National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene Production, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), and Petroleum Refineries Reconsideration, 25574-25590 [2023-07627]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 81 (Thursday, April 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25574-25590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07627]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787; FRL-9846-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV80


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Ethylene Production, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, 
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), and Petroleum Refineries 
Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reconsideration of final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 6, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) finalized the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted 
for the Ethylene Production source category, which is part of the 
Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology (GMACT) Standards 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); on 
July 7, 2020, the EPA finalized the RTR conducted for the Organic 
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) NESHAP; and on August 12, 2020, the 
EPA finalized the RTR conducted for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing NESHAP. Amendments to the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP 
were most recently finalized on February 4, 2020. Subsequently, the EPA 
received and granted various petitions for reconsideration on these 
NESHAP for, among other things, the provisions related to the work 
practice standards for pressure relief devices (PRDs), emergency 
flaring, and degassing of floating roof storage vessels. In response to 
the petitions, the EPA is proposing amendments to the work practice 
standards for PRDs, emergency flaring, and degassing of floating roof 
storage vessels. In addition, the EPA is proposing other technical 
corrections and clarifications for each of the rules. The EPA will not 
respond to comments addressing any other issues or any other provisions 
of the final rule not specifically addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking.

DATES: 
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2023. 
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB)

[[Page 25575]]

receives a copy of your comments on or before May 30, 2023.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before May 2, 2023, we will hold a virtual public hearing. See 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering 
for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0787, by any of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 
preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0787 in the subject line of the message.
    Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787.
    Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 
Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday 
(except Federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance of caution 
for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 
Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only. Our Docket 
Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service via 
email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received 
by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket 
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at 
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Ms. Angie Carey, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2187; fax number: (919) 541-0516; 
and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Participation in virtual public hearing. To request a virtual 
hearing, contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email 
at [email protected]. If requested, the hearing will be held 
via virtual platform on May 12, 2023. The hearing will convene at 10 
a.m., Eastern Time (ET) and conclude at 5 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a 
session 15 minutes after the last pre-registered speaker has testified 
if there are not additional speakers. The EPA will announce further 
details on the virtual public hearing website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/petroleum-refinery-sector-rule-risk-and-technology-review-and-new.
    If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing no later than 1 business day after 
a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual 
hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/petroleum-refinery-sector-rule-risk-and-technology-review-and-new or contact the public hearing 
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. The 
last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be May 9, 2023. 
Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post a general agenda that will list 
pre-registered speakers in approximate order at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/petroleum-refinery-sector-rule-risk-and-technology-review-and-new.
    The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as 
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the 
hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
    Each commenter will have 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The 
EPA encourages commenters to submit a copy of their oral testimony as 
written comments to the rulemaking docket.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations 
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written 
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment 
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and 
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will 
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/petroleum-refinery-sector-rule-risk-and-technology-review-and-new. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth 
above, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at 
(888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected] to determine if 
there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in 
the Federal Register announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or a special 
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the 
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by May 4, 
2023. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advance 
notice.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787. All documents in the docket are 
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (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. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket 
materials are available electronically in https://www.regulations.gov/ 
or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 
1301 Constitution Avenue 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. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is 
(202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0787. The 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.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit electronically to https://www.regulations.gov/ 
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statue. This type of information should be 
submitted as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and

[[Page 25576]]

should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email 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, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and 
should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information 
about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at 
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any 
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID, 
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify 
electronically within the digital storage media the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version 
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must 
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures 
outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media 
that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage 
media clearly that it does not contain CBI and note the docket ID. 
Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and 
the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information 
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
    Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), 
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google 
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the 
email address [email protected] and, as described above, should include 
clear CBI markings and note the docket ID. If assistance is needed with 
submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for 
email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing 
service, please email [email protected] to request a file transfer link. 
If sending CBI information through the postal service, please send it 
to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), 
OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787. The 
mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any 
CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the 
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We 
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may 
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for 
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms 
here: {* * * WILL NEED TO REVIEW LIST LATER IN THE PROCESS, DELETE 
UNUSED ACRONYMS, ADD OTHER COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS{time} 

atm-m3/mol atmospheres per mole per cubic meter
ACC American Chemistry Council
AFPM American Fuels and Petrochemicals Manufacturers
AMEL alternative means of emissions limitation
API American Petroleum Institute
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EMACT Ethylene Production MACT
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ET Eastern Time
GMACT Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
LEL lower explosive limit
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MCPU miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process unit
MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NOCS notification of compliance status
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OLD Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ppm parts per million
ppmw parts per million by weight
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD pressure relief device
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S. United States

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration 
action?
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. Ethylene Production
    B. Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
    C. Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing
    D. Petroleum Refineries
III. Reconsideration Issues, Request for Public Comments, and Other 
Proposed Changes
    A. Pressure Relief Devices and Emergency Flaring
    B. Storage Vessel Degassing
    C. Other Technical Corrections and Clarifications
    D. What compliance dates are we proposing?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments

[[Page 25577]]

    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 (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7412 and 
7607(d)(7)(B)).

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. 
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely 
to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal 
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. Each 
of the source categories covered by this proposal were defined in the 
Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576; July 16, 1992) and 
Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final 
Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), as well as the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revision of Initial 
List of Categories of Sources and Schedule for Standards Under Sections 
112(c) and (e) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (61 FR 28197; 
June 4, 1996), as presented here.

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Source category               NESHAP            NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethylene Production.........  40 CFR part 63,       325110.
                               subparts XX and YY.
Miscellaneous Organic         40 CFR part 63,       3251, 3252, 3253,
 Chemical Manufacturing.       subpart FFFF.         3254, 3255, 3256,
                                                     and 3259, with
                                                     several exceptions.
Organic Liquids Distribution  40 CFR part 63,       3222, 3241, 3251,
 (Non-Gasoline).               subpart EEEE.         3252, 3259, 3261,
                                                     3361, 3362, 3399,
                                                     4247, 4861, 4869,
                                                     4931, 5622.
Petroleum Refineries........  40 CFR part 63,       324110.
                               subpart CC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    The Ethylene Production source category includes any chemical 
manufacturing process unit in which ethylene and/or propylene are 
produced by separation from petroleum refining process streams or by 
subjecting hydrocarbons to high temperatures in the presence of steam. 
The ethylene production unit includes the separation of ethylene and/or 
propylene from associated streams such as a C4 product,\1\ 
pyrolysis gasoline, and pyrolysis fuel oil. The ethylene production 
unit does not include the manufacture of Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) chemicals such as the production of 
butadiene from the C4 stream and aromatics from pyrolysis 
gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The C4 product stream is a hydrocarbon product 
stream from an ethylene production unit consisting of compounds with 
4 carbon atoms (i.e., butanes, butenes, butadienes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) source category 
includes, but is not limited to, those activities associated with the 
storage and distribution of organic liquids other than gasoline, at 
sites which serve as distribution points from which organic liquids may 
be obtained for further use and processing. The distribution activities 
include the storage of organic liquids in storage tanks not subject to 
other 40 CFR part 63 standards and transfers into or out of the tanks 
from or to cargo tanks, containers, and pipelines.
    After the initial source category listings, in a November 7, 1996, 
document (61 FR 57602), the Agency combined 21 of the 174 originally 
defined source categories, and other organic chemical processes which 
were not included in the original 174 source category list, into one 
source category called the ``Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Processes'' 
source category. In a November 18, 1999, document (64 FR 63035), the 
Agency divided the ``Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Processes'' source 
category into 2 new source categories called the ``Miscellaneous 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing'' source category and the 
``Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing'' source category. The 
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing source category includes 
any facility engaged in the production of benzyltrimethylammonium 
chloride, carbonyl sulfide chelating agents, chlorinated paraffins, 
ethylidene norbornene, explosives, hydrazine, photographic chemicals, 
phthalate plasticizers, rubber chemicals, symmetrical 
tetrachloropyridine, oxybisphenoxarsine/1,3-diisocyanate, alkyd resins, 
polyester resins, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate emulsions, 
polyvinyl butyral, polymerized vinylidene chloride, polymethyl 
methacrylate, maleic anhydride copolymers, or any other organic 
chemical processes not covered by another maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) standard. Many of these organic chemical processes 
involve similar process equipment, emission points, and control 
equipment, and are in many cases collocated with other source 
categories.
    The Petroleum Refineries sector includes 2 source categories. The 
Petroleum Refineries MACT 1 source category includes any facility 
engaged in producing gasoline, naphthas, kerosene, jet fuels, 
distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, or other products 
from crude oil or unfinished petroleum derivatives. The refinery 
process units in this source category include, but are not limited to, 
thermal cracking, vacuum distillation, crude distillation, 
hydroheating/hydrorefining, isomerization, polymerization, lubricating 
(``lube'') oil processing, and hydrogen production. The Petroleum 
Refineries MACT 2--Catalytic Cracking (Fluid and Other) Units, 
Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units source category 
includes any facility engaged in producing gasoline, naphthas, 
kerosene, jet fuels, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, 
lubricants, or other products from

[[Page 25578]]

crude oil or unfinished petroleum derivates.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/petroleum-refinery-sector-rule-risk-and-technology-review-and-new, https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/acetal-resins-acrylic-modacrylic-fibers-carbon-black-hydrogen, https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-organic-chemical-manufacturing-national-emission, and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/organic-liquids-distribution-national-emission-standards-hazardous. Following publication in the Federal Register, the 
EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key 
technical documents at this same website.
    Redline strikeout versions of each rule showing the edits that 
would be necessary to incorporate the changes proposed in this action 
are presented in the memoranda titled Proposed Regulatory Text Edits 
for Subpart EEEE, Proposed Regulatory Text Edits for Subpart FFFF, 
Proposed Regulatory Text Edits for Subpart YY, and Proposed Regulatory 
Text Edits for Subpart CC, available in the docket for this action 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787).

II. Background

A. Ethylene Production

    The Ethylene Production MACT standards (herein called the EMACT 
standards) for the Ethylene Production source category are contained in 
the GMACT NESHAP, which also includes MACT standards for several other 
source categories. The EMACT standards were promulgated on July 12, 
2002 (67 FR 46258), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subparts XX and YY. 
As promulgated in 2002, and further amended on April 13, 2005 (70 FR 
19266), and July 6, 2020 (85 FR 40386), the EMACT standards regulate 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from ethylene production units 
located at major sources (as defined by CAA section 112(a)(1)). An 
ethylene production unit is a chemical manufacturing process unit in 
which ethylene and/or propylene are produced by separation from 
petroleum refining process streams or by subjecting hydrocarbons to 
high temperatures in the presence of steam. The EMACT standards define 
the affected source as all storage vessels, ethylene process vents, 
transfer racks, equipment, waste streams, heat exchange systems, and 
ethylene cracking furnaces and associated decoking operations that are 
associated with each ethylene production unit located at a major source 
as defined in CAA section 112(a)(1).
    Following promulgation of the EMACT standards in July 2020, the EPA 
received 2 petitions for reconsideration in September 2020. The EPA 
received a joint petition from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and 
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and a petition from 
Earthjustice (on behalf of RISE St. James, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, 
Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Texas Environmental Justice 
Advocacy Services, Air Alliance Houston, Community In-Power & 
Development Association, Clean Air Council, Center for Biological 
Diversity, Environmental Integrity Project, and Sierra Club). Copies of 
the petitions are provided in the EMACT RTR rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0357). The ACC/AFPM petitioned the EPA on, among other things, 
the storage vessel degassing provisions, ethylene cracking furnace 
burner repair provisions, and ethylene cracking furnace isolation valve 
inspections. Earthjustice petitioned the EPA on, among other things, 
the force majeure and exemption allowances for PRDs and emergency 
flaring. The ACC/AFPM and Earthjustice also raised other issues that 
are not being addressed in this rulemaking.
    On April 19, 2022, the EPA sent a letter to petitioners informing 
them that it would grant reconsideration of the provisions addressing 
the work practice standards for PRDs, emergency flaring, and degassing 
of floating roof storage vessels. The EPA also stated in the letter to 
petitioners that it is continuing to review all issues raised in the 
petitions. A copy of the letter to petitioners is available in the 
docket for this rulemaking. The EPA will not respond to comments 
addressing any other issues or any other provisions of the final rule 
not specifically addressed in this proposed rulemaking.

B. Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)

    The Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) (herein called OLD) 
NESHAP was promulgated on February 3, 2004 (69 FR 5038) and is codified 
at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. Organic liquids are any crude oils 
downstream of the first point of custody transfer and any non-crude oil 
liquid that contains at least 5 percent by weight of any combination of 
the 98 HAP listed in table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE. For the 
purposes of the OLD NESHAP, as promulgated in 2004, and further amended 
on July 28, 2006 (71 FR 42898), April 23, 2008 (73 FR 21825), July 17, 
2008 (73 FR 40977), and July 7, 2020 (85 FR 40740), organic liquids do 
not include gasoline, kerosene (No. 1 distillate oil), diesel (No. 2 
distillate oil), asphalt, heavier distillate oil and fuel oil, fuel 
that is consumed or dispensed on the plant site, hazardous waste, 
wastewater, ballast water, or any non-crude liquid with an annual 
average true vapor pressure less than 0.7 kilopascals (0.1 pounds per 
square inch (psi)). Emission sources controlled by the OLD NESHAP are 
storage tanks, transfer operations, transport vehicles while being 
loaded, and equipment leak components (valves, pumps, and sampling 
connections) that have the potential to leak.
    The EPA received three petitions for reconsideration for the OLD 
NESHAP in September 2020. The EPA received petitions from the American 
Petroleum Institute (API) and AFPM, Stoel Rives LLP (on behalf of 
Alyeska Pipeline Company), and Earthjustice (on behalf of California 
Communities Against Toxics, Coalition for a Safe Environment, and 
Sierra Club). Copies of the petitions are provided in the docket for 
this rulemaking. The API/AFPM and Stoel Rives LLP (on behalf of Alyeska 
Pipeline Company) commented on storage vessel degassing. The API/AFPM, 
Stoel Rives, and Earthjustice also raised other issues that are not 
being addressed in this rulemaking.
    On September 8, 2021, the EPA sent a letter to petitioners 
informing them that it would grant voluntary reconsideration on certain 
issues, including the work practice standards for storage vessel 
degassing that apply broadly. Other issues for which EPA stated that it 
would grant voluntary reconsideration in the September 8, 2021, letter 
(i.e., work practice standards for venting from conservation vents on 
the Valdez Marine Terminal's crude oil fixed roof tanks, fenceline 
monitoring) are still being reviewed and are not part of this action, 
and the EPA will not respond to comments addressing these other issues 
in this proposed rulemaking. The EPA also stated in the letter to 
petitioners that it is continuing to review all issues raised in the 
petitions. A copy of the letter to

[[Page 25579]]

petitioners is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

C. Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing

    The Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP (herein 
called the MON) for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing 
source category was promulgated on November 10, 2003 (68 FR 63852), and 
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF. As promulgated in 2003, and 
further amended on July 1, 2005 (70 FR 38562), July 14, 2006 (71 FR 
40316), and August 12, 2020 (85 FR 49084), the MON regulates HAP 
emissions from miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process 
units (MCPUs) located at major sources. An MCPU includes a 
miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process, as defined in 40 
CFR 63.2550(i), and must meet the following criteria: it manufactures 
any material or family of materials described in 40 CFR 63.2435(b)(1); 
it processes, uses, or generates any of the organic HAP described in 40 
CFR 63.2435(b)(2); and, except for certain process vents that are part 
of a chemical manufacturing process unit, as identified in 40 CFR 
63.100(j)(4), the MCPU is not an affected source or part of an affected 
source under another subpart of 40 CFR part 63. An MCPU also includes 
any assigned storage tanks and transfer racks; equipment in open 
systems that is used to convey or store water having the same 
concentration and flow characteristics as wastewater; and components 
such as pumps, compressors, agitators, PRDs, sampling connection 
systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, connectors, and 
instrumentation systems that are used to manufacture any material or 
family of materials described in 40 CFR 63.2435(b)(1). Sources of HAP 
emissions regulated by the MON include the following: process vents, 
storage tanks, transfer racks, equipment leaks, wastewater streams, and 
heat exchange systems.
    Following promulgation of the MON in August 2020, the EPA received 
five petitions for reconsideration between October and December 2020. 
The EPA received petitions from Earthjustice (on behalf of RISE St. 
James, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Louisiana Environmental Action 
Network, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Air Alliance 
Houston, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Blue Ridge Environmental 
Defense League, Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical 
Policy Reform, Sierra Club, Environmental Integrity Project, and Union 
of Concerned Scientists), the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
(TCEQ), Squire Patton Boggs LLP (on behalf of Huntsman Petrochemical, 
LLC), and the ACC (who submitted two petitions). Copies of the 
petitions are provided in the docket for this rulemaking. The ACC 
petitioned the EPA on, among other things, the storage vessel degassing 
provisions and requirements for ethylene oxide sources. Earthjustice 
petitioned the EPA on, among other things, the force majeure and 
exemption allowances for PRDs and emergency flaring. The TCEQ, ACC, and 
Huntsman Petrochemical requested that the EPA reassess the MON risk 
assessment for issues around ethylene oxide risks; the EPA is 
responding to that reconsideration petition request in a separate 
rulemaking (87 FR 77985; December 21, 2022). Earthjustice and ACC also 
raised other issues that are not being addressed in this rulemaking.
    On June 17, 2021, the EPA sent a letter to petitioners informing 
them that it is continuing to review all issues raised in the 
petitions. A copy of the letter to petitioners is available in the 
docket for this rulemaking.

D. Petroleum Refineries

    On December 1, 2015 (80 FR 75178), the EPA finalized amendments to 
the petroleum refinery sector rules as the result of a sector RTR. 
These amendments included, among other provisions, adding work practice 
requirements to Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 (40 CFR part 63 subpart CC) 
for PRDs and flares in 40 CFR 63.648(j) and 63.670(o), respectively. 
These provisions specifically provide requirements for owners and 
operators to follow in the event of an atmospheric PRD release or 
emergency flaring event, including performing root cause analysis for 
each event and implementing corrective action(s) in accordance with the 
rule requirements. The atmospheric PRD release and emergency flaring 
provisions specify the conditions that result in a violation of the 
work practice standards in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3)(v) and 63.670(o)(7), 
respectively. The owner or operator is required to track the number of 
events by emission unit and root cause. An atmospheric PRD release or 
emergency flaring event for which the root cause is determined to be 
poor maintenance or operator error is a violation of the work practice 
standards. Two atmospheric PRD releases or two emergency flaring events 
from the same emission unit when determined to be the result of the 
same root cause in a 3-year period is a violation of the work practice 
standard. Finally, three atmospheric PRD releases or 3 emergency 
flaring events from the same emission unit regardless of the root cause 
is a violation of the work practice standard (also referred to as ``the 
`three strikes' provisions''). Notably, if the root cause is determined 
to be due to a force majeure event, as defined in 40 CFR 63.641, it 
does not count towards the criteria for a violation of the work 
practice standards.
    The EPA received three petitions to reconsider the December 2015 
final rule. Two petitions were filed on January 19, 2016, and February 
1, 2016, jointly by API and the AFPM. In response to the January 19, 
2016, petition, the EPA issued a proposal on February 9, 2016 (81 FR 
6814), and a final rule on July 13, 2016 (81 FR 45232), fully 
responding to the January 19, 2016, petition for reconsideration. The 
third petition was filed on February 1, 2016, by Earthjustice on behalf 
of Air Alliance Houston, California Communities Against Toxics, Clean 
Air Council, Coalition for a Safe Environment, Community In-Power & 
Development Association, Del Amo Action Committee, Environmental 
Integrity Project, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Sierra Club, Texas 
Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, and Utah Physicians for a 
Healthy Environment. The Earthjustice petition claimed that several 
aspects of the revisions to the Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 were not 
proposed and that, therefore, the public was precluded from commenting 
on the altered provisions during the public comment period, including, 
among other provisions, the work practice standards for PRDs and 
emergency flaring. On June 16, 2016, the EPA sent letters to 
petitioners granting reconsideration on issues where petitioners 
claimed they had not been provided an opportunity to comment. These 
petitions and letters granting reconsideration are available for review 
in the rulemaking docket (see Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0787). 
On October 18, 2016 (81 FR 71661), the EPA proposed for public comment 
the issues for which reconsideration was granted in the June 16, 2016, 
letters. The EPA solicited public comment on five issues in the 
proposal, including: the work practice standard for PRDs; the work 
practice standard for emergency flaring events; and the assessment of 
risk as modified based on implementation of these PRD and emergency 
flaring work practice standards. On February 4, 2020, the EPA issued a 
final action (85 FR 6064) setting forth its decisions on each of the 
five reconsideration items included in the October 18, 2016 (81 FR 
71661),

[[Page 25580]]

proposed notice of reconsideration (October 2016 proposed notice of 
reconsideration).
    On April 6, 2020, Earthjustice submitted a petition for 
reconsideration of the February 2020 final action on behalf of Air 
Alliance Houston, California Communities Against Toxics, Clean Air 
Council, Coalition For A Safe Environment, Community In-Power & 
Development Association, Del Amo Action Committee, Environmental 
Integrity Project, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Sierra Club, Texas 
Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, and Utah Physicians for a 
Healthy Environment (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-1000). The 
petition for reconsideration requested that the EPA reconsider five 
issues in the February 4, 2020, final rule: (1) The EPA's rationale 
that the PRD standards and emergency flaring standards are continuous; 
(2) the EPA's rationale for the PRD standards under CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3); (3) the EPA's rationale for separate work 
practice standards for flares operating above the smokeless capacity; 
(4) the EPA's rationale for risk acceptability and risk determination; 
and (5) the EPA's analysis and rationale in its assessment of acute 
risk. The EPA initially denied the April 6, 2020, petition for 
reconsideration (85 FR 67665) and provided detailed responses to each 
of the five issues raised in the April 2020 petition in a September 3, 
2020, letter, which is available in the Petroleum Refinery rulemaking 
docket (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0999). Subsequently, after 
further consideration, the EPA wrote a letter on April 19, 2022, to 
petitioners explaining that it has decided to undertake reconsideration 
on select provisions related to the work practice standards for PRDs 
and emergency flaring. Specifically, the EPA is reconsidering the 
inclusion of the force majeure allowances in the PRD and emergency 
flaring work practice standards as discussed in detail in section III.A 
of this preamble. As noted in our April 19, 2022, letter, we may 
reconsider additional issues in the future.

III. Reconsideration Issues, Request for Public Comments, and Other 
Proposed Changes

    To address selected issues for which we granted reconsideration and 
to provide other technical corrections, the EPA is proposing revisions 
to the EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, MON, and Petroleum Refineries 
NESHAP. The EPA is proposing revisions to the work practice standards 
for PRDs and emergency flaring related to force majeure provisions in 
the EMACT standards, MON, and Petroleum Refineries NESHAP, and is 
proposing standards for the degassing of storage vessels in the EMACT 
standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON. The EPA is also proposing to add 
requirements for pressure-assisted flares and mass spectrometers to the 
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP to align this rule with other more recent 
chemical sector rules and eliminate the need to request site-specific 
alternative means of emission limitations (AMELs) for these units. In 
addition, the EPA is proposing other technical corrections, 
clarifications, and correction of typographical errors in all rules. To 
ensure public participation in its final decisions, the EPA is 
requesting public comment on these specific issues as described below. 
The EPA will not respond to comments addressing any other issues or any 
other provisions of the final rule not specifically addressed in this 
proposed rulemaking.

A. Pressure Relief Devices and Emergency Flaring

    As described in the background section II.D of this preamble, the 
work practice standards for PRDs and emergency flaring in Petroleum 
Refinery MACT 1 provide the criteria for violating the work practice 
standards based on a count of the events by emission unit and root 
cause. The count of events by emission unit currently excludes events 
for which the root cause is determined to be force majeure as defined 
in 40 CFR 63.641. In their April 2020 petition, petitioners took issue 
with the inclusion of the force majeure allowance as they claim that it 
makes the standards non-continuous and that it is inappropriate to 
include this allowance based on the inclusion of similar provisions in 
two local California rules (South Coast Air Quality Management 
District; Bay Area Air Quality Management District). The EPA fully 
responded to these issues in the September 2020 letter (Docket Item No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0999) and the EPA's position on these issues has 
not changed. Namely, there are components of both the PRD management 
provisions and emergency flaring provisions that apply at all times and 
not all components of the standard must apply at all times for the 
standard to be continuous. The EPA also stated that its consideration 
of the continuous nature of the work practice standards and their basis 
in the two local California rules has been set forth in a manner 
consistent with public review and comment requirements.
    However, during our recent reconsideration efforts, the EPA 
recognizes that despite the term ``force majeure'' being carefully 
defined, the force majeure allowance in the work practice standards may 
present difficulties for determining compliance. It may also represent 
a provision that some facility owners or operators may seek to use to 
avoid incurring violations and pursuing potentially disruptive 
corrective actions. The reporting requirements for the work practice 
standards in 40 CFR 63.655(g)(10)(iv) and 63.655(g)(11)(iv) provide 
that the refinery owner or operator must report the results of the root 
cause and corrective action analysis completed during the reporting 
period (i.e., semiannually). The reporting of the event-specific data 
associated with the work practice standards is currently included in 
periodic reports that are submitted to the delegated state authority 
and/or EPA Regional Office, as applicable, and are thus not publicly 
available. During the root cause analysis and corrective action 
process, refineries maintain discretion when categorizing and reporting 
the root cause of atmospheric PRD releases and emergency flaring 
events, thereby placing the onus on the EPA to determine whether the 
definition of force majeure has been appropriately applied.
    In acknowledgement of these concerns and to fully inform our 
decision as to whether rule amendments for Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 
are necessary with respect to the force majeure allowance, we reviewed 
periodic reports from refineries in Texas and Louisiana obtained 
through the EPA Regional Office. For atmospheric PRD releases, we 
reviewed periodic reports from 18 refineries spanning 0.5-1.5 years of 
time per refinery, and a total of 12.5 refinery-years. These reports 
covered semiannual compliance reporting periods during calendar years 
2019 through 2021. During that time, there were atmospheric PRD 
releases at four of these 18 refineries. There were five total 
releases. None of the determined root causes were attributed to events 
that meet the definition of the term force majeure. For emergency 
flaring events, we reviewed periodic reports from 22 refineries 
spanning 0.5-1.5 years of time per refinery, and a total of 15.5 
refinery-years. During that time, there were emergency flaring events 
at six of these 22 refineries. There were eight total events at these 
six refineries. Of these, three of the eight events were attributed to 
causes that, as reported, meet the definition of the term force

[[Page 25581]]

majeure. In reviewing these data, we conclude that atmospheric PRD 
releases and emergency flaring events are relatively infrequent at 
refineries and that those determined to have a root cause characterized 
as a force majeure event are even less so.
    When we initially proposed the Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 
requirements, the primary data available for event releases were from 
the TCEQ Air Emission Event Report Database,\2\ which requires the 
reporting of emission events that exceed a reportable quantity and 
industry comments with limited supporting documentation. Based on the 
available data, we concluded that the ``three strikes'' provisions were 
reasonable, but there were concerns that circumstances outside of the 
refinery's control may cause violations. Based on the data available 
now, we conclude that the frequency of these types of releases is lower 
than originally expected. This lower frequency may be due to the 
refinery sector rule's provisions, like the redundant prevention 
measures for PRD, which were implemented in the final rule and that 
apply at all times. Given these data and the lower frequency of force 
majeure events, we conclude that the force majeure allowances included 
in the provisions for PRDs and flares are not necessary. We also find 
that by removing the force majeure allowance, the rule is strengthened, 
and compliance becomes easier to assess as it is determined purely 
based on the count of events by emission unit and root cause. There is 
no categorization or interpretation related to the root cause of the 
event. The corrective action component of the work practice standards 
would now apply to all events regardless of the root cause and all 
events would count towards the violation criteria set forth in the 
standard. As noted, our analyses were performed on data we requested 
directly from the EPA Regional Offices, which are not readily available 
to the public. We find that making these data readily available to the 
public would increase the transparency of the events regulated by the 
work practice standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ TCEQ Search Air Emission Event Reports, https://www.texas.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, in this proposed action, the EPA is proposing to remove 
the term force majeure from the list of defined terms in 40 CFR 63.641 
as well as to remove the force majeure allowance from the criteria for 
a violation of the work practice standards for atmospheric PRD releases 
and emergency flaring events in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(3) and 63.670(o)(7). 
We are also proposing to amend the reporting requirements for the 
event-specific work practice standard data in 40 CFR 63.655(g)(10)(iv) 
and 63.655(g)(11)(iv) to require these data to be reported 
electronically through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
    The EMACT standards and MON include the same work practice 
standards for PRDs and emergency flaring as Petroleum Refinery MACT 1. 
The OLD NESHAP also includes the same work practice standard for 
emergency flaring as Petroleum Refinery MACT 1. Because compliance with 
the work practice standards for existing sources begins in summer of 
2023 for these 3 rules, we do not have the number of events that count 
towards violations for these NESHAP, but the rationale and benefits for 
removing the force majeure allowance follows exactly as discussed above 
for refineries. These include removing the onus from the EPA as to 
whether the definition of force majeure has been appropriately applied 
when determining the root cause, making compliance easier to assess, 
and strengthening both rules. For flares, the EMACT standards, OLD 
NESHAP, and MON directly reference the petroleum refinery flare 
provisions at 40 CFR 63.670. Therefore, the above-mentioned proposed 
revisions to 40 CFR 63.670(o)(7) for emergency flaring events would be 
automatically incorporated into the requirements for the EMACT 
standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON. In addition, the EPA is proposing to 
remove the term ``force majeure'' from the list of defined terms in 40 
CFR 63.2406, because this definition was included specifically due to 
the force majeure provisions for emergency flaring events. The EPA is 
also proposing to remove the term ``force majeure'' from the list of 
defined terms in 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(2) and 63.2550 as well as to remove 
the force majeure allowance from the criteria for a violation of the 
work practice standard for atmospheric PRD releases in 40 CFR 
63.1107(h)(3) and 63.2480(e)(3). Lastly, the EPA is proposing new 
reporting requirements for the EMACT standards at 40 CFR 
63.1110(a)(10)(iii) to require electronic reporting, through the CDX 
using CEDRI, of the event-specific work practice standard data in 40 
CFR 63.1110(e)(4)(iv) and 63.1110(e)(8)(iii). We note that the MON 
already has a more general compliance report template for electronic 
reporting, see 40 CFR 63.2520(e), which will automatically incorporate 
electronic reporting of the event-specific work practice standard data.

B. Storage Vessel Degassing

    The 2020 EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON included a standard 
for storage vessel degassing to control emissions from shutdown 
operations (see the work practice standards in 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(10), 
63.2346(a)(6), and 63.2470(f), respectively). The rules allow storage 
vessels to be vented to the atmosphere once a storage vessel degassing 
concentration threshold is met (i.e., less than 10 percent of the lower 
explosive limit (LEL)) and all standing liquid has been removed from 
the vessel to the extent practicable. The requirements are applicable 
to fixed roof and floating roof storage vessels that are subject to 
control requirements in each of the rules. We did not propose a storage 
vessel degassing standard in the EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON, 
but we finalized a standard based on comments received for all 3 rules. 
We based the degassing standard on Texas permit conditions, which 
represented the MACT floor.\3\ Specifically, permit condition 6 
(applicable to floating roof storage vessels) and permit condition 7 
(applicable to fixed roof storage vessels) formed the basis of the 
storage vessel degassing standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Texas Permit Conditions are available at: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/air/Guidance/NewSourceReview/mss/chem-mssdraftconditions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners argued that including a storage vessel degassing 
standard for floating roof storage vessels was not a logical outgrowth 
of the proposal and that it was not possible to comment on this 
standard. As previously noted in section II of this preamble, the EPA 
granted reconsideration on this issue. The petitioners stated that 
while they did identify the Texas permit conditions as a reference in 
their comments, certain key information was not incorporated into the 
final EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON for the degassing of 
floating roof storage vessels. Additionally, the petitioners argued 
that they did not request additional work practices for floating roof 
storage vessels for which owners and operators already elect to comply 
with the floating roof storage vessels requirements in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart WW because, even with the removal of the shutdown exemption, 
the petitioners contended that it is still possible to comply with the 
subpart WW provisions (because these provisions already provide 
continuous control during degassing by limiting the vapor space of the 
storage vessel via the

[[Page 25582]]

floating roof and requiring prompt and continuous filling until the 
roof is refloated).
    We disagree with the petitioners' claims that a separate standard 
for floating roof storage vessel degassing is not needed due to the 
removal of the shutdown exemption. Rather, as discussed here, the EPA 
must set a storage vessel degassing standard that applies to all 
storage vessels under CAA section 112, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, 
does not adequately control degassing emissions from floating roof 
storage vessels. First, the emission source for which the EPA is 
required to set a MACT standard is storage vessels, regardless of 
whether the source has a fixed roof or floating roof. While petitioners 
contend that their comments did not specifically mention the degassing 
of floating roof storage vessels (rather, only the degassing of fixed 
roof storage vessels), the CAA is clear that the EPA is required to set 
MACT standards for each emission source, which, in this instance, 
includes all storage vessels, regardless of roof type. Further, the EPA 
has never subcategorized storage vessels by roof type. Rather, the 
EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON allow owners or operators to 
choose from different options to control emissions from storage vessels 
and comply with the MACT standards. As is relevant, using a floating 
roof that meets the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, is one 
of the control options owners or operators may choose for control of 
emissions during normal storage vessel operations. Thus, the EPA is 
required under CAA section 112 to set a MACT standard for previously 
unregulated degassing operations for all storage vessels (regardless of 
roof type) and not for some subset of storage vessels as the 
petitioners assert.
    Second, storage vessel degassing is a unique shutdown activity with 
operations and emissions that are completely different from normal 
storage vessel operations. While the previous MACT standards-controlled 
emissions of breathing losses and working losses from normal storage 
vessel operations, storage vessel degassing is a very infrequent event 
(i.e., occurring on average every 14 years based on EMACT data) for 
which commenters requested an alternative standard in the EMACT 
standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON when EPA removed the shutdown exemption 
in those NESHAP. The storage vessel degassing process first requires 
owners or operators to empty the tank of liquid contents. When this 
occurs, the floating roof on a floating roof storage vessel no longer 
acts as a control for HAP emissions as it is no longer floating on the 
liquid in the tank and minimizing vapor space. Rather, the roof is 
landed on legs and effectively acts as a fixed roof storage vessel with 
respect to emissions generation. From there, the storage vessel is 
generally purged, typically with an inert material such as nitrogen or 
steam, for a period of time to remove residual vapors before the vessel 
can be opened to perform maintenance. This purge stream generates HAP 
emissions and is the subject of the MACT control requirements for which 
the EPA is proposing alternative standards. As such, complying with the 
40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, requirements for floating roof storage 
vessels is not an effective control for HAP emissions during the 
degassing phase of a floating roof storage vessel, when it essentially 
operates as a fixed roof storage vessel. Furthermore, storage vessel 
degassing provisions in Texas and the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District in California exist precisely because a standard 
specific to storage vessel degassing is warranted, including for 
floating roof storage vessels.
    After determining that a standard is necessary for degassing of all 
storage vessels (regardless of roof type), the EPA reviewed the Texas 
permit conditions again to determine if revisions to the degassing 
standard for floating roof storage vessels in the EMACT standards, OLD 
NESHAP, and MON are appropriate. As noted by the petitioners, Texas 
permit condition 6.B does provide certain allowances for the degassing 
process for floating roof storage vessels; a 24-hour window is provided 
to start controlled degassing after the floating roof storage vessel 
has been drained, and the storage vessel may be opened during this 
period only to set up for degassing and cleaning. We determined that 
the 24-hour window stipulates how long a floating roof storage vessel 
can be landed before it needs to be filled again or degassed, but it 
does not have a direct bearing on the underlying control standard for 
degassing operations. As such, we are not revising the rules to 
incorporate the 24-hour window into the storage vessel degassing 
standard. Regarding the opening of the floating roof storage vessel to 
set up for degassing and cleaning, while we do not believe the current 
language precludes a facility from taking this step, we are revising 
the standard to include related language for clarity. For example, the 
petitioners noted that it is necessary to make connections to a 
temporary control device to control the floating roof storage vessel 
degassing emissions, which may require opening the storage vessel to 
make these connections. Therefore, we are proposing that a floating 
roof storage vessel may be opened prior to degassing to set up 
equipment (i.e., make connections to a temporary control device), but 
this must be done in a limited manner and must not actively purge the 
storage vessel while connections are made.
    An opportunity to comment on the storage vessel degassing 
provisions was not previously provided because the provisions were 
included in the final rules but not in the proposed rules. Therefore, 
the EPA is re-proposing what was finalized for each rule in 2020 and is 
proposing additional revisions to address degassing of floating roof 
storage vessels. We are proposing storage vessel degassing standards 
for the EMACT standards at 40 CFR 63.1103(e)(10), the OLD NESHAP at 40 
CFR 63.2346(a)(6), and the MON at 40 CFR 63.2470(f).

C. Other Technical Corrections and Clarifications

    There are several additional revisions that we are proposing for 
the EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, MON, and Petroleum Refineries NESHAP 
to address other technical corrections and clarifications and to 
correct typographical errors. These proposed corrections and 
clarifications are summarized in table 2 through table 4 of this 
preamble in the following sections. We request public comment on each 
of these revisions.
1. EMACT Standards
    Table 2 of this preamble provides responses to specific issues 
raised by stakeholders and presents proposed revisions to the EMACT 
standards to address certain technical corrections, clarifications, and 
typographical errors.

[[Page 25583]]



  Table 2--Summary of Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Provision               Issue summary       Proposed revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.1103(e)(7)(i).....  Delay of burner       An opportunity to
                               repair provisions:    comment on the
                              A petitioner argued    delay of burner
                               that requiring an     repair provisions
                               ethylene cracking     was not previously
                               furnace to            provided because
                               implement the delay   the provisions were
                               of burner repair      included in the
                               provisions            final rule but not
                               finalized in the      in the proposed
                               2020 final rule is    rule. Therefore,
                               impracticable and     the EPA is re-
                               is inconsistent       proposing what was
                               with what the best    finalized along
                               performers are        with the following
                               doing. The            revisions for delay
                               petitioner stated     of burner repair.
                               that a significant    The EPA is
                               amount of             proposing to remove
                               preparation is        the requirement
                               needed to shut down   that the owner or
                               an ethylene           operator may only
                               cracking furnace      delay burner repair
                               and that no source    beyond 1 calendar
                               can comply with the   day if a shutdown
                               delay of burner       for repair would
                               repair provisions     cause greater
                               as written.           emissions than the
                               Accordingly, where    potential emissions
                               a burner cannot be    from delaying
                               repaired without an   repair. We agree
                               ethylene cracking     that this
                               furnace shutdown,     requirement is
                               owners or operators   impracticable and
                               would have to         could lead to more
                               decoke their          decoking events and
                               ethylene cracking     more emissions from
                               furnaces              decoking of
                               immediately (i.e.,    ethylene cracking
                               within 1 day of       furnaces. Instead,
                               identifying flame     the EPA is
                               impingement),         proposing that
                               leading to more       delay of repair
                               decoking events and   beyond 1 calendar
                               subsequently more     day is allowed if
                               emissions from the    the repair cannot
                               decoking of           be completed during
                               ethylene cracking     normal operations,
                               furnaces.             the burner cannot
                                                     be shut down
                                                     without
                                                     significantly
                                                     impacting the
                                                     furnace heat
                                                     distribution and
                                                     firing rate, and
                                                     action is taken to
                                                     reduce flame
                                                     impingement as much
                                                     as possible during
                                                     continued
                                                     operation. We are
                                                     also maintaining
                                                     that if a delay of
                                                     repair is required
                                                     to fully resolve
                                                     burner flame
                                                     impingement, repair
                                                     must be completed
                                                     following the next
                                                     planned decoking
                                                     operation (and
                                                     before returning
                                                     the ethylene
                                                     cracking furnace
                                                     back to normal
                                                     operations) or
                                                     during the next
                                                     ethylene cracking
                                                     furnace complete
                                                     shutdown (when the
                                                     ethylene cracking
                                                     furnace firebox is
                                                     taken completely
                                                     offline), whichever
                                                     is earlier.
40 CFR 63.1103(e)(8)(i).....  Isolation valve       The EPA agrees with
                               inspection and        the petitioner and
                               repair:               is proposing
                              A petitioner           language to allow
                               requested that the    facilities to wait
                               EPA revise the        and rectify
                               requirement to        isolation valve
                               rectify poor          issues after a
                               isolation prior to    decoking operation,
                               continuing decoking   provided that the
                               operations. The       owner or operator
                               petitioner argued     can reasonably
                               that certain          demonstrate that
                               isolation valve       damage to the
                               repairs must be       radiant tube(s) or
                               completed after the   ethylene cracking
                               ethylene cracking     furnace would occur
                               furnace is shut       if the repair was
                               down, which           attempted prior to
                               consequently          completing a
                               requires the          decoking operation
                               ethylene cracking     and/or prior to the
                               furnace to go         ethylene cracking
                               through decoking.     furnace being shut
                               The petitioner said   down.
                               that if a furnace
                               is not decoked
                               prior to shutdown,
                               damage can occur to
                               the furnace tubes
                               and could pose a
                               safety issue. In
                               addition, the
                               petitioner noted
                               that some isolation
                               valves serve gas
                               streams from
                               multiple ethylene
                               cracking furnaces,
                               and there may be
                               instances when all
                               furnaces would need
                               to be decoked and
                               shut down to
                               properly rectify
                               the isolation valve
                               issue. The
                               petitioner argued
                               that allowing for
                               some flexibility is
                               necessary for
                               facilities to
                               operate properly
                               and to avoid
                               damaging equipment.
40 CFR 63.1110(e)(4)(iii)...  Provision contains a  The EPA is proposing
                               typographical error.  to replace ``Sec.
                                                     63.1109(e)(7)''
                                                     with ``Sec.
                                                     63.1109(e)(6)'' to
                                                     correct the
                                                     typographical
                                                     error.
40 CFR 63.1102(c)(11),        Provisions contain a  The EPA is proposing
 (d)(2)(ii), and (e)(2)(iii).  typographical error.  to replace ``Sec.
                                                     63.1108(a)(4)(i)''
                                                     with ``Sec.
                                                     63.1108(a)(4)'' to
                                                     correct a
                                                     typographical error
                                                     that we made while
                                                     removing startup,
                                                     shutdown, and
                                                     malfunction (SSM)
                                                     exemptions. Our
                                                     intent was to
                                                     include all of 40
                                                     CFR 63.1108(a)(4)
                                                     in the EMACT
                                                     standards. This
                                                     proposed revision
                                                     would also resolve
                                                     analogous
                                                     typographical
                                                     errors for the
                                                     carbon black and
                                                     cyanide chemicals
                                                     source categories
                                                     that are also
                                                     contained in 40 CFR
                                                     part 63, subpart
                                                     YY.

[[Page 25584]]

 
40 CFR 63.1103(e)(4)(iii)     Provisions needing    The EPA is proposing
 and 63.1110(a)(10)(i),        technical             to remove
 (ii), (iii), and (iv).        clarifications or     duplication and
                               removal.              point directly to
                                                     40 CFR 63.9(k) when
                                                     the source is
                                                     required to submit
                                                     certain reports to
                                                     CEDRI.
                                                     Specifically,
                                                     instructions for
                                                     submitting reports
                                                     electronically
                                                     through CEDRI,
                                                     including
                                                     instructions for
                                                     submitting CBI and
                                                     asserting a claim
                                                     of EPA system
                                                     outage or force
                                                     majeure, were
                                                     recently added to
                                                     40 CFR 63.9(k) (85
                                                     FR 73885);
                                                     therefore, text
                                                     related to these
                                                     requirements is no
                                                     longer necessary in
                                                     the EMACT
                                                     standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. OLD NESHAP
    Table 3 of this preamble provides responses to specific issues 
raised by stakeholders and presents proposed revisions to the OLD 
NESHAP to address certain technical corrections, clarifications, and 
typographical errors.

 Table 3--Summary of Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EEEE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Provision              Issue summary      Proposed revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2346(a)(6)..........  Provision          The EPA is proposing
                                 contains a         to replace ``items 3
                                 typographical      through 6 of table 2
                                 error.             to this subpart''
                                                    with ``items 2
                                                    through 6 of table 2
                                                    to this subpart'' to
                                                    correct the
                                                    typographical error.
40 CFR 63.2346(e).............  Provision          The EPA is proposing
                                 contains a         to replace ``storage
                                 typographical      vessels'' with
                                 error.             ``storage tanks'' to
                                                    correct the
                                                    typographical error.
40 CFR 63.2378(e)(3)..........  Provisions         The EPA is proposing
                                 needing            to add the word
                                 technical          ``planned'' in front
                                 clarifications.    of ``routine
                                                    maintenance'' in the
                                                    last sentence of the
                                                    provision to further
                                                    clarify that the
                                                    exemption only
                                                    applies to periods
                                                    of planned routine
                                                    maintenance. We are
                                                    also proposing to
                                                    replace ``storage
                                                    vessel'' with
                                                    ``storage tank'' in
                                                    the last sentence of
                                                    the provision to
                                                    correct a
                                                    typographical error.
40 CFR 63.2378(e)(4)..........  Provisions         To create consistency
                                 needing            in the time period
                                 technical          during which the
                                 clarifications.    bypass provision
                                                    applies (i.e., the
                                                    level of material in
                                                    the storage tank
                                                    must not be
                                                    increased during the
                                                    same time period
                                                    that breathing loss
                                                    emissions bypass the
                                                    fuel gas system or
                                                    process), we are
                                                    proposing to delete
                                                    ``to perform routine
                                                    maintenance'' from
                                                    the last sentence of
                                                    40 CFR
                                                    63.2378(e)(4). We
                                                    are also proposing
                                                    to replace ``storage
                                                    vessel'' with
                                                    ``storage tank'' in
                                                    the last sentence of
                                                    the provision to
                                                    correct a
                                                    typographical error.
40 CFR 63.2382(d)(3), and       Provisions         The EPA is proposing
 63.2386(f), (g), (h), (i),      needing            to remove
 and (j).                        technical          duplication and
                                 clarifications     point directly to 40
                                 or removal.        CFR 63.9(k) when the
                                                    source is required
                                                    to submit certain
                                                    reports to CEDRI.
                                                    Specifically,
                                                    instructions for
                                                    submitting reports
                                                    electronically
                                                    through CEDRI,
                                                    including
                                                    instructions for
                                                    submitting CBI and
                                                    asserting a claim of
                                                    EPA system outage or
                                                    force majeure, were
                                                    recently added to 40
                                                    CFR 63.9(k) (85 FR
                                                    73885); therefore,
                                                    text related to
                                                    these requirements
                                                    is no longer
                                                    necessary in the OLD
                                                    NESHAP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. MON
    This section of this preamble presents revisions we are proposing 
to the MON heat exchange system requirements. In addition, table 4 of 
this preamble provides responses to other specific issues raised by 
stakeholders and presents proposed revisions to the MON to address 
certain technical corrections, clarifications, and typographical 
errors.
    In May 2021, EPA Region 4 received a request from Eastman Chemical 
Company to perform alternative monitoring instead of the Modified El 
Paso Method to monitor for leaks in Eastman's Tennessee Operations heat 
exchange systems, which primarily have cooling water containing soluble 
HAP with a high boiling point. Eastman requested that the previous 
water sampling requirements for heat exchange system leaks provided in 
the MON, which ultimately references 40 CFR 63.104(b) (i.e., use of any 
EPA-approved method listed in part 136 of this chapter as long as the 
method is sensitive to concentrations as low as 10 parts per million 
(ppm) and the same method is used for both entrance and exit samples), 
be allowed for cooling water containing certain soluble HAP in lieu of 
using the Modified El Paso Method.
    Eastman specifically identified two HAP, 1,4-dioxane and methanol, 
which do not readily strip out of water using the Modified El Paso 
Method. Eastman's application for alternative monitoring included 
experimental data showing that the Modified El Paso Method would likely 
not identify a leak of these HAP in heat exchange system cooling water. 
Eastman conducted Modified El Paso Method monitoring under controlled 
scenarios to determine how much methanol and 1,4-dioxane would be 
detected. The scenarios included solutions of water and either methanol 
or 1,4-dioxane at concentrations of 1 part per million by weight 
(ppmw), 20 ppmw, and 100 ppmw (as measured using water sampling methods 
allowed previously in the MON). The Modified El Paso Method did not 
detect any

[[Page 25585]]

methanol or 1,4-dioxane from the 1 ppmw and 20 ppmw solutions (i.e., 
methanol and 1,4-dioxane did not strip out of the water in detectable 
amounts). The Modified El Paso Method detected very little HAP from the 
100 ppmw solutions, with a maximum of only 0.17 percent of the 1,4-
dioxane stripping out and being detected.
    Based on this information, the EPA is proposing at 40 CFR 
63.2490(e) that the leak monitoring requirements for heat exchange 
systems at 40 CFR 63.104(b) may be used in limited instances, instead 
of using the Modified El Paso Method to monitor for leaks. We still 
maintain that the Modified El Paso Method is the preferred method to 
monitor for leaks in heat exchange systems and are proposing that the 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.104(b) may only be used if 99 percent by 
weight or more of all the organic compounds that could potentially leak 
into the cooling water have a Henry's Law Constant less than 5.0E-6 
atmospheres per mole per cubic meter (atm-m\3\/mol) at 25[deg] Celsius. 
We selected this threshold based on a review of Henry's Law Constants 
for the HAP listed in table 4 to subpart F of 40 CFR part 63, as well 
as the water-soluble organic compounds listed in Eastman's request. 
Henry's Law Constants are available from the EPA at https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/. Examples of HAP that have a Henry's Law 
Constant of less than 5.0E-6 atm-m\3\/mol at 25[deg] Celsius are 
aniline, 2-chloroacetophenone, diethylene glycol diethyl ether, 
diethylene glycol dimethyl ether, dimethyl sulfate, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 
1,4-dioxane, ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate, ethylene glycol 
monomethyl ether acetate, methanol, and toluidine. Many of these HAP 
also have very high boiling points, with most above 300 [deg]F, which 
means they will generally stay in the cooling water and not be emitted 
to the atmosphere. While we are proposing that the leak monitoring and 
leak definition requirements at 40 CFR 63.104(b) may be used in limited 
instances, we are not proposing that other provisions of 40 CFR 63.104 
apply. Instead, for example, facilities that use water sampling to 
detect leaks must still comply with the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements of 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(16) and 40 CFR 63.2525(r). We are 
proposing revisions at 40 CFR 63.2520(e)(16) and 40 CFR 63.2525(r) to 
specify this.
    Table 4 of this preamble provides responses to other specific 
issues raised by stakeholders and presents proposed revisions to the 
MON to address certain technical corrections, clarifications, and 
typographical errors.

 Table 4--Summary of Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart FFFF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Provision               Issue summary       Proposed revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2450(e)(6)(i).....  Provision contains a  The EPA is proposing
                               typographical error.  to replace the
                                                     reference to 40 CFR
                                                     63.148(h)(3) with a
                                                     reference to 40 CFR
                                                     63.148(i)(3) to
                                                     correct the
                                                     typographical
                                                     error.
40 CFR 63.2450(e)(7)........  A petitioner          The EPA is proposing
                               requested that the    to clarify that 40
                               EPA clarify whether   CFR 63.2470(c)(3),
                               certain adsorber      40 CFR
                               provisions            63.2520(d)(6) and
                               referenced within     (e)(13), 40 CFR
                               40 CFR 63.983 and     63.2525(o), and the
                               other related         provisions
                               requirements and      referenced within
                               exceptions (i.e.,     40 CFR 63.983 all
                               40 CFR                apply (in addition
                               63.2470(c)(3), 40     to 40 CFR
                               CFR 63.2520(d)(6)     63.2450(e)(4) and
                               and (e)(13), and 40   (e)(6)) if
                               CFR 63.2525(o))       facilities reduce
                               apply to this         organic HAP
                               paragraph. The        emissions by
                               petitioner also       venting emissions
                               pointed out that it   through a closed-
                               is not clear          vent system to an
                               whether a             adsorber(s) that
                               supplement to the     cannot be
                               notification of       regenerated or a
                               compliance status     regenerative
                               (NOCS) report is      adsorber(s) that is
                               needed, and if        regenerated
                               necessary, what       offsite. We are
                               information should    also clarifying in
                               be provided.          40 CFR
                                                     63.2450(e)(1) that
                                                     40 CFR
                                                     63.2450(e)(1) does
                                                     not apply when
                                                     complying with 40
                                                     CFR 63.2450(e)(7).
                                                    As part of this
                                                     clarification, we
                                                     are also proposing
                                                     a new requirement
                                                     at 40 CFR
                                                     63.2520(d)(6) for
                                                     adsorbers subject
                                                     to the requirements
                                                     of 40 CFR
                                                     63.2450(e)(7)
                                                     requiring a
                                                     supplement to the
                                                     NOCS report within
                                                     150 days after the
                                                     first applicable
                                                     compliance date. We
                                                     are proposing that
                                                     the supplement to
                                                     the NOCS report
                                                     must describe
                                                     whether the
                                                     adsorber cannot be
                                                     regenerated or is a
                                                     regenerative
                                                     adsorber(s) that is
                                                     regenerated offsite
                                                     and must specify
                                                     the breakthrough
                                                     limit and adsorber
                                                     bed life that was
                                                     established during
                                                     the initial
                                                     performance test or
                                                     design evaluation
                                                     of the adsorber.
                                                     Finally, we are
                                                     proposing to revise
                                                     the introductory
                                                     paragraph of 40 CFR
                                                     63.2520 as well as
                                                     the requirement in
                                                     40 CFR 63.2515(d)
                                                     to update the
                                                     reference to the
                                                     proposed 40 CFR
                                                     63.2520(d)(6)
                                                     paragraph.
40 CFR 63.2460(c)(9)........  Provision contains a  The EPA is proposing
                               typographical error.  to replace the
                                                     phrase ``in
                                                     paragraphs
                                                     (c)(9)(i) through
                                                     (vi) of this
                                                     section'' with ``in
                                                     paragraphs
                                                     (c)(9)(i) through
                                                     (iv) of this
                                                     section'' to
                                                     correct the
                                                     typographical
                                                     error.
40 CFR 63.2480(a)...........  Provision contains a  The EPA is proposing
                               typographical error.  to replace the
                                                     phrase ``For each
                                                     light liquid pump,
                                                     valve, and
                                                     connector in
                                                     ethylene oxide
                                                     service'' with
                                                     ``For each light
                                                     liquid pump,
                                                     pressure relief
                                                     device, and
                                                     connector in
                                                     ethylene oxide
                                                     service'' to
                                                     correct the
                                                     typographical
                                                     error.

[[Page 25586]]

 
40 CFR 63.2480(e)(2)(ii) and  A petitioner pointed  It was our intent to
 (e)(2)(iii).                  out that EPA agreed   delete the second
                               in its response to    sentence from these
                               comment document      provisions (i.e.,
                               (see docket item      the requirement to
                               EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-074   conduct monitoring
                               6-0200) to delete     if rupture disks
                               the second sentence   are replaced). As
                               from these            stated in our
                               provisions;           response to comment
                               however, the final    document (see
                               rule (85 FR 49084)    docket item EPA-HQ-
                               does not reflect      OAR-2018-0746-0200)
                               these deletions.      , we agree that the
                                                     language diverges
                                                     from what 40 CFR
                                                     part 63, subpart
                                                     UU, required for
                                                     PRDs. Therefore, we
                                                     are proposing to
                                                     correct this error
                                                     by deleting the
                                                     second sentence
                                                     from these
                                                     provisions.
40 CFR 63.2480(f)(18)(iii)..  Provision contains a  The EPA is proposing
                               typographical error.  to replace ``Sec.
                                                     63.181(b)(2)(i)''
                                                     with ``Sec.
                                                     63.181(b)(3)(i)''
                                                     to correct the
                                                     typographical
                                                     error.
40 CFR 63.2480(f)(18)(vi)...  A petitioner          We agree with the
                               contended that the    petitioner and are
                               reference to          proposing to
                               information           clarify this
                               required to be        provision by
                               reported under 40     including ``in Sec.
                               CFR                     63.165(a).'' The
                               63.182(d)(2)(xiv)     proposed language
                               is too broad and      reads ``The
                               should be more        information in Sec.
                               narrowly described      63.165(a)
                               as ``information in   required to be
                               Sec.   63.165(a)      reported under 40
                               required to be        CFR
                               reported under 40     63.182(d)(2)(xiv)
                               CFR                   is now required to
                               63.182(d)(2)(xiv)''   be reported under
                               in order to clarify   Sec.
                               that the reporting    63.2520(e)(15)(i)
                               requirement is        through (iii).''
                               specific to the
                               recently
                               promulgated PRD
                               requirements.
40 CFR 63.2480(f)(18)(x)....  Provision contains a  The EPA is proposing
                               typographical error.  to replace ``Sec.
                                                     63.1022(a)(1)(v)''
                                                     with ``Sec.
                                                     63.1023(a)(1)(v)''
                                                     to correct the
                                                     typographical
                                                     error.
40 CFR 63.2480(f)(18)(xiii).  A petitioner          We agree with the
                               contended that the    petitioner and are
                               reference to          proposing to
                               information           clarify this
                               required to be        provision by
                               reported under 40     including ``in Sec.
                               CFR 63.1039(b)(4)       63.1030(b).'' The
                               is too broad and      proposed language
                               should be more        reads ``The
                               narrowly described    information in Sec.
                               as ``information in     63.1030(b)
                               Sec.   63.1030(b)     required to be
                               required to be        reported under 40
                               reported under 40     CFR 63.1039(b)(4)
                               CFR 63.1039(b)(4)''   is now required to
                               in order to clarify   be reported under
                               that the reporting    Sec.
                               requirement is        63.2520(e)(15)(i)
                               specific to the       and (ii).''
                               recently
                               promulgated PRD
                               requirements.
40 CFR 63.2493(a)(2)(vi) and  A petitioner          Scrubbers that use
 (b)(4).                       requested             an acid solution
                               clarification of      and reactant tank
                               scrubber monitoring   are the primary
                               parameters and the    focus of the
                               types of scrubbers    scrubber monitoring
                               that are applicable   requirements
                               to certain            because this type
                               requirements. The     of scrubber liquid
                               petitioner stated     is necessary to
                               that the rule is      specifically
                               only applicable to    control ethylene
                               scrubbers that use    oxide. As such, we
                               an acid solution      are not revising
                               and reactant tank,    the monitoring
                               but that other        parameters to apply
                               types of scrubbers    more broadly, such
                               are used in           as to scrubbers
                               instances when        that use water as
                               ethylene oxide is     the scrubbing
                               present in small      liquid. We are
                               amounts. The          proposing
                               petitioner            clarifying language
                               requested that the    that the monitoring
                               pH monitoring         requirements are
                               parameter be          applicable to
                               revised to account    scrubbers ``with a
                               for other types of    reactant tank.'' We
                               scrubbers. The        agree with the
                               petitioner also       petitioner
                               requested that the    regarding
                               temperature of the    temperature
                               ``scrubber liquid''   monitoring and are
                               be monitored          proposing a
                               instead of the        correction that the
                               temperature of the    temperature of the
                               ``water.''            ``scrubber liquid''
                                                     must be monitored.
                                                     If a facility uses
                                                     a scrubber without
                                                     a reactant tank
                                                     that provides
                                                     incidental control
                                                     of ethylene oxide,
                                                     the facility may
                                                     establish site-
                                                     specific parameters
                                                     using 40 CFR
                                                     63.2493(a)(2)(viii)
                                                     and (b)(6).
40 CFR 63.2492(b)...........  A petitioner          We agree with the
                               requested that an     petitioner and are
                               alternative to        proposing to allow
                               sampling and          calculations to be
                               analysis of storage   performed to show
                               tank materials        that the ethylene
                               should be allowed,    oxide concentration
                               to determine if a     is less than 0.1
                               storage tank is in    percent by weight
                               ethylene oxide        of the material
                               service. The          stored in the
                               petitioner stated     storage tank,
                               that information      provided the
                               already exists for    calculations rely
                               some storage tanks    on information
                               to show that the      specific to the
                               ethylene oxide        material stored.
                               concentration in      This may include
                               the material stored   using, for example,
                               is less than 0.1      specific
                               percent by weight     concentration
                               (sometimes            information from
                               significantly so)     safety data sheets.
                               and the requirement
                               to conduct sampling
                               and analysis is
                               unnecessary.
40 CFR 63.2493(b)(2)........  A petitioner          We agree with the
                               requested that the    petitioner that 40
                               EPA include           CFR 63.2493(b)(2)
                               introductory          only applies if the
                               language to clarify   facility chooses to
                               that the              route emissions to
                               requirements apply    a non-flare control
                               only if the           device and chooses
                               facility chooses to   to comply with the
                               route emissions to    1 ppmv standard via
                               a non-flare control   CEMS. Therefore, we
                               device and chooses    are proposing to
                               to comply with the    add introductory
                               1 ppmv standard via   text at 40 CFR
                               continuous emission   63.2493(b)(2) that
                               monitoring systems    clarifies this.
                               (CEMS).
40 CFR 63.2493(d)(3)........  A petitioner          We agree with the
                               contended that the    petitioner to
                               reference to          revise the
                               ``affected source''   provision for
                               should be revised     consistency with
                               to ``MCPU'' to be     table 6 to subpart
                               consistent with the   FFFF of part 63;
                               second column of      therefore, we are
                               table 6 to subpart    proposing to
                               FFFF of part 63.      replace ``affected
                                                     source'' with
                                                     ``MCPU.''
40 CFR 63.2493(d)(4)(v).....  Provision contains a  The EPA is proposing
                               typographical error.  to replace ``Sec.
                                                     63.2445(h)'' with
                                                     ``Sec.
                                                     63.2445(i)'' to
                                                     correct the
                                                     typographical
                                                     error.

[[Page 25587]]

 
40 CFR 63.2493(e)...........  A petitioner          We confirm that
                               requested the EPA     ``delay of repair''
                               clarify whether       provisions do not
                               ``delay of repair''   apply for equipment
                               provisions apply to   in ethylene oxide
                               equipment in          service. However,
                               ethylene oxide        we recognize the
                               service. The          rule language did
                               petitioner noted      not correctly
                               that in the           reflect this. As
                               response to           such, we are
                               comments for the      proposing to revise
                               final rule the EPA    40 CFR 63.2493(e)
                               stated that ``delay   to appropriately
                               of repair''           specify that the
                               provisions do not     ``delay of repair''
                               apply. However, the   provisions of 40
                               petitioner further    CFR part 63,
                               noted, the final      subparts H and UU,
                               rule language did     and 40 CFR part 65,
                               not reflect this.     subpart F, do not
                                                     apply.
40 CFR 63.2520(d)...........  A petitioner pointed  We acknowledge there
                               out that the EPA      was an
                               indicated in the      inconsistency in
                               preamble to the       what we said in the
                               final rule (85 FR     preamble about
                               49084) that           electronic
                               electronic            reporting NOCS
                               reporting is          reports versus what
                               required at 40 CFR    we required in the
                               63.2520(d) for the    final rule.
                               NOCS report;          However, the
                               however, the final    inconsistency is
                               rule does not         irrelevant because
                               contain this          in this rulemaking,
                               requirement. The      we are proposing at
                               petitioner            40 CFR 63.2520(d)
                               requested that the    to require that
                               EPA clarify that      NOCS reports be
                               this was a            submitted
                               misstatement in the   electronically
                               preamble language     through the EPA's
                               and that the NOCS     CEDRI. The proposed
                               report is not         requirement to
                               required to be        submit NOCS reports
                               submitted             electronically will
                               electronically.       increase the ease
                                                     and efficiency of
                                                     data submittal and
                                                     data accessibility.
                                                     For a more thorough
                                                     discussion of
                                                     electronic
                                                     reporting, see the
                                                     memorandum,
                                                     Electronic
                                                     Reporting
                                                     Requirements for
                                                     New Source
                                                     Performance
                                                     Standards (NSPS)
                                                     and National
                                                     Emission Standards
                                                     for Hazardous Air
                                                     Pollutants (NESHAP)
                                                     Rules, which is
                                                     available in the
                                                     docket for this
                                                     rulemaking (see
                                                     Docket Item No. EPA-
                                                     HQ-OAR-2018-0746-01
                                                     69).
40 CFR 63.2525(o)...........  A petitioner          In the final rule
                               requested that the    (85 FR 49084), we
                               EPA update the        inadvertently did
                               recordkeeping         not revise the
                               requirements for      recordkeeping
                               adsorbers that        requirements to
                               cannot be             reflect the
                               regenerated and for   associated
                               regenerative          monitoring
                               adsorbers that are    requirements in 40
                               regenerated offsite   CFR 63.2450(e)(7)
                               to reflect the        (for adsorbers that
                               monitoring            cannot be
                               requirements in the   regenerated and for
                               final rule (85 FR     regenerative
                               49084).               adsorbers that are
                               Specifically, the     regenerated
                               petitioner            offsite). We are
                               requested that the    proposing to
                               EPA revise 40 CFR     correct this by
                               63.2525(o)(1) to      revising 40 CFR
                               require that you      63.2525(o)(1) and
                               must keep records     (2) and removing
                               of the breakthrough   the requirement at
                               limit and bed life    40 CFR
                               for each adsorber     63.2525(o)(4) in
                               established           its entirety, as
                               according to 40 CFR   recommended by the
                               63.2450(e)(7)(i);     petitioner.
                               revise 40 CFR         However, we are not
                               63.2525(o)(2) to      proposing to revise
                               require that you      40 CFR
                               keep records of       63.2525(o)(3) as
                               each outlet HAP or    requested by the
                               TOC concentration     petitioner. We are
                               measured according    keeping the
                               to 40 CFR             language of 40 CFR
                               63.2450(e)(7)(ii)     63.2525(o)(3) ``as
                               and (e)(7)(iii);      is,'' which aligns
                               and revise 40 CFR     with the language
                               2525(o)(3) to         used in 40 CFR
                               require records of    63.2450(e)(7)(iii)(
                               the date and time     B).
                               each adsorber is
                               replaced. The
                               petitioner also
                               requested that EPA
                               remove the
                               requirement at 40
                               CFR 63.2525(o)(4)
                               in its entirety.
40 CFR 63.2520(e)(2)........  Provision contains a  The EPA is proposing
                               typographical error.  to correct the
                                                     spelling of
                                                     ``paragraph.''
40 CFR 63.2450(e)(5)(iv),     Provisions needing    The EPA is proposing
 63.2520(e), (f), (g), (h),    technical             to remove
 and (i).                      clarifications or     duplication and
                               removal.              point directly to
                                                     40 CFR 63.9(k) when
                                                     the source is
                                                     required to submit
                                                     certain reports to
                                                     CEDRI.
                                                     Specifically,
                                                     instructions for
                                                     submitting reports
                                                     electronically
                                                     through CEDRI,
                                                     including
                                                     instructions for
                                                     submitting CBI and
                                                     asserting a claim
                                                     of EPA system
                                                     outage or force
                                                     majeure, were
                                                     recently added to
                                                     40 CFR 63.9(k) (85
                                                     FR 73885);
                                                     therefore, text
                                                     related to these
                                                     requirements is no
                                                     longer necessary in
                                                     the MON.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Petroleum Refineries NESHAP
    In addition to removing the force majeure allowance from the PRD 
and emergency flaring work practice standards as discussed in section 
III.A of this preamble, we are also proposing other amendments to 
Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 that are consistent with flaring provisions 
in other recent rules (i.e., EMACT standards) that adopted the 
Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 flare requirements but addressed additional 
issues, such as adding provisions for pressure-assisted flares. The 
proposed amendments include adding pressure-assisted flares to the 
definition of the term ``flare'' in 40 CFR 63.641 and adding 
appropriate requirements for pressure-assisted flares in 40 CFR 63.670. 
These amendments are consistent with the EPA's intention that all types 
of flares, including pressure-assisted flares, are covered by the 
provisions in Petroleum Refinery MACT 1. The proposed amendments for 
pressure-assisted flares include pilot flame standards and requirements 
for cross-lighting in 40 CFR 63.670(b), pressure monitoring in 40 CFR 
63.670(d)(3), higher combustion zone operating limits in 40 CFR 
63.670(e), and requirements to use only the direct calculation methods 
for determining the flare vent gas net heating value according to 40 
CFR 63.670(l)(5)(ii). We are also proposing reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements specific to pressure-assisted flares in 40 CFR

[[Page 25588]]

63.655(g)(11)(iii) and (i)(9)(vi), respectively.
    Further, to provide additional flexibility to the monitoring 
requirements for flare gas composition as required by 40 CFR 63.670(j), 
we are proposing to add mass spectrometry as a method in 40 CFR 63.671. 
The current provisions in 40 CFR 63.671 could be interpreted to suggest 
that gas chromatographs must be used for flare gas compositional 
analysis. This was not our intent. We recognize that there are some 
methods, like mass spectrometry, which can determine flare gas 
composition without the use of a gas chromatograph. We are proposing to 
add specific requirements for calibration and operation of mass 
spectrometers that parallel the requirements for gas chromatographs.

D. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    We are not proposing new compliance dates for any revisions that we 
are proposing for the EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON. The rules 
that were promulgated in 2020 have still not come into full effect and 
owners and operators have until July 6, 2023, to comply with the EMACT 
standards, July 7, 2023, for the OLD NESHAP, and August 12, 2023, for 
the MON. As such, owners and operators would have until those dates to 
comply with the proposed revisions. In addition, the proposed revisions 
do not impose substantial new requirements but rather provide clarity 
to the rules for owners and operators.
    For most actions that we are proposing for the petroleum refineries 
NESHAP, we are positing that facilities would need some time to 
successfully apply these revisions, including time to: read and 
understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to 
ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and 
shutdown, as defined in the rule; and make any necessary adjustments, 
including making adjustments to standard operating procedures, and 
convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware and 
software. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple compliance 
dates for individual requirements would create and the additional 
burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of 
the timeframe needed for compliance with the revised requirements, the 
EPA considers a period of 60 days after the effective date of the final 
rule to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable. 
Therefore, we are proposing that affected sources must be in compliance 
with most of the proposed revisions to the petroleum refineries NESHAP 
upon initial startup or within 60 days of the effective date of the 
final rule, whichever is later. There is one exception to this 
compliance period, discussed next.
    We are proposing that petroleum refinery owners or operators must 
comply with the new operating and monitoring requirements for flares 
upon initial startup or by the effective date of the final rule, 
whichever is later. We believe that compliance with the flare 
requirements immediately upon finalizing the rule is necessary to 
ensure that pressure-assisted flares are appropriately operated.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected facilities?

    In our final RTRs, we estimated the following:
    There are 26 facilities subject to the EMACT standards that are 
currently operating and five additional facilities under construction. 
A complete list of known facilities in the EMACT standards is available 
in appendix A of the memorandum, Review of the RACT/BACT/LAER 
Clearinghouse Database for the Ethylene Production Source Category (see 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0357-0008).
    There are 173 OLD NESHAP facilities currently operating and four 
additional OLD NESHAP facilities under construction. A complete list of 
known OLD NESHAP facilities is available in appendix A of the 
memorandum, National Impacts of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review 
Final Rule for the Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) Source 
Category (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0746-0069).
    There are 201 MON facilities currently operating. A complete list 
of known MON facilities is available in appendix 1 of the memorandum, 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and 
Technology Review Proposed Rule (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0746-0011).
    Additionally, based on the Energy Information Administration's 2021 
Refinery Capacity Report, there are 129 operable petroleum refineries 
in the United States (U.S.) and the U.S. territories, all of which are 
expected to be major sources of HAP emissions.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We did not estimate baseline emissions or emissions reductions for 
the proposed revisions. None of the proposed revisions would have a 
direct and quantifiable impact on emissions because they are minor 
revisions to existing requirements.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We expect minimal to no cost impacts due to the proposed revisions. 
There could be minor costs for affected facilities related to reading 
the proposed rule, making minor updates to operating procedures in some 
limited cases, and making minor adjustments to reporting systems. A few 
proposed revisions provide slightly greater flexibility and could yield 
minor cost savings. Any potential costs or cost savings are expected to 
be negligible.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    No economic impacts are anticipated due to the proposed revisions 
because any potential cost impacts are expected to be very minor.

E. What are the benefits?

    The proposed revisions are not expected to yield air quality 
benefits because emissions will not be affected. However, the proposed 
revisions should improve clarity, monitoring, compliance, and 
implementation of the rules for the affected source categories.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    The proposed revisions are not expected to impact emissions and 
therefore we did not conduct an environmental justice analysis. 
However, environmental justice analyses were conducted for the final 
2020 rules for the EMACT standards, OLD NESHAP, and MON. Further 
information regarding these environmental justice analyses is available 
at 85 FR 40415, 85 FR 40757, and 85 FR 49129, respectively.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action is not expected to impose any new information 
collection burden under the PRA for the EMACT

[[Page 25589]]

standards, OLD NESHAP, MON, or Petroleum Refineries NESHAP. We are 
proposing certain technical revisions, including new electronic 
reporting provisions for the PRD and emergency flaring work practice 
standards, but the technical revisions would not result in changes to 
the information collection burden. The reporting of the current PRD and 
emergency flaring data elements currently are typed up in a word 
processor and/or spreadsheet software and included in the submission to 
the delegated state authority and/or the EPA Regional Office. The 
proposed amendments would instead require facilities to submit the work 
practice related data using an EPA-provided spreadsheet template 
electronically through CEDRI. These data would not be expected to also 
be included in a facility's submission to the delegated state authority 
and/or EPA Regional Office, so no duplication is expected. The proposed 
amendments to the mode of reporting of the work practice related data 
are not expected to change the current burden under the PRA and we have 
not revised the information collection request (ICR) for the existing 
rules. OMB has previously approved the information collection 
activities contained in the existing regulations at: 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart YY, and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0489; 40 CFR part 
63, subpart EEEE, and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0539; 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart FFFF, and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0533; 
and 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, and has assigned OMB control number 
2060-0340.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subparts CC, YY, EEEE, and FFFF 
would only minimally change the existing requirements for all entities. 
There could be minor costs for affected facilities related to reading 
the proposed rule, making minor updates to operating procedures in some 
limited cases, and making minor adjustments to reporting systems. A few 
proposed revisions provide slightly greater flexibility and could yield 
minor cost savings. Any potential costs or cost savings are expected to 
be negligible.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action 
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the annual cost does 
not exceed $100 million or more.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial new direct effects 
on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental 
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the EMACT standards, MON, OLD NESHAP, and 
Petroleum Refineries NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards 
Systems Network Database managed by the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) 
organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted 
searches for: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3B, 4, 5, 18, 
21, 22, 25, 25A, 27, and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; EPA Methods 
301, 316 and 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; and EPA Methods 602 and 
624 of 40 CFR part 136, appendix A.
    No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for any 
of the listed methods. During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or 
abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and 
analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's reference method, 
the EPA reviewed it as a potential equivalent method.
    After reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that 
the 20 candidate VCS identified for measuring emissions of pollutants 
or their surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not 
be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, or validation 
data, or due to other important technical and policy considerations. 
Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be 
found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: for Ethylene 
Production, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Organic 
Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline), and Petroleum Refineries, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 
rulemaking, and, specifically, invites the public to identify 
potentially applicable VCS, and to explain why the EPA should use such 
standards in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) directs 
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations (people of color and/or indigenous 
peoples) and low-income populations.
    Because the proposed revisions are not expected to impact 
emissions, the EPA believes that this action is not likely to change 
existing disproportionate and adverse effects on

[[Page 25590]]

people of color, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. See 
section IV.F of this preamble for related information regarding 
environmental justice analyses.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-07627 Filed 4-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P