[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12723-12724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5658]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-5168-3]
RIN 2060-AD02
Federal Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading and Unloading
Operations and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Marine Vessel Loading and Unloading Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Reopening of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 13, 1994 (59 FR 25004), the EPA proposed standards to
regulate the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from new and existing marine tank vessel
loading and unloading operations which are part of major sources under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The initial public comment
period closed on July 18, 1994. With this document, the EPA reopens the
comment period on the marine tank vessel loading and unloading
operations to request comment on extending the proposed compliance
dates of 2 years and 3 years for sections 183(f) and 112 of the CAA
respectively.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 7, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(6102), ATTN. Docket Number A-90-44, Room M1500, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Dockets. Docket Number A-90-44 contains supporting information used
in developing the proposed provisions. This docket is available for
public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Waterside Mall, Room M1500, 410 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. David Markwordt, Policy,
Planning and Standards Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-0837.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 13, 1994 (59 FR 25004), the EPA
proposed standards to regulate the emissions of VOC and HAP from new
and existing marine tank vessel loading and unloading operations which
are part of major sources under sections 183(f) and 112 of the CAA. The
comment period on the proposed rule ended on July 18, 1994. This notice
reopens the public comment period for the proposed rule. However, only
comments limited to the subject described below will be considered at
this time.
The docket for the proposed rule for marine vessel loading and
unloading operations received many comments concerning the 2 and 3 year
compliance dates for section 183(f) and 112 of the CAA respectively
(see Docket Number A-90-44 items IV-D6, 7, 8, 23, 24, 28, 30, 31, 32,
34, 36, 39, 41, 42, 47, 50, 51, 55, 56, 58, 68, 71, 75, 78, 86, and
103).
These comments provide information that, according to the
commenters, show that the deadlines provided in the proposed rule are
not practicable. The commenters also suggest that there are provisions
in sections 112 and 183(f) which would allow the Agency to revise its
deadline for compliance.
Section 183(f)
The American Petroleum Institute (API) suggests that, as the
controls required under section 183(f) must be ``reasonably
available,'' the Agency cannot require implementation of controls
within 2 years if such controls can not reasonably be completed in the
2-year time frame. API suggests that EPA should delay the compliance
date to a date that is ``reasonable.'' API also suggests a possible
phase-in of the compliance date (see Docket Number A-90-44 item IV-D-
103).
In addition, API notes that section 183(f)(1)(B) provides that a
regulation issued pursuant to Section 183(f)
shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds *
* * necessary to permit the development and application of the
requisite technology, * * * except that the effective date shall not
be more than 2 years after promulgation of such regulation.
According to API, this requirement that the ``effective date'' be no
more than 2 years from promulgation does not necessarily mean that
facilities necessarily must complete installation of control equipment
within that period. Indeed, API notes that section 112(d) regulations
are effective upon promulgation, but the Agency is free to establish a
compliance date for existing sources of up to 3 years from the
effective date.
According to API, the use of the term ``reasonably available
control technology'' and imprecision of the term ``effective date'' in
section 183(f)(1)(B), as well as the provision's directive that the
Agency consider the ``development and application of the requisite
technology,'' would appear to provide EPA with the latitude to fashion
a solution similar to the one the Agency arrived at arising under
section 211. In a rulemaking pursuant to section 211(b), the Agency
prescribed testing requirements for fuels and fuel additives. The
Agency initially took the position that all testing had to have been
completed and submitted to the Agency within 3 years of the Section 211
rule's promulgation date. API presented evidence demonstrating that it
would be [[Page 12724]] impossible for the industry to meet this
deadline primarily because ``the number of laboratory facilities
currently available to conduct the required emission-based
toxicological tests is very limited.'' 59 FR 33046 (June 27, 1994). The
Agency added:
[W]hile EPA believes that some groups could complete the testing
required by the rule in 3 years, it is likely that not all of the
fuels and fuel additives to be tested could complete the
requirements in the 3-year time frame.
Id. The Agency resolved the issue in the final rule by requiring
complete ``Tier 2'' test data submittal within 3 years of the rule's
promulgation and a literature search, characterization of emissions,
exposure analysis, and evidence of a contractual obligation, ``a
qualified laboratory to conduct the required tests,'' and submittal of
complete Tier 2 test data within 6 years of promulgation. 59 FR 33046.
For the section 211(b) rulemaking, the Agency interpreted the term,
``requisite information'' as ``either data required by Tier 1 and 2 or
data required by Tier 1 and commitment to conduct Tier 2 testing.'' 59
FR 33047. Similarly, according to API, the 2-year ``effective date'' of
Section 183(f) could be construed to require that facilities subject to
the control requirements have contracts in place for the installation
of equipment within 2 years of the rule's promulgation. Installation of
equipment could be required by a reasonable date after the 2 year
deadline. (API suggests 3 years after that date.)
Section 112
One option for extending the compliance date for the Section 112
rule is to utilize the authority of Section 112(i)(3)(B), which
authorizes a 1-year extension ``if * * * necessary for the installation
of controls.'' As is noted in API's July 18, 1994 comments (see Docket
Number A-90-44 item IV-D34), the Agency could use the precedent of the
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP to announce, in the final rule, that
all facilities subject to control requirements will be afforded 4 years
from the promulgation date to achieve compliance. 55 FR 8332 (March 7,
1990). According to API, because of the very large number of facilities
that are likely to need extensions, an EPA requirement for individual
applications--and processing of those applications--would be
unnecessarily burdensome on both the facilities and the permitting
authorities.
Another option for extending the compliance date for the section
112 rule, according to API, is based on the Agency's experience with
the section 211 testing rule described above. The Agency could define
``compliance'' as having contracts in place for the installation of
equipment.
Finally, the Agency has concluded, in the final hazardous organic
NESHAP (HON) rule, that phasing in compliance with a section 112(d)
regulation is warranted in circumstances where requiring simultaneous
compliance by a large number of facilities would strain existing
contractors. 59 FR 19402 (April 22, 1994). In the HON rule, the Agency
allowed a phasing-in of the compliance date for equipment leaks for
existing sources. 40 CFR 63.100(k). Process units subject to the rule
were divided into five groups; Group V's compliance date is 1 year
later than Group I's. Similarly, the Agency has proposed to allow
phasing in of the compliance date for equipment leaks in thirds, over
an 18-month period in the Refinery MACT rule. 59 FR 36130 (June 30,
1994).
The Agency could use a similar approach in the final marine loading
and unloading rules. API suggested that one of several possible phase-
in approaches would be to require compliance in the following order:
(1) facilities subject to the section 183(f) rule that are located
in ozone nonattainment areas;
(2) facilities subject to the section 183(f) rule that are located
in ozone attainment areas;
(3) facilities subject to the section 112 rule only.
The Agency requests comments on whether the rule can legally go
beyond the 2 and 3 year compliance dates. And if extension of
compliance dates beyond the 2 and 3 year requirements is legal, should
the Agency extend the compliance schedules?
Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
Address: Docket. Docket No. A-90-44, containing supporting
information used in developing the notice, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the Agency's Air Docket, Room M1500, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
B. Executive Order 12866 Review
The Agency has determined that this action is not ``significant''
under the terms of the Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain any information collection
requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
55 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(6), I hereby certify that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities because it imposes no new requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations.
Dated: March 1, 1995.
Mary D. Nichols.
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-5658 Filed 3-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P