[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8574-8580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-4245]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[FRL-7453-1; Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0046]
RIN 2060-AJ53
Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage
Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23,
1984
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 27, 2000, the EPA issued a memorandum which stated
that process tanks are ``storage vessels'' under the definition in the
Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels
(Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which Construction,
Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23, 1984. On May
26, 2000, the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) filed a
petition for judicial review of the March 27, 2000 memorandum. The EPA
is proposing to amend the standards to address the issues raised by
AF&PA in its petition for review. The EPA is also proposing to amend
the standards to exempt storage vessels that are subject to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Solvent
Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production.
DATES: The EPA will accept comments regarding this proposal on or
before March 26, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Mail. Send your comments to: Air Docket, U.S. EPA, Mailcode:
6102T, Room B108, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC, 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0046.
[[Page 8575]]
Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Air Docket,
U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code: 6102T,
Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0046.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Morris, Organic Chemicals
Group, Emission Standards Division (Mail Code C504-04), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5416, electronic mail address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The regulated category
and entities affected by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS code regulated
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial...................... 325............... Chemical
manufacturing
facilities.
324............... Petroleum and coal
products
manufacturing
facilities
424710............ Petroleum bulk
stations and
terminals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers likely to be interested in the revisions to the
regulation affected by this action. To determine whether your facility,
company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine all of the applicability criteria in Sec.
60.110b of the standards, as well as in the proposed amendments to the
applicability sections contained in this proposal. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of these amendments to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0046. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received, and other information related to this action.
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center 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 Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for
the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the
public docket is available through the EPA's electronic public docket
and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to
access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the
appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in the EPA's
electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is that copyrighted material
will not be placed in the EPA's electronic public docket but will be
available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To
the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made
available in the EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is
selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify
whether the document is available for viewing in the EPA's electronic
public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facility. The EPA intends to work
toward providing electronic access to all of the publicly available
docket materials through the EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that the EPA's
policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in
paper, will be made available for public viewing in the EPA's
electronic public docket as the EPA receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When the EPA
identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, the EPA will
provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that
is placed in the EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed
comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the
public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to the EPA's electronic
public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the
docket will be scanned and placed in the EPA's electronic public
docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the
photograph will be placed in the EPA's electronic public docket along
with a brief description written by the docket staff.
For additional information about the EPA's electronic public
docket, visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.
Comments. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by
facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt
by the EPA, include Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0046 in the subject line on
the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' The EPA is not
required to consider these late comments.
Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed
below, the EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address,
and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your
comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any
disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the
disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows the EPA to contact you in case the
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs
further information on the substance of your comment. The EPA's policy
is that the EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in the EPA's electronic public docket. 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.
EPA Dockets. Your use of the EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to the EPA electronically is the EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket and follow the online instructions for
[[Page 8576]]
submitting comments. To access the EPA's electronic public docket from
the EPA Internet Home Page, select ``Information Sources,''
``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select
``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0046. The system is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0046. In contrast to
the EPA's electronic public docket, the EPA's e-mail system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to
the docket without going through the EPA's electronic public docket,
the EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-
mail addresses that are automatically captured by the EPA's e-mail
system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket, and made available in the EPA's electronic
public docket.
Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM to the
mailing address in the ADDRESSES section. These electronic submissions
will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of
special characters and any form of encryption.
Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention Docket
ID No. OAR-2002-0046.
Confidential Business Information. Do not submit information that
you consider to be CBI electronically through the EPA's electronic
public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as
CBI only to the following address: Attention: Mr. Mark Morris, c/o
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Mailcode C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 27711, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0046. You
may claim information that you submit to the EPA as CBI by marking any
part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD
ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket. If you
submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI.
Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and
the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have
any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please
consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. What standards are we proposing to amend and how does this action
relate to the overall scope of the subpart Kb rule?
II. Why are we proposing amendments to the standards and what
amendments are we proposing?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
I. What Standards Are We Proposing to Amend and How Does This Action
Relate to the Overall Scope of the Subpart Kb Rule?
We are proposing to amend various provisions in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb, Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23,
1984. In doing so, we are indicating by necessary implication that
subpart Kb applies to all industries where volatile organic liquid
(VOL) (as defined in Sec. 60.111b(k)) is stored, and thus applies to
industries in addition to the petroleum and synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industries.
The EPA proposed the subpart Kb rules on July 23, 1984 (49 FR
29698) and promulgated them on April 8, 1987 (52 FR 11420). The
standards implement section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and are
based on the Administrator's determination that VOL storage vessels
cause or contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Section 111 of the
CAA requires that the EPA publish a list of major stationary sources of
air pollution (priority list) and to establish standards reflecting the
performance of the best system of emissions reductions (taking cost and
non-air environmental impacts into account) which is adequately
demonstrated for the new sources in that listed source category.
Subpart Kb indicates on its face that it applies to all industries
where VOL storage vessels are located and is not limited to the
petroleum industry and the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing
industry (SOCMI). Thus, the applicability to affected sources is
comprehensive (Sec. 60.110b(a)), except for enumerated exceptions,
some of which are to non-SOCMI, non-petroleum sources (such as coke
oven by-product plants). If the rule only applied to SOCMI and
petroleum sources, of course, it would have been unnecessary for the
EPA to have crafted the enumerated exceptions.
The history of the section 111 priority list with respect to VOL
storage vessels likewise demonstrates that the scope of subpart Kb
includes non-SOCMI, non-petroleum industries. The EPA listed the
synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry on August 21, 1979
(44 FR 49222), including a subcategory for SOCMI storage vessels and
handling equipment. The EPA, however, formally amended the section 111
priority list at the same time (April 8, 1987) it promulgated subpart
Kb to include storage vessels that are not in SOCMI service, renaming
the subcategory Volatile Organic Liquid (VOL) Storage Vessels and
Handling Equipment.
Regulatory history likewise confirms what is facially apparent: the
subpart Kb rules apply to all storage vessels (subject to enumerated
exceptions) storing VOL. For example, the preamble to the proposed
subpart Kb stated that there are storage vessels emitting volatile
organic compounds located at plants not in SOCMI, such as liquid bulk
storage terminals, that store the same or similar liquids as those at
SOCMI plants and that can be controlled with the same effectiveness,
costs, and control technology as storage vessels located at SOCMI
plants (49 FR 29700).
The EPA intended to achieve emissions reductions beyond those
available from controlling emissions from SOCMI vessels by extending
regulation to these non-SOCMI storage vessels (49 FR 29700). The EPA
estimated that in 1977, volatile organic compound emissions from
storage vessels not located at SOCMI plants were 13,230 megagrams per
year (Mg/yr), compared to 24,570 Mg/yr from SOCMI storage vessels.
[[Page 8577]]
In sum, based on the text of the regulation, the history of the
regulation, and the EPA's contemporaneous action to expand the priority
list, the EPA interprets subpart Kb to apply to all storage vessels
(subject to enumerated exceptions) including but not limited to those
located at SOCMI plants and those not located at SOCMI plants.
II. Why Are We Proposing Amendments to the Standards and What
Amendments Are We Proposing?
Background. In subpart Kb, ``storage vessel'' is defined as ``each
tank, reservoir, or container used for the storage of volatile organic
liquids,'' excluding subsurface caverns and porous rock reservoirs, and
components not directly involved in the containment of liquids or
vapors, such as frames and auxiliary supports (40 CFR 60.111b). A
specific issue presented for purposes of this proposal is whether the
definition applies to process tanks, which are intermediate tanks
within a process that are not used for the storage of raw materials or
the product(s) of the process.
The EPA has issued two formal interpretations addressing this
question. In an October 29, 1998 letter from the EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) to the AF&PA, the EPA
stated that the definition of ``storage vessel'' in subpart Kb does not
include ``flow-through process tanks,'' defined in the Underground
Storage Tank Program (40 CFR 280.12) as tanks that form an integral
part of a production process through which there is a steady, variable,
recurring, or intermittent flow of materials during the operation of
the process, and that are not used for the storage of materials prior
to their introduction into the production process or for the storage of
finished products or by-products from the production process.
After further evaluation, however, the EPA determined (post-
issuance) that the interpretation given in the letter to AF&PA was not
the best reading of the rule and that the definition of ``storage
vessel'' in subpart Kb does not exclude process tanks. This
interpretation appears in a March 27, 2000 memorandum (2000 Memorandum)
from OECA to EPA Region IV.
The EPA continues to believe, as a purely interpretive issue, that
the 2000 Memorandum is the better reading of the current rule. For
example, there is no mention of intermediate or process tanks in the
regulatory text of subpart Kb. The definition of ``storage vessel'' in
subpart Kb is broad and does not specify that only raw material and
product tanks are included. Aside from the exclusions specifically
mentioned in the definition of ``storage vessel,'' the only language
that limits the applicability of subpart Kb is in Sec. 60.110b(d),
which lists vessels to which subpart Kb does not apply (for example,
vessels at coke oven by-product plants and vessels located at gasoline
service stations). The regulatory history also tends to support the
2000 Memorandum.
On May 26, 2000, the AF&PA filed a petition for judicial review of
the 2000 Memorandum in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia (AF&PA v. EPA, No. 00-1218). The petitioner felt
that the EPA had inappropriately expanded the scope of ``storage
vessels'' with the interpretation in the 2000 Memorandum.
On August 23, 2001 (66 FR 44342), AF&PA and the EPA signed a
settlement agreement which provides that the EPA will propose to amend
subpart Kb to exclude from its applicability storage vessels that have
a capacity less than 75 cubic meters (m\3\) or that contain a liquid
with a maximum true vapor pressure below 3.5 kilopascals (kPa), and
take final action on that proposal within a reasonable time. Today's
proposed amendments fulfill the agreement to propose these amendments
to subpart Kb.
Today's proposed amendments also address concerns raised by parties
other than the petitioner. One party commented that in addition to the
proposed amendments required by the settlement agreement, the EPA
should exempt process tanks from subpart Kb. Another party commented
that the regulatory overlap between subpart Kb and the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Solvent Extraction for
Vegetable Oil Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG) should be
addressed.
Proposal to Exempt Certain Storage Vessels by Capacity and Vapor
Pressure. The EPA believes that limiting the rule's applicability by
vessel size and vapor pressure is reasonable and does not undermine the
rule's fundamental basis as reflecting the best system of emissions
reductions for volatile organics in storage vessels, taking cost, non-
air impacts, and energy into consideration. Presently, subpart Kb does
not apply to storage vessels with a capacity less than 40 m\3\.
However, the only requirements that apply to storage vessels with a
capacity less than 75 m\3\, to storage vessels with a capacity between
75 and 151 m\3\ storing liquid with vapor pressure less than 15 kPa,
and to storage vessels with a capacity equal to or greater than 151
m\3\ storing liquid with vapor pressure less than 3.5 kPa, is minimal
recordkeeping (40 CFR 60.110b(b) and (c)). The EPA in essence is
proposing to eliminate these recordkeeping requirements in today's
proposal. Put another way, the EPA is proposing to exempt from subpart
Kb those storage vessels presently subject to recordkeeping
requirements only.
Today's proposed amendments to increase the vessel capacity
applicability cutoff and to include vapor pressure applicability
cutoffs, thus, reduce the burden on sources without sacrificing
emissions reductions. As explained above, increasing the vessel
capacity applicability cutoff from 40 m\3\ to 75 m\3\ would decrease
the number of sources affected by subpart Kb, but no emissions
reductions would be lost because emission control is required only on
vessels larger than 75 m\3\. The proposed vapor pressure applicability
cutoffs of 3.5 kPa and 15.0 kPa would also decrease the number of
affected sources, but, again, no emissions reductions would be lost
because emission control is required only for liquids with vapor
pressures of at least 5.2 kPa and 27.6 kPa, respectively (40 CFR
60.112b(a)).
Proposal to Exempt Process Tanks. The EPA is also proposing to
exempt process tanks from subpart Kb. If the EPA were writing on a
blank slate, the EPA would take the view that the better reading of
subpart Kb is that process tanks are within the scope of the
regulation, as explained earlier. However, the EPA is not writing on a
blank slate. The 1998 interpretation of the rule was definitive (in the
sense that it was intended to set out the EPA's view and was written by
an entity within the EPA with authority to do so), and as such, can
only be changed after notice-and-comment rulemaking (see Paralyzed
Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F. 3d 579, 586-87 (D.C.
Cir. 1997)). That interpretation thus sets out the current scope of the
rule with respect to process tanks, the 2000 Memorandum
notwithstanding. The question, therefore, becomes whether it is
justified to amend subpart Kb to include process tanks within its
scope. Moreover, such a rule would apply only to new sources, that is,
only to those process tanks for which construction, reconstruction, or
modification commenced after the date of proposal of the action (see
CAA sections 111(a)(2) and (b)(1)(B)).
The data used in the initial development of subpart Kb indicate
that if process tanks were exempted, then about 4 percent of new tanks
may go uncontrolled that would otherwise have to be controlled.
However, there are several reasons why the actual amount
[[Page 8578]]
of potentially foregone emissions reductions is less and possibly even
zero. First, because process tanks are small, and tank emissions
generally are proportional to tank size, emissions from these tanks
will be correspondingly small. Further, process tanks are, in many
cases, required to be controlled under the national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants that affect the industries with most of
the VOL tanks.
Considering all these factors, the EPA believes that it would not
be worthwhile to now propose to include process tanks under subpart Kb.
Although one would come to this same result based on the 1998
interpretation, in light of confusion due to the conflicting
interpretations in the 1998 and 2000 Memoranda, the EPA is today
proposing to amend subpart Kb to exempt process tanks to codify the
1998 position.
Proposal to Exempt Storage Vessels Subject to the Vegetable Oil
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The
EPA is also proposing to exempt from subpart Kb all storage vessels
that are subject to the Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP. In most
NESHAP, where there are existing standards that apply to the same
emission points, the NESHAP usually include provisions which exempt the
emission points from the existing standards and make the emission
points subject only to the NESHAP. The Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP
do not include any of these ``overlap'' provisions, and we are
proposing here to rectify that omission.
The Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP contain a sourcewide emission
limit in the form of the amount of hazardous air pollutant emissions
per ton of oilseed processed. Since the limit is sourcewide, there are
no requirements to control specific emission points. Consequently, a
storage vessel that must be controlled under subpart Kb is not required
to be controlled under the Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP.
According to information used in the development of the Vegetable
Oil Production NESHAP, there are approximately 300 storage vessels in
the source category. Sixty-four percent of these vessels have a
capacity less than 75 m\3\ and, therefore, would not be subject to
subpart Kb because of today's proposed amendment to exempt such
vessels.
Thirty percent of the vessels in the Vegetable Oil Production
source category have a capacity between 40 and 75 m\3\. The vapor
pressure at which control is required for vessels in this size range
under subpart Kb is 27.6 kPa. The main solvent used in vegetable oil
production is n-hexane, which has a vapor pressure significantly below
27.6 kPa. Therefore, the EPA expects that no vessels in this size range
would be subject to the control requirements of subpart Kb because the
vessels do not store a liquid with a vapor pressure which exceeds 27.6
kPa. Moreover, many of these vessels are controlled by routing the
emissions to a solvent recovery system.
The remaining 6 percent of vessels in the Vegetable Oil Production
source category have a capacity larger than 75 m\3\ and would be
required to be controlled under subpart Kb (assuming they are new
sources for purposes of subpart Kb) because the vapor pressure of n-
hexane exceeds the vapor pressure at which control is required for
large vessels. Since these vessels are large, they are even more likely
to be routed to a solvent recovery system, and the EPA has information
indicating that all large tanks are either currently controlled in this
manner or will be controlled in the near future to comply with the
Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP.
The EPA, thus, contends that the overall emissions to the
environment would not increase by exempting vessels from subpart Kb
that are subject to the Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP, and that such
exemption essentially amounts to avoiding duplicative regulation. The
EPA is, therefore, proposing to exempt from subpart Kb all storage
vessels that are subject to the Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that the proposed rule amendments are not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and are, therefore, not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
This action exempts certain sources from 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.
Therefore, it is likely that this action could only reduce the
information collection burden. The OMB has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0074 (EPA
ICR No. 1132.06).
Copies of the ICR document(s) may be obtained from Susan Auby, by
mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division; U.S. EPA (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460, by email at [email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. A
copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
Include the ICR or OMB number in any correspondence.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
[[Page 8579]]
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business in the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
code 324 or 325 that has up to 500 employees; (2) a small business in
NAICS code 424710 that has up to 100 employees; (3) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (4) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The EPA has determined that none of the small entities will
experience a significant impact because the proposed amendments impose
no additional regulatory requirements on owners or operators of
affected sources. In fact, the proposed amendments should decrease the
impacts on small businesses because the proposed amendments exempt some
sources from regulation.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost
effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the proposed rule amendments do not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The proposed rule
amendments exempt certain sources from regulation. Thus, today's
proposed rule amendments are not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires the
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.''
The proposed rule amendments do not have federalism implications.
They 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule
amendments exempt certain sources from regulation. The proposed rule
amendments impose no additional burden on sources, and the emissions
reductions lost because of the proposed exemptions are not significant.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule
amendments.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on these proposed
amendments from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires the
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' The proposed rule amendments do not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The
proposed rule amendments exempt certain sources from regulation. The
proposed rule amendments impose no additional burden on sources, and
the emissions reductions lost because of the proposed exemptions are
not significant. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the
proposed rule amendments.
The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on the proposed
rule amendments from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. Today's proposed amendments
are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are
[[Page 8580]]
based on technology performance, not health or safety risks.
Furthermore, the proposed rule amendments have been determined not to
be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The proposed rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: Februry 14, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 60 of title 40,
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7601.
Subpart Kb--Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced after
July 23, 1984
2. Section 60.110b is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
b. Removing paragraph (c);
c. Redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d);
and
d. Adding paragraph (d)(8).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 60.110b Applicability and designation of affected facility.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
the affected facility to which this subpart applies is each storage
vessel with a capacity greater than or equal to 75 cubic meters
(m3) that is used to store volatile organic liquids (VOL)
for which construction, reconstruction, or modification is commenced
after July 23, 1984.
(b) This subpart does not apply to storage vessels with a capacity
greater than or equal to 151 m3 storing a liquid with a
maximum true vapor pressure less than 3.5 kilopascals (kPa) or with a
capacity greater than or equal to 75 m3 but less than 151
m3 storing a liquid with a maximum true vapor pressure less
than 15.0 kPa.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(8) Vessels subject to subpart GGGG of 40 CFR part 63.
* * * * *
3. Section 60.111b is amended by:
a. Removing the paragraph designations and placing the definitions
in alphabetical order;
b. Revising the definition of ``Storage vessel;''
c. Revising the definition of ``Volatile organic liquid (VOL);''
and
d. Adding, in alphabetical order, a definition of ``Process tank.''
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 60.111 Definitions.
* * * * *
Process tank means a tank that is used within a process to collect
material discharged from a feedstock storage vessel or equipment within
the process before the material is transferred to other equipment
within the process or a product storage vessel. In many process tanks,
unit operations such as reactions and blending are conducted. Other
process tanks, such as surge control vessels and bottoms receivers,
however, may not involve unit operations.
* * * * *
Storage vessel means each tank, reservoir, or container used for
the storage of volatile organic liquids but does not include:
(1) Frames, housing, auxiliary supports, or other components that
are not directly involved in the containment of liquids or vapors;
(2) Subsurface caverns or porous rock reservoirs; or
(3) Process tanks.
* * * * *
Volatile organic liquid (VOL) means any organic liquid which can
emit volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere.
* * * * *
4. Section 60.116b is amended by removing the last sentence of
paragraph (b).
[FR Doc. 03-4245 Filed 2-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P