[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 107 (Monday, June 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13666]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 6, 1994]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-4892-5]

 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Category: Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Other Processes Subject to 
the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks; Determination of MACT 
``Floor''

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 31, 1992, the EPA proposed standards to regulate 
the emissions of certain organic hazardous air pollutants from 
synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) production 
processes and seven other processes which are part of major sources 
under section 112 of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act). 
This rulemaking is commonly called the Hazardous Organic NESHAP or the 
HON. In the final action regarding the December 31, 1992 proposal, 
which was signed on February 28, 1994, and published in the Federal 
Register on April 22, 1994, EPA deferred taking final action regarding 
provisions applicable to medium storage vessels due to the need to 
resolve an issue of statutory interpretation of section 112(d)(3)(A) of 
the Act. On March 9, 1994, EPA reopened the comment period to request 
additional comment on the appropriate interpretation of this statutory 
provision and the effect of that interpretation on the appropriate 
control requirements for medium storage vessels at facilities subject 
to the HON.
    This action announces EPA's final decision regarding the 
interpretation of Clean Air Act section 112(d)(3)(A) for purposes of 
the HON and the final decision regarding control provisions applicable 
to medium storage vessels in SOCMI facilities subject to the HON. The 
decision announced in this action regarding the interpretation of Clean 
Air Act section 112(d)(3)(A) for purposes of the HON will be 
presumptively followed in subsequent MACT rulemakings, but it will not 
be binding. Although EPA believes that Congress intended one 
interpretation--referred to as the ``Higher Floor Interpretation''--in 
Clean Air Act section 112(d)(3)(A), EPA also believes that the Agency 
retains discretion in important respects in setting Floors for MACT 
standards. EPA intends to exercise its discretion, within the statutory 
framework, to promulgate MACT standards that best serve the public 
interest.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 1994.
    See Supplementary Information section concerning judicial review.

ADDRESSES: Dockets. The following dockets contain supporting 
information used in developing the proposed provisions. Docket Number 
A-90-19 contains general information used to characterize emissions and 
control costs for the industry and Docket A-90-21 contains information 
on storage vessels. These dockets are available for public inspection 
and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the 
EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Waterside Mall, 
room M1500, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee 
may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: On technical issues, Dr. Janet S. 
Meyer, Standards Development Branch, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone number (919) 541-5254. For further information on the legal 
issue addressed in this notice, contact Michael S. Winer, Assistant 
General Counsel, Air and Radiation Division (2344), Office of General 
Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, 
DC 20460, telephone number (202) 260-7606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of the actions taken by this document is available only on the filing 
of a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's publication of this rule. 
Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are subject 
to today's document may not be challenged later in civil or criminal 
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Public Comment: Approximately 55 comment letters were received in 
response to the March 9, 1994 (59 FR 11018) reopening of the comment 
period. The majority of these letters were from industries or 
industrial trade associations, arguing in favor of the less stringent 
``Lower Floor Interpretation.'' Environmental groups, State or local 
governments and labor unions argued almost uniformly in favor of the 
more stringent ``Higher Floor Interpretation.'' The EPA considered all 
public comments in framing the final policy for MACT floor 
determination and in selection of the requirements for medium storage 
vessels. The major issues raised by the comments are addressed in this 
preamble. The EPA's responses to all the comments can be found in 
docket A-90-19, Subcategory VI-B.

I. Summary of Decision on MACT Floor Determination

    This section describes EPA's decision with respect to the 
interpretation of Clean Air Act section 112(d)(3)(A) for purposes of 
this rulemaking. As set forth in more detail below, EPA believes that 
one of the interpretations of section 112(d)(3)(A)--referred to as the 
``Higher Floor Interpretation''--is the better and more natural reading 
of the statutory language.

A. Background

    Section 112(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act provides that Emissions 
standards promulgated under this subsection for existing sources * * * 
shall not be less stringent * * * than--
    (A) The average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 
12 percent of existing sources * * * 42 U.S.C. section 7412(d)(3). 
Existing sources for which the Administrator lacks emissions 
information and those that have recently achieved LAER are excluded 
from consideration. Id. (For categories or subcategories with fewer 
than 30 sources, standards may not be less stringent than ``the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources.'' CAA 
section 112(d)(3)(B)). The minimum level of stringency defined by this 
language has come to be known as the MACT Floor.
    In the March 9, 1994 Federal Register, EPA published a notice 
soliciting comment on ``the appropriate interpretation of'' section 
112(d)(3)(A). Two interpretations of section 112(d)(3)(A) were 
discussed. Under the first, referred to as the ``Higher Floor 
Interpretation,'' EPA would look at emission limitations achieved by 
each of the best performing 12 percent of existing sources, and average 
those limitations. ``Average'' would be interpreted to mean a measure 
of central tendency such as the arithmetic mean or median. (The 
arithmetic mean of a set of measurements is the sum of the measurements 
divided by the number of measurements in the set. The median is the 
value in a set of measurements below and above which there are an equal 
number of values, when the measurements are arranged in order of 
magnitude).
    Under the second, ``Lower Floor Interpretation,'' EPA would look at 
the average emission limits achieved by each of the best performing 12 
percent of existing sources, and take the lowest. This second 
interpretation groups the words ``average emission limitation'' into a 
single phrase, and asks what ``average emission limitation'' 
(accounting for variability over time, or between different pollutants 
being emitted from a facility) is ``achieved by'' all members of the 
best performing 12 percent.

B. EPA's Interpretation of Section 112(d)(3)(A)

    The EPA believes that the ``Higher Floor Interpretation'' is a 
better reading of Clean Air Act section 112(d)(3)(A) than the ``Lower 
Floor Interpretation.'' This conclusion is based on a review of the 
statute, legislative history and comments received in response to EPA's 
March 9 notice.
1. The Statutory Language
    Section 112(d)(3)(A) requires that standards be no less stringent 
than ``* * * the average emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing 12 percent of existing sources * * *''. The EPA believes 
that the most natural and straightforward reading of this language 
would have EPA first determine the emission limitations achieved by 
sources within the best performing 12 percent, and then average those 
limitations. This is the method described above as the ``Higher Floor 
Interpretation.''
    The EPA believes that if Congress had intended the Lower Floor 
Interpretation, language other than that actually used in section 
112(d)(3)(A) would have been far more natural. For example, Congress 
could easily have expressed the Lower Floor Interpretation by requiring 
standards to be no less stringent than ``the emission limitation 
achieved by all sources within the best performing 12 percent.'' 
Similarly, Congress could have required standards to be no less 
stringent than ``the average emission limitation achieved by the worst 
performing member of the best performing 12 percent,'' or ``the 
emission limitation (averaged over time to take account of variability 
in the effectiveness of control) achieved by all sources within the 
best performing 12 percent.'' Any of such phrases would have been a 
more natural way to convey the Lower Floor Interpretation than the 
language Congress chose. However, the actual language of section 
112(d)(3)(A) provides, in straightforward fashion, that standards may 
be no less stringent than the ``average emission limitation achieved by 
the best performing 12 percent * * *''. To glean the Lower Floor 
Interpretation from this language is a strain; words and concepts not 
set forth in the statute must be added or inferred.
    The language of section 112(d)(3)(B) makes this point even clearer. 
That section requires that standards for existing sources in categories 
or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources be no less stringent than

    The average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 
5 sources * * *

42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(3)(B). If an interpretation parallel to the Lower 
Floor Interpretation were intended, it would have been more natural for 
this provision to read ``the emission limitation achieved by the 5th 
best performing source.''
2. The Legislative History
    The legislative history lends strong support to the view that, in 
passing section 112(d)(3)(A), Congress intended the Higher Floor 
Interpretation.
    On the House side, the language that would eventually become 
section 112(d)(3)(A) was offered as a compromise amendment by Rep. 
Dingell on the House Floor on May 23, 1990. (The language of the 
amendment was identical to section 112(d)(3)(A) as ultimately enacted 
into law; only the numbers were different). Rep. Dingell yielded time 
to Rep. Collins ``for purposes of explaining the amendment.'' 
Legislative History of 1990 CAA Amendments at 2896. In doing so, Rep. 
Collins noted that she had originally supported slightly more stringent 
numbers than those included in the amendment, and that under her 
original proposal

    The average of emissions from the 10 percent cleanest sources 
would be the MACT standard. In cases where there are less than 30 
sources in a category or subcategory, the average of the 3 cleanest 
sources would determine the standard.

Id. She went on to explain that under the compromise amendment 
introduced by Rep. Dingell

    MACT for existing stationary sources would be the average of the 
best 15 [percent] of technologies within each category or 
subcategory. For categories or subcategories where there are less 
than 30 sources, the standard is based on the average emissions from 
the best performing 5 sources.

Legislative History of 1990 CAA Amendments at 2897.
    Rep. Collins' formulations are consistent with the Higher Floor 
Interpretation, not the Lower. The ``average of the 3 cleanest 
sources'' cannot mean, as the Lower Floor Interpretation would require, 
the level of control achieved by all three of the ``cleanest sources.'' 
Nor can the ``average of the best 15 [percent] of technologies'' mean a 
technology as good as that used by all sources within the top 15 
percent.
    Another discussion of section 112(d)(3) is similar. On October 27, 
1990, Sen. Durenberger (a principal supporter of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments) explained the provision on the Senate floor. His 
explanation was as follows:

    The standard may not be less stringent than the average of the 
emission levels achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the 
existing sources within the category* * * The Administrator is to 
exclude from the calculation of the average of top 12 percent any 
source which met the following conditions* * *

Legislative History of 1990 CAA Amendments at 870 (Cong. Rec. S16929--
Oct. 27, 1990). The second sentence of Sen. Durenberger's statement, in 
particular, is inconsistent with the Lower Floor Interpretation. Sen. 
Durenberger makes clear that the ``average'' called for in the statute 
is of the ``top 12 percent,'' not the emission limitations achieved 
over time at each individual source.
    No legislative history was found that supports the Lower Floor 
Interpretation. The EPA believes that the legislative history indicates 
that individual legislators--including those central to the drafting of 
section 112(d)(3)--understood the word ``average'' to mean that once 
the emission limitations achieved by the best performers in a category 
had been determined, those results should be averaged. This is the 
method of the Higher Floor Interpretation, not the Lower.
3. Issues Raised in Public Comment
    a. Arguments Concerning the Statutory Language.
    (i) Plain Meaning of the Statute. Several commenters argued that 
the meaning of the statute was plain on its face and that Congress 
clearly intended the Higher Floor Interpretation. These commenters 
argued that when section 112(d)(3)(A) is read as a whole in its most 
natural way, the Congressional intent in favor of the Higher Floor 
Interpretation is clear. They argued that if Congress had intended the 
Lower Floor Interpretation, it would have used different language in 
the statute.
    The EPA agrees with these comments. As set forth in greater detail 
above, EPA believes the plain statutory language strongly favors the 
Higher Floor Interpretation.
    (ii) Congress' Failure to Use the Words ``of the''. Several 
commenters argued that if Congress had meant the Higher Floor 
Interpretation, it would have added the words ``of the'' to the 
statute, so that section 112(d)(3)(A) would read ``the average of the 
emission limitations achieved by the best performing 12 percent.'' 
These commenters saw the absence of the words ``of the'' in the statute 
as evidence that Congress intended the Lower Floor Interpretation.
    The EPA agrees that the statute would be more clear if Congress had 
used the words ``of the,'' but disagrees with the conclusion drawn by 
these commenters for two reasons. First, standard English usage often 
permits dropping the prepositions ``of the'' without changing the 
meaning of a phrase. (For example, ``the biggest mountain in North 
America'' has the same meaning as ``the biggest of the mountains in 
North America.'' ``Best singer in the band'' has the same meaning as 
``best of the singers in the band.'') The same cannot be said, however, 
for the various phrases and concepts that must be read into section 
112(d)(3)(A) in order to arrive at the Lower Floor Interpretation. 
Phrases like ``the worst performing member of...'' or ``averaged over 
time...'' simply are not dropped as part of standard English. Their 
absence from section 112(d)(3)(A)--unlike the absence of the words ``of 
the''--must be considered significant in interpreting the provision.
    Second, although the words ``of the'' do not appear in section 
112(d)(3)(A), they were used by key legislators in summarizing that 
section prior to passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. As noted 
above, when Sen. Durenberger (a principal supporter of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments) spoke on the Senate floor on October 27, 1990, he 
explained section 112(d)(3)(A) as follows:

    The standard may not be less stringent than the average of the 
emission levels achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the 
existing sources within the category* * *

Legislative History of 1990 CAA Amendments at 870 (Cong. Rec. S16929--
Oct. 27, 1990) (emphasis added). As also noted above, when Rep. Collins 
introduced the provision in the House, she described it as follows:

    The average of emissions from the 10 percent cleanest sources 
would be the MACT standard. In cases where there are less than 30 
sources in a category or subcategory, the average of the 3 cleanest 
sources would determine the standard.

Legislative History of 1990 CAA Amendments at 2896 (emphasis added) 
(describing a provision with identical language but different numbers 
than the one ultimately enacted into law).
    In EPA's view, the fact that Congress did not use the words ``of 
the'' in section 112(d)(3)(A) is fully consistent with standard 
English. However, the fact that key legislators did use these words in 
describing the provision to their colleagues, in combination with the 
failure of those legislators to use the phrases on which the Lower 
Floor Interpretation depends, provides a strong indication that 
Congress intended the Higher Floor Interpretation in enacting section 
112(d)(3)(A).
    (iii) Purpose of the Word ``Average''. Several commenters argued 
that the word ``average'' in section 112(d)(3)(A) should be read to 
require averaging not of emissions from different sources within the 
top 12 percent, but instead of emissions from individual sources at 
different times, or from different emission points, or made up of 
different HAP. The EPA does not agree that the word ``average'' in 
section 112(d)(3)(A) can reasonably be read to serve this purpose. 
First, such a reading is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile 
with the provision of section 112(d)(3) establishing a ``floor'' for 
new sources. Under those provisions, new source standards may not be 
less stringent than

    The emission control that is achieved in practice by the best 
controlled similar source.

42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(3). Notably, Congress did not use the word 
``average'' in this provision. If the word ``average'' in section 
112(d)(3)(A) was intended to refer to averages across time, or between 
emission points, or among different HAP, then Congress must have 
intended that such averaging would take place for existing source 
standards, but not for new source standards. There is no reason to 
believe Congress intended this implausible result.
    There is a much more likely explanation: That to the extent 
Congress contemplated that averaging across time, or between emission 
points, or among HAP would play a role in either existing or new source 
MACT standards, it considered the terms ``emission limitation'' and 
``emission control'' fully adequate to reflect that fact. In EPA's air 
program, emission limitations have routinely been expressed in terms of 
averages across time, for example, without any special statutory 
direction or authority. There is no reason to believe that Congress 
would have thought that special instructions were needed to ensure that 
EPA continued this practice, and even less reason to believe Congress 
would have thought special instructions were needed with respect to 
existing source standards, but not new source standards.
    Furthermore, the legislative history of section 112 casts doubt on 
the interpretation of the word ``average'' offered by these commenters. 
When Congress comprehensively revised section 112 in the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, it based the revisions in substantial part on the 
Clean Water Act's effluent guidelines program. (See, e.g., Remarks of 
Sen. Durenberger, Cong. Rec. S516 (January 30, 1990) (``* * * this 
approach to regulation of toxic air pollutants is not without 
precedent. A program very similar to the one I have just described has 
already been implemented under the Clean Water Act'').) Under that 
program, certain limits (known as ``BPT limits'') have long been based 
on the ``average of the best'' performance at existing facilities. (See 
generally Remarks of Sen. Muskie, Legislative History of Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act of 1972 at 169-70 (``The Administrator should 
establish the range of `best practicable' levels based upon the average 
of the best existing performance by plants of various sizes, ages and 
unit processes.'')) In determining ``average of the best'' under the 
Clean Water Act, EPA has historically identified the best performers in 
an industrial category, and then averaged their performances. This 
methodology is consistent with the Higher Floor Interpretation and not 
the Lower.
    (iv) Proximity of the Word ``Average'' to the Words ``Emission 
Limitation''. Several commenters argued that the proximity of the word 
``average'' to the words ``emission limitation'' suggests that 
``average'' modifies ``emission limitation,'' and not the entire phrase 
following those words. The EPA does not agree with this argument. In 
English, adjectives often modify not only the noun immediately 
following, but an entire phrase. In the phrase ``the biggest mountain 
in North America climbed by members of the Washington, D.C. Climbing 
Club,'' for example, the adjective ``biggest'' modifies the entire 
remainder of the phrase. There is no reason to conclude that the word 
``average'' in section 112(d)(3)(A) plays a different role.
    (v) Use of the Words ``Achieved By''. Several commenters argued 
that the use of the words ``achieved by'' in the statute indicates that 
all sources within the top 12 percent must be achieving the emission 
limitations used to set the MACT Floor.
    The EPA does not agree with this argument. The EPA believes the 
argument depends both on inferring the presence of the word ``all'' in 
section 112(d)(3)(A), and (as discussed above) on ignoring, or 
incorrectly construing, the meaning of the word ``average.'' Section 
112(d)(3)(A) simply does not say ``the emission limitation achieved by 
all sources within the best performing 12 percent* * *''. Congress' use 
of the words ``achieved by'' cannot reasonably be stretched to 
accomplish such a rewriting of the statute.
    b. Arguments Concerning Structure of the Statute. Several 
commenters argued that elements of the statute's structure support the 
Lower Floor Interpretation. For example, some commenters argued that 
the Lower Floor Interpretation best reflects EPA's authority to 
consider cost and other factors in setting standards more stringent 
than MACT Floor. Other commenters argued that the Lower Floor 
Interpretation best reflects the distinction between existing source 
MACT and new source MACT.
    The EPA does not agree with these arguments. In fact, the Higher 
Floor Interpretation fully preserves both of these structural elements 
of the statute. With the Higher Floor Interpretation, just as with the 
Lower, EPA still has authority to establish existing source standards 
more stringent than the Floor based on enumerated criteria. With the 
Higher Floor Interpretation, just as with the Lower, there is still a 
distinction between the Floor for existing sources and the level of 
control required for new sources. (Under section 112(d)(3), standards 
for new sources must be at least as stringent as ``the emission control 
that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source''). 
The fact that there may be ``less distance'' to travel above the Floor 
with the Higher Floor Interpretation does not establish an 
inconsistency between that interpretation and other parts of the 
statute, nor does it mean that the interpretation is flawed in any way.
    Furthermore, structural arguments tend to favor the Higher Floor 
Interpretation more strongly than the Lower. Section 112 was passed in 
its current form to ensure quick and dramatic reductions in air toxics 
emissions. Congress was frustrated with the slow pace of toxics control 
prior to 1990, and many members in part blamed EPA for weak controls. 
See, e.g., H. Comm. Rep. 101-490 at 150-54, 322-23; S. Rpt. 101-228 at 
128-33. The structure and purpose of section 112 as a whole indicates 
that section 112(d)(3)(A) was intended to establish a stringent minimum 
level of control for hazardous air pollutants.
    c. Additional Arguments. Several commenters argued that the Higher 
Floor Interpretation would require EPA to set MACT Floors that failed 
to correspond to real-world control technologies.
    The EPA does not agree with this argument. The EPA believes that 
the argument depends upon a flawed premise: That the word ``average'' 
can only mean ``arithmetic mean.'' In fact, there are a number of 
conventional methods for determining the average of a data set, 
including the median. Congress did not mandate a particular method of 
determining ``average'' or central tendency in section 112(d)(3)(A), 
and the choice of methodology--whether median, mean, or some other 
measure--can often change the results markedly. For example, if the 
five facilities that make up the top 12 percent of a source category 
are achieving reductions equal to 99 percent, 98 percent, 95 percent, 
94 percent and 93 percent, EPA need not set the MACT Floor equal to the 
arithmetic mean of these values, which is 95.8 percent. Using the 
Higher Floor Interpretation, EPA could set the MACT Floor equal the 
median of these values, which is 95 percent.
    This discussion responds to the most significant comments on legal 
issues received in response to the March 9, 1994 Federal Register 
document. Other comments on legal issues are addressed in item number 
VI-B-61 in docket A-90-19.

C. Conclusion

    The EPA believes that Congress spoke with clarity in section 
112(d)(3)(A) of the Clean Air Act. That provision--requiring standards 
to be no less stringent than ``the average emission limitation achieved 
by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources''--lends little 
support for an interpretation under which standards might be set at the 
emission limitation achieved by the worst performing member of the best 
performing 12 percent of existing sources. The legislative history 
offers no support for such an interpretation, and indeed points 
strongly in the opposite direction. The EPA believes that the Higher 
Floor Interpretation represents the best reading of the statutory 
language.

II. Discretion in Setting Floors for MACT Standards

    In today's notice, EPA announces its conclusion that Congress 
intended the Higher Floor Interpretation. The effect of this decision, 
however, is not to identify any particular number (e.g. the 94th 
percentile) as the Floor for all MACT standards. EPA retains discretion 
in important respects in setting Floors for MACT standards, and intends 
to exercise its discretion, within the statutory framework, to 
promulgate MACT standards that best serve the public interest.
    EPA believes the Agency retains substantial discretion, within the 
statutory framework, to set MACT Floors at appropriate levels. For 
example, because Congress did not define the term ``average'' in 
section 112(d)(3), or in the legislative history, it implicitly 
delegated the authority to EPA to do so. The choice of methodology--
whether mean, median, mode, or some other measure--can often change the 
results. (The mean of a set of measurements is the sum of the 
measurements divided by the number of measurements in the set. The 
median is the value in a set of measurements below and above which 
there are an equal number of values, when the measurements are arranged 
in order of magnitude. The mode is the value that occurs most often in 
a set of measurements). As some commenters noted, the ``average of the 
best performing 12%'' corresponds to the 94th percentile when the word 
``average'' is construed to be the ``median.'' If, however, ``average'' 
is construed to be the ``arithmetic mean'' or ``mode,'' a different 
result may obtain. EPA construes the word ``average'' in section 
112(d)(3) to authorize the Agency to use any reasonable method, in a 
particular factual context, of determining the central tendency of a 
data set. In addition, EPA has discretion to use its best engineering 
judgment in collecting and analyzing the data, and in assessing the 
data's comprehensiveness, accuracy and variability, in order to 
determine which sources achieve the best emission reductions. EPA also 
has discretion in determining how to analyze the data, and thus in 
determining the appropriate ``average'' in each category or 
subcategory.
    There are other important ways that EPA retains discretion in 
setting MACT floors. For example, Congress authorized EPA to 
subcategorize source categories based on classes, types and sizes of 
sources, which will result in different Floors for different 
subcategories. CAA section 112(d)(1). Using this authority, EPA can 
tailor standards to certain characteristics of particular emission 
units and sources. EPA retains flexibility, for example, to conclude 
that the production processes used at particular sources in the 
relevant category are sufficiently different from processes used at 
other sources in the same category to justify the creation of a new 
subcategory.
    These examples are not meant to be exhaustive. EPA has only begun 
the process of setting MACT standards. As EPA gains experience in 
setting MACT Floors, other issues may arise that will require EPA to 
exercise its discretion in determining, for each case, what represents 
the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12% of 
existing sources (or the best performing five sources, in categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).

III. Precedential Impact of Today's Determination

    In its March 9, 1994 document, EPA stated that ``the MACT floor 
decision * * * in this rulemaking will have broad precedential effect, 
and will be presumptively followed in subsequent MACT rulemakings.'' 59 
FR 11018. Several commenters objected this statement, arguing that the 
issue of how best to interpret section 112(d)(3)(A) should have been 
addressed in a separate, generally applicable rulemaking.
    The EPA wishes to emphasize that, although today's decision 
concerning the interpretation of Clean Air Act section 112(d)(3) for 
purposes of the HON will be precedential for future rulemakings, it 
will not be binding. Specifically, EPA will fully consider all comments 
on individual MACT standards, including those regarding the proper 
interpretation of the language in sec. 112(d)(3)(A), received on or 
before the close of the comment periods for those standards.

IV. Application of MACT Floor Decision to Medium Storage Vessels at 
Facilities Subject to the HON

    As described in the March 9, 1994 Federal Register reopening the 
comment period, EPA requested comment on whether the control 
requirements for medium storage vessels previously proposed by EPA 
would be appropriate in the event those proposed controls were to be 
determined to be more stringent than the floor. Only four commenters 
addressed the question of the appropriate controls requirement for 
medium storage vessels and provided rationale for their opinions. Of 
these commenters, only one submitted information which purported to 
represent control information for SOCMI storage vessels. This 
information was reviewed and found to not provide any information on 
control performance and to represent storage vessels associated with 
non-SOCMI processes (i.e., other source categories) as well as SOCMI 
processes. Therefore, the submitted information could not be used to 
revise the database. The EPA review of this information is contained in 
item VI-B-62 in docket A-90-19. This section of the preamble, 
therefore, only presents the basis for the final decision on control 
requirements for medium sized storage vessels.
    For medium vessels, about 8 percent of the vessels are controlled 
with either a 90-percent efficient control device or an IFR or EFR with 
a continuous seal. All of the controlled medium-sized vessels contained 
liquids with vapor pressures of 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia). Because the 
arithmetic mean characteristics of the top 12 percent of the medium 
vessels would not represent the performance of any known technology, 
the EPA used the median as the average for these vessels. Thus, for 
medium-sized storage vessels, the floor determined by the average 
characteristics of the top 12 percent of the sources would require 
control of vessels storing liquids with vapor pressures of 13.1 kPa 
(1.9 psia) by either a 90-percent efficient control device or an IFR or 
EFR with a continuous seal.
    In selection of the control provisions for medium-sized storage 
vessels, EPA considered the regulatory alternatives that were presented 
in the April 22, 1994 Federal Register document. These alternatives 
reflected a combination of: (1) The floor control for medium-sized 
storage vessels, which at the time of proposal, were equipped with the 
floor controls and (2) the proposed control provisions for medium-sized 
storage vessels which were equipped with no control or less efficient 
controls than the performance of the revised floor component for the 
source-wide floor. The EPA did not develop a regulatory alternative 
corresponding to application of the revised floor control level to all 
storage vessels. Such an alternative would have essentially the same 
control costs as the proposed control provisions, but would result in a 
lower emission reduction. Because the floor control would represent a 
less economically efficient option and would add to the complexity of 
the rule, this option was not formally evaluated.
    For medium storage vessels at existing sources, control at the 
regulatory alternative used to represent the floor control was 
estimated to cost $2.4 million/yr and to result in an emission 
reduction of 370 Mg/yr (110 tons/yr). The regulatory option for control 
level beyond the floor component is estimated to further reduce 
emissions by less than 100 Mg/yr (110 tons/yr) at an additional cost of 
$4 million/yr, or $48,000/Mg for each additional Mg of emission 
reduction. Due to the relatively high incremental costs and low 
emission reductions of this alternative, the EPA believes that the 
control level for the medium storage vessels component of the source-
wide floor represented the maximum reduction achievable considering 
cost and other impacts.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
submitted to or otherwise considered by EPA in the development of this 
rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow 
interested parties to identify and locate documents so that they can 
effectively participate in the rulemaking process and (2) to serve as 
the record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review 
materials) (Section 307(d)(7)(A)).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements of these provisions in this 
rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request 
document has been prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1414.02), and a copy may 
be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M 
Street, SW., (2136), Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-
2740. These requirements are not effective until OMB approves them and 
a technical amendment to that effect is published in the Federal 
Register.
    The reporting and recordkeeping burden of the information 
collection requirements of the provisions for medium sized storage 
vessels are included in the estimate of the overall reporting burden, 
which is presented in ICR No. 1414.02. The information collection 
requirements for the entire rule has an estimated annual reporting 
burden averaging 1,400 hours per response, and an estimated annual 
recordkeeping burden averaging 5,400 hours per respondent. These 
estimates include time for reviewing instructions, searching existing 
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing 
and reviewing the collection of information.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M Street, SW., 
(Mail code 2136); Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''

C. Executive Order 12866

    This final action regarding provisions applicable to medium sized 
storage vessels in facilities subject to the HON has been reviewed in 
accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the Order, 
the Administrator has assessed the potential costs and benefits of the 
regulatory action. The methods for and results of these cost and 
benefit analyses are described in the HON's Regulatory Impact Analysis 
(RIA). The RIA was included in the HON docket at proposal, and thus it 
was made available for public comment.
    Executive Order 12866 also requires that the record for 
``significant'' rules include an assessment of the potentially 
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned action. 
The potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the 
control requirements in the HON were also analyzed as part of the rule 
development process. The methods for and results of these analyses are 
described in the HON's Background Information Document (BID). The BID 
was included in the HON docket at proposal, and thus it was also 
available for public comment. In addition, many of the alternative 
requirements considered by the Administrator were described in the 
preamble for the HON proposal.
    The potential costs associated with selection of the final 
provisions are primarily the result of statutory requirements. All 
elements of the cost that are not directly attributable to statutory 
requirements were deemed appropriate because the Administrator 
determined that they were necessary for administering this program 
effectively and efficiently. In assessing the potential costs and 
benefits--both quantitative and qualitative--of this rule, the 
Administrator has determined that the benefits justify the costs.
    The Administrator has also determined that this regulatory action 
does not unduly interfere with State, local and tribal governments in 
the exercise of their governmental functions.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the 
EPA to consider potential impacts of Federal regulations on small 
business entities. If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed 
regulation would have a significant economic impact on 20 percent or 
more of small entities, then a regulatory flexibility analysis must be 
prepared.
    Regulatory impacts are considered significant if any of the 
following criteria are met: (1) Compliance increases annual production 
costs by more than 5 percent, assuming costs are passed on to 
consumers; (2) compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small 
entities are at least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a 
percentage of sales for large entities; (3) capital costs of compliance 
represent a ``significant'' portion of capital available to small 
entities, considering internal cash flow plus external financial 
capabilities; or (4) regulatory requirements are likely to result in 
closures of small entities.
    The potential costs of the requirements for medium sized storage 
vessels were considered as part of the economic impact analysis for the 
entire regulation. The assessment of the economic impacts of the 
overall regulation were presented in the April 22, 1994 Federal 
Register (59 FR 19449). Therefore, the addition of the final provisions 
to the standard does not alter the conclusion that the standard is not 
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small firms.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify 
that this attached rule will not have an economic impact on small 
entities because no additional costs will be incurred.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: May 27, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63, title 40, chapter 
I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air 
Act (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq., as amended by Pub. L. 101-549, 104 
Stat. 2399).

Subpart G--National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air 
Pollutants from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry 
Process Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater

    2. Table 5 of the appendix to subpart G is revised to read as 
follows: 

         Table 5.--Group 1 Storage Vessels at Existing Sources          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Vapor    
              Vessel capacity (cubic meters)                Pressure\1\ 
                                                           (kilopascals)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
75  capacity <151.............................  13
                                                                    .1  
151  capacity.................................  5.
                                                                    2   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP at storage          
  temperature.                                                          

[FR Doc. 94-13666 Filed 6-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P