Page 1 of 42

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0223; FRL- ]

RIN 2060-AO60

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Review 

Under CAA section 111(b) (1) (B)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

SUMMARY: The purpose of this advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) is to request public comment on a 

proposed approach the EPA has developed to carry out the 

statutorily required periodic evaluation of the new source 

performance standards (NSPS) program. Consistent with 

Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review,” issued on January 18, 2011, this proposed approach 

will provide a streamlined process to ensure that public 

and private resources are focused on the rules that provide 

the greatest public health protection and are most likely 

to warrant revision to include current technology and 

eliminate obsolete or unnecessary requirements. By 

demonstrating the continued efficacy of the standards, the 

agency will be able to fulfill its statutory requirement to 

review, and, if necessary, revise NSPS at a minimum of 
Page 2 of 42

every 8 years. This ANPRM is part of the EPA’s effort to 

meet these statutory obligations. The agency is seeking 

comment on the overall approach to managing the NSPS 

program, in particular the criteria used to determine that 

no review is needed for a subset of NSPS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 

30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this 

action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0223. All 

documents in the docket are listed in the Federal Docket 

Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Publicly available docket materials are available either 

electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

at the NSPS Review Under CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B) ANPRM

Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2010-0223. The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA's) policy is that all comments received will 

be included in the public docket without change and may be 
Page 3 of 42

made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 

by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 

be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov

or email. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous 

access” system, which means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless you provide it in 

the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 

directly to the EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and made available on 

the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk 

or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 

due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 

characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
Page 4 of 42

EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 

material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Public Reading Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Janice Godfrey, 

Policy and Strategies Group, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (D205-02), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541-3391; fax number: (919) 541-4991; email 

address: godfrey.janice@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline. The information in this ANPRM is organized as 

follows:

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the 

EPA?

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other 

related information?

II. Background Information

A. What is the NSPS program?
Page 5 of 42

B. What is the status of the NSPS program?

C. What is the purpose of this notice?

III. Developing an NSPS Evaluation Strategy 

A. What are the goals of an evaluation strategy for the 

NSPS program?

B. Which NSPS do not need review?

C. NSPS Potentially in Need of a Review

IV. Request for Comment and Next Steps

V. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the 

EPA?

Please provide data and explanatory information in a 

format that is thorough and complete enough for use by the 

EPA to justify any modifications to the proposed approach. 

Do not submit CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CDROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk 

or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed 

as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 

that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the 

comment that does not contain the information claimed as 

CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
Page 6 of 42

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other 

related information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this notice will be available on the 

Worldwide Web through the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). The TTN provides information about various areas of 

air pollution control. Following signature, an electronic 

version of this document will be posted at 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg under “Recent Additions.”

The EPA has also created a technical support document 

(TSD) that provides supporting data and information for 

this ANPRM. The TSD will also be available in the docket 

and on the TTN at www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg under “Recent 

Additions.” 

II. Background Information

A. What is the NSPS program?

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111 requires the EPA 

Administrator to list categories of stationary sources if 

such sources cause or contribute significantly to air 

pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. The EPA must then issue NSPS for 

such source categories. NSPS reflect the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the application of the “best 

system of emission reduction” which the EPA determines has 
Page 7 of 42

been adequately demonstrated. The EPA may consider certain 

costs and non-air quality health and environmental impacts

and energy requirements when establishing NSPS. For a NAAQS 

pollutant or a Hazardous Air Pollutant (one listed under 

112), only new or modified or reconstructed stationary 

sources are regulated. For other regulated pollutants,

section 111(d) also requires states to set standards for 

existing sources.

Under section 111(b), the EPA has the authority to 

define the source categories, determine the pollutants for 

which standards should be developed, identify the 

facilities within each source category to be covered, and 

set the emission level of the standards. Air pollutants 

currently regulated through various CAA section 

111(b)standards include particulate matter (PM,PM2.5,PM10), 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), 

volatile organic compounds (VOC), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

sulfuric acid mist, fluorides, hydrogen sulfide, reduced 

sulfur compounds, total reduced sulfur, and landfill gas. 

CAA section 111(b) (1) (B) generally requires the EPA to 

“at least every 8 years review and, if appropriate, revise”

NSPS. While conducting a review of existing NSPS, the EPA 

has also promulgated emission limits for pollutants not 

currently regulated for that source category and added 
Page 8 of 42

additional affected facilities where appropriate. See, 

e.g., 75FR54970 (Sept. 9, 2010)1, 73FR35883 (June 24, 

2009)2. In addition, section 111 (b)(1)(B) also states that 

the EPA need not conduct this review if the EPA determines

that reviewing an NSPS “is not appropriate in light of 

readily available information on the efficacy of such 

standard.” 

In setting or revising NSPS, CAA section 111(a)(1) 

provides that NSPS are to “reflect the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the application of the best 

system of emission reduction which (taking into account the 

cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality 

health and environmental impact and energy requirements) 

the Administrator determines has been adequately 

demonstrated.” The format of NSPS can vary from source

category to source category (and even from facility type to 

facility type within an NSPS) including a numerical 

emission limit, a design standard, an equipment standard, 

or a work practice standard. In determining the best system 

 

1EPA promulgated emission limits for nitrogen oxides and 

sulfur dioxide to the NSPS for Portland Cement plants which 

had previously only regulated particulate matter emissions. 

2In this rulemaking, EPA extended the coverage of the NSPS 

program to include additional affected facilities (e.g., 

delayed coking units) at a petroleum refinery.
Page 9 of 42

of emission reduction, we typically conduct a review that 

identifies what emission reduction systems exist and how 

much they reduce air pollution in practice. This allows the 

EPA to identify potential emission limits. We evaluate each 

system in conjunction with cost of achieving such reduction 

and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and 

energy requirements. The resultant standard is usually a

numerical emissions limit, expressed as a performance level 

(i.e., a rate-based standard or percent control). Although 

such standards are based on the effectiveness of one or 

more specific air pollution control systems, section 111 

(b) (5) provides that the EPA may not prescribe a 

particular technology that must be used to comply with a 

NSPS, except in instances where the Administrator 

determines it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a 

standard of performance, as defined in section 111(h). Upon 

promulgation, NSPS become national standards to which all 

new, modified, or reconstructed sources must comply.

B. What is the status of the NSPS program?

Since December 23, 1971, the Administrator has 

promulgated over 70 NSPS. These standards can be found in 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 60. A 

list of all NSPS promulgated under the authority of CAA 

111(b) (1) (B) is provided in Table 1, which includes the 
Page 10 of 42

promulgation date of the original standards and information 

on the most recent activity. Not all Federal Register

actions indicate a review of the standard. In many cases 

the most recent action includes only minor amendments. For 

example, on October 17, 2000, EPA made final minor 

amendments to numerous NSPS to include miscellaneous 

editorial changes and technical corrections to stationary 

testing and monitoring rules. See 65FR61768 through 

65FR61792. Seventeen standards have been promulgated or 

revised within the last 8 years. In addition to those 

standards that are current within their review cycle, there 

are also multiple standards in different phases of the 

review process, including some standards that are in 

various stages of the litigation process.

Table 1: List of CAA §111(b) (1) (B)NSPS3

NSPS Subpart

Date of 

Promulgation 

(FR Citation)

Date of Most 

Recent Action 

(FR Citation)4

 

3Table only includes NSPS promulgated under the authority of 

CAA §111(b) (1) (B), and does not include standards 

promulgated under the authority of CAA §129 or §111(d). 

4“Date of Most Recent Action” refers to the most recently 

dated Federal Register action affecting the referenced 

Subpart as referenced in the electronic Code of Federal 

Regulations (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/).
Page 11 of 42

Ammonium Sulfate 

Manufacture

PP 11/12/1980 

(45FR74846)

10/17/20005,6

(65FR61760)

Asphalt Concrete 

(Hot Mix 

Asphalt)

I 03/08/1974 02/14/19894

(54FR6667)

Asphalt 

Processing and 

Roofing 

Manufacture

UU 08/06/1982 

(47FR34147)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61762)

Auto/Light Duty 

Truck Surface 

Coating

MM 12/24/1980 

(45FR85410)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61760)

Basic Oxygen 

Process Furnaces

N 03/08/1974 

(39FR9318)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61756)

Basic Process 

Steelmaking 

Facilities 

(Integrated 

Steel Plants)

Na 01/02/1986 

(51FR161)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61756)

Beverage Can 

Surface Coating

WW 08/25/1983 

(48FR38728)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61763)

Bulk Gasoline 

Terminals

XX 08/18/1983 

(48FR37578)

12/19/2003

(68FR70965)

Calciners and 

Dryers in 

Mineral 

Industries

UUU 09/28/1992 

(57FR44496)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61778)

 

5On October 17, 2000 (65FR61743), EPA made editorial and 

technical changes to test method and continuous emission 

modeling system (CEMS) performance specification 

requirements for Part 60 and other regulations. This 

included organizational changes and the promulgation of 

Performance Specification 15, for Fourier Transform 

Infrared (FTIR) CEMS.

6Action was only minor amendment and not a full review of 

the standard.
Page 12 of 42

Coal Prep Plants Y 01/15/1976 

(41FR2234)

10/08/2009 

(74FR51977)

Electric Utility 

Steam Generating 

Units7

Da 06/11/1979 

(44FR33581)

01/28/20094

(74FR5078)

Ferroalloy 

Production 

Facilities

Z 05/04/1976 

(41FR18501)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61758)

Flexible 

Vinyl/Urethane 

Coating and 

Printing

FFF 06/29/1984 

(49FR26885)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61768)

Fossil-Fuel 

Fired Steam 

Generators4

D 12/12/1971 01/28/20093,4

(74FR5078)

Glass 

Manufacturing

CC 10/07/1980 

(45FR66742)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61759)

Grain Elevators DD 08/03/1978 

(43FR34347)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61759)

Graphic Arts 

Industry/Publication 

Rotogravure 

Printing

QQ 11/08/1982 

(47FR50644)

04/09/20044

(69FR18803)

Industrial, 

Commercial, 

Institutional 

Steam Generating 

Units

Db 11/25/1986 

(51FR42768)

01/28/20094

(74FR5084)

 

7Subpart D was superseded by subpart Da and, thus, will not 

be reviewed or revised as all subpart D units that modify 

or reconstruct would be subject to subpart Da.
Page 13 of 42

Kraft Pulp Mills BB 02/23/1978 

(43FR7568)

09/21/20064

(71FR55127) 

Large Appliances 

Surface Coating

SS 10/27/1982 

(47FR47778)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61761)

Lead Acid 

Batteries

KK 04/16/1982 

(47FR16564)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61760)

Lime 

Manufacturing

HH 03/07/1978 10/17/20003,4

(65FR61760)

Magnetic Tape 

Coating 

Facilities

SSS 10/03/1988 

(53FR38892)

02/12/1999

(64FR7467)

Metal Coil 

Surface Coating

TT 11/01/1982 

(47FR49606)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61761)

Metal Furniture 

Surface Coating

EE 10/29/1982 

(47FR49278)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61759)

Metallic Mineral 

Processing 

Plants

LL 02/21/1984 

(49FR6458)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61760)

Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills

WWW 03/12/1996 

(60FR9905)

09/21/2006

(71FR55127)

New Residential 

Wood Heaters

AAA 08/02/1985 

(50FR31504)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61764)

Nitric Acid 

Plants

G 12/23/1971 02/14/19894

(54FR6666)

Nonmetallic 

Mineral 

Processing 

Plants

OOO 08/01/1985 

(50FR31328)

04/28/2009 

(74FR19309)

Onshore Natural 

Gas Processing 

Plants -

Equipment Leaks

KKK 06/24/1985 

(50FR26122)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61773)

Onshore Natural 

Gas Processing: 

SO2 Emissions

LLL 10/01/1985 

(50FR40158)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61773)

Petroleum Dry 

Cleaners

JJJ 09/21/1984 

(49FR37331)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61773)

Petroleum 

Refineries

J 03/08/1974 

(39FR9308)

06/24/2008 

(73FR35865)

Petroleum 

Refineries

Ja 06/24/2008 

(73FR35867)

12/22/20084

(73FR78552)

(Stay)
Page 14 of 42

Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Diammonium 

Phosphate Plants

V 08/06/1975 

(40FR33155)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61757)

Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Granular Triple 

Superphosphate 

Storage 

Facilities

X 08/06/1975 

(40FR33156)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61757)

Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Superphosphoric 

Acid Plants

U 08/06/1975 

(40FR33155)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61757)

Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Triple 

Superphosphate 

Plants

W 08/06/1975 

(40FR33156)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61757)

Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Wet-Process 

Phosphoric Acid 

Plants

T 08/06/1975 

(40FR33154)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61757)

Phosphate Rock 

Plants

NN 04/16/1982 

(47FR16589)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61760)

Polymeric 

Coating of 

Supporting 

Substrates

VVV 09/11/1989 

(54FR37551)

Polymers 

Manufacturing 

Industry

DDD 12/11/1990 

(55FR51035)

12/14/2000

(65FR78278)

Portland Cement F 12/23/1971 

(36FR24877)

08/09/2010

(75FR54970)

Pressure 

Sensitive Tape 

and Label 

Surface Coating 

Operations

RR 10/18/1983 

(48FR48375)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61761)
Page 15 of 42

Primary Aluminum 

Reduction Plants

S 01/26/1976 

(41FR3826)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61757)

Primary Copper 

Smelters

P 01/15/1976 

(41FR2338)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61756)

Primary Lead 

Smelters 

R 01/15/1976 

(41FR2340)

02/14/19894

(54FR6668)

Primary Zinc 

Smelters

Q 01/15/1976 

(41FR2340)

02/14/19894

(54FR6668)

Refineries: 

Equipment Leaks 

GGG 05/30/1984 

(49FR22606)

06/02/20084

(73FR31376)

Refineries: 

Wastewater

QQQ 11/23/1988 

(53FR47623)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61778)

Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing

BBB 09/15/1987 

(52FR34874)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61765)

Secondary Brass 

and Bronze 

Production 

Plants

M 03/08/1974 

(39FR9318)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61756)

Secondary Lead 

Smelters

L 03/08/1974 

(39FR9317)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61756)

Small 

Industrial, 

Commercial, 

Institutional 

Steam Generating 

Units

Dc 09/12/1990 

(55FR37674)

01/28/2009 

(74FR5091)

SOCMI Air Ox 

Unit Processes

III 06/29/1990 (55FR

26922)

12/14/2000

(65FR78278)

SOCMI 

Distillation

NNN 06/29/1990 (55FR

26942)

12/14/2000

(65FR78279)

SOCMI Equipment 

Leaks 

VV 01/18/1983 

(48FR48335)

06/02/20084

(73FR31375)

(Stay)

SOCMI Reactor 

Processes

RRR 08/31/1993 

(58FR45962)

12/14/2000

(65FR78279)
Page 16 of 42

Stationary 

Combustion 

Turbines

KKKK 06/06/2006 

(71FR38497)

3/20/20094

(74FR11858)

Stationary 

Compression 

Ignition 

Internal 

Combustion 

Engines 

IIII 7/11/2006 

(71FR39172)

06/08/2011

(75FR32612)

Stationary Gas 

Turbines

GG 09/10/1979 (44FR

52798)

02/24/20064

(71FR9458)

Stationary Spark 

Ignition 

Internal 

Combustion 

Engines

JJJJ 01/18/2008

(73FR 3591)

06/08/2011 

(75FR32612)

Steel Plants: 

Electric Arc 

Furnaces

AA 09/23/1975 

(40FR43850)

02/22/2005 

(70FR8532)

Steel Plants: 

Electric Arc 

Furnaces and 

Argon-Oxygen 

Decarburization 

Vessels

AAa 10/31/1984 

(49FR43845)

02/22/2005 

(70FR8533)

Sulfuric Acid 

Plants

H 12/23/1971 

(36FR24877)

02/14/1989 

(54FR6666)

Surface Coating 

of Plastic Parts 

for Business 

Machines

TTT 01/29/1988 

(53FR2676)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61778)
Page 17 of 42

Synthetic Fibers HHH 04/05/1984 

(49FR13651)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61768)

Volatile Organic 

Liquid Storage 

Vessels8

Ka 04/04/1980 

(45FR23379)

12/14/2000

(65FR78275)

Volatile Organic 

Liquid Storage 

Vessels (incl.

Petroleum Liquid 

Storage Vessels)

Kb 04/08/1987 

(52FR11429)

10/15/20034

(68FR 59333)

Wool Fiberglass 

Insulation 

Manufacturing 

Plants

PPP 02/25/1985 

(50FR7699)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61778)

C. What is the purpose of this notice?

The purpose of this ANPRM is to request public comment 

on a strategy for focusing reviews of the NSPS so as to

maximize the public health and welfare benefits while 

ensuring that the resources of stakeholders, state and 

local agencies, and the federal government are used most 

efficiently and effectively. As part of this strategy, we 

are proposing criteria that would be used to assess whether 

review of a particular NSPS is necessary during the review 

cycle. A listing of any NSPS for which we recommend not

 

8Subpart K was superseded by subpart Ka and, thus, will not 

be reviewed or revised as all subpart K units that modify 

or reconstruct would be subject to subpart Ka.
Page 18 of 42

reviewing the standard based on these criteria (after 

considering comments to this notice) will be published in 

the Federal Register for public comment. Subsequent to this 

notice, all NSPS for which no review is warranted will be 

addressed with detailed technical information in a 

rulemaking proposal which will provide a further 

opportunity for public comment. 

If, after review of the public comments, EPA 

determines there is sufficient evidence that a full review 

of a standard is warranted, EPA would withdraw its no 

review conclusion for that standard. Otherwise by having 

demonstrated the continued effectiveness of an NSPS, the 

agency will have fulfilled its statutory obligations under 

111(b) with respect to the 8-year review requirement for 

that standard.

In addition to fulfilling the mandate in CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B), this process is also responsive to Executive 

Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 

issued on January 18, 2011, which directs each federal 

agency to “periodically review its existing significant 

regulations to determine whether any such regulations 

should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so 

as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective 

or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.”
Page 19 of 42

The EPA’s proposed approach will allow this process to be 

made more efficient, so that both public and private 

resources can be focused where it makes the most sense.

This strategy will reduce the resource burden to the 

government and stakeholders by eliminating the need for 

costly and time consuming reviews of certain standards, 

which are not expected to result in any environmental 

benefits. By determining which NSPS are not in need of 

review, the agency can then focus its resources on the 

remaining NSPS that are in need of revision (or at least a 

closer review to determine if revision is needed). This 

notice is seeking comment on this proposed process and on 

the appropriateness of the proposed criteria for making a 

finding that a current NSPS does not need review, and the 

application of those criteria in this evaluation of the 

NSPS program. Additionally, this notice is seeking comment 

on pertinent factors for the prioritization of NSPS to be 

reviewed, and potentially revised.

III. Developing an NSPS Evaluation Strategy 

A. What are the goals of an evaluation strategy for the 

NSPS program?

The primary goal of the NSPS strategy is to assist the 

agency in fulfilling our statutory obligations in a 

streamlined process that ensures both public and private 
Page 20 of 42

resources are focused on the rules that provide the 

greatest improvement in air quality, health and welfare

benefits and are most likely to warrant review and revision 

to include current technology and eliminate obsolete or 

unnecessary requirements. At the same time, this focus on 

NSPS where greatest emission reductions can be achieved 

promotes better use of resources for industry, government 

agencies, environmental organizations, and all other 

stakeholders and participants in the regulatory review 

process. Additionally, in some instances, sources remain 

well controlled through other CAA programs, such as the 

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP), that have provided similar, if not more 

stringent, regulations than what would be required through 

the revision of existing NSPS or implementation of new 

NSPS. We are also aware that, in some instances, an

evaluation of NSPS may show the current requirements of the 

standard continue to meet the statutory requirements, and 

no review is required. 

To optimize the air quality, health and welfare 

benefits of the NSPS program, the EPA is proposing to 

prioritize NSPS reviews such that those NSPS likely to 

bring about greater benefits to public health and welfare 

through air quality improvements, including environmental 
Page 21 of 42

justice considerations, are reviewed first. This 

prioritization is being done with consideration of multiple 

pollutants and processes, and synchronization of regulatory 

efforts as the primary driver, allowing the EPA to seek 

opportunities for increased air quality, health and welfare 

benefits, and greater administrative efficiency.

B. Which NSPS do not need review?

1. What is the EPA’s authority in determining whether to 

review NSPS?

As described previously, CAA section 111(b) (1) (B) 

requires the agency to review and, if appropriate, revise 

NSPS “at least every 8 years”. Section 111(b) (1) (B) also 

gives the EPA authority to determine that reviewing an NSPS 

“is not appropriate in light of readily available 

information on the efficacy of such standard.” In most 

instances, the EPA has met the requirement of this section 

solely through formal review and revision (when deemed 

appropriate) of standards. 

We note that the majority of NSPS will be reviewed and 

considered for revision, as there are likely potential

process improvements and technology advances that would 

alter the best system of emission reduction. In addition, a 

regular evaluation gives the EPA and the public the 

opportunity to consider whether requirements of a 
Page 22 of 42

particular NSPS are outmoded or no longer necessary. 

However, there are some NSPS where currently available 

information indicates that there are no potential gains to 

public health and welfare from a review of the NSPS. When 

the continued efficacy of a standard is demonstrated, the 

agency believes that using its authority to not devote 

resources to a rulemaking in these cases should also be 

considered as an option. All NSPS, including those that we 

determined do not need review, will be subject to continual 

evaluation cycles, at least every 8 years. This notice 

presents three independent criteria that the agency 

believes can be used to demonstrate that review of NSPS 

would not provide emission reductions and associated air 

quality, health and welfare benefits. 

2. What are the criteria we believe are appropriate for 

determining the continued efficacy of NSPS?

We have identified three criteria that we have 

determined are appropriate to determine that review of 

existing NSPS would not result in any health and welfare

benefits, and, thus, should not be reviewed in the current 

review cycle. For this programmatic evaluation, we believe 

that in most cases NSPS that meet any one of these criteria

do not need to be reviewed. However, several possible

conditions exist where a review might be appropriate, even 
Page 23 of 42

if one or more of the criteria described above are met. For 

instance, if there are emissions units not addressed by the 

existing NSPS, or if there has been stakeholder interest 

(e.g., environmental justice concerns) in updating an NSPS,

then additional deliberation would be necessary before a 

decision not to review NSPS could be made.

The first criterion focuses on the existence of 

updated or new control technology, which is used to inform 

a decision on the potential improvement in air quality or 

health and welfare benefits. We address the criterion with 

the following questions: Have there been advances in 

control technologies, process operations, design or 

efficiency improvements, or other factors that would lead 

to selection of a more stringent best system of emission 

reduction? Are there available controls for pollutants or 

emission sources that were previously uncontrolled? If 

available information on control technology indicates that

review of the standard would not result in more stringent

emission limits or no greater level of control, and would 

not provide improvements in air quality and health and 

welfare benefits, such standard would be listed as a 

potential candidate for no review.

There are certain source categories for which the

information available from national databases (e.g., the 
Page 24 of 42

National Emissions Inventory), publicly available data, the 

EPA’s interaction with stakeholders from industries, 

environmental organizations, state, local, and Tribal 

governments on other rulemakings provides a strong 

technical basis to assess the availability and economic 

feasibility of employing new control technologies, or 

design or efficiency improvements that could result in a 

revised best system of emission reduction determination. As 

an example, information developed under the CAA section 112 

air toxics program provides a significant amount of 

information on control technologies and pollution control 

measures for stationary sources. 

We specifically request comment on this criterion and 

the level of certainty required in making a finding that no 

review is needed based upon an evaluation of readily 

available information that indicates no greater level of 

control would be expected at the conclusion of an 

evaluation under this criterion.

The second criterion considers whether we anticipate 

any new, modified, or reconstructed sources within a source 

category, which would trigger applicability under the NSPS 

in question over the next 8 years. The predicted growth 

rate of an industry is used as an indicator of satisfying 

this criterion to the extent that no new, modified, or 
Page 25 of 42

reconstructed sources are anticipated over the next 8 

years. It is possible to have a predicted negative growth 

rate, and still trigger NSPS applicability through 

modification or construction of new sources at a rate less 

than the closure rate of existing facilities. Some of the 

source categories covered by the NSPS represent very mature 

industries for which there is currently no growth, and this 

trend has existed for numerous years. For example, 

industries that rely on metal and mineral raw materials 

have tended to move out of the country to be closer to the 

sources of the raw materials. Copper mines in the U.S. have 

closed while new mines have opened in South America where 

there is greater access to raw materials. In other

industries there have historically been multiple processes 

used to make some products, but cost, efficiency, and other 

forces have reduced the variety of processes in use. The 

result of these trends may be that NSPS address emission 

sources which are no longer in use, technology is outdated, 

and which likely will not be used in the future. Some other 

source categories include industries whose primary product 

has been superseded by a substitute product which serves 

the same purpose, but is produced using an entirely 

different process (e.g., optical storage media as a 

substitute for magnetic tape) and as a result there are no 
Page 26 of 42

expected new facilities or modifications of existing 

facilities. If this criterion were met, the rule would 

remain in effect for the remainder of the review cycle in 

the event that sources no longer in operation were to begin 

operation again. 

The agency is requesting comment on the 

appropriateness of this second criterion. Specifically, we 

request comment on the level of certainty required in 

making a finding that no review is needed based on the 

expectation that no new sources are to be constructed, 

reconstructed or modified in the source category within the 

current 8 year review cycle.

The third criterion that may support a finding that

review is not necessary is the existence of other 

regulatory programs that are applicable to the same 

pollutants (either directly or as surrogates) and emission 

sources as the NSPS, such that a revision of the NSPS would 

result in best system of emission reduction requirements 

that are no more stringent than another applicable CAA 

requirement. When evaluating a standard by this criterion, 

we will also ensure that no inconsistencies or conflicts 

exist with these other rules. The intent of this criterion 

is to avoid reviewing NSPS to adopt more stringent emission 

limitations that are already being achieved by another 
Page 27 of 42

regulation, and, thus, providing no or limited actual 

additional health and welfare benefit while redirecting 

resources from revision of standards where there are 

potential significant emission decreases. 

For example, the air toxics program implemented under 

CAA section 112(d) includes standards for major sources of 

toxic air pollutants based on Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT). Although the CAA section 112(d) program 

regulates air toxics, rules under the program sometimes 

regulate the air toxics through the use of surrogates, such 

as criteria pollutants (PM and VOC). Section 112 

establishes a minimum baseline or “MACT floor” for 

standards, which, for existing sources in categories or 

subcategories with 30 or more sources, is based on the 

average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 

12 percent of existing sources. For new sources, the 

standards for a source category or subcategory cannot be 

less stringent than the emission control that is achieved 

in practice by the best controlled similar sources, as 

determined by the Administrator (CAA section 112(d)(3)). 

The MACT floors form the least stringent regulatory option 

the EPA may consider in the determination of MACT standards 

under section 112(d) for a source category. The EPA must 
Page 28 of 42

also determine whether to control emissions ‘‘beyond-thefloor,’’ after considering the costs, non-air quality

health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements 

of such more stringent control (CAA section 112(d) (2)).

MACT for new sources is the most stringent level of 

control identified under CAA section 112(d). Therefore, 

where the EPA regulated air toxics through regulation of

criteria pollutants as surrogates for the toxic 

pollutant(s), it would be expected in most cases that the 

level of the MACT standard would reflect a level that would 

meet or exceed the best system of emission reduction when 

the same pollutants are covered. Therefore, where the MACT 

and NSPS have comparable applicability (e.g., covers the 

same emission sources and effectively controls the same 

pollutants), the MACT would in many cases accomplish 

emissions reductions that would be equivalent to or greater 

than those achieved by a revised NSPS. In such cases, even 

if new facilities are constructed, the MACT would serve to 

achieve the level of control that would otherwise be 

achieved through updating the NSPS through the review 

process. Under CAA section 112(d) (6), the MACT standards 

are also subject to technology reviews every 8 years. 
Page 29 of 42

Another potential consideration for applying this 

criterion is the potential interaction with other CAA 

programs such as Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 

requirements for New Source Review (NSR). The CAA and 

corresponding implementing regulations require that a 

permitting authority conduct a BACT analysis on a case-bycase basis, and the permitting authority must evaluate the 

amount of emissions reductions that each available 

emissions-reducing technology or technique would achieve, 

as well as the energy, environmental, economic and other 

costs associated with each technology or technique. Based 

on this assessment, the permitting authority must establish 

a numeric emissions limitation that reflects the maximum 

degree of reduction achievable for each pollutant subject 

to BACT through the application of the selected technology 

or technique. BACT requirements must be at least as 

stringent as the best system of emission reduction set by 

the NSPS. 

The agency is requesting comment on the 

appropriateness of this third criterion. Although we are 

taking the position that this criterion is sufficient to 

make a finding that no review is needed, we solicit comment 

on whether interaction with other CAA requirements would 

make source categories meeting this criterion more 
Page 30 of 42

appropriate for a streamlined review that incorporates the 

level of control achieved by the MACT into the NSPS, rather 

than a no review determination. We also solicit comment on 

how interaction with the CAA’s NSR programs (including the 

BACT, offset and netting regulations) should be accounted 

for in developing and implementing this criterion. 

In addition to the three detailed criteria, several 

possible conditions exist where a review might be 

appropriate, even if one or more of the criteria described 

above are met. For instance, if there are emissions units 

not addressed by the existing NSPS, or if there has been 

stakeholder interest (e.g., environmental justice concerns)

in updating an NSPS, then additional deliberation would be 

necessary before a decision not to review NSPS could be 

made. In addition, if there are pollutants that are not 

currently regulated by an NSPS, but which the agency 

believes should be, we would likely take the opportunity to 

review the existing standards to see if they should be 

updated at the same time. If the NSPS is outdated, or could 

be made less burdensome without lessening the public health 

protection it provides, or conflicts with another 

applicable requirement, review might well be appropriate. 

These conditions have been considered in addition to a 

standard’s ability to meet one or more of the three 
Page 31 of 42

criteria as the agency developed the NSPS evaluation. In 

instances where one of the above conditions indicated the 

need for further consideration, those NSPS would be

recommended to undergo a traditional review, with 

subsequent potential revision. 

In addition to taking comment on the general approach 

described in this notice, we also request comment on the 

following: (1) are the three criteria appropriate for 

determining whether NSPS should be reviewed, (2) are there

additional criteria that should be used to make a finding 

that NSPS remains efficacious and, therefore, review of the 

standard is not needed, and (3) are there different

criteria that should be used. In judging the 

appropriateness of criteria, commenters should also 

consider Executive Order 13563, which calls for periodic 

review of regulations “to make the agency's regulatory 

program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the 

regulatory objectives.”

3. How many NSPS are potentially not in need of review?

Of the NSPS requiring periodic review, the majority of 

NSPS would be subject to review and potential revision, and 

would not meet the criteria for establishing no review as 

defined in this document. However, using the criteria 

outlined in this notice, the agency has identified a 
Page 32 of 42

limited number of NSPS as potential candidates to not 

undergo review. These NSPS are listed in Table 2 along with 

the applicable criteria.

Table 2: NSPS potentially meeting criteria to not be 

reviewed based on CAA 111(b) (1) (B) authority

Subpart NSPS 

No Review Criteria

Level of 

control in

current 

standard 

remains 

appropriat

e

No expected 

applicability 

of NSPS (No 

new/modified/ 

reconstructed

sources)

Equivalent/

more stringent 

requirements 

in other CAA 

actions

P Primary Copper 

Smelters x x x

Q Primary Zinc 

Smelters

x x x

T Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Wet-Process 

Phosphoric 

Acid Plants

x

U Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Super 

Phosphoric

Acid Plants

x

V Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Diammonium 

Phosphate 

Plants

x

W Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Triple 

Superphosphate 

Plants

x x
Page 33 of 42

X Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Granular 

Triple 

Superphosphate 

Storage 

Facilities

x x

EE Metal 

Furniture 

Surface 

Coating

x

MM Auto/Light 

Duty Truck 

Surface 

Coating

x

NN Phosphate Rock 

Plants x x

QQ Graphic Arts 

Industry/Publi

cation 

Rotogravure 

Printing

x

BBB Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing x

HHH Synthetic 

Fibers x

SSS Magnetic Tape 

Coating 

Facilities x

We are requesting comment on the list of NSPS provided 

in Table 2 as potentially not in need of review. 

Specifically, we are soliciting comment on the 

appropriateness of NSPS not undergoing review based on the 

criteria indicated in Table 2. We are also soliciting 

comment on any additional NSPS that should be considered as 

potentially not in need of review based on the criteria 
Page 34 of 42

provided in this document. For example, the following three 

NSPS may meet the third criterion that revision of the NSPS 

would result in best system of emission reduction

requirements that are no more stringent than another 

applicable CAA requirement (i.e., NESHAP). However, a more 

detailed assessment would be necessary to ensure that the

emission points covered by the other regulatory programs 

are comparable to those covered by the NSPS:

 Large Appliances Surface Coating, Subpart SS

 Flexible Vinyl/Urethane Coating and Printing, 

Subpart FFF

 Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business 

Machines, Subpart TTT

EPA is soliciting comments as to the extent to which the 

NESHAP sufficiently covers the above NSPS categories.

4. What are examples of how the no review criteria would be 

applied to NSPS categories?

Evaluation of NSPS categories for which no review is 

recommended may be influenced by comments received 

regarding the criteria as discussed in this document. 

However, we present as examples three NSPS categories that

meet one or more of the criteria for which we believe, 

based on a preliminary evaluation, review of the standards 
Page 35 of 42

is not necessary. These three categories are described 

below, along with a brief description of the reasons for 

their selection. A more detailed description of these three

examples, including the rationale for recommending no 

review, is provided in the TSD. All NSPS for which no 

review is recommended, including the three examples 

presented in this ANPRM, will be presented, with detailed 

technical supporting documentation, in a proposal following 

this notice and will have further and full opportunity for 

public comment. 

a. Primary Zinc Smelters NSPS example

Primary Zinc Smelters is a source category for which 

currently available information indicates that there is no 

need at this time for review of the NSPS (40 CFR 60 subpart 

Q). Following an evaluation of the currently available 

technologies (i.e., double-absorption on sulfuric acid 

plant), we believe that a revised standard would not result 

in a more stringent level of control because no new control 

technologies, or design or efficiency improvements exist 

that would result in more stringent requirements9. We do not 

 

9The criterion that no new control technology exists that 

would result in a more stringent requirements can be met 

when there is no new technology in existence at all or when 

there is no new technology that provides more effective 
Page 36 of 42

find the current requirements of the rule to be outmoded or 

unnecessarily burdensome. We also do not expect any 

applicability of the standard over the next 8 years as no 

new, modified, or reconstructed facilities subject to the 

NSPS are expected, due to changes in the types of processes 

typically used (i.e., there have been no new facilities 

since 1974, and only one facility remains in operation). 

Furthermore, this category meets the criterion presented in 

this document that another CAA requirement would apply to 

any new, modified, or reconstructed facility with 

provisions that are effectively as stringent as what would 

likely be considered the best system of emission reduction

under NSPS review. Specifically, in complying with the 

NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GGGGGG), the source must 

use control technologies that provide equal or more 

stringent SO2, PM, and opacity requirements than would 

result from revisions to the NSPS for both roaster and 

sinter processes. The agency believes that the Primary Zinc 

Smelters NSPS (subpart Q) meets all three of the criteria 

to not review a standard as described in this document. 

Therefore, the current standard would remain in effect 

until the next review cycle. 

 

controls. In the case of Primary Zinc smelters both 

conditions are met. 
Page 37 of 42

b. Magnetic Tape Production Operations NSPS example

The second example of an NSPS category for which 

currently available information indicates that there is no 

need at this time for review of the NSPS is Magnetic Tape 

Production Operations (40 CFR 60 subpart SSS), consisting 

of coating and mixing operations at affected facilities. 

The agency concluded this because this industry has been in 

continual decline for over 20 years. As a result, there is 

no growth anticipated in the industry over the next 8 

years, and there are no anticipated new sources, 

reconstructions, or modifications that would trigger NSPS 

applicability. Consumer preferences and technology have 

changed such that the primary product of this industry has 

been superseded by a substitute product(s) which serves the 

same purpose, but is produced using an entirely different 

process (i.e., optical storage media). On this basis, we 

believe that there would be no emission reductions and 

associated air quality and health and welfare benefits in 

reviewing the best system of emission reduction for the 

magnetic tape production operations NSPS category. The new 

process for manufacturing optical storage media (e.g.,

compact disks) is assessed under the NESHAP for Surface 

Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (40 CFR 63 subpart 

PPPP). Therefore, the current rule would remain in effect 
Page 38 of 42

for the remainder of the review cycle. In subsequent NSPS 

reviews, the EPA would consider whether rescinding the rule 

permanently is an appropriate action in accordance with 

E.O. 13563. 

c. Graphic Arts Industry/Publication Rotogravure Printing

NSPS example

The third example of an NSPS category for which 

currently available information indicates that there is no 

need at this time for review of the applicable NSPS is

Graphic Arts Industry/Publication Rotogravure Printing (40 

CFR 60 subpart QQ). In accordance with criterion 3, the 

NESHAP (40 CFR subpart KK) for Printing and Publishing is 

significantly more stringent than the NSPS under subpart 

QQ. The NESHAP recently went through the EPA’s Risk and 

Technology Review (RTR) process and no additional 

technology standards were adopted pursuant to CAA section 

112(d) (6). Only two new facilities have been built in the 

past 15 years since the NESHAP was promulgated in 1996. 

Both of these facilities placed their presses in permanent 

total enclosures using carbon absorbers’ to achieve very 

efficient solvent recovery. As part of the EPA’s RTR, it 

was determined that no new advancements in practices, 

processes or control technologies beyond those in place at 

the two new facilities were identified. The BACT level 
Page 39 of 42

control at the two new facilities is representative of 

current industry practice and is state of the art 

technology, and a revised best system of emission reduction

for the solvent recovery practice listed in the NSPS would 

not be more stringent. Under criterion 2, there has been 

almost no growth in the industry in the past decade. The 

number of publication rotogravure printing facilities has 

declined from 27 to under 20 in the last 10 years. Only two 

facilities have been built in the last 15 years. No new

facilities are anticipated during the next 8 year review 

cycle. Therefore, we do not expect applicability of the 

NSPS in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we believe no 

additional emission reductions would be achieved from a 

revision to the current standard. Thus the agency believes 

that the Publication Rotogravure Printing NSPS (subpart QQ) 

meets the criteria to not review as described in this 

document. 

Detailed evaluations of the Primary Zinc Smelters 

source category, the Magnetic Tape Production Operations 

source category, and the Graphic Arts Industry/Publication 

Rotogravure Printing source category can be found in the 

TSD. Following comment on this notice, more detailed 

analyses will be completed for other NSPS that meet one or 
Page 40 of 42

more of the criteria listed in this document. The EPA is 

seeking comment on the appropriateness of the application

of the proposed criteria as shown in these three examples. 

We are also seeking comment on any additional independent 

criteria that could be used in making a determination to 

not review NSPS.

C. NSPS Potentially in Need of Review

After identifying those NSPS that do not currently 

need review, the focus of the NSPS strategy will be on 

reviewing, and potentially revising, those remaining 

standards as required by the statute. This will be done 

through prioritization of NSPS based on multi-pollutant and 

sector-based10 approaches. The benefits of multi-pollutant 

and sector-based analyses and approaches include the 

ability to identify optimal strategies that consider

feasibility, costs, and benefits across multiple pollutant 

types – criteria, toxics, and others.

We intend to prioritize NSPS in need of a review based 

on a number of different criteria. Possible prioritization 

criteria would include the types and magnitude of 

 

10A sector-based approach is based on integrated assessments 

that consider multiple pollutants in a comprehensive and 

coordinated manner to manage emissions and CAA 

requirements. (National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing 

Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement 

Plants; August, 2010.)
Page 41 of 42

emissions, population exposure, trends in industry growth, 

advances in control measures and technologies, level and 

accuracy of monitoring required by the existing standards,

expected NSPS applicability, ability to synchronize NSPS 

review with other CAA requirements (e.g., RTR under CAA 

sections 112(f) and 112(d) (6)), and availability of 

relevant information. 

IV. Request for Comment and Next Steps

As described throughout this notice, the EPA is 

soliciting comments to develop an evaluation plan for the 

NSPS program. We also encourage readers to submit other 

comments and supporting data that could help us further 

improve NSPS review strategies. To ensure a well balanced 

response and develop the best possible product, we 

encourage the submittal of both comments offering 

suggestions and changes and those supporting the strategies 

included in this ANPRM.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory 

Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this is 

a “significant regulatory action” because we expected this 

action to raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, 

the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management 
Page 42 of 42

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Review Under CAA 

Section 111(b)(1)(B)

and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and 

13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations will be documented in the 

docket for this action. Because this action does not 

propose or impose any requirements, and instead seeks 

comments and suggestions for the agency to consider in 

possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various 

statutes and Executive Orders that normally apply to 

rulemakings do not apply in this case. Should the 

EPA subsequently determine to pursue a rulemaking, the EPA 

will address the statutes and Executive Orders as 

applicable to that rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Air pollution control,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

________

Dated:

________________

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator

 for Air and Radiation