[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56493-56496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27142]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket No. A-99-31; FRL-6459-3]


List of Source Categories

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of receipt of a complete petition.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that EPA has created a two-piece beer 
and beverage can coating (two-piece can) subcategory within the Metal 
Can (Surface Coating) source category. This notice also announces the 
receipt of a complete petition from the Can Manufacturers' Institute 
(CMI) requesting EPA to remove the two-piece can subcategory from the 
List of Source Categories (Source Category List). The Source Category 
List was developed pursuant to section 112(c)(1) of the Amendments to 
the 1990 Clean Air Act (Act) and published in the Federal Register on 
July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).
    We have determined that the original petition submittal by CMI, 
dated November 4, 1996, plus the supplemental materials provided by CMI 
through April 21, 1999, will support an assessment of the human health 
impacts associated with hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from 
two-piece can coating operations. In addition, the data submitted by 
CMI will support an assessment of the environmental impacts associated 
with HAP emissions from the two-piece can coating subcategory. 
Consequently, we have concluded that CMI's petition is complete as of 
April 21, 1999, the date

[[Page 56494]]

of the last supplement, and is ready for public comment and the 
technical review phase of our delist petition evaluation process.
    This notice invites the public to provide additional information, 
beyond that filed in the petition, on sources, emissions, exposure, 
health effects and environmental impacts associated with HAP emissions 
from two-piece can coating operations that may be relevant to our 
technical review.

DATES: Comments and additional data will be accepted if received on or 
before November 19, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Documents. A copy of the complete petition is contained in a 
docket available at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Office, 401 M Street SW, Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall, 
Washington, DC 20460. The docket number for this action is A-99-31. You 
may inspect the petition and copy it for offsite review between 8:30 
a.m. and 5:30 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying.
    Comments and Data Submissions. Comments and additional data should 
be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: The Docket Clerk, Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Office, 401 M Street SW, Room M-1500 
(Mail Code 6102), Waterside Mall, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Rimer, Emission Standards 
Division (MD-13), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
telephone (919) 541-2962, electronic mail address: [email protected].

I. Introduction

A. What Are Hazardous Air Pollutants?

    Hazardous air pollutants include a wide variety of organic and 
inorganic substances released from large and small industrial 
operations, fossil fuel combustion, gasoline and diesel-powered 
vehicles, and many other sources. The HAPs have been associated with a 
wide variety of adverse health effects, including cancer, neurological 
effects, reproductive effects, and developmental effects. The health 
effects associated with the various HAPs may differ depending upon the 
toxicity of the individual HAP and the particular circumstances of 
exposure, such as the amount of chemical present, the length of time a 
person is exposed, and the stage in life of the person when the 
exposure occurs. The list of HAPs can be found in section 112(b)(1) of 
the Act. The HAPs list provides the basis for research, regulation, and 
other related EPA activities under section 112 of the Act.

B. What Is the Source Category List?

    Section 112(c) of the Act requires the EPA to publish a list of all 
categories and subcategories of major and area sources of HAPs which 
will be subject to regulation. A ``major source'' is any stationary 
source (including all emission points and units located within a 
contiguous area and under common control) of air pollution that has the 
potential to emit, considering controls, 10 tons or more per year of 
any HAP, or 25 or more tons per year of any combinations of HAPs. An 
``area source'' is a stationary source that emits HAPs in amounts less 
than 10 or 25 tons per year. For an area source category to be listed, 
the EPA must determine that the source category presents a threat to 
human health or to the environment. Under section 112(d), the Act 
requires EPA to establish national emission standards for source 
categories based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for 
major source categories and to set either MACT or generally available 
control technology (GACT) standards for area source categories.
    The EPA published the initial Source Category List in the Federal 
Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576); you can find the most recent 
update to the Source Category List in the February 12, 1998 Federal 
Register (63 FR 7155).

C. What Is a Source Category Delist Petition?

    A source category delist petition is a formal request to the EPA 
from an individual or group to remove a specific source category from 
the Source Category List. The removal of a source category from the 
list eliminates it from consideration in EPA's program to promulgate 
MACT standards.
    Any group or person may petition the EPA to delete a source 
category from the Source Category List. The Administrator must grant or 
deny a petition within 12 months of receiving a complete petition.
    Section 112(c)(9)(B) provides that the Administrator may delete a 
source category from the Source Category List if she determines that no 
source in the category:
    1. Emits carcinogens in amounts that may result in a lifetime risk 
of cancer exceeding one in a million to the individual most exposed;
    2. Emits noncarcinogens in amounts that exceed an ample margin of 
safety to protect the public health; and
    3. Emits HAPs in amounts that will result in adverse environmental 
effects.
    The EPA will not grant a petition to delete a source category or 
subcategory from the Source Category List pursuant to section 
112(c)(9)(B) unless EPA makes an initial determination that each of the 
statutory criteria appear to be met for each HAP emitted by each 
individual source within the category or subcategory.

D. What Is a Subcategory?

    A subcategory is a group of similar sources within a given source 
category. As part of the regulatory development process, EPA evaluates 
the similarities and differences between industry segments or groups of 
facilities comprising a source category. Different source categories 
may be evaluated and subcategorized in different ways.
    In establishing subcategories, EPA considers factors such as 
process operations (type of process, raw materials, chemistry/
formulation data, associated equipment, and final products); emission 
characteristics (amount and type of HAP); control device applicability; 
and opportunities for pollution prevention. The EPA may also look at 
existing regulations or guidance from States and other regulatory 
agencies in determining subcategories.
    The Act does not expressly establish a process for deletion of a 
subcategory from the Source Category List. However, EPA construes the 
Act to permit petitions to delete a specified subcategory in those 
instances where EPA has previously created such a subcategory within 
the applicable source category.

E. How Does EPA Review a Petition To Delist a Source Category or 
Subcategory?

    The petition review process proceeds in two phases: a completeness 
determination and a technical review. During the completeness 
determination, we conduct a broad review of the petition to determine 
whether or not all the necessary subject areas are addressed and 
whether reasonable information and analyses are presented for each of 
these subject areas. Once the petition is determined to be complete, we 
place a notice of receipt of a complete petition in the Federal 
Register and commence the technical review phase of our decision-making 
process.
    That Federal Register notice announcing receipt of a complete 
petition also announces a public comment period on the petition. The 
technical review involves a more thorough scientific review of the 
petition to determine whether the data,

[[Page 56495]]

analyses, interpretations, and conclusions in the petition are 
appropriate and technically sound. The technical review will also 
determine whether or not the petition appears to satisfy the necessary 
requirements of section 112(c)(9)(B) and to provide adequate support 
for a decision to delist the source category or subcategory. All 
comments and data submitted during the public comment period are 
considered during the technical review.
    The Agency considers the following information relevant to the 
evaluation of any petition:
    1. Identification of sources included in the source category;
    2. Estimation of emissions from identified sources;
    3. Estimation of ambient levels, either modeled or measured, of the 
emitted HAPs;
    4. Assessment of the toxicity of chemicals being released; and
    5. Evaluation of the impact to humans, plants, and animals from 
such emissions (e.g., cancer, noncancer effects, ecological effects).

F. How Is the Decision To Delist a Source Category or Sub-Category 
Made?

    The decision to either grant or deny a petition to delist a 
category or subcategory is made after a comprehensive technical review 
of both the petition and the information received from the public to 
determine whether the petition appears to satisfy the requirements of 
section 112(c)(9)(B) of the Act.
    The EPA may modify the Source Category List without rulemaking in 
instances where we conclude that a category or subcategory did not 
originally meet or no longer meets the quantitative emission criteria 
for inclusion on the list. However, in instances where we delete a 
category or subcategory based on the risk criteria set forth in section 
112(c)(9)(B), we have determined that it is appropriate to utilize 
rulemaking procedures. Thus, if the Administrator decides to grant a 
petition to delist a category or subcategory under this provision, EPA 
will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register. 
That notice will propose to remove the source category or subcategory 
from the Source Category List and present the reasoning for doing so.
    However, if the Administrator decides to deny a petition under 
section 112(c)(9)(B), an explanation of the reasons for denial will be 
published instead. A notice of denial constitutes final Agency action 
of nationwide scope and applicability and is subject to judicial review 
as provided in section 307(b) of the Act.

II. Decision To Subcategorize

    On November 4, 1996, we received a request from CMI to create a 
two-piece beer and beverage can subcategory within the Metal Can 
(Surface Coating) source category. We reviewed the request to 
subcategorize and conducted our own analysis of existing metal can 
manufacturing and surface coating operations. Based on the information 
presented by CMI and on our analysis of the source category, we 
determined that designating two-piece beer and beverage cans as a 
subcategory was appropriate under the authority described below and for 
the following reasons.
    In general, we make the decision to establish subcategories within 
a source category as part of the process of developing a MACT standard 
applicable to that category. In establishing subcategories, we 
typically consider factors such as process operations, emission 
characteristics, control device applicability, and opportunities for 
pollution prevention. For the two-piece aluminum beer and beverage can 
subcategory of the metal can industry, the distinction is based 
primarily on differences in the process operations (e.g., types of 
coatings, inks and solvents used); associated process equipment; and 
process configurations (e.g., overall process line size and facility 
layout).
    A two-piece beer and beverage can subcategory is consistent with 
existing new source performance standards and control technology 
guideline approaches. Subpart WW of 40 CFR part 63 addresses volatile 
organic compound emissions (many of which are also listed as HAP) and 
is specifically titled: ``Standards of Performance for the Beverage Can 
Surface Coating Industry'' and defines beverage can as ``any two-piece 
steel or aluminum container in which soft drinks or beer, including 
malt liquor, are packaged'' and two-piece can as ``any beverage can 
that consists of a body manufactured from a single piece of steel and 
aluminum.''
    Metal can surface coating operations are differentiated by the type 
of product(s) stored inside the can which determine the types of 
coatings applied to the interior/exterior surfaces of the can. The 
manufacturing and coating processes equipment configuration within the 
metal can industry segments are different in terms of configuration, 
size, and complexity than other types of can manufacturing. None of the 
61 two-piece beverage can facilities located in the U.S. produce other 
types of cans. There are six facilities that have an ``ends'' (e.g., 
can tops with push/pull tab) line as part of the on-site manufacturing 
operations, and there are three ``ends'' only facilities that produce 
ends for two-piece beer and beverage cans. Can ``ends'' are not 
included in this subcategory and will be addressed separately.
    Our analysis of existing metal can manufacturing and surface 
coating operations resulted in the decision to establish a subcategory 
for two-piece aluminum beer and beverage cans. This subcategory 
includes all coating; cleaning; and associated (i.e., storage, mixing, 
transfer, handling, surface preparation (can washers), and wastewater) 
operations related to can bodies, except ends.
    As provided by section 112(e)(4), our decision to create the 
specified subcategory is not a final Agency action and as such is not 
reviewable at this time. The decision to create the specified 
subcategory will be final and subject to review only at such time as we 
decide to delete the subcategory or when we promulgate a MACT standard 
applicable to the subcategory. In the event that we decide to deny the 
present petition to delist this subcategory, we may reconsider our 
decision on subcategorization during subsequent development of a MACT 
standard for the Metal Can (surface coating) category.

III. Completeness Determination and Request for Public Comment

    On November 4, 1996, the CMI submitted a petition to remove the 
two-piece can subcategory from the Source Category List. The EPA 
reviewed the initial petition to delete the subcategory and determined 
that additional information was needed on several of the HAPs emitted 
by this subcategory in order for the petition to be complete. The 
petitioner submitted additional documents from 1997 through April 1999 
to address the information gaps.
    After reviewing all of the supplemental information, we determined 
that the essential subject areas had been addressed, and that the 
petition is complete and ready for technical review. The EPA has 
therefore determined that the petition was complete as of the date of 
the last supplemental submission on April 21, 1999. The EPA must act to 
grant or deny this petition within 12 months from that date. The EPA 
has begun its comprehensive technical review of the CMI petition. We 
invite interested members of the public to submit any additional 
information which may be relevant to our analysis of whether the 
statutory criteria for delisting are met.

[[Page 56496]]

IV. Description of the Petition

    The complete petition provided by CMI contains the following 
information: A. Identification of 16 HAPs emitted from the two-piece 
can subcategory (Table 1). The petition provides more detailed 
information and analysis on ethylene glycol butyl ether (EGBE) and 
formaldehyde than on the other HAPs. The petitioner provides more data 
on EGBE due to the fact that it is the HAP emitted in highest 
quantities, and more on formaldehyde because it is a probable human 
carcinogen emitted in moderate quantities.

                    Table 1.--Identification of HAPs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Chemical
                                                             abstract
                           HAP                                service
                                                           registry No.
                                                              (CASRN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE)..................        111-76-2
Formaldehyde............................................         50-00-0
Diethylene glycol butyl ether (DGBE)....................        112-34-5
Diethylene glycol ethyl ether (DGEE)....................        111-90-0
Diethylene glycol hexyl ether (DGHE)....................        112-59-4
Ethylene glycol hexyl ether (EGHE)......................        112-25-4
Benzene.................................................         71-43-2
Ethyl benzene...........................................        100-41-4
Ethylene oxide..........................................         75-21-8
Hydrogen fluoride.......................................       7664-39-3
Methanol................................................         67-56-1
Methyl isobutyl ketone..................................        108-10-1
Propylene oxide.........................................         75-56-9
Styrene.................................................        100-42-5
Toluene.................................................        108-88-3
Xylenes.................................................       1330-20-7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. For each HAP, the petitioner provides summaries of and 
references for qualitative and quantitative human health effects 
information based on data from EPA, the State of California and from 
industry. For EGBE and formaldehyde, CMI presents analyses of human 
health effects studies.
    C. The petition includes emissions estimates for all HAPs listed in 
Table 1 and identifies the route of exposure of potential concern as 
being air. To assess maximum off-site air concentrations of HAPs, CMI 
uses a tiered modeling approach described in a 1992 EPA document, ``A 
Tiered Approach for Assessing Risks due to Emissions of Hazardous Air 
Pollutants'' (EPA-450/4-92-001). Tiered modeling involves the use of 
successive modeling techniques to move from conservative ``worst case'' 
estimates of the ambient concentrations of a substance emitted from a 
source toward more realistic site specific estimates of the ambient 
concentrations.
    D. For all identified HAPs, the petitioner provides numerical 
estimates of risks to humans.
    E. The CMI's ecological assessment addresses whether HAP emissions 
are likely to result in adverse environmental effects. The analysis and 
discussion consider emission levels, atmospheric fate, biodegradation 
and bioconcentration, and conclude that all HAP emissions from this 
subcategory are unlikely to have an adverse effect on aquatic biota, 
terrestrial wildlife, or other natural resources. To support this 
position, the petitioner uses as its principle source of information 
the EPA's Hazardous Substances Database. For EGBE, CMI provides 
additional information; an ecological analysis for EGBE which was also 
submitted to the Agency under the petition to remove EGBE from the HAP 
list. The petitioner combines that analysis with a discussion of 
potential adverse impacts of EGBE from two-piece can operations and 
finds that adverse environmental effects are unlikely to occur as a 
result of EGBE emissions from the subcategory.
    F. The petition includes an uncertainty analysis which considers 
emissions projections, emissions modeling, exposure analysis, mixtures 
and co-location of facilities.
    The petition states that the data and parameters employed in each 
step of risk assessment embody some degree of uncertainty that could 
affect the conclusions drawn. The petitioner has attempted to reduce 
the likelihood of underestimation by using upper bound estimates, 
parameters and assumptions which result in maximum exposure estimates 
that do not exceed a health-based exposure limit for any emitted HAP. 
To further reduce the likelihood of underestimating risks, the petition 
considers additivity by summing the potential impacts of all of the 
emitted noncarcinogens and by summing potential impacts of all emitted 
carcinogens.

    Dated: October 8, 1999.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 99-27142 Filed 10-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P