEPViu is calculated
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.488(b).
(B) If the batch front-end process vent is controlled using a
control device or a pollution prevention measure achieving less than 90
percent reduction for the batch cycle, calculate EBFEPViACTUAL
using Equation 38, where percent reduction is for the batch cycle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.035
(1) The percent reduction for the batch cycle shall be measured
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.490(c)(2).
(2) The percent reduction for control devices shall be calculated
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.490 (c)(2)(i) through
(c)(2)(iii).
(3) The percent reduction of pollution prevention measures shall be
calculated using the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
section.
(7) Emissions from aggregate batch vents shall be calculated as
follows:
(i) For purposes of determining aggregate batch vent stream flow
rate, organic HAP concentrations, and temperature, the sampling site
shall be before any control device and before discharge to the
atmosphere. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, shall be used
for selection of the sampling site.
(ii) EABViu for each aggregate batch vent i shall be
calculated using Equation 39.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.036
where:
EABViu=Uncontrolled aggregate batch vent emission rate from
aggregate batch vent i, Mg/month.
Q=Vent stream flow rate, dry standard cubic meters per minute, measured
using Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as
appropriate.
h=Monthly hours of operation during which positive flow is present from
the aggregate batch vent stream, hr/month.
Cj=Concentration, ppmv, dry basis, of organic HAP j as measured by
Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Mj=Molecular weight of organic HAP j, gram per gram-mole.
n=Number of organic HAP in the stream.
(A) The values of Q and Cj shall be determined during a
performance test conducted under representative operating conditions.
The values of Q and Cj shall be established in the Notification of
Compliance Status and must be updated as provided in paragraph
(g)(7)(ii)(B) of this section.
(B) If there is a change in capacity utilization other than a
change in monthly operating hours, or if any other change is made to
the process or product recovery equipment or operation such that the
previously measured values of Q and Cj are no longer
representative, a new performance test shall be conducted to determine
new representative values of Q and Cj. These new values shall be
used to calculate debits and credits from the time of the change
forward, and the new values shall be reported in the next Periodic
Report.
(iii) The following procedures and equations shall be used to
calculate EABViACTUAL:
(A) If the aggregate batch vent is not controlled by a control
device or pollution prevention measure, EABViACTUAL = EABViu,
where EABViu is calculated according to the procedures in
paragraphs (g)(7)(i) and (g)(7)(ii) of this section.
(B) If the aggregate batch vent stream is controlled using a
control device or a pollution prevention measure achieving less than 90
percent reduction, calculate EABViACTUAL using Equation 40.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.037
(1) The percent reduction for control devices shall be determined
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.490(e).
(2) The percent reduction of pollution prevention measures shall be
calculated according to the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of
this section.
(h) Credits are generated by the difference between emissions that
are allowed for each Group 1 and Group 2 emission point and the actual
emissions from that Group 1 or Group 2 emission point that has been
controlled after November 15, 1990 to a level more stringent than what
is required by this subpart or any other State or Federal rule or
statute. Credits shall be calculated as follows:
(1) Source-wide credits shall be calculated using Equation 41.
Credits and all terms of the equation are in units of Mg/month, and the
baseline date is November 15, 1990.
[[Page 46962]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.038
where:
D = Discount factor = 0.9 for all credit generating emission points,
except those controlled by a pollution prevention measure; discount
factor = 1.0 for each credit generating emission point controlled by a
pollution prevention measure (i.e., no discount provided).
ECFEPV1iACTUAL = Emissions for each Group 1 continuous front-end
process vent i that is controlled to a level more stringent than the
reference control technology. ECFEPV1iACTUAL is calculated
according to paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section.
(0.02)ECFEPV1iu = Emissions from each Group 1 continuous front-end
process vent i if the reference control technology had been applied to
the uncontrolled emissions. ECFEPV1iu is calculated according to
paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section.
ECFEPV2iACTUAL = Emissions from each Group 2 continuous front-end
process vent i that is controlled. ECFEPV2iACTUAL is calculated
according to paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section.
ECFEPV2iBASE = Emissions from each Group 2 continuous front-end
process vent i at the baseline date. ECFEPV1iBASE is calculated in
paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of this section.
ES1iACTUAL = Emissions from each Group 1 storage vessel i that is
controlled to a level more stringent than the reference control
technology or standard. ES1iACTUAL is calculated according to
paragraph (h)(3) of this section.
(0.05) ES1iu = Emissions from each Group 1 storage vessel i if the
reference control technology had been applied to the uncontrolled
emissions. ES1iu is calculated according to paragraph (h)(3) of
this section.
ES2iACTUAL = Emissions from each Group 2 storage vessel i that is
controlled. ES2iACTUAL is calculated according to paragraph (h)(3)
of this section.
ES2iBASE = Emissions from each Group 2 storage vessel i at the
baseline date. ES2iBASE is calculated in paragraph (h)(3) of this
section.
EBEPACTUAL = Actual emissions from back-end process operations,
Mg/month. EBEPACTUAL is calculated in paragraph (h)(4)(i) of this
section.
EBEPc = Emissions from back-end process operations if the residual
organic HAP limits in Sec. 63.494(a) were met, Mg/month. EBEPc is
calculated in paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section.
EWW1iACTUAL = Emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream i that
is controlled to a level more stringent than the reference control
technology. EWW1iACTUAL is calculated according to paragraph
(h)(5) of this section.
EWW1ic = Emissions from each Group 1 wastewater stream i if the
reference control technology had been applied to the uncontrolled
emissions. EWW1ic is calculated according to paragraph (h)(5) of
this section.
EWW2iACTUAL = Emissions from each Group 2 wastewater stream i that
is controlled. EWW2iACTUAL is calculated according to paragraph
(h)(5) of this section.
EWW2iBASE = Emissions from each Group 2 wastewater stream i at the
baseline date. EWW2iBASE is calculated according to paragraph
(h)(5) of this section.
(0.1) EBFEPV1iu = Emissions from each Group 1 batch front-end
process vent i if the applicable reference control technology had been
applied to the uncontrolled emissions. EBFEPViu is calculated
according to paragraph (h)(6)(i) of this section.
EBFEPV1iACTUAL = Emissions from each Group 1 batch front-end
process vent i that is controlled to a level more stringent than the
reference control technology. EBFEPV1iACTUAL is calculated
according to paragraph (h)(6)(ii) of this section.
(0.1)EABV1iu = Emissions from each Group 1 aggregate batch vent
stream i if the applicable reference control technology had been
applied to the uncontrolled emissions. EABV1iu is calculated
according to paragraph (h)(7)(i) of this section.
EABV1iACTUAL = Emissions from each Group 1 aggregate batch vent
stream i that is controlled to a level more stringent than the
reference control technology or standard. EABV1iACTUAL is
calculated according to paragraph (h)(7)(ii) of this section.
EBFEPV2iBASE = Emissions from each Group 2 batch front-end process
vent i at the baseline date. EBFEPV2iBASE is calculated according
to paragraph (h)(6)(iv) of this section.
EBFEPV2iACTUAL = Emissions from each Group 2 batch front-end
process vent i that is controlled. EBFEPV2iACTUAL is calculated
according to paragraph (h)(6)(iii) of this section.
EABV2iBASE = Emissions from each Group 2 aggregate batch vent
stream i at the baseline date. EABV2iBASE is calculated according
to paragraph (g)(7)(iv) of this section.
EABV2iACTUAL = Emissions from each Group 2 aggregate batch vent
stream i that is controlled. EABV2iACTUAL is calculated according
to paragraph (g)(7)(iii) of this section.
[[Page 46963]]
n = Number of Group 1 emission points included in the emissions
average. The value of n is not necessarily the same for continuous
front-end process vents, batch front-end process vents, aggregate batch
vent streams, storage vessels, wastewater streams, or the collection of
process sections within the affected source.
m = Number of Group 2 emission points included in the emissions
average. The value of m is not necessarily the same for continuous
front-end process vents, batch front-end process vents, aggregate batch
vent streams, storage vessels, wastewater streams, or the collection of
process sections within the affected source.
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section,
for an emission point controlled using a reference control technology,
the percent reduction for calculating credits shall be no greater than
the nominal efficiency associated with the reference control
technology, unless a higher nominal efficiency is assigned as specified
in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section.
(ii) For an emission point controlled to a level more stringent
than the reference control technology, the nominal efficiency for
calculating credits shall be assigned as described in paragraph (i) of
this section. A reference control technology may be approved for use in
a different manner and assigned a higher nominal efficiency according
to the procedures in paragraph (i) of this section. A reference control
technology may be approved for use in a different manner and assigned a
higher nominal efficiency according to the procedure in paragraph (i)
of this section.
(iii) For an emission point controlled using a pollution prevention
measure, except for back-end process operation emissions, the nominal
efficiency for calculating credits shall be as determined as described
in paragraph (j) of this section. Emissions for back-end process
operations shall be determined as described in paragraph (h)(4) of this
section.
(iv) For Group 1 and Group 2 batch front-end process vents and
Group 1 and Group 2 aggregate batch vent streams, the percent reduction
for calculating credits shall be the percent reduction determined
according to the procedures in paragraphs (h)(6)(ii) and (h)(6)(iii) of
this section for batch front-end process vents and paragraphs
(h)(7)(ii) and (h)(7)(iii) of this section for aggregate batch vent
streams.
(2) Emissions from continuous front-end process vents shall be
determined as follows:
(i) Uncontrolled emissions from Group 1 continuous front-end
process vents, ECFEPV1iu, shall be calculated according to the
procedures and equation for ECFEPViu in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and
(g)(2)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Actual emissions from Group 1 continuous front-end process
vents controlled using a technology with an approved nominal efficiency
greater than 98 percent or a pollution prevention measure achieving
greater than 98 percent emission reduction, ECFEPV1iACTUAL, shall
be calculated using Equation 42.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.039
Where:
ECFEPV1iACTUAL = Emissions for each Group 1 continuous front-end
process vent i that is controlled to a level more stringent than the
reference control technology.
ECFEPV1iu = Emissions from each Group 1 continuous front-end
process vent i if the reference control technology had been applied to
the uncontrolled emissions.
(iii) The following procedures shall be used to calculate actual
emissions from Group 2 continuous front-end process vents,
ECFEPV2iACTUAL:
(A) For a Group 2 continuous front-end process vent controlled by a
control device, a recovery device applied as a pollution prevention
project, or a pollution prevention measure, where the control achieves
a percent reduction less than or equal to 98 percent reduction,
Equation 43 shall be used.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.040
Where:
ECFEPV2iACTUAL=Emissions from each Group 2 continuous
front-end process vent i that is controlled.
ECFEPV2iu=Emissions from each Group 2 continuous front-end process
vent i if the reference control technology had been applied to the
uncontrolled emissions.
(1) ECFEPV2iu shall be calculated according to the equations
and procedures for ECFEPViu in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and
(g)(2)(ii) of this section, except as provided in paragraph
(h)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
(2) The percent reduction shall be calculated according to the
procedures in paragraphs (g)(2)(iii)(B)(1) through (g)(2)(iii)(B)(3) of
this section, except as provided in paragraph (h)(2)(iii)(A)(4) of this
section.
(3) If a recovery device was added as part of a pollution
prevention project, ECFEPV2iu shall be calculated prior to that
recovery device. The equation for ECFEPViu in paragraph (g)(2)(ii)
of this section shall be used to calculate ECFEPV2iu; however, the
sampling site for measurement of vent stream flow rate and organic HAP
concentration shall be at the inlet of the recovery device.
(4) If a recovery device was added as part of a pollution
prevention project, the percent reduction shall be demonstrated by
conducting a performance test at the inlet and outlet of that recovery
device.
(B) For a Group 2 continuous front-end process vent controlled
using a technology with an approved nominal efficiency greater than 98
percent or a pollution prevention measure achieving greater than 98
percent reduction, Equation 44 shall be used.
[[Page 46964]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.041
Where:
ECFEPV2iACTUAL=Emissions from each Group 2 continuous
front-end process vent i that is controlled.
ECFEPV2iu=Emissions from each Group 2 continuous front-end process
vent i if the reference control technology had been applied to the
uncontrolled emissions.
(iv) Emissions from Group 2 continuous front-end process vents at
baseline, ECFEPV2iBASE, shall be calculated as follows:
(A) If the continuous front-end process vent was uncontrolled on
November 15, 1990, ECFEPV2iBASE=ECFEPV2iu and shall be
calculated according to the procedures and equation for ECFEPViu
in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this section.
(B) If the continuous front-end process vent was controlled on
November 15, 1990, Equation 45 shall be used.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.042
(1) ECFEPV2iu is calculated according to the procedures and
equation for ECFEPViu in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of
this section.
(2) The percent reduction shall be calculated according to the
procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(iii)(B)(1) through
(g)(2)(iii)(B)(3) of this section.
(C) If a recovery device was added as part of a pollution
prevention project initiated after November 15, 1990,
ECFEPV2iBASE=ECFEPV2iu, where ECFEPV2iu is calculated
according to paragraph (h)(2)(iii)(A)(3) of this section.
(3) Emissions from storage vessels shall be calculated using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.150(h)(3) of subpart G.
(4) Emissions from back-end process operations shall be calculated
as follows:
(i) EBEPACTUAL shall be calculated according to the equation
for EBEPACTUAL contained in paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this section.
(ii) EBEPc shall be calculated according to the equation for
EBEPc contained in paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section.
(5) Emissions from wastewater streams shall be calculated using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.150(h)(5) of subpart G.
(6) Emissions from batch front-end process vents shall be
determined as follows:
(i) Uncontrolled emissions from Group 1 batch front-end process
vents (EBFEPV1iu) shall be calculated according using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.488(b).
(ii) Actual emissions from Group 1 batch front-end process vents
controlled to a level more stringent than the reference control
technology (EBFEPV1iACTUAL) shall be calculated using Equation 46,
where percent reduction is for the batch cycle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.043
(A) The percent reduction for the batch cycle shall be calculated
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.490(c)(2).
(B) The percent reduction for control devices shall be determined
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.490(c)(2)(i) through
(c)(2)(iii).
(C) The percent reduction of pollution prevention measures shall be
calculated using the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
section.
(iii) Actual emissions from Group 2 batch front-end process vents
(EBFEPV2iACTUAL) shall be calculated using Equation 47 and the
procedures in paragraphs (h)(6)(ii)(A) through (h)(6)(ii)(C) of this
section. EBFEPV2iu shall be calculated using the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.488(b).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.044
(iv) Emissions from Group 2 batch front-end process vents at
baseline shall be calculated as follows:
(A) If the batch front-end process vent was uncontrolled on
November 15, 1990, EBFEPV2iBASE=EBFEPV2iu and shall be
calculated according to the procedures using the procedures specified
in Sec. 63.488(b).
(B) If the batch front-end process vent was controlled on November
15, 1990, use Equation 48 and the procedures in paragraphs
(h)(6)(ii)(A) through (h)(6)(ii)(C) of this section. EBFEPV2iu
shall be calculated using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.488(b).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.045
[[Page 46965]]
(7) Emissions from aggregate batch vent streams shall be determined
as follows:
(i) Uncontrolled emissions from Group 1 aggregate batch vent
streams (EABV1iu) shall be calculated according to the procedures
and equation for EABViu in paragraphs (g)(7)(i) and (g)(7)(ii) of
this section.
(ii) Actual emissions from Group 1 aggregate batch vent streams
controlled to a level more stringent than the reference control
technology (EABV1iACTUAL) shall be calculated using Equation 49.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.046
(A) The percent reduction for control devices shall be determined
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.490(e).
(B) The percent reduction of pollution prevention measures shall be
calculated using the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
section.
(iii) Actual emissions from Group 2 aggregate batch vents streams
(EABV2iACTUAL) shall be calculated using Equation 50 and the
procedures in paragraphs (h)(7)(ii)(A) through (h)(7)(ii)(B) of this
section. EABV2iu shall be calculated according to the equations
and procedures for EABViu in paragraphs (g)(7)(i) and (g)(7)(ii)
of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.047
(iv) Emissions from Group 2 aggregate batch vent streams at
baseline shall be calculated as follows:
(A) If the aggregate batch vent stream was uncontrolled on November
15, 1990, EABV2iBASE=EABV2iu and shall be calculated
according to the procedures and equation for EABViu in paragraph
(g)(7)(i) and (g)(7)(ii) of this section.
(B) If the aggregate batch vent stream was controlled on November
15, 1990, use Equation 51 and the procedures in paragraphs
(h)(7)(ii)(A) through (h)(7)(ii)(B) of this section. EABV2iu shall
be calculated according to the equations and procedures for EABViu
in paragraphs (g)(7)(i) and (g)(7)(ii) of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.048
(i) The following procedures shall be followed to establish nominal
efficiencies for emission controls for storage vessels, continuous
front-end process vents, and process wastewater streams. The procedures
in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(6) of this section shall be followed
for control technologies that are different in use or design from the
reference control technologies and achieve greater percent reductions
than the percent efficiencies assigned to the reference control
technologies in Sec. 63.111 of subpart G.
(1) In those cases where the owner or operator is seeking
permission to take credit for use of a control technology that is
different in use or design from the reference control technology, and
the different control technology will be used in more than three
applications at a single plant-site, the owner or operator shall submit
the information specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(iv) of
this section to the Director of the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, in writing.
(i) Emission stream characteristics of each emission point to which
the control technology is or will be applied, including the kind of
emission point, flow, organic HAP concentration, and all other stream
characteristics necessary to design the control technology or determine
its performance.
(ii) Description of the control technology, including design
specifications.
(iii) Documentation demonstrating to the Administrator's
satisfaction the control efficiency of the control technology. This may
include performance test data collected using an appropriate EPA Method
or any other method validated according to Method 301 of appendix A. If
it is infeasible to obtain test data, documentation may include a
design evaluation and calculations. The engineering basis of the
calculation procedures and all inputs and assumptions made in the
calculations shall be documented.
(iv) A description of the parameter or parameters to be monitored
to ensure that the control technology will be operated in conformance
with its design and an explanation of the criteria used for selection
of that parameter (or parameters).
(2) The Administrator shall determine within 120 operating days
whether an application presents sufficient information to determine
nominal efficiency. The Administrator reserves the right to request
specific data in addition to the items listed in paragraph (i)(1) of
this section.
(3) The Administrator shall determine within 120 operating days of
the submittal of sufficient data whether a control technology shall
have a nominal efficiency and the level of that nominal efficiency. If,
in the Administrator's judgment, the control technology achieves a
level of emission reduction greater than the reference control
technology for a particular kind of emission point, the Administrator
will publish a Federal Register notice establishing a nominal
efficiency for the control technology.
[[Page 46966]]
(4) The Administrator may grant permission to take emission credits
for use of the control technology. The Administrator may also impose
requirements that may be necessary to ensure operation and maintenance
to achieve the specified nominal efficiency.
(5) In those cases where the owner or operator is seeking
permission to take credit for use of a control technology that is
different in use or design from the reference control technology and
the different control technology will be used in no more than three
applications at a single plant site, the information listed in
paragraph (i)(1)(i) can be submitted to the permitting authority for
the affected source for approval instead of the Administrator.
(i) In these instances, use and conditions for use of the control
technology can be approved by the permitting authority as part of an
operating permit application or modification. The permitting authority
shall follow the procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(2) through
(i)(4) of this section except that, in these instances, a Federal
Register notice is not required to establish the nominal efficiency for
the different technology.
(ii) If, in reviewing the application, the permitting authority
believes the control technology has broad applicability for use by
other sources, the permitting authority shall submit the information
provided in the application to the Director of the EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. The Administrator shall review the
technology for broad applicability and may publish a Federal Register
notice; however, this review shall not affect the permitting
authority's approval of the nominal efficiency of the control
technology for the specific application.
(6) If, in reviewing an application for a control technology for an
emission point, the Administrator or permitting authority determines
that the control technology is not different in use or design from the
reference control technology, the Administrator or permitting authority
shall deny the application.
(j) The following procedures shall be used for calculating the
efficiency (percent reduction) of pollution prevention measures for
storage vessels, continuous front-end process vents, batch front-end
process vents, aggregate batch vent streams, and wastewater streams:
(1) A pollution prevention measure is any practice which meets the
criteria of paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) A pollution prevention measure is any practice that results in
a lesser quantity of organic HAP emissions per unit of product released
to the atmosphere prior to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or
control of emissions, while the same product is produced.
(ii) Pollution prevention measures may include substitution of
feedstocks that reduce organic HAP emissions; alterations to the
production process to reduce the volume of materials released to the
environment; equipment modifications; housekeeping measures; and in-
process recycling that returns waste materials directly to production
as raw materials. Production cutbacks do not qualify as pollution
prevention.
(2) The emission reduction efficiency of pollution prevention
measures implemented after November 15, 1990, can be used in
calculating the actual emissions from an emission point in the debit
and credit equations in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section.
(i) For pollution prevention measures, the percent reduction is
used in the equations in paragraphs (g)(2) through (g)(7) of this
section and paragraphs (h)(2) through (h)(7) of this section is the
percent difference between the monthly organic HAP emissions for each
emission point after the pollution prevention measure for the most
recent month versus monthly emissions from the same emission point
before the pollution prevention measure, adjusted by the volume of
product produced during the two monthly periods.
(ii) Equation 52 shall be used to calculate the percent reduction
of a pollution prevention measure for each emission point.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05SE96.049
where:
Percent reduction=Efficiency of pollution prevention measure (percent
organic HAP reduction).
EB=Monthly emissions before the pollution prevention measure, Mg/
month, determined as specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(ii)(A),
(j)(2)(ii)(B), and (j)(2)(ii)(C) of this section.
Epp=Monthly emissions after the pollution prevention measure, Mg/
month, as determined for the most recent month, determined as specified
in either paragraphs (j)(2)(ii)(D) or (j)(2)(ii)(E) of this section.
PB=Monthly production before the pollution prevention measure, Mg/
month, during the same period over which EB is calculated.
Ppp=Monthly production after the pollution prevention measure, Mg/
month, as determined for the most recent month.
(A) The monthly emissions before the pollution prevention measure,
EB, shall be determined in a manner consistent with the equations
and procedures in paragraph (g)(2) of this section for continuous
front-end process vents, paragraph (g)(3) of this section for storage
vessels, paragraph (g)(6) of this section for batch front-end process
vents, and paragraph (g)(7) of this section for aggregate batch vent
streams.
(B) For wastewater, E B shall be calculated according to
Sec. 63.150(j)(2)(ii)(B) of subpart G.
(C) If the pollution prevention measure was implemented prior to
September 5, 1996, records may be used to determine E B.
(D) The monthly emissions after the pollution prevention measure, E
pp, may be determined during a performance test or by a design
evaluation and documented engineering calculations. Once an emissions-
to-production ratio has been established, the ratio can be used to
estimate monthly emissions from monthly production records.
(E) For wastewater, E pp shall be calculated according to
Sec. 63.150(j)(2)(ii)(E) of subpart G.
(iii) All equations, calculations, test procedures, test results,
and other information used to determine the percent reduction achieved
by a pollution prevention measure for each emission point shall be
fully documented.
[[Page 46967]]
(iv) The same pollution prevention measure may reduce emissions
from multiple emission points. In such cases, the percent reduction in
emissions for each emission point must be calculated.
(v) For the purposes of the equations in paragraphs (h)(2) through
(h)(7) of this section, used to calculate credits for emission points
controlled more stringently than the reference control technology, the
nominal efficiency of a pollution prevention measure is equivalent to
the percent reduction of the pollution prevention measure. When a
pollution prevention measure is used, the owner or operator of an
affected source is not required to apply to the Administrator for a
nominal efficiency and is not subject to paragraph (i) of this section.
(k) The owner or operator must demonstrate that the emissions from
the emission points proposed to be included in the emissions average
will not result in greater hazard, or at the option of the
Administrator, greater risk to human health or the environment than if
the emission points were controlled according to the provisions in
Secs. 63.484, 63.485, 63.486, 63.493, and 63.501.
(1) This demonstration of hazard or risk equivalency shall be made
to the satisfaction of the Administrator.
(i) The Administrator may require owners and operators to use
specific methodologies and procedures for making a hazard or risk
determination.
(ii) The demonstration and approval of hazard or risk equivalency
shall be made according to any guidance that the Administrator makes
available for use.
(2) Owners and operators shall provide documentation demonstrating
the hazard or risk equivalency of their proposed emissions average in
their operating permit application or in their Emissions Averaging Plan
if an operating permit application has not yet been submitted.
(3) An Emissions Averaging Plan that does not demonstrate hazard or
risk equivalency to the satisfaction of the Administrator shall not be
approved. The Administrator may require such adjustments to the
Emissions Averaging Plan as are necessary in order to ensure that the
emissions average will not result in greater hazard or risk to human
health or the environment than would result if the emission points were
controlled according to Secs. 63.484, 63.485, 63.486, 63.493, and
63.501.
(4) A hazard or risk equivalency demonstration must:
(i) Be a quantitative, bona fide chemical hazard or risk
assessment;
(ii) Account for differences in chemical hazard or risk to human
health or the environment; and
(iii) Meet any requirements set by the Administrator for such
demonstrations.
(l) For periods of monitoring excursions, an owner or operator may
request that the provisions of paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(4) of this
section be followed instead of the procedures in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)
and (f)(2)(ii) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator of
monitoring excursions in the Periodic Reports as required in
Sec. 63.506(e)(6).
(2) The owner or operator shall demonstrate that other types of
monitoring data or engineering calculations are appropriate to
establish that the control device for the emission point was operating
in such a fashion to warrant assigning full or partial credits and
debits. This demonstration shall be made to the Administrator's
satisfaction, and the Administrator may establish procedures for
demonstrating compliance that are acceptable.
(3) The owner or operator shall provide documentation of the
excursion and the other types of monitoring data or engineering
calculations to be used to demonstrate that the control device for the
emission point was operating in such a fashion to warrant assigning
full or partial credits and debits.
(4) The Administrator may assign full or partial credit and debits
upon review of the information provided.
(m) For each emission point included in an emissions average, the
owner or operator shall perform testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting equivalent to that required for Group 1 emission points
complying with Secs. 63.484, 63.485, 63.486, 63.493, and 63.501, as
applicable. If back-end process operations are included in an emissions
average, the owner or operator shall perform testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting equivalent to that required for back-end
process operations complying with Sec. 63.493. The specific
requirements for continuous front-end process vents, batch front-end
process vents, aggregate batch vent streams, storage vessels, back-end
process operations, and wastewater are identified in paragraphs (m)(1)
through (m)(6) of this section.
(1) For each continuous front-end process vent equipped with a
flare, incinerator, boiler, or process heater, as appropriate to the
control technique:
(i) Determine whether the continuous front-end process vent is
Group 1 or Group 2 according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.115
of subpart G and as required by Sec. 63.485;
(ii) Conduct initial performance tests to determine percent
reduction as specified in Sec. 63.116 of subpart G and as required by
Sec. 63.485; and
(iii) Monitor the operating parameters, keep records, and submit
reports as specified in Sec. 63.114, Sec. 63.117(a), and
Sec. 63.118(a), (f), and (g) of subpart G, as required, for the
specific control device as required by Sec. 63.485.
(2) For each continuous front-end process vent equipped with a
carbon adsorber, absorber, or condenser but not equipped with a control
device, as appropriate to the control technique:
(i) Determine the flow rate, organic HAP concentration, and TRE
index value according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.115 of
subpart G; and
(ii) Monitor the operating parameters, keep records, and submit
reports according to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.114,
Sec. 63.117(a), and Sec. 63.118 (b), (f), and (g) of subpart G, as
required, for the specific recovery device, and as required by
Sec. 63.485.
(3) For each storage vessel controlled with an internal floating
roof, external roof, or a closed vent system with a control device, as
appropriate to the control technique:
(i) Perform the monitoring or inspection procedures according to
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.120 of subpart G, and as required
by Sec. 63.484;
(ii) Perform the reporting and recordkeeping procedures according
to the procedures specified in Secs. 63.122 and 63.123 of subpart G,
and as required by Sec. 63.484; and
(iii) For closed vent systems with control devices, conduct an
initial design evaluation and submit an operating plan according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.120(d) and Sec. 63.122(a)(2) and (b) of
subpart G, and as required by Sec. 63.484.
(4) For back-end process operations included in an emissions
average:
(i) If stripping technology, and no control or recovery device, is
used to reduce back-end process operation emissions, the owner or
operator shall implement the following portions of this subpart:
(A) Paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of Sec. 63.495, paragraph
(b) of Sec. 63.498, and the applicable provisions of Sec. 63.499, or
(B) Paragraphs (c) (1), (2), and (3) of Sec. 63.495, paragraph (c)
of Sec. 63.498, and the applicable provisions of Sec. 63.499;
(ii) If a control or recovery device is used to reduce back-end
process operation emissions, the owner or operator shall comply with
Secs. 63.496, 63.497, 63.498(d), and the applicable provisions of
63.499, and shall
[[Page 46968]]
implement the provisions of these sections.
(5) For wastewater emission points, as appropriate to the control
techniques:
(i) For wastewater treatment processes, conduct tests according to
the procedures specified in Sec. 63.138(i) and (j) of subpart G, and as
required by Sec. 63.501;
(ii) Conduct inspections and monitoring according to the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.143 of subpart G, and as required by Sec. 63.501;
(iii) Implement a recordkeeping program according to the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.147 of subpart G, and as required by Sec. 63.501;
and
(iv) Implement a reporting program according to the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.146 of subpart G, and as required by Sec. 63.501.
(6) For each batch front-end process vent and aggregate batch vent
stream equipped with a control device, as appropriate to the control
technique:
(i) Determine whether the batch front-end process vent or aggregate
batch vent stream is Group 1 or Group 2 according to the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.488;
(ii) Conduct performance tests according to the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.490;
(iii) Conduct monitoring according to the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.489; and
(iv) Perform the recordkeeping and reporting procedures according
to the procedures specified in Secs. 63.491 and 63.492.
(7) If an emission point in an emissions average is controlled
using a pollution prevention measure or a device or technique for which
no monitoring parameters or inspection procedures are required by
Secs. 63.484, 63.485, 63.486, 63.493, or Sec. 63.501, the owner or
operator shall submit the information specified in Sec. 63.506(f) for
alternate monitoring parameters or inspection procedures in the
Emissions Averaging Plan or operating permit application.
(n) Records of all information required to calculate emission
debits and credits shall be retained for 5 years.
(o) Precompliance Reports, Emission Averaging Plans, Notifications
of Compliance Status, Periodic Reports, and other reports shall be
submitted as required by Sec. 63.506.
Sec. 63.504 Additional test methods and procedures.
(a) Performance testing shall be conducted in accordance with
Sec. 63.7 (a)(3), (d), (e), (g), and (h) of subpart A, with the
exceptions specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this
section and the additions specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
Sections 63.484 through 63.501 also contain specific testing
requirements.
(1) Performance tests shall be conducted according to the
provisions of Sec. 63.7(e) of subpart A, except that performance tests
shall be conducted at maximum representative operating conditions for
the process.
(2) References in Sec. 63.7(g) of subpart A to the Notification of
Compliance Status requirements in Sec. 63.9(h) shall refer to the
requirements in Sec. 63.506(e)(5).
(3) Because the site-specific test plans in Sec. 63.7(c)(3) of
subpart A are not required, Sec. 63.7(h)(4)(ii) is not applicable.
(4) The owner or operator shall notify the Administrator of the
intention to conduct a performance test at least 30 calendar days
before the performance test is scheduled, to allow the Administrator
the opportunity to have an observer present during the test.
(b) Data shall be reduced in accordance with the EPA approved
methods specified in the applicable subpart or, if other test methods
are used, the data and methods shall be validated according to the
protocol in Method 301 of appendix A of this part.
Sec. 63.505 Parameter monitoring levels and excursions.
(a) Establishment of parameter monitoring levels. The owner or
operator of a control or recovery device that has one or more parameter
monitoring level requirements specified under this subpart shall
establish a maximum or minimum level for each measured parameter using
the procedures specified in paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section.
The procedures specified in paragraph (b) have been approved by the
Administrator. The procedures in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section
have not been approved by the Administrator, and determination of the
parameter monitoring level using the procedures in paragraphs (c) or
(d) of this section and is subject to review and approval by the
Administrator. The determination and supporting documentation shall be
included in the Precompliance Report.
(1) The owner or operator shall operate control and recovery
devices such that monitored parameters remain above the minimum
established level or below the maximum established level.
(2) As specified in Sec. 63.506(e)(5) and Sec. 63.506(e)(8), all
established levels, along with their supporting documentation and the
definition of an operating day, shall be approved as part of and
incorporated into the Notification of Compliance Status or operating
permit, respectively.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow a
monitoring parameter excursion caused by an activity that violates
other applicable provisions of subparts A, F, or G of this part.
(b) Establishment of parameter monitoring levels based on
performance tests. The procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(3) of this section shall be used, as applicable, in
establishing parameter monitoring levels. Level(s) established under
this paragraph shall be based on the parameter values measured during
the performance test.
(1) Storage tanks and wastewater. The maximum and/or minimum
monitoring levels shall be based on the parameter values measured
during the performance test, supplemented, if desired, by engineering
assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations.
(2) Continuous front-end process vents and back-end process
operations complying using control or recovery devices. During initial
compliance testing, the appropriate parameter shall be continuously
monitored during the required 1-hour runs. The monitoring level(s)
shall then be established as the average of the maximum (or minimum)
point values from the three test runs. The average of the maximum
values shall be used when establishing a maximum level, and the average
of the minimum values shall be used when establishing a minimum level.
(3) Batch front-end process vents. The monitoring level(s) shall be
established using the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)
through (b)(3)(iii) of this section, as appropriate. The procedures
specified in this paragraph may only be used if the batch emission
episodes, or portions thereof, selected to be controlled were tested,
and monitoring data were collected, during the entire period in which
emissions were vented to the control device, as specified in
Sec. 63.490(c)(1)(i). If the owner or operator chose to test only a
portion of the batch emission episode, or portion thereof, selected to
be controlled, as specified in Sec. 63.490(c)(1)(i)(A), the procedures
in paragraph (c) of this section must be used.
(i) If more than one batch emission episode or more than one
portion of a batch emission episode has been selected to be controlled,
a single level for the batch cycle shall be calculated as follows:
(A) During initial compliance testing, the appropriate parameter
shall be
[[Page 46969]]
monitored continuously at all times when batch emission episodes, or
portions thereof, selected to be controlled are vented to the control
device.
(B) The average monitored parameter value shall be calculated for
each batch emission episode, or portion thereof, in the batch cycle
selected to be controlled. The average shall be based on all values
measured during the required performance test.
(C) If the level to be established is a maximum operating
parameter, the level shall be defined as the minimum of the average
parameter values of the batch emission episodes, or portions thereof,
in the batch cycle selected to be controlled.
(D) If the level to be established is a minimum operating
parameter, the level shall be defined as the maximum of the average
parameter values of the batch emission episodes, or portions thereof,
in the batch cycle selected to be controlled.
(E) Alternatively, an average monitored parameter value shall be
calculated for the entire batch cycle based on all values measured
during each batch emission episode, or portion thereof, selected to be
controlled.
(ii) Instead of establishing a single level for the batch cycle, as
described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, an owner or operator
may establish separate levels for each batch emission episode, or
portion thereof, selected to be controlled. Each level shall be
determined as specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) and (b)(3)(i)(B) of
this section.
(iii) The batch cycle shall be defined in the Notification of
Compliance Status, as specified in Sec. 63.506(e)(5). The definition
shall include an identification of each batch emission episode and the
information required to determine parameter monitoring compliance for
partial batch cycles (i.e., when part of a batch cycle is accomplished
during two different operating days).
(4) Aggregate batch vent streams. For aggregate batch vent streams,
the monitoring level shall be established in accordance with paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(c) Establishment of parameter monitoring levels based on
performance tests, engineering assessments, and/or manufacturer's
recommendations. As required in paragraph (a) of this section, the
information specified in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section
shall be provided in the Precompliance Report.
(1) Parameter monitoring levels established under this paragraph
shall be based on the parameter values measured during the performance
test supplemented by engineering assessments and manufacturer's
recommendations. Performance testing is not required to be conducted
over the entire range of expected parameter values.
(2) The specific level of the monitored parameter(s) for each
emission point.
(3) The rationale for the specific level for each parameter for
each emission point, including any data and calculations used to
develop the level and a description of why the level indicates proper
operation of the control or recovery device.
(d) Establishment of parameter monitoring based on engineering
assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations. If a performance
test is not required by this subpart for a control or recovery device,
the maximum or minimum level may be based solely on engineering
assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations. As required in
paragraph (a) of this section, the determined level and all supporting
documentation shall be provided in the Precompliance Report.
(e) Demonstration of compliance with back-end process provisions
using stripper parameter monitoring. If the owner or operator is
demonstrating compliance with Sec. 63.495 using stripper parameter
monitoring, stripper parameter levels shall be established for each
grade in accordance with paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section.
A single set of stripper parameter levels can be representative of
multiple grades.
(1) For each grade, the owner or operator shall calculate the
residual organic HAP content using the procedures in paragraphs
(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) The location of the sampling shall be in accordance with
Sec. 63.495(d).
(ii) The residual organic HAP content in each sample is to be
determined using specified methods.
(2) For each grade, the owner or operator shall establish stripper
operating parameter levels that represent stripper operation during the
residual organic HAP content determination in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section. The stripper operating parameters shall include, at a minimum,
temperature, pressure, steaming rates (for steam strippers), and some
parameter that is indicative of residence time.
(3) After the initial determinations, an owner or operator can add
a grade, with corresponding stripper parameter levels, using the
procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section. The results
of this determination shall be submitted in the next periodic report.
(4) An owner or operator complying with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraph (a) of Sec. 63.494 using stripping, and
demonstrating compliance by stripper parameter monitoring, shall
redetermine the residual organic HAP content for all affected grades
whenever process changes are made. For the purposes of this section, a
process change is any action that would reasonably be expected to
impair the performance of the stripping operation. For the purposes of
this section, examples of process changes may include changes in
production capacity or production rate, or removal or addition of
equipment. For purposes of this paragraph, process changes do not
include: Process upsets; unintentional, temporary process changes; or
changes that reduce the residual organic HAP content of the elastomer.
(f) Compliance determinations. The provisions of this paragraph
apply only to emission points and control or recovery devices for which
continuous monitoring is required under this subpart.
(1) The parameter monitoring data for storage vessels, front-end
process vents, back-end process operations complying through the use of
control or recovery devices, process wastewater streams, and emission
points included in emissions averages that are required to perform
continuous monitoring shall be used to determine compliance for the
monitored control or recovery devices.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(3) and (i) of this section,
for each excursion, as defined in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this
section, the owner or operator shall be deemed out of compliance with
the provisions of this subpart.
(3) If the daily average value of a monitored parameter is above
the maximum level or below the minimum level established, or if
monitoring data cannot be collected during monitoring device
calibration check or monitoring device malfunction, but the affected
source is operated during the periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in accordance with the affected source's Startup, Shutdown,
and Malfunction Plan, then the event shall not be considered a
monitoring parameter excursion.
(g) Parameter monitoring excursion definitions. (1) For storage
vessels, continuous front-end process vents, aggregate batch vent
streams, back-end process operations complying through the use of
control or recovery devices, and wastewater streams, an excursion
[[Page 46970]]
means any of the three cases listed in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through
(g)(1)(iii) of this section. For a control or recovery device where
multiple parameters are monitored, if one or more of the parameters
meets the excursion criteria in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through
(g)(1)(iii) of this section, this is considered a single excursion for
the control or recovery device.
(i) When the daily average value of one or more monitored
parameters is above the maximum level or below the minimum level
established for the given parameters.
(ii) When the period of control or recovery device operation is 4
hours or greater in an operating day and monitoring data are
insufficient, as defined in paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section, to
constitute a valid hour of data for at least 75 percent of the
operating hours.
(iii) When the period of control or recovery device operation is
less than 4 hours in an operating day and more than two of the hours
during the period of operation do not constitute a valid hour of data
due to insufficient monitoring data, as defined in paragraph (g)(1)(iv)
of this section.
(iv) Monitoring data are insufficient to constitute a valid hour of
data, as used in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and (g)(1)(iii) of this section,
if measured values are unavailable for any of the 15-minute periods
within the hour. For data compression systems approved under
Sec. 63.506(g)(3), monitoring data are insufficient to calculate a
valid hour of data if there are less than four data measurements made
during the hour.
(2) For batch front-end process vents, an excursion means one of
the two cases listed in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this
section. For a control device where multiple parameters are monitored,
if one or more of the parameters meets the excursion criteria in either
paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this section, this is considered a
single excursion for the control device.
(i) When the batch cycle daily average value of one or more
monitored parameters is above the maximum or below the minimum
established level for the given parameters.
(ii) When monitoring data are insufficient. Monitoring data shall
be considered insufficient when measured values are not available for
at least 75 percent of the 15-minute periods when batch emission
episodes, or portions thereof, selected to be controlled are being
vented to the control device during the operating day.
(h) Excursion definitions for back-end operations complying through
stripping. (1) For back-end process operations complying through the
use of stripping technology, and demonstrating compliance by sampling,
an excursion means one of the two cases listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)
and (h)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) When the monthly weighted average residual organic HAP content
is above the applicable residual organic HAP limitation in Sec. 63.494;
or
(ii) When less than 75 percent of the samples required in 1 month
are taken and analyzed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec. 63.495(b).
(2) For back-end process operations complying through the use of
stripping technology, and demonstrating compliance by stripper
parameter monitoring, an excursion means one of the three cases listed
in paragraphs (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(ii), and (h)(2)(iii) of this section.
(i) When the monthly weighted average residual organic HAP content
is above the applicable residual organic HAP limitation in Sec. 63.494;
(ii) When an owner or operator fails to sample and analyze the
organic HAP content of a sample for a grade with an hourly average
stripper operating parameter value not in accordance with the
established monitoring parameter levels for that parameter; or
(iii) When an owner or operator does not collect sufficient
monitoring data for at least 75 percent of the grades or batches
processed during a month. Stripper monitoring data are considered
insufficient if monitoring parameters are obtained for less than 75
percent of the 15-minute periods during the processing of a grade, and
a sample of that grade or batch is not taken and analyzed to determine
the residual organic HAP content.
(i) Excused excursions. A number of excused excursions shall be
allowed for each control or recovery device for each semiannual period.
The number of excused excursions for each semiannual period is
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(6) of this section. This
paragraph applies to affected sources required to submit Periodic
Reports semiannually or quarterly. The first semiannual period is the
6-month period starting the date the Notification of Compliance Status
is due.
(1) For the first semiannual period--six excused excursions.
(2) For the second semiannual period--five excused excursions.
(3) For the third semiannual period--four excused excursions.
(4) For the fourth semiannual period--three excused excursions.
(5) For the fifth semiannual period--two excused excursions.
(6) For the sixth and all subsequent semiannual periods--one
excused excursion.
Sec. 63.506 General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.
(a) Data retention. Each owner or operator of an affected source
shall keep copies of all applicable records and reports required by
this subpart for at least 5 years, unless otherwise specified in this
subpart.
(b) Subpart A requirements. The owner or operator of an affected
source shall comply with the applicable recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A as specified in Table 1 of
this subpart. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the
requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The owner or operator
of an affected source shall develop and implement a written startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of
subpart A. This plan shall describe, in detail, procedures for
operating and maintaining the affected source during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a program for corrective action
for malfunctioning process and air pollution control equipment used to
comply with this subpart. The affected source shall keep this plan
onsite and shall incorporate it by reference into their operating
permit. Records associated with the plan shall be kept as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) through (b)(1)(i)(D) of this section. Reports
related to the plan shall be submitted as specified in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Records of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The owner or
operator shall keep the records specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A)
through (b)(1)(i)(D) of this section.
(A) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
air pollution control equipment or continuous monitoring systems used
to comply with this subpart.
(B) For each startup, shutdown, or malfunction, a statement that
the procedures specified in the affected source's startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan were followed; alternatively, documentation of any
actions taken that are not consistent with the plan.
(C) For continuous monitoring systems used to comply with this
subpart, records documenting the completion of calibration checks and
maintenance of continuous monitoring
[[Page 46971]]
systems that are specified in the manufacturer's instructions.
(D) Records specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(B) and (b)(1)(i)(C)
of this section are not required if they pertain solely to Group 2
emission points that are not included in an emissions average.
(ii) Reports of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. For the
purposes of this subpart, the semiannual startup, shutdown, and
malfunction reports shall be submitted on the same schedule as the
Periodic Reports required under paragraph (e)(6) of this section
instead of the schedule specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i) of subpart A.
The reports shall include the information specified in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i)(A) through (b)(1)(i)(C) of this section and shall contain the
name, title, and signature of the owner or operator or other
responsible official who is certifying its accuracy.
(2) Application for approval of construction or reconstruction. For
new affected sources, each owner or operator shall comply with the
provisions in Sec. 63.5 of subpart A regarding construction and
reconstruction, excluding the provisions specified in
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2), and (d)(3)(ii) of subpart
A.
(c) Subpart H requirements. Owners or operators of affected sources
shall comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in
subpart H, except as specified in Sec. 63.502(g) through
Sec. 63.502(i).
(d) Recordkeeping and documentation. Owners or operators required
to keep continuous records shall keep records as specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(8) of this section, unless an alternative
recordkeeping system has been requested and approved as specified in
paragraph (f), (g), or (h) of this section. Documentation requirements
are specified in paragraphs (d)(9) and (d)(10) of this section.
(1) The monitoring system shall measure data values at least once
every 15 minutes.
(2) The owner or operator shall record either:
(i) Each measured data value; or
(ii) Block average values for 1 hour or shorter periods calculated
from all measured data values during each period. If values are
measured more frequently than once per minute, a single value for each
minute may be used to calculate the hourly (or shorter period) block
average instead of all measured values; or
(iii) For batch front-end process vents, each batch cycle average
or batch emission episode average, as appropriate, in addition to each
measured data value recorded as required in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this
section.
(3) Daily average (or batch cycle daily average) values of each
continuously monitored parameter shall be calculated for each operating
day as specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(ii) of this
section, except as specified in paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
(i) The daily average value or batch cycle daily average shall be
calculated as the average of all parameter values recorded during the
operating day. As specified in Sec. 63.491(e)(2)(i), only parameter
values measured during those batch emission episodes, or portions
thereof, in the batch cycle that the owner or operator has chosen to
control shall be used to calculate the average. The calculated average
shall cover a 24-hour period if operation is continuous, or the number
of hours of operation per operating day if operation is not continuous.
(ii) The operating day shall be the period that the owner or
operator specifies in the operating permit or the Notification of
Compliance Status. It may be from midnight to midnight or another 24-
hour period.
(4) Records required when out of compliance. If the daily average
(or batch cycle daily average) value of a monitored parameter for a
given operating day is below the minimum level or above the maximum
level established in the Notification of Compliance Status or operating
permit, the owner or operator shall retain the data recorded that
operating day under paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(5) Records required when in compliance for daily average value or
batch cycle daily average value. If the daily average (or batch cycle
daily average) value of a monitored parameter for a given operating day
is above the minimum level or below the maximum level established in
the Notification of Compliance Status or operating permit, the owner or
operator shall either:
(i) Retain block average values for 1 hour or shorter periods for
that operating day; or
(ii) Retain the data recorded in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and
(d)(2)(iii) of this section.
(6) Records required when all recorded values are in compliance. If
all recorded values for a monitored parameter during an operating day
are above the minimum level or below the maximum level established in
the Notification of Compliance Status or operating permit, the owner or
operator may record that all values were above the minimum level or
below the maximum level rather than calculating and recording a daily
average (or batch cycle daily average) for that operating day. For
these operating days, the records required in paragraph (d)(5) of this
section are required.
(7) Monitoring data recorded during periods of monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-
level adjustments shall not be included in any average computed under
this subpart. Records shall be kept of the times and durations of all
such periods.
(8) In addition to the periods specified in paragraph (d)(7) of
this section, records shall be kept of the times and durations of any
other periods during process operation or control device operation w
FR Doc. 96-21941 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
hen
monitors are not operating. For batch front-end process vents, this
paragraph only applies during batch emission episodes, or portions
thereof, that the owner or operator has selected for control.
(9) For each EPPU that is not part of the affected source because
it does not use any organic HAP, the owner or operator shall maintain
the documentation specified in Sec. 63.480(b)(1).
(10) For each flexible operation unit in which the primary product
is determined to be something other than an elastomer product, the
owner or operator shall maintain the documentation specified in
Sec. 63.480(f)(6).
(e) Reporting and notification. (1) In addition to the reports and
notifications required by subparts A and H, as specified in this
subpart, the owner or operator of an affected source shall prepare and
submit the reports listed in paragraphs (e)(3) through (e)(8) of this
section, as applicable.
(2) All reports required under this subpart shall be sent to the
Administrator at the addresses listed in Sec. 63.13 of subpart A of
this part. If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or
operator of a source, reports may be submitted on electronic media.
(3) Precompliance Report. Affected sources requesting an extension
for compliance, or requesting approval to use alternative monitoring
parameters, alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping, or
alternative controls, shall submit a Precompliance Report according to
the schedule described in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section. The
Precompliance Report shall contain the information specified in
paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) through (e)(3)(vi) of this section, as
appropriate.
(i) Submittal dates. The Precompliance Report shall be submitted to
the Administrator no later
[[Page 46972]]
than 12 months prior to the compliance date. For new sources, the
Precompliance Report shall be submitted to the Administrator with the
application for approval of construction or reconstruction required in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(ii) A request for an extension for compliance must be submitted in
the Precompliance Report, if it has not been submitted to the operating
permit authority as part of the operating permit application. The
request for a compliance extension will include the data outlined in
Sec. 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A), (B), and (D) of subpart A, as required in
Sec. 63.481(e)(1).
(iii) The alternative monitoring parameter information required in
paragraph (f) of this section shall be submitted if, for any emission
point, the owner or operator of an affected source seeks to comply
through the use of a control technique other than those for which
monitoring parameters are specified in this subpart or in subpart G of
this part, or seeks to comply by monitoring a different parameter than
those specified in this subpart or in subpart G of this part.
(iv) If the affected source seeks to comply using alternative
continuous monitoring and recordkeeping as specified in paragraph (g)
of this section, the information requested in paragraph (e)(3)(iv)(A)
or (e)(3)(iv)(B) of this section must be submitted in the Precompliance
Report.
(A) The owner or operator must submit notification of the intent to
use the provisions specified in paragraph (h) of this section; or
(B) The owner or operator must submit a request for approval to use
alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping provisions as
specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
(v) The owner or operator shall report the intent to use
alternative controls to comply with the provisions of this subpart.
Alternative controls must be deemed by the Administrator to be
equivalent to the controls required by the standard, under the
procedures outlined in Sec. 63.6(g) of subpart A.
(4) Emissions Averaging Plan. For all existing affected sources
using emissions averaging, an Emissions Averaging Plan shall be
submitted for approval according to the schedule and procedures
described in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section. The Emissions
Averaging Plan shall contain the information specified in paragraph
(e)(4)(ii) of this section, unless the information required in
paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section is submitted with an operating
permit application. An owner or operator of an affected source who
submits an operating permit application instead of an Emissions
Averaging Plan shall submit the information specified in paragraph
(e)(8) of this section. In addition, a supplement to the Emissions
Averaging Plan, as required under paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this
section, is to be submitted whenever alternative controls or operating
scenarios may be used to comply with this subpart. Updates to the
Emissions Averaging Plan shall be submitted in accordance with
paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section.
(i) Submittal and approval. The Emissions Averaging Plan shall be
submitted no later than 18 months prior to the compliance date, and is
subject to Administrator approval. The Administrator shall determine
within 120 operating days whether the Emissions Averaging Plan
submitted presents sufficient information. The Administrator shall
either approve the Emissions Averaging Plan, request changes, or
request that the owner or operator submit additional information. Once
the Administrator receives sufficient information, the Administrator
shall approve, disapprove, or request changes to the plan within 120
operating days.
(ii) Information required. The Emissions Averaging Plan shall
contain the information listed in paragraphs (e)(4)(ii)(A) through
(e)(4)(ii)(M) of this section for all emission points included in an
emissions average.
(A) The required information shall include the identification of
all emission points and process back-end operations in the planned
emissions average and, where applicable, notation of whether each
storage vessel, continuous front-end process vent, batch front-end
process vent, aggregate batch vents stream, and process wastewater
stream is a Group 1 or Group 2 emission point, as defined in
Sec. 63.482 or as designated under Sec. 63.503(c)(2).
(B) The required information shall include the projected emission
debits and credits for each emission point and the sum for the emission
points involved in the average calculated according to Sec. 63.503. The
projected credits must be greater than or equal to the projected
debits, as required under Sec. 63.503(e)(3).
(C) The required information shall include the specific control
technology or pollution prevention measure that will be used for each
emission point included in the average and date of application or
expected date of application.
(D) The required information shall include the specific
identification of each emission point affected by a pollution
prevention measure. To be considered a pollution prevention measure,
the criteria in Sec. 63.503(j)(1) must be met. If the same pollution
prevention measure reduces or eliminates emissions from multiple
emission points in the average, the owner or operator must identify
each of these emission points.
(E) The required information shall include a statement that the
compliance demonstration, monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping, and
reporting provisions in Sec. 63.503(m), (n), and (o) that are
applicable to each emission point in the emissions average will be
implemented beginning on or before the date of compliance.
(F) The required information shall include documentation of the
data listed in paragraphs (e)(4)(ii)(F)(1) through (e)(4)(ii)(F)(5) of
this section for each storage vessel and continuous front-end process
vent included in the average.
(1) The required documentation shall include the values of the
parameters used to determine whether the emission point is Group 1 or
Group 2. Where a TRE index value is used for continuous front-end
process vent group determination, the estimated or measured values of
the parameters used in the TRE equation in Sec. 63.115(d) of subpart G
and the resulting TRE index value shall be submitted.
(2) The required documentation shall include the estimated values
of all parameters needed for input to the emission debit and credit
calculations in Sec. 63.503 (g) and (h). These parameter values shall
be specified in the affected source's Emissions Averaging Plan (or
operating permit) as enforceable operating conditions. Changes to these
parameters must be reported in an update to the Emissions Averaging
Plan, as required by paragraph (e)(4)(iv)(B)(2) of this section.
(3) The required documentation shall include the estimated percent
reduction if a control technology achieving a lower percent reduction
than the efficiency of the applicable reference control technology or
standard is or will be applied to the emission point.
(4) The required documentation shall include the anticipated
nominal efficiency if a control technology achieving a greater percent
emission reduction than the efficiency of the reference control
technology is or will be applied to the emission point. The procedures
in Sec. 63.503(i) shall be followed to apply for a nominal efficiency.
(5) The required documentation shall include the information
specified in Sec. 63.120(d)(2)(i) and in either
[[Page 46973]]
Sec. 63.120(d)(2)(ii) or (d)(2)(iii) of subpart G for each storage
vessel controlled with a closed-vent system using a control device
other than a flare.
(G) The information specified in paragraph (f) of this section
shall be included in the Emissions Averaging Plan for:
(1) Each continuous front-end process vent controlled by a
pollution prevention measure or control technique for which monitoring
parameters or inspection procedures are not specified in Sec. 63.114 of
subpart G, and
(2) Each storage vessel controlled by pollution prevention or a
control technique other than an internal or external floating roof or a
closed vent system with a control device.
(H) The required information shall include documentation of the
data listed in paragraphs (e)(4)(ii)(H)(1) through (e)(4)(ii)(H)(4) of
this section for each process wastewater stream included in the
average.
(1) The required documentation shall include the data used to
determine whether the wastewater stream is a Group 1 or Group 2
wastewater stream and the information specified in table 14b of subpart
G of this part for wastewater streams at new and existing sources.
(2) The required documentation shall include the estimated values
of all parameters needed for input to the wastewater emission credit
and debit calculations in Sec. 63.503(g)(5) and (h)(5). These parameter
values shall be specified in the affected source's Emissions Averaging
Plan (or operating permit) as enforceable operating conditions. Changes
to these parameters must be reported as required by paragraph
(e)(4)(iv)(B)(2) of this section.
(3) The required documentation shall include the estimated percent
reduction if:
(i) A control technology that achieves an emission reduction less
than or equal to the emission reduction that would otherwise have been
achieved by a steam stripper designed to the specifications found in
Sec. 63.138(g) of subpart G is or will be applied to the wastewater
stream, or external floating roof or a closed vent system with a
control device.
(ii) A control technology achieving less than or equal to 95
percent emission reduction is or will be applied to the vapor stream(s)
vented and collected from the treatment processes, or
(iii) A pollution prevention measure is or will be applied.
(4) The required documentation shall include the anticipated
nominal efficiency if the owner or operator plans to apply for a
nominal efficiency under Sec. 63.503(i). A nominal efficiency shall be
applied for if:
(i) A control technology that achieves an emission reduction
greater than the emission reduction that would have been achieved by a
steam stripper designed to the specifications found in Sec. 63.138(g)
of subpart G, is or will be applied to the wastewater stream; or
(ii) A control technology achieving greater than 95 percent
emission reduction is or will be applied to the vapor stream(s) vented
and collected from the treatment processes.
(I) For each pollution prevention measure, treatment process, or
control device used to reduce air emissions of organic HAP from
wastewater and for which no monitoring parameters or inspection
procedures are specified in Sec. 63.143 of subpart G, the information
specified in paragraph (f) of this section (Alternative Monitoring
Parameters) shall be included in the Emissions Averaging Plan.
(J) The required information shall include documentation of the
data required by estimated values of all parameters needed for input to
the emission debit and credit calculations in Sec. 63.503 (g) and (h)
for each process back-end operation included in an emissions average.
These values shall be specified in the affected source's Emissions
Averaging Plan (or operating permit) as enforceable operating
conditions. Changes to these parameters must be reported as required by
paragraph (e)(4)(iv)(B)(2) of this section.
(K) The required information shall include documentation of the
information required by Sec. 63.503(k). The documentation must
demonstrate that the emissions from the emission points proposed to be
included in the average will not result in greater hazard or, at the
option of the Administrator, greater risk to human health or the
environment than if the emission points were not included in an
emissions average.
(L) The required information shall include documentation of the
data listed in paragraphs (e)(4)(ii)(L)(1) through (e)(4)(ii)(L)(3) of
this section for each batch front-end process vent and aggregate batch
vent stream included in the average.
(1) The required documentation shall include the values of the
parameters used to determine whether the emission point is Group 1 or
Group 2.
(2) The required information shall include the estimated values of
all parameters needed for input to the emission debit and credit
calculations in Sec. 63.503(g) and (h). These parameter values shall be
specified in the affected source's Emissions Averaging Plan (or
operating permit) as enforceable operating conditions. Changes to these
parameters must be reported as required by paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this
section.
(3) For batch front-end process vents, the required documentation
shall include the estimated percent reduction for the batch cycle. For
aggregate batch vent streams, the required documentation shall include
the estimated percent reduction achieved on a continuous basis.
(M) For each pollution prevention measure or control device used to
reduce air emissions of organic HAP from batch front-end process vents
or batch vent streams and for which no monitoring parameters or
inspection procedures are specified in Sec. 63.489, the information
specified in paragraph (f) of this section, Alternative Monitoring
Parameters, shall be included in the Emissions Averaging Plan.
(iii) Supplement to Emissions Averaging Plan. The owner or operator
required to prepare an Emissions Averaging Plan under paragraph (e)(4)
of this section shall also prepare a supplement to the Emissions
Averaging Plan for any alternative controls or operating scenarios that
may be used to achieve compliance.
(iv) Updates to Emissions Averaging Plan. The owner or operator of
an affected source required to submit an Emissions Averaging Plan under
paragraph (e)(4) of this section shall also submit written updates of
the Emissions Averaging Plan to the Administrator for approval under
the circumstances described in paragraphs (e)(4)(iv)(A) and
(e)(4)(iv)(B) of this section unless the relevant information has been
included and submitted in an operating permit application or amendment.
(A) The owner or operator who plans to make a change listed in
either paragraph (e)(4)(iv)(A)(1) or (e)(4)(iv)(A)(2) of this section
shall submit an Emissions Averaging Plan update at least 120 operating
days prior to making the change.
(1) An Emissions Averaging Plan update shall be submitted whenever
an owner or operator elects to achieve compliance with the emissions
averaging provisions in Sec. 63.503 by using a control technique other
than that specified in the Emissions Averaging Plan, or plans to
monitor a different parameter or operate a control device in a manner
other than that specified in the Emissions Averaging Plan.
(2) An Emissions Averaging Plan update shall be submitted whenever
an emission point or an EPPU is added to an existing affected source
and is
[[Page 46974]]
planned to be included in an emissions average, or whenever an emission
point not included in the emissions average described in the Emissions
Averaging Plan is to be added to an emissions average. The information
in paragraph (e)(4) of this section shall be updated to include the
additional emission point.
(B) The owner or operator who has made a change as defined in
paragraph (e)(4)(iv)(B)(1) or (e)(4)(iv)(B)(2) of this section shall
submit an Emissions Averaging Plan update within 90 operating days
after the information regarding the change is known to the affected
source. The update may be submitted in the next quarterly periodic
report if the change is made after the date the Notification of
Compliance Status is due.
(1) An Emissions Averaging Plan update shall be submitted whenever
a process change is made such that the group status of any emission
point in an emissions average changes.
(2) An Emissions Averaging Plan update shall be submitted whenever
a value of a parameter in the emission credit or debit equations in
Sec. 63.503(g) or (h) changes such that it is below the minimum or
above the maximum established level specified in the Emissions
Averaging Plan and causes a decrease in the projected credits or an
increase in the projected debits.
(C) The Administrator shall approve or request changes to the
Emissions Averaging Plan update within 120 operating days of receipt of
sufficient information regarding the change for emission points
included in emissions averages.
(5) Notification of Compliance Status. For existing and new
affected sources, a Notification of Compliance Status shall be
submitted within 150 operating days after the compliance dates
specified in Sec. 63.481. The notification shall contain the
information listed in paragraphs (e)(5)(i) through (e)(5)(vii) of this
section.
(i) The results of any emission point group determinations, process
section applicability determinations, performance tests, inspections,
continuous monitoring system performance evaluations, any other
information used to demonstrate compliance, values of monitored
parameters established during performance tests, and any other
information required to be included in the Notification of Compliance
Status under Sec. 63.122 of subpart G for storage vessels, Sec. 63.117
of subpart G for continuous front-end process vents, Sec. 63.492 for
batch front-end process vents, Sec. 63.499 for back-end process
operations, Sec. 63.146 of subpart G for process wastewater, and
Sec. 63.503 for emission points included in an emissions average. In
addition, each owner or operator shall comply with paragraphs
(e)(5)(i)(A) and (e)(5)(i)(B) of this section.
(A) For performance tests, and group determinations, and process
section applicability determinations that are based on measurements,
the Notification of Compliance Status shall include one complete test
report, as described in paragraph (e)(5)(i)(B) of this section, for
each test method used for a particular kind of emission point. For
additional tests performed for the same kind of emission point using
the same method, the results and any other required information shall
be submitted, but a complete test report is not required.
(B) A complete test report shall include a brief process
description, sampling site description, description of sampling and
analysis procedures and any modifications to standard procedures,
quality assurance procedures, record of operating conditions during the
test, record of preparation of standards, record of calibrations, raw
data sheets for field sampling, raw data sheets for field and
laboratory analyses, documentation of calculations, and any other
information required by the test method.
(ii) For each monitored parameter for which a maximum or minimum
level is required to be established under Sec. 63.120(d)(3) of subpart
G for storage vessels, Sec. 63.485(k) for continuous front-end process
vents, Sec. 63.489 for batch front-end process vents and aggregate
batch vent streams, Sec. 63.497 for back-end process operations,
Sec. 63.143(f) of subpart G for process wastewater, Sec. 63.503(m) for
emission points in emissions averages, paragraph (e)(8) of this
section, or paragraph (f) of this section, the information specified in
paragraphs (e)(5)(ii)(A) through (e)(5)(ii)(E) of this section, unless
this information has been established and provided in the operating
permit.
(A) The required information shall include the specific maximum or
minimum level of the monitored parameter(s) for each emission point.
(B) The required information shall include the rationale for the
specific maximum or minimum level for each parameter for each emission
point, including any data and calculations used to develop the level
and a description of why the level indicates proper operation of the
control device.
(C) The required information shall include a definition of the
affected source's operating day, as specified in paragraph (d)(3)(ii)
of this section, for purposes of determining daily average values of
monitored parameters.
(D) For batch front-end process vents, the required information
shall include a definition of each batch cycle that requires the
control of one or more batch emission episodes during the cycle, as
specified in Sec. 63.490(c)(2) and 63.505(b)(3)(ii).
(E) The required information shall include a definition of the
affected source's operating month for the purposes of determining
monthly average values of residual organic HAP.
(iii) For emission points included in an emissions average, the
values of all parameters needed for input to the emission credit and
debit equations in Sec. 63.503 (g) and (h), calculated or measured
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.503 (g) and (h), and the
resulting calculation of credits and debits for the first quarter of
the year. The first quarter begins on the compliance date specified.
(iv) For batch front-end process vents required to establish a
batch cycle limitation under Sec. 63.490(f), the owner or operator must
define the 12-month period over which that source's ``year'' will be
said to occur, as required by the definition of ``year'' in
Sec. 63.482.
(v) The determination of applicability for flexible operation units
as specified in Sec. 63.480(f)(6).
(vi) The parameter monitoring levels for flexible operation units,
and the basis on which these levels were selected, or a demonstration
that these levels are appropriate at all times, as specified in
Sec. 63.480(f)(7).
(vii) The results for each predominant use determination for
storage vessels belonging to an affected source subject to this subpart
that is made under Sec. 63.480(g)(6).
(viii) The results for each predominant use determination for
recovery operation equipment belonging to an affected source subject to
this subpart that is made under Sec. 63.480(h)(6).
(ix) For owners and operators of Group 2 batch front-end process
vents establishing a batch cycle limitation, as specified in
Sec. 63.490(f), the affected source's operating year for purposes of
determining compliance with the batch cycle limitation.
(6) Periodic Reports. For existing and new affected sources, each
owner or operator shall submit Periodic Reports as specified in
paragraphs (e)(6)(i) through (e)(6)(xi) of this section.
(i) Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(6)(x) and (e)(6)(xi) of
this section, a report containing the information in paragraph
(e)(6)(ii) of this section or paragraphs (e)(6)(iii) through (e)(6)(ix)
of this section, as appropriate, shall be
[[Page 46975]]
submitted semiannually no later than 60 operating days after the end of
each 180 day period. The first report shall be submitted no later than
240 days after the date the Notification of Compliance Status is due
and shall cover the 6-month period beginning on the date the
Notification of Compliance Status is due. Subsequent reports shall
cover each preceding 6-month period.
(ii) If none of the compliance exceptions in paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)
through (e)(6)(ix) of this section occurred during the 6-month period,
the Periodic Report required by paragraph (e)(6)(i) of this section
shall be a statement that the affected source was in compliance for the
preceding 6-month period and that none of the activities specified in
paragraphs (e)(6)(iii) through (e)(6)(ix) of this section occurred.
(iii) For an owner or operator of an affected source complying with
the provisions of Secs. 63.484 through 63.501 for any emission point,
Periodic Reports shall include:
(A) All information specified in Sec. 63.122(a)(4) of subpart G for
storage vessels, Secs. 63.117(a)(3) and 63.118(f) of subpart G for
continuous front-end process vents, Sec. 63.492 for batch front-end
process vents and aggregate batch vent streams, Sec. 63.499 for back-
end process operations, Sec. 63.104(b)(4) of subpart F for heat
exchange systems, and Sec. 63.146(c) through Sec. 63.146(f) of subpart
G for process wastewater.
(B) The daily average values or batch cycle daily average values of
monitored parameters for all excursions, as defined in Sec. 63.505(g)
and Sec. 63.505(h).
(C) The periods when monitoring data were not collected shall be
specified; and
(D) The information in paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(D)(1) through
(e)(6)(iii)(D)(3) of this section, as applicable:
(1) Any supplements to the Emissions Averaging Plan, as required in
paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section;
(2) Notification if a process change is made such that the group
status of any emission point changes. The information submitted shall
include a compliance schedule, as specified in paragraphs
(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2)(i) and (e)(6)(iii)(D)(2)(ii) of this section, for
emission points that change from Group 2 to Group 1, or for continuous
front-end process vents under the conditions listed in
Sec. 63.485(l)(1) through Sec. 63.485(l)(4), or for batch front-end
process vents under the conditions listed in Sec. 63.492 (b) or (c).
(i) The owner of operator shall submit to the Administrator for
approval a compliance schedule and a justification for the schedule.
(ii) The Administrator shall approve the compliance schedule or
request changes within 120 operating days of receipt of the compliance
schedule and justification.
(3) Notification if one or more emission points or one or more EPPU
is added to an affected source. The owner or operator shall submit the
information contained in paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(D)(3)(i) through
(e)(6)(iii)(D)(3)(iii) of this section.
(i) A description of the addition to the affected source;
(ii) Notification of the group status of the additional emission
point or all emission points in the EPPU;
(iii) A compliance schedule, as required under paragraph
(e)(6)(iii)(D)(2) of this section.
(4) Notification if a standard operating procedure, as defined in
Sec. 63.500(l), is changed. This shall also include test results of the
carbon disulfide concentration resulting from the new standard
operating procedure.
(E) The information in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section for
reports of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(iv) For each batch front-end process vent with a batch cycle
limitation, the owner or operator shall include the number of batch
cycles accomplished during the preceding 12-month period once per year
in a Periodic Report.
(v) If any performance tests are reported in a Periodic Report, the
following information shall be included:
(A) One complete test report shall be submitted for each test
method used for a particular kind of emission point tested. A complete
test report shall contain the information specified in paragraph
(e)(5)(i)(B) of this section.
(B) For additional tests performed for the same kind of emission
point using the same method, results and any other information required
shall be submitted, but a complete test report is not required.
(vi) The results for each change made to a primary product
determination for an elastomer product made under Sec. 63.480(f)(6).
(vii) The results for each change made to a predominant use
determination for a storage vessel belonging to an affected source
subject to this subpart that is made under Sec. 63.480(g)(6).
(viii) The results for each change made to a predominant use
determination for recovery operation equipment belonging to an affected
source subject to this subpart that is made under Sec. 63.480(h)(6).
(ix) The Periodic Report required by Sec. 63.502(i) shall be
submitted as part of the Periodic Report required by paragraph (e)(6)
of this section.
(x) The owner or operator of an affected source shall submit
quarterly reports for all emission points included in an emissions
average.
(A) The quarterly reports shall be submitted no later than 60
operating days after the end of each quarter. The first report shall be
submitted with the Notification of Compliance Status no later than 150
days after the compliance date.
(B) The quarterly reports shall include the information specified
in paragraphs (e)(6)(x)(B)(1) through (e)(6)(x)(B)(7) of this section
for all emission points included in an emissions average.
(1) The credits and debits calculated each month during the
quarter;
(2) A demonstration that debits calculated for the quarter are not
more than 1.30 times the credits calculated for the quarter, as
required under Sec. 63.503(e)(4);
(3) The values of any inputs to the debit and credit equations in
Sec. 63.503(g) and (h) that change from month to month during the
quarter or that have changed since the previous quarter;
(4) Results of any performance tests conducted during the reporting
period including one complete report for each test method used for a
particular kind of emission point as described in paragraph (e)(6)(v)
of this section;
(5) Reports of daily average values or batch cycle daily averages
of monitored parameters for excursions as defined in Sec. 63.505(g) or
(h);
(6) For excursions caused by lack of monitoring data, the duration
of periods when monitoring data were not collected shall be specified;
and
(7) Any other information the affected source is required to report
under the operating permit or Emissions Averaging Plan for the affected
source.
(C) Sec. 63.505 shall govern the use of monitoring data to
determine compliance for Group 1 and Group 2 emission points included
in emissions averages.
(D) Every fourth quarterly report shall include the following:
(1) A demonstration that annual credits are greater than or equal
to annual debits as required by Sec. 63.503(e)(3); and
(2) A certification of compliance with all the emissions averaging
provisions in Sec. 63.503.
(xi) The owner or operator of an affected source shall submit
quarterly reports for particular emission points and process sections
not included in an emissions average as specified in paragraphs
(e)(6)(xi)(A) through (e)(6)(xi)(E) of this section.
(A) If requested by the Administrator, the owner or operator of an
affected
[[Page 46976]]
source shall submit quarterly reports for a period of 1 year for an
emission point or process section that is not included in an emissions
average if either the conditions in paragraph (e)(6)(xi)(A)(1) or
(e)(6)(xi)(A)(2) of this section are met.
(1) An emission point has any excursions, as defined in
Sec. 63.505(g) or Sec. 63.505(h) for a semiannual reporting period.
(2) The process section is out of compliance with its applicable
standard.
(B) The quarterly reports shall include all information specified
in paragraphs (e)(6)(iii) and (e)(6)(ix) of this section, as applicable
to the emission point or process section for which quarterly reporting
is required under paragraph (e)(6)(ix)(A) of this section. Information
applicable to other emission points within the affected source shall be
submitted in the semiannual reports required under paragraph (e)(6)(i)
of this section.
(C) Quarterly reports shall be submitted no later than 60 operating
days after the end of each quarter.
(D) After quarterly reports have been submitted for an emission
point for 1 year, the owner or operator may return to semiannual
reporting for the emission point or process section unless the
Administrator requests the owner or operator to continue to submit
quarterly reports.
(E) Sec. 63.505 shall govern the use of monitoring data to
determine compliance for Group 1 emission points.
(7) Other reports. Other reports shall be submitted as specified in
paragraphs (e)(7)(i) and (e)(7)(ii) of this section.
(i) For storage vessels, the notifications of inspections required
by Sec. 63.484 shall be submitted, as specified in Sec. 63.122(h)(1)
and (h)(2) of subpart G.
(ii) For owners or operators of affected sources required to
request approval for a nominal control efficiency for use in
calculating credits for an emissions average, the information specified
in Sec. 63.503(i) shall be submitted.
(iii) For back-end process operations complying using control or
recovery devices, the recompliance determination report required by
Sec. 63.499(d) shall be submitted within 180 days after the process
change.
(8) Operating Permit. An owner or operator who submits an operating
permit application instead of an Emissions Averaging Plan or a
Precompliance Report shall submit the following information with the
operating permit application:
(i) The information specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section
for points included in an emissions average; and
(ii) The information specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section,
Precompliance Report, as applicable.
(f) Alternative monitoring parameters. The owner or operator who
has been directed by any section of this subpart to set unique
monitoring parameters, or who requests approval to monitor a different
parameter than those listed in Sec. 63.484 for storage vessels,
Sec. 63.114 of subpart G for continuous front-end process vents,
Sec. 63.489 for batch front-end process vents and aggregate batch vent
streams, Sec. 63.497 for back-end process operations, or Sec. 63.143 of
subpart G for process wastewater shall submit the information specified
in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this section in the
Precompliance Report, as required by paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
The owner or operator shall retain for a period of 5 years each record
required by paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this section.
(1) The required information shall include a description of the
parameter(s) to be monitored to ensure the recovery device, control
device, or pollution prevention measure is operated in conformance with
its design and achieves the specified emission limit, percent
reduction, or nominal efficiency, and an explanation of the criteria
used to select the parameter(s).
(2) The required information shall include a description of the
methods and procedures that will be used to demonstrate that the
parameter indicates proper operation, the schedule for this
demonstration, and a statement that the owner or operator will
establish a level for the monitored parameter as part of the
Notification of Compliance Status report required in paragraph (e)(5)
of this section, unless this information has already been included in
the operating permit application.
(3) The required information shall include a description of the
proposed monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording system, to include
the frequency and content of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
Further, the rationale for the proposed monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting system shall be included if either condition in paragraph
(f)(3)(i) or (f)(3)(ii) of this section are met:
(i) If monitoring and recordkeeping is not continuous, or
(ii) If reports of daily average values will not be included in
Periodic Reports when the monitored parameter value is above the
maximum level or below the minimum level as established in the
operating permit or the Notification of Compliance Status.
(g) Alternative continuous monitoring and recordkeeping. An owner
or operator choosing not to implement the continuous parameter
operating and recordkeeping provisions listed in Sec. 63.485 for
continuous front-end process vents, Sec. 63.486 for batch front-end
process vents and aggregate batch vent streams, Sec. 63.493 for back-
end process operations, and Sec. 63.501 for wastewater, may instead
request approval to use alternative continuous monitoring and
recordkeeping provisions according to the procedures specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this section. Requests shall be
submitted in the Precompliance Report as specified in paragraph
(e)(3)(iv) of this section, if not already included in the operating
permit application, and shall contain the information specified in
paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and (g)(3)(ii) of this section, as applicable.
(1) The provisions in Sec. 63.8(f)(5)(i) of subpart A shall govern
the review and approval of requests.
(2) An owner or operator of an affected source that does not have
an automated monitoring and recording system capable of measuring
parameter values at least once every 15 minutes and that does not
generate continuous records may request approval to use a nonautomated
system with less frequent monitoring, in accordance with paragraphs
(g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) The requested system shall include manual reading and recording
of the value of the relevant operating parameter no less frequently
than once per hour. Daily average or batch cycle daily average values
shall be calculated from these hourly values and recorded.
(ii) The request shall contain:
(A) A description of the planned monitoring and recordkeeping
system;
(B) Documentation that the affected source does not have an
automated monitoring and recording system;
(C) Justification for requesting an alternative monitoring and
recordkeeping system; and
(D) Demonstration to the Administrator's satisfaction that the
proposed monitoring frequency is sufficient to represent control device
operating conditions, considering typical variability of the specific
process and control device operating parameter being monitored.
(3) An owner or operator may request approval to use an automated
data compression recording system that does not record monitored
operating parameter values at a set frequency (for example, once every
15 minutes), but that records all values that meet set criteria for
variation from previously
[[Page 46977]]
recorded values, in accordance with paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (g)(3)(ii)
of this section.
(i) The requested system shall be designed to:
(A) Measure the operating parameter value at least once every 15
minutes;
(B) Except for the monitoring of batch front-end process vents,
record at least four values each hour during periods of operation;
(C) Record the date and time when monitors are turned off or on;
(D) Recognize unchanging data that may indicate the monitor is not
functioning properly, alert the operator, and record the incident;
(E) Calculate daily average or batch cycle daily average values of
the monitored operating parameter based on all measured data; and
(F) If the daily average is not an excursion, as defined in
Sec. 63.505 (g) or (h), the data for that operating day may be
converted to hourly average values and the four or more individual
records for each hour in the operating day may be discarded.
(ii) The request shall contain:
(A) A description of the monitoring system and data compression
recording system, including the criteria used to determine which
monitored values are recorded and retained;
(B) The method for calculating daily averages and batch cycle daily
averages; and
(C) A demonstration that the system meets all criteria in paragraph
(g)(3)(i) of this section.
(4) An owner or operator may request approval to use other
alternative monitoring systems according to the procedures specified in
Sec. 63.8(f)(4) of subpart A.
(h) Reduced recordkeeping program. For any parameter with respect
to any item of equipment, the owner or operator may implement the
recordkeeping requirements in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this
section as alternatives to the continuous operating parameter
monitoring and recordkeeping provisions listed in Sec. 63.484 for
storage vessels, Sec. 63.485 for continuous front-end process vents,
Sec. 63.486 for batch front-end process vents and aggregate batch vent
streams, Sec. 63.493 for back-end processes, and Sec. 63.501 for
wastewater. The owner or operator shall retain for a period of 5 years
each record required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator may retain only the daily average or the
batch cycle daily average value, and is not required to retain more
frequent monitored operating parameter values, for a monitored
parameter with respect to an item of equipment, if the requirements of
paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (h)(1)(iv) of this section are met. An
owner or operator electing to comply with the requirements of paragraph
(h)(1) of this section shall notify the Administrator in the
Notification of Compliance Status or, if the Notification of Compliance
Status has already been submitted, in the Periodic Report immediately
preceding implementation of the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of
this section.
(i) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unrealistic or
impossible data during periods of operation other than startups,
shutdowns or malfunctions (e.g., a temperature reading of -200 deg.C on
a boiler), and will alert the operator by alarm or other means. The
owner or operator shall record the occurrence. All instances of the
alarm or other alert in an operating day constitute a single
occurrence.
(ii) The monitoring system generates, updated at least hourly
throughout each operating day, a running average of the monitoring
values that have been obtained during that operating day, and the
capability to observe this running average is readily available to the
Administrator on-site during the operating day. The owner or operator
shall record the occurrence of any period meeting the criteria in
paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(A) through (h)(1)(ii)(C) of this section. All
instances in an operating day constitute a single occurrence.
(A) The running average is above the maximum or below the minimum
established limits;
(B) The running average is based on at least six one-hour periods;
and
(C) The running average reflects a period of operation other than a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
(iii) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unchanging data
during periods of operation other than startups, shutdowns or
malfunctions, except in circumstances where the presence of unchanging
data is the expected operating condition based on past experience
(e.g., pH in some scrubbers), and will alert the operator by alarm or
other means. The owner or operator shall record the occurrence. All
instances of the alarm or other alert in an operating day constitute a
single occurrence.
(iv) The monitoring system will alert the owner or operator by an
alarm, if the running average parameter value calculated under
paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section reaches a set point that is
appropriately related to the established limit for the parameter that
is being monitored.
(v) The owner or operator shall verify the proper functioning of
the monitoring system, including its ability to comply with the
requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this section, at the times
specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(v)(A) through (h)(1)(v)(C) of this
section. The owner or operator shall document that the required
verifications occurred.
(A) Upon initial installation.
(B) Annually after initial installation.
(C) After any change to the programming or equipment constituting
the monitoring system, which might reasonably be expected to alter the
monitoring system's ability to comply with the requirements of this
section.
(vi) The owner or operator shall retain the records identified in
paragraphs (h)(1)(vi)(A) through (h)(1)(vi)(C) of this section.
(A) Identification of each parameter, for each item of equipment,
for which the owner or operator has elected to comply with the
requirements of paragraph (h) of this section.
(B) A description of the applicable monitoring system(s), and how
compliance will be achieved with each requirement of paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) through (h)(1)(v) of this section. The description shall
identify the location and format (e.g., on-line storage, log entries)
for each required record. If the description changes, the owner or
operator shall retain both the current and the most recent superseded
description.
(C) A description, and the date, of any change to the monitoring
system that would reasonably be expected to affect its ability to
comply with the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
(2) If an owner or operator has elected to implement the
requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this section for a monitored
parameter with respect to an item of equipment and a period of 6
consecutive months has passed without an excursion as defined in
paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of this section, the owner or operator is no
longer required to record the daily average or batch cycle daily
average value, for any operating day when the daily average or batch
cycle daily average value is less than the maximum, or greater than the
minimum established limit. With approval by the Administrator,
monitoring data generated prior to the compliance date of this subpart
shall be credited toward the period of 6 consecutive months, if the
parameter limit and the monitoring accomplished during the period prior
to the compliance date was required and/or approved by the
Administrator.
(i) If the owner or operator elects not to retain the daily average
or batch cycle
[[Page 46978]]
daily average values, the owner or operator shall notify the
Administrator in the next Periodic Report. The notification shall
identify the parameter and unit of equipment.
(ii) If, on any operating day after the owner or operator has
ceased recording daily average or batch cycle daily average values as
provided in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, there is an excursion as
defined in paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of this section, the owner or operator
shall immediately resume retaining the daily average or batch cycle
daily average value for each operating day and shall notify the
Administrator in the next Periodic Report. The owner or operator shall
continue to retain each daily average or batch cycle daily average
value until another period of 6 consecutive months has passed without
an excursion as defined in paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of this section.
(iii) The owner or operator shall retain the records specified in
paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iv) of this section, for
the duration specified in paragraph (h) of this section. For any
calendar month, if compliance with paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through
(h)(1)(iv) of this section does not result in retention of a record of
at least one occurrence or measured parameter value, the owner or
operator shall record and retain at least one parameter value during a
period of operation other than a startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
(iv) For the purposes of paragraph (h) of this section, an
excursion means that the daily average or batch cycle daily average
value of monitoring data for a parameter is greater than the maximum,
or less than the minimum established value, except as provided in
paragraphs (h)(2)(iv)(A) and (h)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
(A) The daily average or batch cycle daily average value during any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction shall not be considered an excursion
for purposes of paragraph (h)(2) of this section, if the owner or
operator follows the applicable provisions of the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of subpart A.
(B) An excused excursion, as described in Sec. 63.505(i), shall not
be considered an excursion for the purposes of paragraph (h)(2) of this
section.
Table 1.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart U Affected Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Applies to subpart U Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)........................... Yes................... Sec. 63.482 of Subpart U specifies definitions
in addition to or that supersede definitions in
Sec. 63.2.
63.1(a)(2)-63.1(a)(3)................ Yes
63.1(a)(4)........................... Yes................... Subpart U (this table) specifies the
applicability of each paragraph in subpart A to
subpart U.
63.1(a)(5)........................... No.................... Reserved.
63.1(a)(6)-63.1(a)(8)................ Yes
63.1(a)(9)........................... No.................... Reserved.
63.1(a)(10).......................... No.................... Subpart U and other cross-referenced subparts
specify calendar or operating day.
63.1(a)(11).......................... Yes
63.1(a)(12)-63.1(a)(14).............. Yes
63.1(b)(1)........................... Yes................... Sec. 63.480(a) contains specific applicability
criteria.
63.1(b)(2)........................... Yes
63.1(b)(3)........................... No.................... Sec. 63.480(b) of subpart U provides
documentation requirements for EPPUs not
considered affected sources.
63.1(c)(1)........................... Yes................... Subpart U (this table) specifies the
applicability of each paragraph in subpart A to
subpart U.
63.1(c)(2)........................... No.................... Area sources are not subject to subpart U.
63.1(c)(3)........................... No.................... Reserved.
63.1(c)(4)........................... Yes
63.1(c)(5)........................... Yes................... Except that affected sources are not required to
submit notifications overridden by this table.
63.1(d).............................. No.................... Reserved.
63.1(e).............................. Yes
63.2................................. Yes................... Sec. 63.482 of subpart U specifies those subpart
A definitions that apply to subpart U.
63.3................................. Yes
63.4(a)(1)-63.4(a)(3)................ Yes
63.4(a)(4)........................... No.................... Reserved.
63.4(a)(5)........................... Yes
63.4(b).............................. Yes
63.4(c).............................. Yes
63.5(a).............................. Yes
63.5(b)(1)........................... Yes
63.5(b)(2)........................... No.................... Reserved.
63.5(b)(3)........................... Yes
63.5(b)(4)........................... Yes
63.5(b)(5)........................... Yes
63.5(b)(6)........................... No.................... Sec. 63.480(i) of subpart U specifies
requirements.
63.5(c).............................. No.................... Reserved.
63.5(d)(1)(i)........................ Yes
63.5(d)(1)(ii)....................... Yes................... Except that for affected sources subject to
subpart U, emission estimates specified in Sec.
63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H) are not required.
63.5(d)(1)(iii)...................... No.................... Sec. 63.506(e)(5) of subpart U specifies
Notification of Compliance Status requirements.
63.5(d)(2)........................... xlNo..................
63.5(d)(3)........................... Yes................... Except Sec. 63.5(d)(3)(ii) does not apply.
63.5(d)(4)........................... Yes
63.5(e).............................. Yes
63.5(f)(1)........................... Yes
63.5(f)(2)........................... Yes................... Except that where Sec. 63.5(d)(1) is referred
to, Sec. 63.5(d)(1)(i) does not apply.
63.6(a).............................. Yes
63.6(b)(1)........................... Yes
[[Page 46979]]
63.6(b)(2)........................... Yes
63.6(b)(3)........................... Yes
63.6(b)(4)........................... Yes
63.6(b)(5)........................... Yes
63.6(b)(6)........................... No.................... Reserved.
63.6(b)(7)........................... Yes
63.6(c)(1)........................... Yes................... Sec. 63.481 of subpart U specifies the
compliance date.
63.6(c)(2)........................... Yes
63.6(c)(3)........................... No.................... Reserved.
63.6(c)(4)........................... No.................... Reserved.
63.6(c)(5)........................... Yes
63.6(d).............................. No.................... Reserved.
63.6(e).............................. Yes................... Except the plan, and any records or reports of
startup, shutdown and malfunction do not apply
to Group 2 emission points, unless they are
included in an emissions average.
63.6(f)(1)........................... Yes
63.6(f)(2)........................... Yes................... Except that in Sec. 63.6(f)(2)(iii)(D),
paragraph 63.7(c) does not apply.
63.6(f)(3)........................... Yes................... Except that Sec. 63.6(f)(2)(iii)(D) is not
applicable.
63.6(g).............................. Yes
63.6(h).............................. No.................... Subpart U does not require opacity and visible
emission standards.
63.6(i).............................. Yes................... Except for Sec. 63.6(i)(15), which is reserved,
and except that the requests for extension shall
be submitted no later than the date on which the
Precompliance Report is required to be submitted
in Sec. 63.506(e)(3)(i).
63.6(j).............................. Yes
63.7(a)(1)........................... Yes
63.7(a)(2)........................... No.................... Sec. 63.506(e)(5) of subpart U specifies
submittal dates.
63.7(a)(3)........................... Yes
63.7(b).............................. No.................... Sec. 63.504(a)(4) of subpart U specifies
notification requirements.
63.7(c).............................. No.................... Except if the owner or operator chooses to submit
an alternative nonopacity emission standard for
approval under Sec. 63.6(g).
63.7(d).............................. Yes
63.7(e).............................. Yes................... Except that performance tests must be conducted
at maximum representative operating conditions.
In addition, some of the testing requirements
specified in subpart U are not consistent with
Sec. 63.7(e)(3).
63.7(f).............................. No.................... Subpart U specifies applicable test methods and
provides alternatives.
63.7(g).............................. Yes................... Except that references to the Notification of
Compliance Status report in 63.9(h) of subpart A
are replaced with the requirements in Sec.
63.506(e)(5) of subpart U.
63.7(h).............................. Yes................... Except Sec. 63.7(h)(4)(ii) is not applicable,
since the site-specific test plans in Sec.
63.7(c)(3) are not required.
63.8(a)(1)........................... Yes
63.8(a)(2)........................... No
63.8(a)(3)........................... No.................... Reserved.
63.8(a)(4)........................... Yes
63.8(b)(1)........................... Yes
63.8(b)(2)........................... No.................... Subpart U specifies locations to conduct
monitoring.
63.8(b)(3)
63.8(c)(1)(i)........................ Yes
63.8(c)(1)(ii)....................... No
63.8(c)(1)(iii)...................... Yes
63.8(c)(2)........................... Yes
63.8(c)(3)........................... Yes
63.8(c)(4)........................... No.................... Sec. 63.505 of subpart U specifies monitoring
frequency.
63.8(c)(5)-63.8(c)(8)................ No
63.8(d).............................. No
63.8(e).............................. No
63.8(f)(1)-63.8(f)(3)................ Yes
63.8(f)(4)(i)........................ No.................... Timeframe for submitting request is specified in
Sec. 63.506(f) of subpart U.
63.8(f)(4)(ii)....................... No
63.8(f)(4)(iii)...................... No
63.8(f)(5)(i)........................ Yes
63.8(f)(5)(ii)....................... No
63.8(f)(5)(iii)...................... Yes
63.8(f)(6)........................... No.................... Subpart U does not require CEM's.
63.8(g).............................. No.................... Data reduction procedures specified in Sec.
63.506(d) of subpart U.
63.9(a).............................. Yes
63.9(b).............................. No.................... Subpart U does not require an initial
notification.
63.9(c).............................. Yes
63.9(d).............................. Yes
63.9(e).............................. No
63.9(f).............................. No.................... Subpart U does not require opacity and visible
emission standards.
63.9(g).............................. No
63.9(h).............................. No.................... Sec. 63.506(e)(5) of subpart U specifies
Notification of Compliance Status requirements.
[[Page 46980]]
63.9(i).............................. Yes
63.9(j).............................. No
63.10(a)............................. Yes
63.10(b)(1).......................... Yes
63.10(b)(2).......................... Yes
63.10(b)(3).......................... No.................... Sec. 63.480(b) of subpart U requires
documentation of sources that are not affected
sources.
63.10(c)............................. No.................... Sec. 63.506 of subpart U specifies recordkeeping
requirements.
63.10(d)(1).......................... Yes
63.10(d)(2).......................... No
63.10(d)(3).......................... No.................... Subpart U does not require opacity and visible
emission standards.
63.10(d)(4).......................... Yes
63.10(d)(5).......................... Yes................... Except that reports required by Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i) shall be submitted at the same
time as Periodic Reports specified in Sec.
63.506(e)(6) of subpart U. The startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, and any records
or reports of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
do not apply to Group 2 emission points unless
they are included in an emissions average.
63.10(e)............................. No
63.10(f)............................. Yes
63.10(d)(4).......................... Yes
63.11................................ Yes
63.12................................ Yes
63.13................................ Yes
63.14................................ Yes
63.15................................ Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2. Applicability of Subparts F, G, & H to Subpart U Affected Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies To Applicable section of
Reference subpart U Comment subpart U
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart F
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.100....................... No
63.101....................... Yes.......... Several definitions from 63.101 are 63.482
incorporated by reference into 63.482.
63.102-63.109................ No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart G
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.110....................... No
63.111....................... Yes.......... Several definitions from 63.111 are 63.482
incorporated by reference into 63.482.
63.112....................... No
63.113-63.118................ Yes.......... With the differences noted in 63.485(b) 63.485
through 63.485(k).
63.119-63.123................ Yes.......... With the differences noted in 63.484(c) 63.484
through 63.484(q).
63.124-63.125................ No........... Reserved
63.126-63.130................ No
63.131-63.147................ Yes.......... With the differences noted in 63.501
63.501(a)(1) through 63.501(a)(8).
63.148....................... Yes.......... With the differences noted in 63.484(c) 63.484 and 63.501
through 63.484(q) and 63.501(a)(1)
through 63.501(a)(8).
6
FR Doc. 96-21941 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins
3.149....................... No........... Reserved
63.150(a) through 63.150(f).. No
63.150(g)(1) and 63.150(g)(2) No
63.150(g)(3)................. Yes.......... ........................................ 63.503(g)(3)
63.150(g)(4)................. No
63.150(g)(5)................. Yes.......... ........................................ 63.503(g)(5)
63.150(h)(1) and 63.150(h)(2) No
63.150(h)(3)................. Yes.......... ........................................ 63.503(h)(3)
63.150(h)(4)................. No
63.150(h)(5)................. Yes.......... ........................................ 63.503(h)(5)
63.150(i) through 63.150(o).. No
63.151-63.152................ No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart H
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.160-63.193................ Yes.......... Subpart U affected sources must comply 63.502
with all requirements of subpart H.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46981]]
Table 3.--Group 1 Storage Vessels at Existing Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vapor pressure a
Vessel capacity (cubic meters) (kilopascals)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
75 capacity < 151............... 13.1
151 capacity.................... 5.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP at storage
temperature.
Table 4.--Group 1 Storage Vessels at New Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vapor Pressure a
Vessel capacity (cubic meters) (kilopascals)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38 capacity < 151............... 13.1
151 capacity.................... 0.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP at storage
temperature.
Table 5.--Known Organic HAP From Elastomer Products
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elastomer Product/Subcategory
Organic HAP/chemical name --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CAS No.) PBR/
BR EPI EPR HBR HYP NEO NBL NBR SBRS PSR SBL SBRE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrylonitrile (107131)....... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........
1,3 Butadiene (106990)...... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........
Carbon Tetrachloride (56235). ......... ......... ......... ........
Chlorobenzene (108907)....... ......... ......... ......... ........
Chloroform (67663)........... ......... ......... ......... ........
Chloroprene (126998)......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........
Epichlorohydrin (106898)..... .........
Ethylbenzene (100414)........ ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
Ethylene Dichloride (75343).. ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
Ethylene Oxide (75218)....... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
Formaldehyde (50000)......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
Hexane (100543).............. ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
Methanol (67561)............. ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
Methyl Chloride (74873)...... ......... ......... ........
Propylene Oxide (75569)...... .........
Styrene (100425)............. ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
Toluene (108883)............. ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
Xylenes (1330207)............ ......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAAACAS No. = Chemical Abstract Service Number.
BR = Butyl Rubber.
EPI = Epichlorohydrin Rubber.
EPR = Ethylene Propylene Rubber.
HBR = Halobutyl Rubber.
HYP = Hypalon TM.
NEO = Neoprene.
NBL = Nitrile Butadiene Latex.
NBR = Nitrile Butadiene Rubber.
PBR/SBRS = Polybutadiene and Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Solution.
PSR = Polysulfide Rubber.
SBL = Styrene Butadiene Latex.
SBR = Styrene Butadiene Rubber by Emulsion or Solution.
a Includes mono- and di-ethers of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, and triethylene glycol R-(OCH2 CH2)n -OR' where:
n=1,2, or 3;
R=alkyl or aryl groups; and
R'=R, H, or groups which, when removed, yield glycol ethers with the structure:
R-(OCH2 CH2)n-OH
Table 6.--Group 1 Batch Front-End Process Vents--Monitoring,
Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping and
Parameter to be reporting
Control/recovery device monitored requirements for
monitored parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermal Incinerator......... Firebox temperature 1. Continuous
a. records as
specified in Sec.
63.491(e)(1) b.
2. Record and report
the average firebox
temperature
measured during the
performance test--
NCS.c
[[Page 46982]]
3. Record the batch
cycle daily average
firebox temperature
as specified in
Sec. 63.491(e)(2).
4. Report all batch
cycle daily average
temperatures that
are below the
minimum operating
temperature
established in the
NCS or operating
permit and all
instances when
monitoring data are
not collected--
PR.d,e
Catalytic Incinerator....... Temperature upstream 1. Continuous
and downstream of records as
the catalyst bed. specified in Sec.
63.491(e)(1).b
2. Record and report
the average
upstream and
downstream
temperatures and
the average
temperature
difference across
the catalyst bed
measured during the
performance test--
NCS.c
3. Record the batch
cycle daily average
upstream
temperature and
temperature
difference across
catalyst bed as
specified in Sec.
63.491(e)(2).
4. Report all batch
cycle daily average
upstream
temperatures that
are below the
minimum upstream
temperature
established in the
NCS or operating
permit--PR.d,e
5. Report all batch
cycle daily average
temperature
differences across
the catalyst bed
that are below the
minimum difference
established in the
NCS or operating
permit--PR.d,e
6. Report all
instances when
monitoring data are
not collected.e
Boiler or Process Heater Firebox temperature 1. Continuous
with a design heat input a. records as
capacity less than 44 specified in Sec.
megawatts and where the 63.491(e)(1).b
batch front-end process 2. Record and report
vents or aggregate batch the average firebox
vent streams are not temperature
introduced with or used as measured during the
the primary fuel. performance test--
NCS.c
3. Record the batch
cycle daily average
firebox temperature
as specified in
Sec. 63.491(e)(2).
d
4. Report all batch
cycle daily average
temperatures that
are below the
minimum operating
temperature
established in the
NCS or operating
permit and all
instances when
monitoring data are
not collected--
PR.d,e
Flare....................... Presence of a flame 1. Hourly records of
at the pilot light. whether the monitor
was continuously
operating during
batch emission
episodes selected
for control and
whether the pilot
flame was
continuously
present during each
hour.
2. Record and report
the presence of a
flame at the pilot
light over the full
period of the
compliance
determination--NCS.
c
3. Record the times
and durations of
all periods during
batch emission
episodes when a
pilot flame is
absent or the
monitor is not
operating.
4. Report the times
and durations of
all periods during
batch emission
episodes selected
for control when
all pilot flames of
a flare are absent--
PR.d
[[Page 46983]]
Scrubber for halogenated pH of scrubber 1. Continuous
batch front-end process effluent, and. records as
vents or aggregate batch specified in Sec.
vent streams (Note: 63.491(e)(1).b
Controlled by a combustion 2. Record and report
device other than a flare). the average pH of
the scrubber
effluent measured
during the
performance test--
NCS.c
3. Record the batch
cycle daily average
pH of the scrubber
effluent as
specified in Sec.
63.491(e)(2).
4. Report all batch
cycle daily average
pH values of the
scrubber effluent
that are below the
minimum operating
pH established in
the NCS or
operating permit
and all instances
when insufficient
monitoring data are
collected--PR.d e
Scrubber liquid flow 1. Continuous
rate. records as
specified in Sec.
63.491(e)(1).b
2. Record and report
the scrubber liquid
flow rate measured
during the
performance test--
NCS.c
3. Record the batch
cycle daily average
scrubber liquid
flow rate as
specified in Sec.
63.491(e)(2).
4. Report all batch
cycle daily average
scrubber liquid
flow rates that are
below the minimum
flow rate
established in the
NCS or operating
permit and all
instances when
insufficient
monitoring data are
collected--PR.d e
Absorber g.................. Exit temperature of 1. Continuous
the absorbing records as
liquid, and. specified in Sec.
63.491(e)(1).b
2. Record and report
the average exit
temperature of the
absorbing liquid
measured during the
performance test--
NCS.c
3. Record the batch
cycle daily average
exit temperature of
the absorbing
liquid as specified
in Sec.
63.491(e)(2) for
each batch cycle.
4. Report all the
batch cycle daily
average exit
temperatures of the
absorbing liquid
that are below the
minimum operating
temperature
established in the
NCS or operating
permit and all
instances when
monitoring data are
not collected--PR.d
e
Absorber f.................. Exit specific 1. Continuous
gravity for the records as
absorbing liquid. specified in Sec.
63.491(e)(1).b
2. Record and report
the average exit
specific gravity
measured during the
performance test--
NCS.
3. Record the batch
cycle daily average
exit specific
gravity as
specified in Sec.
63.491(e)(2).
4. Report all batch
cycle daily average
exit specific
gravity values that
are below the
minimum operating
temperature
established in the
NCS or operating
permit and all
instances when
monitoring data are
not collected--PR.d
e
Condenser f................. Exit (product side) 1. Continuous
temperature. records as
specified in Sec.
63.491(e)(1).b
2. Record and report
the average exit
temperature
measured during the
performance test--
NCS.
3. Record the batch
cycle daily average
exit temperature as
specified in Sec.
63.491(e)(2).
4. Report all batch
cycle daily average
exit temperatures
that are above the
maximum operating
temperature
established in the
NCS or operating
permit and all
instances when
monitoring data are
not collected--
PR.d,e
[[Page 46984]]
Carbon Adsorber f........... Total regeneration 1. Record of total
stream mass flow regeneration stream
during carbon bed mass flow for each
regeneration carbon bed
cycle(s), and. regeneration cycle.
2. Record and report
the total
regeneration stream
mass flow during
each carbon bed
regeneration cycle
during the
performance test--
NCS.c
3. Report all carbon
bed regeneration
cycles when the
total regeneration
stream mass flow is
above the maximum
mass flow rate
established in the
NCS or operating
permit--PR.d e
Carbon Adsorber g........... Temperature of the 1. Record the
carbon bed after temperature of the
regeneration and carbon bed after
within 15 minutes each regeneration
of completing any and within 15
cooling cycle(s). minutes of
completing any
cooling cycle(s).
2. Record and report
the temperature of
the carbon bed
after each
regeneration and
within 15 minutes
of completing any
cooling cycle(s)
measured during the
performance test--
NCS.c
3. Report all carbon
bed regeneration
cycles when the
temperature of the
carbon bed after
regeneration, or
within 15 minutes
of completing any
cooling cycle(s),
is above the
maximum temperature
established in the
NCS or operating
permit--PR.d,e
All Control Devices......... Presence of flow 1. Hourly records of
diverted to the whether the flow
atmosphere from the indicator was
control device or. operating during
batch emission
episodes selected
for control and
whether flow was
detected at any
time during the
hour, as specified
in Sec.
63.491(e)(3).
2. Record and report
the times and
durations of all
periods during
batch emission
episodes selected
for control when
emissions are
diverted through a
bypass line or the
flow indicator is
not operating--PD.d
All Control Devices......... Monthly inspections 1. Records that
of sealed valves. monthly inspections
were performed as
specified in Sec.
63.491(e)(4)(i).
2. Record and report
all monthly
inspections that
show the valves are
not closed or the
seal has been
changed--PR.d
Absorber, Condenser, and Concentration level 1. Continuous
Carbon Adsorber (as an or reading records as
alternative to the above). indicated by an specified in Sec.
organic monitoring 63.491(e)(1).b
device at the 2. Record and report
outlet of the the average
recovery device. concentration level
or reading measured
during the
performance test--
NCS.
3. Record the batch
cycle daily average
concentration level
or reading as
specified in Sec.
63.491(e)(2).
4. Report all batch
cycle daily average
concentration
levels or readings
that are above the
maximum
concentration or
reading established
in the NCS or
operating permit
and all instances
when monitoring
data are not
collected--PR.d,e
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Monitor may be installed in the firebox or in the ductwork immediately
downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange is
encountered.
b ``Continuous records'' is defined in Sec. 63.111 of subpart G.
c NCS = Notification of Compliance Status described in Sec.
63.506(e)(5).
d PR = Periodic Reports described in Sec. 63.506(e)(6) of this subpart.
e The periodic reports shall include the duration of periods when
monitoring data are not collected as specified in Sec.
63.506(e)(6)(iii)(C) of this subpart.
f Alternatively, these devices may comply with the organic monitoring
device provisions listed at the end of this table.
Table 7.--Operating Parameters for Which Monitoring Levels Are Required
To Be Established for Continuous and Batch Front-End Process Vents and
Aggregate Batch Vent Streams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Established
Control/Recovery device Parameters to be operating
monitored parameter(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermal incinerator......... Firebox temperature. Minimum temperature.
[[Page 46985]]
Catalytic incinerator....... Temperature upstream Minimum upstream
and downstream of temperature; and
the catalyst bed. minimum temperature
difference across
the catalyst bed.
Boiler or process heater.... Firebox temperature. Minimum temperature.
Scrubber for halogenated Ph of scrubber Minimum pH; and
vents. effluent; and minimum flow rate.
scrubber liquid
flow rate.
Absorber.................... Exit temperature of Minimum temperature;
the absorbing and minimum
liquid; and exit specific gravity.
specific gravity of
the absorbing
liquid.
Condenser................... Exit temperature.... Maximum temperature.
Carbon absorber............. Total regeneration Maximum mass flow;
stream mass flow and maximum
during carbon bed temperature.
regeneration cycle;
and temperature of
the carbon bed
after regeneration
(and within 15
minutes of
completing any
cooling cycle(s)).
Other devices (or as an HAP concentration Maximum HAP
alternate to the above) a. level or reading at concentration or
outlet of device. reading.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Concentration is measured instead of an operating parameter.
Table 8.--Summary of Compliance Alternative Requirements for the Back-
End Process Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter to be
Compliance alternative monitored Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Using Stripping Residual organic HAP (1) If batch
Technology, Demonstrated content in each stripping is used,
through Periodic Sampling sample of crumb or at least one
[Sec. 63.495(b)]. latex. representative
sample is to be
taken from every
batch.
(2) If continuous
stripping is used,
at least one
representative
sample is to be
taken each
operating day.
Quantity of Material (1) Acceptable
(weight of latex or methods of
dry crumb rubber) determining this
represented by each quantity are
sample. production records,
measurement of
stream
characteristics,
and engineering
calculations.
Compliance Using Stripping At a minimum, (1) Establish
Technology, Demonstrated temperature, stripper operating
through Stripper Parameter pressure, steaming parameter levels
Monitoring [Sec. rates (for steam for each grade in
63.495(c)]. strippers), and accordance with
some parameter that Sec. 63.505(e).
is indicative of (2) Continuously
residence time.. monitor stripper
operating
parameters.
(3) If hourly
average parameters
are outside of the
established
operating parameter
levels, a crumb or
latex sample shall
be taken in
accordance with
Sec. 63.495(c)(3)(
ii).
Determining Compliance Using Parameters to be Comply with
Control or Recovery Devices monitored are requirements listed
[Sec. 63.496]. described in Table in Table 3 of
3 of subpart G.. subpart G, except
for the
requirements for
halogenated vent
stream scrubbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-21941 Filed 9-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.