[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1780-1784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-323]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63 and 302

[FRL-6216-8]
RIN 2060-AI08


Redefinition of the Glycol Ethers Category Under Section 
112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act and Section 101 of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The proposed rule, upon promulgation, will amend the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) in section 112(b)(1). 
Under section 112(b)(3)(D), EPA may delete specific substances from 
listed categories. This proposed rule modifies the definition of the 
glycol ethers category in a manner to exclude each of the compounds 
known as surfactant alcohol ethoxylates and their derivatives (SAED). 
This delisting action is being proposed by EPA in response to an 
analysis of potential exposure and hazards of SAED that was prepared by 
the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) and submitted to EPA. Based on 
this information, EPA has made an initial determination that there are 
adequate data on the health and environmental effects of these 
substances to determine that emissions, ambient concentrations, 
bioaccumulation, or deposition of these substances may not reasonably 
be anticipated to cause adverse human health or environmental effects. 
By today's document, EPA is also proposing to make conforming changes 
in the definition of glycol ethers with respect to designation of 
hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

DATES: Written comments must be received by EPA on or before March 15, 
1999. The EPA will hold a public hearing if EPA receives a written 
request for such a hearing on or before February 11, 1999. If a hearing 
is requested in a timely manner, EPA will publish an additional 
document in the Federal Register advising interested persons of the 
date, time, and location of the hearing. Moreover, if a hearing is 
held, EPA will keep the record open for 30 days after such hearing to 
receive rebuttal or supplementary information.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments on both of the proposed actions discussed 
in this notice should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to the 
EPA's Air and Radiation and Information Docket (6101), Attention Docket 
Number A-98-39, Room M1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Docket. Docket No. A-98-39, which 
includes a copy of the submission by the SDA, and an EPA analysis of 
that submission, will be available for inspection and copying between 8 
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation 
and Information Docket, Room M1500, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Roy L. Smith, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-
15), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; (919) 541-5362.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Listing and Delisting of HAP

    Section 112 of the CAA contains a mandate for EPA to evaluate and 
control emissions of HAP. Section 112(b)(1) includes an initial list of 
HAP that is composed of specific chemical compounds and groups of 
compounds. This list is used to identify source categories for which 
the EPA will subsequently promulgate emissions standards.
    Section 112(b)(2) requires EPA to conduct periodic reviews of the 
initial list of HAP set forth in section 112(b)(1) and outlines 
criteria to be applied in deciding whether to add or delete particular 
substances. Section 112(b)(2) identifies pollutants that should be 
added to the list as:

    * * * pollutants which present, or may present, through 
inhalation or other routes of exposure, a threat of adverse human 
health effects (including, but not limited to, substances which are 
known to be, or may reasonably be anticipated to be, carcinogenic, 
mutagenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic, which cause reproductive 
dysfunction, or which are acutely or chronically toxic) or adverse 
environmental effects whether through ambient concentrations, 
bioaccumulation, deposition, or otherwise * * *

    Section 112(b)(3) establishes general requirements for petitioning 
EPA to modify the HAP list by adding or deleting a substance. In 
general, the burden is on a petitioner to include sufficient 
information to support the requested addition or deletion under the 
substantive criteria set forth in section 112(b)(3)(B) and (C). The 
Administrator must either grant or deny a petition within 18 months of 
receipt. If the Administrator decides to grant a petition, the Agency 
publishes a written explanation of the Administrator's decision, along 
with a proposed rule to add or delete the substance. If the 
Administrator decides to deny the petition, the Agency publishes a 
written explanation of the basis for denial. A decision to deny a 
petition is final Agency action subject to review in the D.C. Circuit 
Court of Appeals under section 307(b).
    To promulgate a final rule deleting a substance from the HAP list, 
section 112(b)(3)(C) provides that the Administrator must determine 
that:

    * * * there is adequate data on the health and environmental 
effects of the substance to determine that emissions, ambient 
concentrations, bioaccumulation, or deposition of the substance may 
not reasonably be anticipated to cause any adverse effects to the 
human health or adverse environmental effects.

The EPA will grant a petition to delete a substance and publish a 
proposed rule to delete that substance if it makes an initial 
determination that this criterion has been met. After affording an 
opportunity for comment and for a hearing, EPA will make a final 
determination whether the criterion has been met.
    The Administrator may also act to add or delete a substance on her 
own initiative. In this instance, the EPA has been engaged in a 
substantive dialogue with the SDA, a national trade association 
representing manufacturers of cleaning products and ingredients, 
concerning the toxicity of and exposure to SAED, a group of compounds 
which is within the current definition of the glycol ethers category as 
listed in section 112(b)(1). At the request of EPA, the SDA compiled 
information on this class of compounds needed by EPA to apply the 
statutory criteria for delisting under section 112(b)(3). The SDA 
submitted the resulting report to EPA. Although the SDA has elected not 
to formally petition EPA to delete SAED compounds from the HAP list, 
EPA has made an initial determination based on the SDA report that the 
statutory criteria for delisting SAED are satisfied, and is, therefore, 
issuing this proposal.
    EPA does not interpret section 112(b)(3)(C) to require absolute 
certainty that a pollutant will not cause adverse effects on human 
health or the environment before it may be deleted

[[Page 1781]]

from the list. The use of the terms ``adequate'' and ``reasonably'' 
indicate that the Agency must weigh the potential uncertainties and 
their likely significance. Uncertainties concerning the risk of adverse 
health or environmental effects may be mitigated if EPA can determine 
that projected exposures are sufficiently low to provide reasonable 
assurance that such adverse effects will not occur. Similarly, 
uncertainties concerning the magnitude of projected exposures may be 
mitigated if EPA can determine that the levels which might cause 
adverse health or environmental effects are sufficiently high to 
provide reasonable assurance that exposures will not reach harmful 
levels.

II. EPA Analysis of the SDA Submission

    The SDA contended that the present definition of glycol ethers 
adopted by Congress in section 112(b)(1) was incorporated verbatim from 
the definition of glycol ethers utilized in section 313 of the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 
11023. The SDA noted that EPA subsequently modified the definition of 
glycol ethers under EPCRA to exclude SAED compounds (59 FR 34386, July 
5, 1994), and requested that EPA make a conforming change in the CAA 
list. EPA has responded that the substantive criteria for deleting 
chemicals under EPCRA section 313(d) are materially different than the 
criteria for deleting a hazardous pollutant under section 112(b)(3). It 
is EPA's view that, whatever the origins of the glycol ethers 
definition in section 112(b)(1), EPA cannot redefine the glycol ethers 
category to exclude particular compounds without making a substantive 
determination that such compounds meet the applicable criteria for HAP 
delisting. Under section 112(3)(D), EPA may delete specific substances 
included in certain listed categories without a Chemical Abstract 
Service number, including the glycol ethers category.
    Although the SDA does not necessarily agree with EPA that deletion 
of individual compounds is the only manner in which EPA may adopt the 
requested redefinition of the glycol ethers category, the SDA agreed to 
assist EPA in this effort by collecting information concerning SAED 
compounds that would enable EPA to make a substantive assessment of 
potential risks under section 112(b)(3). On April 25, 1997, the SDA 
submitted to EPA a report entitled ``Exposure Assessment Undertaken to 
Support the Evaluation of the HAP Definition `Glycol Ethers'.''
    Surfactant alcohol ethoxylates and their derivatives comprise a 
group of compounds that, individually, satisfy the following 
definition:

R-(OCH2CH2)n-OR'

Where:

n = 1, 2, or 3;
R = alkyl C8 or greater
R'= any group

    Rather than asking the SDA to compile an exhaustive list of each 
specified SAED compound, EPA requested that the SDA undertake a generic 
analysis of the potential toxicity of, and potential exposure to, SAED 
compounds as a group. EPA requested that the analysis be based to the 
extent possible on worst-case assumptions which could be deemed to be 
conservative with respect to each and every individual compound in the 
SAED group. Such an approach to delisting would normally be 
impracticable due to the likelihood that use of such extreme 
assumptions would greatly exaggerate the magnitude of potential risks. 
In this instance, such an approach was considered practical only 
because of assertions by the SDA that SAED compounds present both very 
low potential toxicity and very limited exposure potential.
    The report submitted by the SDA presented estimates of both the 
potential exposure to, and potential toxicity of, SAED compounds. The 
principal emissions estimate in the report was based on a hypothetical 
facility using 600 million pounds per year of SAED, a figure coinciding 
with the total annual domestic production of Shell Chemical Company, 
the largest SAED manufacturer. The report then conservatively estimated 
emissions for this hypothetical facility associated with the storage 
and transmission, processing, and fugitive releases of the SAED 
compounds.
    Emissions of SAED from raw materials during storage and handling 
were estimated by assuming emissions of a total volume of air, fully 
saturated with SAED, equal to the total volume of liquid SAED. This 
estimate was based, in turn, on the vapor pressure of the lowest 
molecular weight compound in the SAED category, although typical SAED 
compounds have greater molecular weight and substantially lower 
volatility. Additional SAED emissions from manufacture of SAED 
compounds and formulation of other products containing SAED were 
estimated by making assumptions concerning the effect on emissions of 
increased temperatures and ventilation rates and reduced SAED 
concentrations in the finished products. Finally, an estimate of 
fugitive emissions was calculated from the estimated point source 
emissions by applying a proportionality factor derived from reported 
emissions for all glycol ethers in the EPA Toxics Release Inventory 
database, although it is likely that the proportion of total emissions 
attributable to fugitive releases would be much less for SAED compounds 
than for the lower molecular weight glycol ethers. This analysis 
produced an aggregate emissions rate for the hypothetical facility of 
105 pounds of SAED per year.
    Exposures at the fence line for the hypothetical facility were then 
estimated using the SCREEN3 dispersion model and the calculated 
aggregate emissions rate, based on a variety of assumptions concerning 
terrain, stack height and configuration, and distance to the fence 
line. The predicted annual average SAED concentration associated with 
an emissions rate of 105 pounds/year was 0.03 micrograms of SAED per 
cubic meter of air for a ``representative'' facility and 97.3 
micrograms per cubic meter for a ``hypothetical worst-case'' facility.
    The SDA submission also summarized the available toxicity data on 
SAED compounds. There have been few acute and no subchronic inhalation 
studies utilizing SAED compounds. Available animal study data do not 
indicate any adverse effects at air concentrations up to those produced 
by full saturation with SAED vapors. Acute toxicity has been 
demonstrated only when animals inhaled undiluted SAED in the form of a 
respirable aerosol. In one 10-day repeated inhalation study, test 
animals exhibited local respiratory irritation. Long-term animal 
studies of SAED administered by the oral or dermal routes have not 
reported any significant effects such as skin sensitization, 
reproductive or developmental toxicity, genetic mutations, or cancer. 
Evidence on the toxic potential of glycol ethers as a group strongly 
suggests that toxic potency decreases as molecular weight increases. 
Therefore, SAED (which have high molecular weight) are likely to be 
substantially less toxic than lighter glycol ether compounds for which 
more complete toxicity data are available.
    There is no verified or proposed reference concentration (RfC) for 
any SAED compound. The SDA developed a proposed ``key exposure index'' 
for chronic exposure to SAED compounds based on the subchronic RfC for 
2-methoxy-1-propanol (MP), a structurally similar compound which also 
has no demonstrated systemic toxicity by

[[Page 1782]]

inhalation. Two-methoxy-1-propanol has a lower molecular weight (90 
grams per mole) than the lightest SAED compound (ethylene glycol octyl 
ether, 174 grams per mole). Therefore, MP is expected to be more toxic 
than any SAED compound, and its use as a surrogate should be 
conservative.
    The SDA's analysis began with the subchronic RfC for MP, then 
reduced it by a factor of 10 to account for the differences between 
subchronic effects and chronic effects, and by an additional factor of 
between 1 and 10 to account for the use of data for a structurally 
related compound. This resulted in a proposed concentration range of 
0.2 to 2.0 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) at which no 
adverse effects would be expected in human populations, including 
sensitive individuals. The SDA's proposed concentration range is 
approximately 1,000 to 10,000 times lower than the acutely toxic level 
for inhalation in rats. It is also approximately 1,000 to 10,000 times 
greater than the exposure estimated by the SDA for a ``representative'' 
facility and 2 to 20 times greater than the estimated exposure for a 
``hypothetical worst-case'' facility.
    The proposed chronic no-effect concentration range for SAED of 0.2 
to 2.0 mg/m3 is also consistent with chronic RfCs available 
from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) for lower-
molecular weight, non-SAED glycol ethers (i.e., 0.2 mg/m3 
for 2-ethoxyethanol and 0.09 mg/m3 for 2-methoxyethanol 
acetate). A third IRIS assessment will shortly be proposed for 2-
butoxyethanol, in which EPA expects to include an RfC in the range of 
10 to 70 mg/m3. The SDA's analysis has, therefore, treated 
SAED as if they were as toxic as much lighter glycol ether compounds, 
which EPA considers to be unlikely.
    Although the SDA document does not include a discussion of levels 
of SAED that would be protective of non-human species, the toxicity 
data used to support the health impact assessment were obtained from 
animal studies. The derivation of human no-effect levels from these 
animal data, appropriately adjusted for uncertainty, should be 
protective of non-human animal species as well. Overall, there is no 
evidence to suggest that any species or any ecosystem would be harmed 
by any exposure below the SAED no-effect level proposed for humans.
    Based on the SDA submission as a whole, EPA believes that the 
available data on potential exposure to, and toxicity of, SAED 
compounds are considerably more limited than would normally be 
necessary to support the findings required by section 112(b)(3) before 
EPA may delete a substance from the HAP list. However, there is a 
sufficiently large discrepancy between the maximum predicted exposure 
level for these compounds based on plausible worst-case assumptions and 
the lowest concentration likely to present any potential risk of 
adverse effects to compensate for the paucity of the data. The 
conservative techniques used by the SDA in its submission, which tend 
to overestimate both exposure to and toxicity of SAED, are appropriate 
in the context of the limited data which are available on SAED 
compounds.
    Unlike the SDA, EPA does not believe that the process by which 
Congress adopted the current definition of glycol ethers in section 
112(b)(1) can be construed as relieving EPA of the obligation to apply 
the statutory criteria before deleting any substance included in the 
present definition. Nevertheless, it is important to observe that there 
is no evidence suggesting that the current broader definition of glycol 
ethers was adopted because of any actual concerns regarding the 
potential hazards of SAED compounds. EPA believes that the absence of 
any discernable affirmative rationale for the initial inclusion of SAED 
compounds in the statutory HAP list, while not dispositive in itself, 
lends additional support to the Agency's conclusion that the available 
evidence supports deletion of these compounds.
    Based on the available information, EPA has made an initial 
determination, with respect to each and every individual substance 
which satisfies the definition of SAED compounds set forth above, that 
there is adequate data on the health and environmental effects of those 
substances to determine that emissions, ambient concentrations, 
bioaccumulation or deposition of the substances may not reasonably be 
anticipated to cause adverse human health or environmental effects. As 
such, EPA is proposing to effectuate this determination by redefining 
the entire glycol ethers category in a manner which excludes each of 
the deleted substances.

III. Proposed Revision of CERCLA Designation

    When a HAP is listed under section 112 of the CAA, it is also 
defined as a hazardous substance under section 101(14) of CERCLA, 42 
U.S.C. 9601(14). In an April 4, 1985 final rule, under its authority in 
section 102(a) of CERCLA, EPA designated and listed, in the table at 40 
CFR 302.4, all the elements and compounds and hazardous wastes 
incorporated as hazardous substances by reference to other 
environmental statutes under section 101(14)(see 50 FR 13456). In a 
June 12, 1995 final rule, EPA revised Table 302.4 to add, among other 
HAP newly listed by the 1990 CAA Amendments, the broad generic category 
of glycol ethers (see 60 FR 30926). The EPA designated the broad 
generic category of glycol ethers as hazardous under CERCLA based 
solely on its inclusion in the CAA HAP list. The Agency has no 
independent basis upon which to retain the current definition of the 
glycol ethers category in order to include the SAED compounds as CERCLA 
hazardous substances. Therefore, should the definition of glycol ethers 
in the HAP list in the CAA be amended as proposed in today's 
rulemaking, the Agency is also proposing to make a corresponding change 
to the list of CERCLA hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 302, Table 
302.4.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Today's proposed actions do not meet the definition of 
``significant regulatory action'' as set forth in Executive Order 
(E.O.) 12866 and are, therefore, not subject to review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). The E.O. 12886 defines ``significant 
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the E.O.
    Although EPA is not aware of any adverse effects associated with 
the present inclusion of SAED compounds on the CAA HAP and the CERCLA 
hazardous substance lists, the effect of the proposed rules will be to 
reduce potential regulatory obligations. There are no identifiable 
adverse effects associated with either of the proposed rules. Neither 
of the proposed rules meets any of the criteria enumerated above, and 
EPA, therefore, has determined that neither of these actions

[[Page 1783]]

constitutes a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of E.O. 
12866.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., OMB must clear any reporting and recordkeeping requirements that 
qualify as an ``information collection request'' under PRA. Neither of 
the proposed rules in this notice contain any new information 
collection requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires that a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis be performed for proposed rules that potentially 
have ``significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' 
Small entities are small businesses, organizations, and governmental 
jurisdictions.
    Present Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines indicate that an 
economic impact should be considered significant if it meets one of the 
following criteria: (1) Compliance increases annual production costs by 
more than 5 percent, assuming costs are passed on to consumers; (2) 
compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities are at 
least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of sales 
for large entities; (3) capital costs of compliance represent a 
``significant'' portion of capital available to small entities, 
considering internal cash flow plus external financial capabilities; or 
(4) regulatory requirements are likely to result in closure of small 
entities.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify 
that neither of the proposed rules, if promulgated, will have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Neither of the proposed rules in 
this document contain any Federal mandate (under the regulatory 
provisions of title II of UMRA) for State, local or tribal governments 
or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13045

    The E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) requires EPA rulemaking that involves decisions on environmental 
health risks or safety risks to consider whether such risks may 
disproportionately affect children. Toxicological data used to support 
this proposed rule were obtained from animal studies. Estimated human 
no-effect levels were derived by applying an intraspecies uncertainty 
factor designed to protect children and other sensitive members of 
human populations. EPA anticipates that, in the absence of studies of 
exposed children, that this uncertainty factor will adequately protect 
the entire human population, including children.

F. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments because it will result in no 
increase either in air pollution or reporting requirements. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to this rule.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 63

    Air pollution control, Chemicals, Glycol ethers.

40 CFR Part 302

    Hazardous substances, Chemicals, Glycol ethers.

    Dated: December 30, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed that title 
40, chapter I, parts 63 and 302 of the Code of Federal Regulations be 
amended as follows:

[[Page 1784]]

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR 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, subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 63.61 to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.61  Redefinition of glycol ethers listed as hazardous air 
pollutants.

    The definition of the glycol ethers category of hazardous air 
pollutants, as established by 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(1) includes mono- and 
di-ethers of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, and triethylene glycol 
R-(OCH2CH2)n-OR'

Where:

n= 1, 2, or 3
R= alkyl C7 or less, or phenyl or alkyl substituted phenyl
R'= H, or alkyl C7 or less, or carboxylic acid ester, 
sulfate, phosphate, nitrate, or sulfonate.

PART 302--DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION

    1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 
1361.


Sec. 302.4  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 302.4, footnote d to Table 302.4 is revised to read as 
follows:
* * * * *
    d Includes mono- and di-ethers of ethylene glycol, 
diethylene glycol, and triethylene glycol R-
(OCH2CH2)n-OR'

    where:

    n= 1, 2, or 3
    R= alkyl C7 or less, or phenyl or alkyl substituted 
phenyl
    R'= H, or alkyl C7 or less, or carboxylic acid ester, 
sulfate, phosphate, nitrate, or sulfonate.
[FR Doc. 99-323 Filed 1-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P