National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), 69210-69237 [05-22108]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 218 (Monday, November 14, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69210-69237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22108]



[[Page 69209]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic 
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline); Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 69210]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2003-0138, FRL-7993-7]
RIN 2060-AM77


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic 
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On February 3, 2004 (69 FR 5038), the EPA issued national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for organic liquids 
distribution (non-gasoline) (OLD NESHAP) under section 112 of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA). In this action, EPA is proposing to amend portions of 
the OLD NESHAP in response to petitions for judicial review and for 
administrative reconsideration of the promulgated rule. The proposed 
amendments are being made to clarify the applicability and control 
requirements for storage tanks and transfer racks, and amend the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for affected sources for which 
there are no control requirements. The proposed amendments do not 
reflect the full set of possible amendments EPA intends to propose in 
response to all of the issues raised in the petitions for review and 
reconsideration. The Agency is separately developing a proposed 
response to some of those issues.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before December 29, 2005.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by November 25, 
2005, the EPA will hold a public hearing by November 29, 2005. To 
request a public hearing, contact Ms. Martha Smith, EPA, Waste and 
Chemical Processes Group (C439-03), Emission Standards Division, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2421, facsimile number (919) 
541-0246, electronic mail address: smith.martha@epa.gov.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
OAR-2003-0138, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: https://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment systems, is EPA's preferred 
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     E-mail: A-and-R-Docket@epamail.epa.gov
     Fax: 202-566-1741
     Mail: (in duplicate, if possible) to Air and Radiation 
Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: (in duplicate, if possible) to: Air and 
Radiation Docket, Attention Docket ID Number OAR-2003-0138, EPA, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-102, Washington, DC 20460. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    We request that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person 
listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0138. 
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov Web sites are 
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31, 
2002 (67 FR 38102). For additional instructions on submitting comments, 
go to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in either the 
EDOCKET index at https://www.epa.gov/edocket or in the legacy docket, A-
98-13. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Air 
and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 
a.m. at the EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Martha Smith, EPA, Waste and 
Chemical Processes Group (C439-03), Emission Standards Division, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2421, facsimile number (919) 
541-3207, electronic mail address: smith.martha@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities 
potentially regulated by this action include:

[[Page 69211]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     NAICS *
                     Category                          code     SIC *  code     Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.........................................       325211         2821  Operations at major sources that
                                                        325192         2865   transfer organic liquids into or
                                                        325188         2869   out of the plant site, including:
                                                         32411         2911   liquid storage terminals, crude
                                                         49311         4226   oil pipeline stations, petroleum
                                                         49319         4612   refineries, chemical manufacturing
                                                         48611         5169   facilities, and other
                                                         42269         5171   manufacturing facilities with
                                                         42271                collocated OLD operations.
Federal Government...............................  ...........  ...........  Federal agency facilities that
                                                                              operate any of the types of
                                                                              entities listed under the
                                                                              ``industry'' category in this
                                                                              table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Considered to be the primary industrial codes for the plant sites with OLD operations.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEEE. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult the individual described in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Submitting Comments Containing CBI. Do not submit this information 
to EPA through EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the 
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within 
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this action will also be available through the 
WWW. Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on EPA's 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly 
proposed or promulgated rules: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN at 
EPA's Web site provides information and technology exchange in various 
areas of air pollution control.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. 
Martha Smith, Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standards 
Division, (C439-04), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number 
(919) 541-2421, at least 2 days in advance of the potential date of the 
public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must 
also call Ms. Smith to verify the time, date, and location of the 
hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the 
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the 
proposed emissions standards.
    Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in reading this 
preamble to the proposed rule amendments.

I. Background
II. Proposed Amendments to the Organic Liquids Distribution NESHAP
    A. How are definitions being revised?
    B. How are control options being revised?
    C. How Are My Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements Being Revised?
    D. How are compliance requirements being changed?
    E. How is the affected source being changed?
    F. Miscellaneous Edits
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

    On February 3, 2004 (69 FR 5063), the Federal Register published 
EPA's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic 
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE). 
Subpart EEEE sets emission limits and work practice standards for 
storage tanks, transfer racks, equipment leak components in organic 
liquid service, transport vehicles, and containers. These standards 
identify several control options for storage tanks and transfer racks 
that meet certain criteria. Because storage tanks and transfer racks in 
OLD operation may also be covered by other existing NESHAP, subpart 
EEEE addresses these overlap situations. Finally, subpart EEEE also 
contains notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
    Since publication of the OLD NESHAP, EPA has received several 
petitions for administrative reconsideration of the OLD NESHAP, and 
several petitions for judicial review have been filed in the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Petitions for reconsideration were 
submitted to EPA

[[Page 69212]]

by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the General Electric 
Company, and the Prince William Sound Regional Citizen's Advisory 
Council (RCAC). Petitions for judicial review were filed by the 
American Chemical Council, the Coke Oven Environmental Task Force, the 
General Electric Company, and Mr. Stan Stephens. On April 5, 2004, the 
court consolidated the petitions for review under Stan Stephens v. 
USEPA, No. 04-1112 (DC Cir.). On April 30, 2004, the court granted the 
motion of Alyeska Pipeline Service Company to intervene in the case and 
granted the parties' joint motion to hold the case in abeyance pending 
EPA's response to the petitions for reconsideration.
    In responding to the petitions, EPA plans to publish two separate 
rulemakings. Today's proposed amendments are the first of these two 
actions. The proposed amendments in this notice are those that the 
Agency can make without substantial analysis of data and can be made 
more quickly to ensure correct implementation of the final rule. The 
remaining items, which are associated with the incorporation of 
wastewater into the OLD NESHAP, will be addressed in the second 
rulemaking. Today's proposed amendments, therefore, are not to be 
considered EPA's response to all of the issues raised in the petitions.

II. Proposed Amendments to the Organic Liquids Distribution NESHAP

    We are proposing a number of changes to the OLD NESHAP. For storage 
tanks, the proposed changes include, but are not limited to, control 
options for those storing high vapor pressure liquids and overlap with 
other storage tank rules. For transfer racks, the proposed changes 
include, but are not limited to, defining total actual annual facility-
level organic liquid loading volume and how to calculate its value, 
revising the definition of transfer rack, and compliance dates and 
control options as the result of changes in facility-level loading 
volumes. Numerous changes are being proposed with regard to 
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements including, but 
not limited to: (1) Requirements for emission sources that are not 
required to be controlled under the OLD NESHAP, including startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plans; (2) operating scenarios; (3) initial 
notification of compliance status (NOCS); and (4) Department of 
Transportation (DOT) certification records for transport vehicles. 
Other proposed changes include, but are not limited to, adding vapor 
balancing as a control option for containers, clarifying that cargo 
tank work practice standards only apply to tanks equipped with vapor 
collection equipment, allowing an alternative ASTM International method 
to Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A), four new definitions and 
cross-referencing of definitions to other regulations, and removing the 
``1-hour'' requirement for offsite records. In addition, today's 
proposed amendments would correct typographical errors, including 
incorrect cross-references.

A. How Are Definitions Being Revised?

    1. Total Actual Annual Facility-Level Organic Liquid Loading 
Volume. One of the criteria for determining whether a transfer rack is 
to be controlled or not is the annual loading volume of organic liquids 
at the facility. Absent from the OLD NESHAP are a definition of ``total 
actual annual facility-level organic liquid loading volume'' and 
guidance on how to calculate this value. Therefore, we are proposing to 
add a definition to the final rule and include in the definition a 
detailed explanation of how to calculate this value for existing 
facilities and for new facilities.
    In proposing this definition, we note two important items. First, 
the loading volume considers both transfers made between facilities 
(for transport out of the facility) and transfers made within a 
facility (for transport within the facility). This clarifies the intent 
to consider both types of transfers and corrects an error in items 7 
through 10 in Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, when the phrase 
``out of the facility'' is used. Second, we are proposing to calculate 
this value as an average over 3 years of annual loading volumes rather 
than a single annual value. Allowing a facility to average its loading 
volume over 3 years is reasonable because this would smooth out 
fluctuations in loading volumes from year to year that might arise due 
to temporary situations, thereby eliminating different control 
requirement outcomes caused by temporary changes below or above the 
throughput cut-off level that would occur with an annual time period. 
The proposed 3-year average should also allow facilities sufficient 
lead time in tracking their loading volume to assess the need for 
controlling transfer racks should the loading volume exceed the 
criterion's trigger value.
    We are proposing the methodology to be used to calculate this value 
as an average using 3 years of actual loading volume data. The value 
would be recalculated once per year. For example, a facility would 
collect loading volume data for years 1, 2, and 3. At the end of year 
3, the three annual values would be averaged to calculate the total 
actual annual facility-level organic liquid loading volume. This value 
would represent the loading volume used in determining whether the 
transfer racks at the facility would need to be controlled. At the end 
of year 4, the facility would calculate the annual average using the 
loading volume data for years 2, 3, and 4. This pattern would repeat 
itself each year.
    For existing affected sources, we are proposing that this 
calculation be made on a calendar year basis, starting January 1, 2004. 
If an existing affected source does not have actual loading volume data 
for the time period from January 1, 2004, through February 2, 2004, 
(the time period before the effective date of the OLD NESHAP), the 
owner or operator would calculate loading volume for that period based 
on the average loading volume from February 3, 2004, through December 
31, 2004.
    For new affected sources, we are proposing the option of making 
this calculation beginning on the actual startup date of the facility 
or on the first day of the calendar month following the month in which 
actual startup occurs. For example, if actual startup is March 13, 
2005, the facility has the option of either using March 13 to March 12 
as its annual basis or April 1 to March 31 as its annual basis. We are 
also proposing that once owners or operators select the beginning date 
to start their calculations, no changes can be made thereafter.
    New affected sources are required to be in compliance at startup. 
In order for a new affected source to be in compliance, the owner or 
operator must make a determination as to which transfer racks need to 
be controlled. However, new affected sources will not have actual 
loading volume data at their startup to make this determination. 
Therefore, we are proposing that new facilities make projections as to 
the facility-level loading volume for the first 3 years of operation. 
Based on this forecast, the owner or operator would determine the total 
actual annual facility-level organic liquid loading volume and use the 
result to determine which transfer racks need to be controlled at 
startup.
    At the end of the first year following the date selected to begin 
the calculation, the owner or operator would calculate the 3-year 
average using the first year's actual loading volume plus a new 
forecast of the loading volume for the next 2 years. At the end of the 
second year, the owner or

[[Page 69213]]

operator would calculate its 3-year average using the first 2 years' 
actual loading volume data plus a new forecast of loading for the next 
year. At the end of the third year, and for all subsequent years, 
following startup, the owner or operator would have actual loading 
volume data for 3 years and would no longer need to forecast loading 
volumes. The owner or operator would use the actual loading volume data 
for the first 3 years to make this calculation, and then use the 
``rolling'' 3 years of data for future calculations, as would owners 
and operators of existing affected sources.
    2. Transfer Rack. In the OLD NESHAP, the definition of transfer 
rack includes the concept of loading of organic liquids into transport 
vehicles. Unfortunately, there were two shortcomings with the 
definition.
    First, the definition is inconsistent with how the term is used 
when describing the affected sources. As stated in the OLD NESHAP, 40 
CFR part 63, subpart EEEE applies to (emphasis added): ``transfer racks 
at which organic liquids are loaded into or unloaded out of transport 
vehicles and/or containers'' (see 40 CFR 63.2338(b)(2)) and ``all 
transport vehicles while they are loading or unloading organic liquids 
at transfer racks'' (see 40 CFR 63.2338(b)(4)). However, in the 
definition section of the OLD NESHAP, transfer rack is defined in part 
(emphasis added) as ``a single system used to load organic liquids into 
transport vehicles.'' The definition of transfer rack, by limiting 
itself to only the loading of liquids, creates an inconsistency with 
the use of the term when defining the affected source. In the affected 
source, transfer racks can be loading or unloading organic liquids 
(emphasis added).
    The intent of the rule is that, for purposes of defining the 
affected source, both loading and unloading racks are to be included. 
For purposes of control requirements, however, the OLD NESHAP apply 
only to racks when they are loading organic liquids into transport 
vehicles or, for new sources only, containers.
    To accomplish this intent, we are proposing to modify the 
definition of ``transfer rack'' to also refer to unloading. Because of 
this proposed change to the definition of transfer rack, we are also 
proposing numerous language changes to ensure that the rule language is 
specific that control is required for transfer racks when they are 
loading organic liquids into cargo tanks or when they are filling 
containers.
    For new sources, transfer racks may also load containers, which the 
definition failed to mention. Therefore, we are proposing to add 
containers to the definition of transfer rack.
    3. Cross Reference to Other Rules. The OLD NESHAP use several terms 
that are defined in other subparts, but not directly in the OLD NESHAP. 
We are proposing to revise the introductory paragraph at 40 CFR 63.2406 
to cross-reference the other 40 CFR part 63 subparts that are 
referenced in the OLD NESHAP. This is being done by citing the specific 
definition sections of the applicable subparts in the same manner we 
cited the definitions found in 40 CFR 63.2 of the General Provisions. 
This change would not make the OLD NESHAP any more or less stringent, 
but simply clarifies the intent to use those definitions in the other 
subparts as appropriate and necessary to implement the OLD NESHAP.
    We are proposing to add four new definitions--bottoms receivers, 
surge control vessels, low-throughput transfer racks, and high-
throughput transfer racks--to the OLD NESHAP. These terms are added 
because their definitions in the cross-referenced rules do not apply to 
the OLD NESHAP and, therefore, needed to be added.
    We are proposing to add a sentence to the introductory paragraph of 
40 CFR 63.2406 to clarify a potential conflict in priority between the 
OLD NESHAP (subpart EEEE) and 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP. The 
introductory language in the OLD NESHAP and in subpart PP both claim 
that the terms as defined within each subpart shall have precedent over 
any other definition for those same terms in another subpart. We are 
proposing to amend the language in the OLD NESHAP to specifically 
override the language in subpart PP such that the terms ``container'' 
and ``safety device'' shall have the meaning given them in the OLD 
NESHAP notwithstanding the introductory language in 40 CFR 63.921.
    We do not believe any other changes to the definition section of 
the OLD rule are necessary. When complying with the OLD NESHAP, an 
owner or operator may be required to comply with another subpart (e.g., 
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, for equipment leak components). If a 
term needs to be defined in order to comply with subpart UU and that 
term is not defined in the OLD NESHAP, then the owner or operator would 
use the definition found in subpart UU. In summary, when complying with 
the OLD NESHAP, if a term is used and it is not defined in the OLD 
NESHAP, then that term has the meaning assigned it in the 40 CFR part 
63 subpart that is being complied with.
    4. Startup and Shutdown. In 40 CFR 63.2406, we are proposing to 
clarify the definitions of ``startup'' and ``shutdown'' by adding the 
phrase ``(other than as part of normal operation for a batch-type 
operation), including equipment'' after ``or portion thereof.''
    The proposed wording for ``shutdown'' would now read: ``Shutdown 
means the cessation of operation of an OLD affected source, or portion 
thereof (other than as part of normal operation of a batch-type 
operation), including equipment required or used to comply with this 
subpart, or the emptying and degassing of a storage tank. Shutdown as 
defined here includes, but is not limited to, events that result from 
periodic maintenance, replacement of equipment, or repair.''
    The proposed wording for ``startup'' would now read: ``Startup 
means the setting in operation of an OLD affected source, or portion 
thereof (other than as part of normal operation of a batch-type 
operation), for any purpose. Startup also includes the placing in 
operation of any individual piece of equipment required or used to 
comply with this subpart including, but not limited to, control devices 
and monitors.''
    The normal operation of transfer racks is such that at times a 
transfer rack is transferring liquids and at other times it is not 
transferring liquids. We received questions about whether instances in 
which transfer racks begin or cease transferring liquids as part of 
normal ``batch'' type operations would constitute ``startup'' or 
``shutdown'' episodes. We never intended such instances to be 
interpreted in this way. Therefore, to avoid misunderstandings, we are 
proposing to revise the definitions of startup and shutdown to make it 
clear that the commencement or cessation of actual transfer of liquids 
through a transfer rack as part of batch-type operations does not 
constitute a ``startup'' or a ``shutdown'' of the transfer rack within 
the meaning of the OLD NESHAP. As a result of this proposed change, 
emission sources (i.e., transfer racks) that are subject to the OLD 
NESHAP, but for which control is not required, would not be required to 
minimize emissions during such periods as would be required under the 
General Provisions (i.e., 40 CFR 63.11(e)(1)) and would not be required 
to be addressed in a facility's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 
(i.e., 40 CFR 63.11(e)(3)). Likewise, emission sources subject to the 
OLD NESHAP for which control is required would remain subject to the 
control requirements during routine commencement or

[[Page 69214]]

cessation of operations that are part of normal batch-type operations.
    These proposed changes would also make the OLD NESHAP consistent 
with other recent EPA standards that recognize cessation of operations 
that is part of the normal characteristics of batch operations and 
batch-type operations is not considered ``startup'' or ``shutdown'' for 
purposes of startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans. Rather than 
revising the definitions of ``startup'' and ``shutdown'' to achieve 
this purpose, an alternative may be to simply amend Table 12 to 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart EEEE, to clarify that the duty to minimize emissions 
during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, in 40 CFR 
63.11(e)(1) of the General Provisions, does not apply to emissions 
sources that are part of the OLD affected source but are not subject to 
emissions control requirements. EPA requests comment on this 
alternative approach.
    5. Vapor Balancing System. We are proposing revisions to this 
definition to include reference to containers. We are proposing to 
extend the option of vapor balancing systems to containers. We are also 
proposing to clarify that vapors need to be ``directly conveyed'' to a 
``chemical manufacturing process unit,'' and are, thus, proposing to 
replace ``compresses the vapors for feeding into a chemical process 
manufacturing unit'' with ``compresses the vapor for direct conveyance 
to a chemical manufacturing unit.''
    6. Vapor Collection System. We are proposing to add reference to 
the conveyance of vapors displaced during the loading of containers to 
this definition. The OLD NESHAP inadvertently do not contain this 
reference, even though the use of control devices to control emissions 
from the filling of containers is a control option.

B. How Are Control Options Being Revised?

    1. Storage Tanks with High Vapor Pressure Liquids. Between proposal 
and promulgation, we added the equivalent control option of routing 
emissions to a fuel gas system or back to a process, per 40 CFR part 
63, subpart SS, for storage tanks storing liquids with vapor pressures 
less than 11.1 psia. The OLD NESHAP did not extend this option to 
storage tanks storing liquids with vapor pressures greater than 11.1 
psia. This was not an intentional exclusion. Most, but not all, tanks 
storing liquids with high vapor pressure are pressurized. Pressurized 
tanks do not have emissions. However, non-pressurized tanks storing 
liquids with high vapor pressures have the same types of emissions 
(working and/or breathing losses) as those tanks storing liquids with 
lower vapor pressures. In these instances, the controls that are 
applicable to the tanks storing the liquids with vapor pressures less 
than 11.1 psia are applicable to tanks storing liquids with vapor 
pressures greater than 11.1 psia. Therefore, we are proposing 
revisions, which appear in Tables 2 and Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart EEEE, to allow these storage tanks the same equivalent option 
as those storing lower vapor pressure liquids.
    2. Overlap of Storage Tank Rules. The Agency is proposing to revise 
the manner in which the OLD NESHAP address the overlap of the OLD 
NESHAP with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb (Standards of Performance for 
Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid 
Storage Vessels) for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or 
Modification Commenced After July 23, 1984) and with 40 CFR part 61, 
subpart Y (National Emission Standard for Benzene Emissions from 
Benzene Storage Vessels). In the OLD NESHAP, 40 CFR 63.2396(a), storage 
tanks that are subject to the OLD NESHAP requirements (which reference 
40 CFR part 63, subpart WW) and either of these other two rules are 
required to comply with the requirements of the OLD NESHAP when the 
tank is in OLD operation.
    Another recent rule (i.e., the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP, or 
MON) promulgated by the Agency handles this overlap in a different 
fashion. In the MON, we allow facilities with storage tanks subject to 
both the MON and either of the other two rules noted above to be 
considered in compliance with the MON when they are in compliance with 
either of the other two rules.
    In assessing whether this approach was appropriate for the OLD 
NESHAP, we reviewed the OLD data used to establish the MACT floor and 
compared the requirements of the OLD NESHAP with 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Kb, and 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y. Based on that review, 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Kb, is equal to or more stringent than the MACT floor 
established for storage tanks. Therefore, allowing a facility to comply 
with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, or, for that matter, with 40 CFR part 
61, subpart Y, would not be less stringent than the MACT floor for the 
OLD NESHAP and provides the same level of control as that found in 40 
CFR part 63, subpart WW. We, therefore, are proposing to revise the 
wording in 40 CFR 63.2396(a) to allow facilities to comply with 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart Kb, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, for these storage 
tanks. However, we are not proposing to revise the 5-year recordkeeping 
requirement for OLD storage tanks. This is a longer timeframe than 
found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, or in 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y, 
which have a 2-year timeframe for keeping records. Finally, we are not 
proposing to revise the OLD monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements for OLD storage tanks that are controlled using closed 
vent systems (which is consistent with the MON). In sum, we have 
determined that the MACT floor is being maintained, and there is no 
loss in stringency as the result of the proposed changes.
    3. Transfer Racks. While we believe our intent is clear in 40 CFR 
63.2346(b) as to which transfer racks are to be controlled, the 
language is not accurate. The organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 
criterion is applied to the individual rack, but the ``facility-level 
organic liquid loading volume'' criterion is not. The loading volume 
criterion is based on the volume for all transfer racks and not for the 
individual transfer rack. Therefore, we are proposing to revise the 
introductory text as follows:

    ``For each transfer rack that is part of the collection of 
transfer racks that meets the total actual annual facility-level 
organic liquid loading volume criterion for control in Table 2 to 
this subpart, items 7 through 10, you must comply with paragraph 
(b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section for each arm in the transfer 
rack loading an organic liquid whose organic HAP content meets the 
organic HAP criterion for control in Table 2 to this subpart, items 
7 through 10.''

    4. Changes in OLD Loading Volume. Over time, the OLD loading volume 
at a facility may increase or decrease. These changes may be large 
enough that the 3-year rolling average creates a situation where a 
facility that is controlling its transfer racks no longer meets the 
criteria for control, or where a facility that is not controlling its 
transfer racks now meets the criteria for control. The OLD NESHAP does 
not explicitly indicate the control requirements when a facility 
encounters such situations. We are, therefore, proposing language to 
specifically indicate the control requirements and timing when such 
changes occur.
    We are proposing that if a facility is controlling its transfer 
racks, but the loading volume decreases at a later date to such a level 
that the criteria for control are no longer being met, compliance with 
the control requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.2386(b)(1), (2), or (3) 
is no longer required until such time that the total

[[Page 69215]]

actual facility-wide organic loading volume increases to a level 
requiring control.
    We are also proposing that if a facility is not controlling its 
transfer racks, but the loading volume increases at a later date to 
such a level that the criteria for control is now met, compliance with 
the control requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.2386(b)(1), (2), or (3) 
is required immediately, except as may be provided for existing sources 
only.
    5. Transfer Racks and Table 2 Emission Limits. The OLD NESHAP 
require a transfer rack to comply with each of the three emission 
limitations identified in item 7 in Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEEE. These emission limitations are: (1) Reduce emissions by 98 
percent reduction or to 20 ppmv; (2) vent emissions through a closed 
vent system to any combination of control devices in compliance with 40 
CFR part 63, subpart SS; and (3) meet one of two work practice 
standards specified in Table 4 to subpart EEEE. Requiring a facility to 
comply with all three emission limitations was not our intent and 
further is not technically feasible. To correct this, we are proposing 
to combine the first two emission limitations into a single emission 
limitation (which we incorrectly split into two limitations between 
proposal and promulgation and which would now parallel the correct 
construct of item 6 in Table 2 to subpart EEEE) and clarify that a 
facility is to comply with either 98 percent reduction or 20 ppmv 
emission limitation or one of the two work practice standards.
    6. Transfer Racks and Routing Emissions to a Process. The OLD 
NESHAP allow a facility the option to comply with 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart SS, which allows a facility to route emissions to fuel gas 
systems or back to a process (emphasis added). The OLD NESHAP 
inadvertently use the phrase ``the process,'' which has the potential 
effect of unnecessarily limiting a facility's option for routing vent 
gases. Therefore, we are proposing to use the phrase ``a process'' in 
conjunction with this compliance option.
    7. Vapor balancing and containers. The OLD NESHAP do not allow 
vapor balancing as a control option for the filling of containers. 
However, vapor balancing can be an effective control option for the 
filling of containers. Therefore, we are proposing vapor balancing, 
under certain conditions, as a control option for the filling of 
containers, identifying applicability for existing sources and new 
sources and revising the definitions of ``vapor balancing systems'' and 
``vapor collection system.''
    8. Vapor balancing and routing of displaced vapors. The control 
option of vapor balancing for transfer racks is stated inconsistently 
in the OLD NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.2346(b)(3) and in Table 7 to 40 CFR part 
63, subpart EEEE. We are proposing to resolve this inconsistency by 
revising 40 CFR 63.2346(b)(3) to include routing of vapors to a process 
unit.
    The OLD NESHAP direct that the routing of the displaced vapors is 
to be made to the ``appropriate storage tank.'' We are proposing to 
revise this phrase to now read ``to the storage tank from which the 
liquid being loaded originated.'' We believe this change makes the rule 
clearer.
    9. Cargo Tank Work Practice Standards. The cargo tank work 
practices in the OLD NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.2346(d) and items 4 and 5 in 
Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE) create a technological 
inconsistency--requiring vapor tightness on transport vehicles being 
loaded at transfer racks that were not being controlled. We are 
proposing to correct this error by requiring vapor tightness only on 
transport vehicles being loaded at transfer racks that are being 
controlled. The proposed amendment would affect both cargo tanks with 
and cargo tanks without vapor collection equipment.

C. How Are My Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements 
Being Revised?

    1. Emission sources not subject to control. We are proposing to 
overhaul the OLD NESHAP notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements for emission sources not subject to control. The proposed 
amendments are found mostly in a proposed new section, 40 CFR 63.2343, 
with some additional changes needed in other parts of the rule. The OLD 
NESHAP currently identifies requirements for these sources in 40 CFR 
63.2346(h) and 63.2386(c)(9). Under today's proposed amendments, 40 CFR 
63.2346(h) would be deleted and ``reserved,'' because it is no longer 
needed. With regard to 40 CFR 63.2386(c)(9), the proposed amendments 
would revise (as described below) and redesignate the paragraph (as 
proposed 40 CFR 63.2386(c)(10)(i)).
    In today's proposed rulemaking, we are proposing to exempt all 
emission sources in the affected source not requiring control under the 
OLD NESHAP from notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements, except as otherwise specified in the proposed new 40 CFR 
63.2343. The proposed exceptions would apply to storage tanks and 
transfer racks.
    Storage tanks and transfer rack that would never be required to be 
controlled. For storage tanks and transfer racks that would never be 
required to be controlled under the OLD NESHAP as they currently apply, 
we are proposing that owners and operators submit an Initial 
Notification identifying such emission sources; and keep documentation 
verifying the ``no control'' status be kept up-to-date by the owner or 
operator. By the phrase ``up-to-date,'' we mean that such emission 
sources at a facility are identified in the documentation regardless of 
when the documentation was last compiled. Further, this documentation 
needs to be up-to-date only as it pertains to emission sources that are 
still physically present at a facility.
    The proposed amendments would also have the effect of eliminating 
the requirement for listing these sources in the NOCS, first compliance 
report, and subsequent compliance reports. Once the Initial 
Notification has been submitted, we believe it is unnecessary to 
continue to identify such emission sources in NOCS, first compliance 
report, and subsequent compliance reports as long as owners and 
operators keep documentation that such emission sources would never 
require control under the OLD NESHAP.
    Storage tanks and transfer racks that could be required to be 
controlled, but for which control is not currently required. For 
storage tanks and transfer racks that could be required to be 
controlled, but for which control is not currently required, we are 
proposing changes to notification and reporting and to documentation.
    We believe that it is important for an owner or operator to 
identify those storage tanks and transfer racks for which control could 
be required if and when the HAP content or throughput changes, even if 
control is not required at the time either the NOCS of the first 
compliance report is filed. Therefore, we are proposing owners and 
operators submit a list of all transfer racks (except those at which 
only unloading of organic liquids occurs) and of tanks greater than or 
equal to 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons) that are part of the 
affected source but are not subject to any of the emission limitations, 
operating limits, or work practice standards of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEEE (see proposed 40 CFR 63.2386(c)(10)(i)).
    Owners and operators would be required to submit this list with 
either the NOCS or the first Compliance report, whichever is submitted 
first.

[[Page 69216]]

After the NOCS or a Compliance report has been submitted, changes to a 
storage tank or transfer rack may have been made that affect its 
compliance status (e.g., an uncontrolled storage tank becomes subject 
to control). The types of changes that we are proposing to be reported 
are:
     Any storage tank or transfer rack that became subject to 
control since the filing of the last Compliance report (see proposed 40 
CFR 63.2386(d)(3)). The intent here is to cover any storage tank or 
transfer rack that existed at the facility when the last Compliance 
report was filed, but has undergone a change that now subjects the 
storage tank or transfer rack to control; and any storage tank or 
transfer rack that was constructed at the facility since the last 
Compliance report was filed, that is being used (e.g., contains 
liquid), that is in OLD service and that meets the OLD criteria for 
control.
     Any storage tank greater than or equal to 18.9 cubic 
meters (5,000 gallons) and any transfer rack that is part of the 
affected source, but which are not subject to any of the emission 
limitations, operating limits, or work practice standards of the OLD 
NESHAP, that became part of the affected source since the filing of the 
NOCS or the last Compliance report (see proposed 40 CFR 63.2386(d)(4)). 
The intent here is to cover any storage tank or transfer rack that was 
constructed at the facility since the NOCS or the last Compliance 
report was filed, that is part of the affected source (i.e., is in OLD 
service), but does not meet any of the criteria for control under the 
OLD rule; and any storage tank or transfer rack that existed at the 
facility prior to the filing of the NOCS or last Compliance report that 
was not in OLD service that is now in OLD service (i.e., is now part of 
the affected source), but does not meet any of the criteria for control 
under the OLD NESHAP.
    We are proposing that such changes be reported in either the NOCS 
or the first Compliance report (depending on which was submitted first 
(see proposed 40 CFR 63.2382(d)(2)(viii) and 63.2386(c)(10(ii)) and in 
subsequent Compliance reports whenever such changes occur after the 
filing of the last Compliance report (see proposed 40 CFR 63.2386(d)(3) 
and (4)).
    Proposed 40 CFR 63.2343 specifies the documentation that would be 
required for these emission sources. We are also proposing to modify 40 
CFR 63.2390, What records must I keep?, to clarify the applicability of 
proposed 40 CFR 63.2343 and 40 CFR 63.2390 to all emission sources 
subject to the OLD NESHAP.
    For storage tanks that could be subject to control, but are not 
required to be controlled, we are proposing that documentation be kept 
that demonstrates the status of the tank, including a record of the 
annual average true vapor pressure of the organic liquid being stored 
in each such tank.
    For transfer racks that could be subject to control, but are not 
required to be controlled, we are proposing that documentation be kept 
that demonstrates the status of the transfer rack.
    General Provisions. For all emission sources for which control is 
not required, we are proposing to amend the applicability of the 
General Provisions in two ways. First, we are proposing to modify the 
applicability of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by not requiring startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction (SSM) plans for these emission sources because SSM 
plans apply to control devices used to comply with regulations, and 
these emission sources are not required to be controlled.
    Second, in the proposed new 40 CFR 63.2343 for emission sources not 
required to be controlled, we specifically identify those changes that 
require a facility to submit information and are proposing to modify 
the applicability of 40 CFR 63.9(j) such that it would not apply to 
these emission sources.
    2. Transport Vehicles and DOT Certifications. In the OLD NESHAP, we 
require owners or operators to keep documentation on the DOT 
certifications for transport vehicles loaded at their facilities. Other 
NESHAP allow an alternative to this requirement, which we believe can 
also be applied to transport vehicles loading organic liquids. This 
proposed alternative would allow owners and operators to simply record 
in a number of acceptable methods the verification of DOT certification 
without actually keeping such documentation (see proposed 40 CFR 
63.2390(c)(3)).
    3. Initial Notification of Compliance Status. The OLD NESHAP allow 
facilities with multiple control devices to submit a single NOCS and up 
to 240 days after the compliance date to submit it. To make this 
provision explicitly clear, we are proposing to revise the 
applicability of the General Provisions at 40 CFR 63.7(g) and 
63.9(h)(1)-(6) in Table 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, to allow 
facilities to submit a single initial NOCS with test reports either 
within 240 days after the compliance date or within 60 days after the 
completion of the last compliance test demonstrating compliance, 
whichever occurs first.
    4. Offsite Records. The OLD NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.2394(a)) allow 
facilities to store on-site records ``in electric form at a separate 
location from the site provided they can be access and printed at the 
site within 1 hour after a request by the applicable title V permitting 
authority.'' EPA included the ``1-hour'' requirement at promulgation, 
but now believes that it is unnecessarily restrictive. Therefore, we 
are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.2394(a) by removing the ``1-hour'' 
requirement and stating explicitly that records kept off-site are to be 
available for ``expeditious review and inspection.'' We are also 
proposing to eliminate the provision allowing on-site records to be 
stored off-site in electronic format because ``expeditious retrieval'' 
of records stored off-site does not meet the General Provision's 
requirements that records be stored ``on-site'' for the first 2 years.
    5. Operating Scenarios. The OLD NESHAP require facilities to 
identify operating scenarios in the NOCS report and then to update 
changes to operating scenarios in the semiannual compliance reports. We 
are proposing to delete ``operating scenarios'' from the OLD NESHAP 
because the term is not applicable to the OLD source category.

D. How Are Compliance Requirements Being Changed?

    1. Changes in OLD Loading Volume--Compliance Dates. We are 
proposing language to clarify when transfer racks must be in compliance 
when the total actual annual facility-level organic liquid loading 
volume decreases such that control is no longer required, or when it 
increases such that control is required (see 40 CFR 63.2342(a)(3) and 
(b)(3)). For both new and existing sources, we are proposing that a 
source whose loading volume increases to a level such that control of 
transfer racks is required, be in compliance with the transfer rack 
requirements immediately. We are proposing to define ``immediately'' as 
the first day of the period following the end of the 3-year period 
triggering the control criteria.
    For existing sources, however, we are proposing that owners or 
operators of existing sources be allowed to request a compliance 
extension of up to 1 year if the additional time is necessary for the 
installation of controls. This proposed request for a compliance 
extension is similar to that provided for under 40 CFR 
63.100(l)(4)(ii)(B) of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP. We are also 
proposing to limit the use of this compliance extension provision to 
once for each facility (see 40 CFR 63.2342(b)(3)(ii)(I)). That is, once 
an owner or operator has requested an

[[Page 69217]]

extension of compliance for its facility, the owner or operator cannot 
request such an extension at a later date if changes in loading volume 
again create a situation in which control of transfer racks is once 
again required.
    2. ASTM D7420-99. In the preamble to the OLD NESHAP, we indicated 
that we had included ASTM D7420-99, Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), as an alternative to Method 
18. However, we neglected to add the method to the final rule. 
Therefore, we are proposing language, in 40 CFR 63.2354(b)(3), adding 
ASTM D7420-99 as an alternative to Method 18 to determine compliance 
with the organic HAP or TOC emission limit.
    3. Reformulation. One of the petitioners requested clarification as 
to the periodic reporting requirements for a facility that reformulates 
materials prior to the compliance date, and for a facility that 
reformulates materials after the compliance date. The reformulation the 
petitioner is concerned about is where a material that meets the 
definition of an organic liquid as defined in 40 CFR 63.2402 is 
reformulated in such a manner that the material no longer meets the 
definition of an organic liquid.
    The OLD NESHAP apply to emission sources when they are in OLD 
service. If a facility reformulates a material in such a manner that 
the material no longer is an organic liquid, as defined in 40 CFR 
63.2406, the emission source is not in OLD service and, therefore, is 
neither subject to the OLD NESHAP nor its reporting requirements. If 
all of the material at a facility were reformulated such that there is 
no organic liquid at the facility, the entire facility would have no 
emission sources in organic liquid service and would not be required to 
meet the periodic compliance reporting requirements. If the facility 
were to later reformulate the material such that it once again met the 
definition of organic liquid, then the emission source would be in OLD 
service and subject to all applicable requirements of the OLD NESHAP, 
including periodic reporting requirements.
    The Agency does not believe that it is necessary to modify the OLD 
NESHAP to address the specific situations posed by the petitioner. In 
addition, we do not believe this issue needs to be treated differently 
if the reformulation occurs prior to or after the compliance date of 
the final rule.

E. How Is the Affected Source Being Changed?

    1. Containers. In 40 CFR 63.2338(b)(2) of the OLD NESHAP, we 
identify ``transfer racks'' as a component of the affected source and 
identify in that paragraph both ``transport vehicles'' and 
``containers'' into which or out of which the liquids are loaded. We 
then identify, in 40 CFR 63.2338(b)(4), ``transport vehicles'' as a 
separate component of the affected source. However, we neglected to 
also identify ``containers'' as a separate component of the affected 
source. To correct this oversight, we are proposing to add a new 
paragraph (b)(5) to 40 CFR 63.2338 to identify containers as a separate 
component of the affected source.
    2. Transport Vehicles. In 40 CFR 63.2338(b)(4) of the OLD NESHAP, 
it is unclear as to whether the affected source includes transport 
vehicles while they are loading or unloading organic liquids at any 
transfer rack or only at transfer racks subject to the OLD NESHAP. We 
are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.2338(b)(4) to state that only those 
transport vehicles loading or unloading at transfer racks subject to 
the OLD NESHAP are to be included in the affected source.
    3. Excluded Equipment. As stated in 40 CFR 63.2338(b), the affected 
source is composed of storage tanks, transfer racks, equipment leak 
components, transport vehicles, and containers. The OLD NESHAP, in 40 
CFR 63.2338(c), exclude from the affected source three of these five 
types of equipment--storage tanks, transfer racks, and equipment leak 
components--under certain conditions (e.g., subject to another 40 CFR 
part 63 NESHAP, used in special operations, used to conduct maintenance 
activities). We know of no reason that transport vehicles and 
containers when used in the same circumstances as the three cited types 
of equipment should not also be included in these exclusions. 
Therefore, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.2338(c) accordingly.
    4. Equipment Leak Components. The OLD NESHAP (see 40 CFR 
63.2338(c)(2)) is unclear as to which equipment leak components are to 
be excluded from the affected source definition. For example, are 
equipment leak components associated with a pipeline originating 
offsite that goes directly to a tank subject to the Hazardous Organic 
NESHAP (HON) part of the affected source? Or, as another example, are 
equipment leak components associated with a pipeline from a transfer 
rack subject to the OLD NESHAP that goes to a tank subject to the HON 
part of the affected source?
    To clarify the determination of which equipment leak components are 
included in the definition of the affected source and which are 
excluded, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.2338(b)(3) to clearly 
state that equipment leak components are part of the affected source if 
they are associated with pipelines that transfer organic liquids 
directly to and from storage tanks and/or transfer racks, both of which 
are subject to the OLD NESHAP. Equipment leak components associated 
with pipelines that connect two storage tanks, two transfer racks, or a 
storage tank and a transfer rack are subject to the OLD NESHAP only if 
both storage tanks, both transfer racks, or both the storage tank and 
transfer rack are subject to the OLD NESHAP. These three scenarios 
comprise the situations in which equipment leak components associated 
with pipelines are part of the OLD affected sources.
    Lastly, because the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.2338(b)(3) 
include all those equipment leak components that we intend to include, 
we do not believe there is any need to have an equipment leak component 
exclusion. Therefore, we are proposing to delete 40 CFR 63.2338(c)(2) 
from the OLD NESHAP.
    5. Coke by-product Plants. One of the petitioners requested 
clarification as to the applicability of the OLD NESHAP to coke by-
product plants. On January 30, 2001 (66 FR 8220), EPA deleted coke by-
product plants from the list of major and area sources of HAP required 
by CAA section 112(c)(1). Consequently, 40 CFR part 63 MACT standards 
promulgated under CAA section 112(d), such as the OLD NESHAP, would not 
apply to the deleted coke by-product plant source category. Moreover, 
as EPA explained in 2001, coke by-product plants remain subject to the 
pre-existing NESHAP for benzene emissions from coke by-product recovery 
plants at 40 CFR part 61, subpart L. See 66 FR at 8222. EPA is not 
proposing any changes to the OLD NESHAP in order to clarify this issue, 
as it is unnecessary to do so. The result follows from EPA's previous 
action in 2001 deleting the coke by-product plant source category.

F. Miscellaneous Edits

    There are numerous edits being proposed to address typographical 
errors and oversights in the OLD NESHAP. These edits make clearer our 
intent, correct punctuation, or change cross-references because of the 
other changes being proposed in today's rulemaking; they do not affect 
the stringency of the final rule or its

[[Page 69218]]

enforceability. These edits may be found in the EDOCKET (see ADDRESSES 
section).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    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 President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified 
EPA that it considers this a ``non-significant regulatory action'' 
within the meaning of the Executive Order and is therefore not subject 
to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
The final rule required owners and operators to list sources not 
subject to control in the first and subsequent compliance reports and 
to keep appropriate documentation. The final rule applied these 
requirements across-the-board for all emission sources not requiring 
control and, in general, was not specific as to what recordkeeping is 
required. Under the proposed amendments, we are clarifying how these 
provisions would apply to those emission sources for which control 
would never be required and to those emission sources for which control 
could be required, but is not currently required. In addition, we are 
identifying the specific circumstances under which listing in 
subsequent Compliance reports would be required for sources for which 
control is not required rather than requiring all previously identified 
sources to be re-listed. Further, we are narrowing the applicability of 
certain sections of the General Provisions for sources for which 
control is not required because the proposed amendments make such 
application of those sections in the General Provisions unnecessary. 
Thus, in sum, the proposed amendments are not adding new information 
collection burden. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
has previously approved the information collection requirements 
contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060 0539, EPA ICR number 
1963. A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) 
may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 C