Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68535 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0358; FRL–10655–01– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AV93 

New Source Performance Standards 

Review for Volatile Organic Liquid 

Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum 

Liquid Storage Vessels) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments 

to the Standards of Performance for 

Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels 

(Including Petroleum Liquid Storage 

Vessels) as the preliminary results of the 

review of the New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) required by the Clean 

Air Act. The EPA is proposing revisions 

to the NSPS that are applicable to 

volatile organic liquid (VOL) storage 

vessels that commence construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

October 4, 2023 under a new NSPS 

subpart. In the new NSPS subpart, the 

EPA is proposing to reduce the vapor 

pressure applicability thresholds In 

addition, the EPA is proposing to revise 

the volatile organic compound (VOC) 

standards to reflect the best system of 

emissions reductions (BSER) for affected 

storage vessels. We are also proposing 

additional monitoring and operating 

requirements to ensure continuous 

compliance with the standard. In 

addition, the EPA is proposing 

degassing emission controls; 

clarification of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction requirements; requirements 

for electronic reporting; and other 

technical improvements. The EPA is 

also proposing to amend NSPS subpart 

Kb to apply to VOL storage vessels that 

commence construction, reconstruction 

or modification after July 23, 1984 and 

on or before October 4, 2023 and to add 

electronic reporting requirements. 

DATES: 

Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before November 20, 

2023. Comments on the information 

collection provisions submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) are best assured of 

consideration by OMB if OMB receives 

a copy of your comments on or before 

November 3, 2023. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing on or before 

October 10, 2023, we will hold a virtual 

hearing. Please refer to the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

information on requesting and 

registering for a public hearing. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2023–0358, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2023–0358 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– 

0358. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– 

0358, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal Holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Michael 

Cantoni, Mail Drop: E143–01, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, 

NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 

541–5593; and email address: 

Cantoni.Michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Participation in virtual public 

hearing. To request a virtual public 

hearing, contact the public hearing team 

at (888) 372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. If 

requested, the virtual hearing will be 

held on October 19, 2023. The hearing 

will convene at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time 

(ET) and will conclude at 3:00 p.m. ET. 

The EPA may close a session 15 minutes 

after the last pre-registered speaker has 

testified if there are no additional 

speakers. The EPA will announce 

further details at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/volatileorganic-liquid-storage-vessels-includingpetroleum. 

If a public hearing is requested, the 

EPA will begin pre-registering speakers 

for the hearing no later than 1 business 

day after the publication of this 

document in the Federal Register. To 

register to speak at the virtual hearing, 

please use the online registration form 

available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/volatileorganic-liquid-storage-vessels-includingpetroleum or contact the public hearing 

team at (888) 372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. The last 

day to pre-register to speak at the 

hearing will be October 16, 2023. Prior 

to the hearing, the EPA will post a 

general agenda that will list preregistered speakers at: https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/volatile-organic-liquidstorage-vessels-including-petroleum. 

The EPA will make every effort to 

follow the schedule as closely as 

possible on the day of the hearing; 

however, please plan for the hearings to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. 

Each commenter will have 4 minutes 

to provide oral testimony. The EPA 

encourages commenters to submit a 

copy of their oral testimony as written 

comments to the rulemaking docket. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral testimony 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. 

Please note that any updates made to 

any aspect of the hearing will be posted 

online at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/volatileorganic-liquid-storage-vessels-includingpetroleum. While the EPA expects the 

hearing to go forward as described in 

this section, please monitor our website 

or contact the public hearing team at 

(888) 372–8699 or by email at 

SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov to 

determine if there are any updates. The 

EPA does not intend to publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing updates. 

If you require the services of a 

translator or a special accommodation 

such as audio description, please preregister for the hearing with the public 

hearing team and describe your needs 

by October 11, 2023. The EPA may not 

be able to arrange accommodations 

without advanced notice. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0358. All 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68536 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the Regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Written Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0358, at https://

www.regulations.gov (our preferred 

method), or the other methods 

identified in the ADDRESSES section. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from the docket. The 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit to 

EPA’s docket at https://

www.regulations.gov any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. This type of 

information should be submitted as 

discussed in the Submitting CBI section 

of this document. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, 

video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 

written comment. The written comment 

is considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the Web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). 

Please visit https://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for 

additional submission methods; the full 

EPA public comment policy; 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions; and general guidance on 

making effective comments. 

The https://www.regulations.gov 

website allows you to submit your 

comment anonymously, which means 

the EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an email comment directly to the 

EPA without going through https://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

digital storage media you submit. If the 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through https://www.regulations.gov. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on any digital 

storage media that you mail to the EPA, 

note the docket ID, mark the outside of 

the digital storage media as CBI, and 

identify electronically within the digital 

storage media the specific information 

that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 

one complete version of the comments 

that includes information claimed as 

CBI, you must submit a copy of the 

comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI directly to 

the public docket through the 

procedures outlined in the Written 

Comments section of this document. If 

you submit any digital storage media 

that does not contain CBI, mark the 

outside of the digital storage media 

clearly that it does not contain CBI and 

note the docket ID. Information not 

marked as CBI will be included in the 

public docket and the EPA’s electronic 

public docket without prior notice. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. 

Our preferred method to receive CBI 

is for it to be transmitted electronically 

using email attachments, File Transfer 

Protocol (FTP), or other online file 

sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, 

OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic 

submissions must be transmitted 

directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the 

email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as 

described above, should include clear 

CBI markings and note the docket ID. If 

assistance is needed with submitting 

large electronic files that exceed the file 

size limit for email attachments, and if 

you do not have your own file sharing 

service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov 

to request a file transfer link. If sending 

CBI information through the postal 

service, please send it to the following 

address: U.S. EPA, Attn: OAQPS 

Document Control Officer, Mail Drop: 

C404–02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 

P.O. Box 12055, RTP, NC 27711, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2023–0358. The mailed CBI 

material should be double wrapped and 

clearly marked. Any CBI markings 

should not show through the outer 

envelope. 

Preamble acronyms and 

abbreviations. Throughout this 

document the use of ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or 

‘‘our’’ is intended to refer to the EPA. 

We use multiple acronyms and terms in 

this preamble. While this list may not be 

exhaustive, to ease the reading of this 

preamble and for reference purposes, 

the EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here: 

API American Petroleum Institute 

ASTM American Society for Testing and 

Materials 

BSER best system of emission reduction 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CE cost effectiveness 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EFR external floating roof 

EIA economic impact analysis 

EJ environmental justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ET Eastern Time 

FR Federal Register 

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) 

ICE incremental cost effectiveness 

ICR information collection request 

IFR internal floating roof 

kPa kilopascals 

LEL lower explosive limit 

m3 cubic meters 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NESHAP national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

NSPS new source performance standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

psia pounds per square inch absolute 

psig pounds per square inch gauge 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality 

Management District 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunctions 

TAC total annualized cost 

TCI total capital investment 

tpy tons per year 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VOC volatile organic compound(s) 

VOL volatile organic liquid(s) 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is this source category and what 

are the current NSPS requirements? 

C. How does the EPA perform the NSPS 

review? 

D. What data and information were used to 

support this action? 

III. What actions are we proposing? 

A. What vapor pressure applicability 

thresholds are we proposing and why? 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68537 

B. What other changes to applicability are 

we proposing and why? 

C. What are the proposed BSER and 

compliance alternatives for newly 

constructed, modified, and reconstructed 

storage vessels? 

D. What is the BSER and standard of 

performance for new and reconstructed 

storage vessels with maximum true vapor 

pressures less than 11.1 psia? 

E. What compliance alternatives are 

available for new and reconstructed storage 

vessels with maximum true vapor pressures 

less than 11.1 psia? 

F. What is the BSER and standard of 

performance for new, modified, and 

reconstructed storage vessels with maximum 

true vapor pressures equal to or greater than 

11.1 psia? 

G. What actions constitute a modification 

for storage vessels and why? 

H. What are the BSER and standards of 

performance for modified storage vessels 

with maximum true vapor pressures less than 

11.1 psia? 

I. What control requirements are we 

proposing for IFR and EFR storage vessels 

emptying and degassing and why? 

J. What requirements are we proposing for 

storage vessel testing, monitoring, and 

inspections and why? 

K. Proposal of NSPS subpart Kc without 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

exemptions 

L. Electronic Reporting 

M. Other Proposed Actions 

N. Compliance Dates 

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

D. What are the benefits? 

E. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094 Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations and Executive Order 14096: 

Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment 

to Environmental Justice for All 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The source category that is the subject 

of this proposal is composed of VOL 

storage vessels regulated under Clean 

Air Act (CAA) section 111, New Source 

Performance Standards. The 2022 North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes for this source 

category are 325, 324, and 422710. The 

NAICS codes serve as a guide for 

readers outlining the entities that this 

proposed action is likely to affect. The 

proposed standards, once promulgated, 

will be directly applicable to affected 

facilities that begin construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after the 

date of publication of the proposed 

standards in the Federal Register. 

Federal, State, local and Tribal 

government entities that own and/or 

operate storage vessels would be 

affected by this action. 

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 action 

is available on the internet at https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/volatile-organic-liquidstorage-vessels-including-petroleum. 

Following publication in the Federal 

Register, the EPA will post the Federal 

Register version of the proposal and key 

technical documents at this same 

website. 

A memorandum showing the edits 

that would be necessary to incorporate 

the changes to 40 CFR part 60, subparts 

Kb and Kc proposed in this action is 

available in the docket (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0358). Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA also will post a copy of this 

document to https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/volatileorganic-liquid-storage-vessels-includingpetroleum. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

The EPA’s authority for this proposed 

rule is CAA section 111, which governs 

the establishment of standards of 

performance for stationary sources. 

Section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires 

the EPA Administrator to list categories 

of stationary sources that in the 

Administrator’s judgment cause or 

contribute significantly to air pollution 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare. The 

EPA must then issue performance 

standards for new (and modified or 

reconstructed) sources in each source 

category pursuant to CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B). These standards are 

referred to as new source performance 

standards, or NSPS. The EPA has the 

authority to define the scope of the 

source categories, determine the 

pollutants for which standards should 

be developed, set the emission level of 

the standards, and distinguish among 

classes, types, and sizes within 

categories in establishing the standards. 

CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the 

EPA to ‘‘at least every 8 years review 

and, if appropriate, revise’’ new source 

performance standards. However, the 

Administrator need not review any such 

standard if the ‘‘Administrator 

determines that such review is not 

appropriate in light of readily available 

information on the efficacy’’ of the 

standard. When conducting a review of 

an existing performance standard, the 

EPA has the discretion and authority to 

add emission limits for pollutants or 

emission sources not currently regulated 

for that source category. 

In setting or revising a performance 

standard, CAA section 111(a)(1) 

provides that performance standards 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 term ‘‘standard of 

performance’’ in CAA section 111(a)(1) 

makes clear that the EPA is to determine 

both the best system of emission 

reduction (BSER) for the regulated 

sources in the source category and the 

degree of emission limitation achievable 

through application of the BSER. The 

EPA must then, under CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B), promulgate standards of 

performance for new sources that reflect 

that level of stringency. CAA section 

111(b)(5) generally precludes the EPA 

from prescribing a particular 

technological system that must be used 

to comply with a standard of 

performance. Rather, sources can select 

any measure or combination of 

measures that will achieve the standard. 

CAA section 111(h)(1) authorizes the 

Administrator to promulgate ‘‘a design, 

equipment, work practice, or 

operational standard, or combination 

thereof’’ if in his or her judgment, ‘‘it is 

not feasible to prescribe or enforce a 

standard of performance.’’ CAA section 

111(h)(2) provides the circumstances 

under which prescribing or enforcing a 

standard of performance is ‘‘not 

feasible,’’ such as, when the pollutant 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68538 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1On October 15, 2003 (68 FR 59329), the EPA 

finalized amendments to NSPS subpart Kb to 

exempt certain storage vessels by capacity and 

vapor pressure, exempt process tanks, and add a 

process tank definition. At the same time, the EPA 

also amended the rule to exempt storage vessels 

that are subject to the National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Solvent 

Extraction of Vegetable Oil Production. 

2All affected storage vessels storing organic 

liquids with a true vapor pressure of 76.6 kPa or 

more must use a closed vent system and a control 

device. See 40 CFR 60.112b(b). 

3A fixed roof storage vessel consists of a 

cylindrical steel shell with a permanently affixed 

roof, which may vary in design from cone or domeshaped to flat. 

4Numerous fittings pass through or are attached 

to floating decks to accommodate structure support 

components or to allow for operational functions. 

Typical deck fittings include, but are not limited to 

access hatches, gauge floats, gauge-hatch/sample 

ports, rim vents, deck drains, deck legs, vacuum 

breakers, and guidepoles. IFR storage vessels may 

also have deck seams, fixed-roof support columns, 

ladders, and/or stub drains. 

5For details about storage vessel emissions, refer 

to the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area 

Sources, AP–42, Fifth Edition, Chapter 7: Liquid 

Storage Tanks, dated June 2020 which is available 

at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-andquantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissionsfactors. 

cannot be emitted through a conveyance 

designed to emit or capture the 

pollutant, or when there is no 

practicable measurement methodology 

for the particular class of sources. 

Pursuant to the definition of new 

source in CAA section 111(a)(2), 

standards of performance apply to 

facilities that begin construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after the 

date of publication of the proposed 

standards in the Federal Register. 

Under CAA section 111(a)(4), 

‘‘modification’’ means any physical 

change in, or change in the method of 

operation of, a stationary source which 

increases the amount of any air 

pollutant emitted by such source or 

which results in the emission of any air 

pollutant not previously emitted. 

Changes to an existing facility that do 

not result in an increase in emissions 

are not considered modifications. Under 

the provisions in 40 CFR 60.15, 

reconstruction means the replacement 

of components of an existing facility 

such that: (1) The fixed capital cost of 

the new components exceeds 50 percent 

of the fixed capital cost that would be 

required to construct a comparable 

entirely new facility; and (2) it is 

technologically and economically 

feasible to meet the applicable 

standards. Pursuant to CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B), the standards of 

performance or revisions thereof shall 

become effective upon promulgation. 

B. What is this source category and what 

are the current NSPS requirements? 

The EPA promulgated NSPS subpart 

K, specific to storage vessels for 

petroleum liquids, in 1974 (39 FR 9317, 

March 8, 1974). These standards were 

amended several times before 1980, 

when EPA proposed to establish revised 

NSPS for storage vessels for petroleum 

liquids as NSPS subpart Ka (45 FR 

23379, April 4, 1980). In 1982, the EPA 

published a list of priority sources for 

which additional NSPS should be 

established (47 FR 951, January 8, 1982), 

and VOL storage vessels at synthetic 

organic chemical manufacturers were 

included in the priority list. Pursuant to 

the EPA’s authority under CAA section 

111, the Agency proposed (49 FR 29698, 

July 23, 1984) and promulgated (52 FR 

11420, April 8, 1987) NSPS for volatile 

organic liquid storage vessels (including 

petroleum liquid storage vessels) for 

which construction, reconstruction, or 

modification commenced after July 23, 

1984, as NSPS subpart Kb.1 NSPS 

subpart Kb regulates storage vessels 

with a capacity of 75 cubic meters (m3) 

(∼20,000 gallons) or more that store 

VOLs with a true vapor pressure over 

15.0 kilopascals (kPa) (∼2.18 psia), and 

from storage vessels with a capacity of 

151 m3 (∼40,000 gallons) or more that 

store organic liquids with a true vapor 

pressure over 3.5 kPa (∼0.51 psia). VOC 

emissions controls are required on 

storage vessels with a capacity of 75 

cubic meters (m3) (∼20,000 gallons) or 

more that store VOLs with a true vapor 

pressure over 27.6 KPa (∼4.0 psia), and 

from storage vessels with a capacity of 

151 m3 (∼40,000 gallons) or more that 

store organic liquids with a true vapor 

pressure over 5.2 kPa (∼0.75 psia). NSPS 

subpart Kb emission controls include 

the use of either an external floating roof 

(EFR), an internal floating roof (IFR), or 

a closed vent system and a control 

device (see 40 CFR 60.110b(a) and 40 

CFR 60.112b(a) and (b)). 2 NSPS subpart 

Kb also specifies testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, reporting, and other 

requirements in 40 CFR 60.113b through 

40 CFR 60.116b to ensure compliance 

with the standards. Storage vessels with 

an EFR consist of an open-top 

cylindrical steel shell equipped with a 

deck that floats on the surface 

(commonly referred to as a floating 

‘‘roof’’) of the stored liquid. Storage 

vessels with an IFR are fixed roof 

vessels 3 that also have a deck internal 

to the vessel that floats on the liquid 

surface (commonly referred to as an 

internal floating ‘‘roof’’) within the fixed 

roof vessel. 

The standards set in NSPS subpart Kb 

for storage vessels with an EFR or IFR 

are a combination of design, equipment, 

work practice, and operational 

standards set pursuant to CAA section 

111(h). These standards require, among 

other things, that a rim seal be installed 

continuously around the circumference 

of the vessel (between the inner wall of 

the vessel and the floating roof) to 

prevent VOC emissions from escaping to 

the atmosphere through gaps between 

the floating roof and the inner wall of 

the storage vessel. For IFRs, NSPS 

subpart Kb allows a single liquidmounted or mechanical shoe primary 

seal (to be used with or without a 

secondary seal), or a vapor-mounted 

primary seal in combination with a 

secondary seal. For EFRs, NSPS subpart 

Kb allows either a liquid-mounted or 

mechanical shoe primary seal, both of 

which must be used with a secondary 

seal; vapor-mounted primary seals are 

not allowed for EFR. 

NSPS subpart Kb also requires 

numerous deck fittings 4 on the floating 

roof to be equipped with a gasketed 

cover or lid that is kept in the closed 

position at all times (i.e., no visible gap), 

except when the device (deck fitting) is 

in actual use, to prevent VOC emissions 

from escaping through the deck fittings. 

In addition, NSPS subpart Kb requires 

owners and operators to conduct visual 

inspections to check for defects in the 

floating roof, rim seals, and deck fittings 

(e.g., holes, tears, or other openings in 

the rim seal, or covers and lids on deck 

fittings that no longer close properly) 

that could expose the liquid surface to 

the atmosphere and potentially result in 

VOC emission losses through rim seals 

and deck fittings.5

NSPS subpart Kb includes two 

primary alternative means of 

compliance. Owners or operators may 

either comply with the consolidated air 

rule provisions for storage vessels in 40 

CFR part 65, subpart C, or comply with 

the national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

storage vessels in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart WW. The substantive control 

requirements in these rules are the same 

as in NSPS subpart Kb although they 

may have slight differences in the 

details of the fitting and inspection 

requirements. 

We estimate that there were 

approximately 9,100 storage vessels 

subject to NSPS subpart Kb in 2022, 

with an estimated 240 storage vessels 

becoming new affected facilities under 

the rule each year. Under the current 

NSPS subpart Kb requirements, it is 

generally difficult to become a modified 

storage vessel. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68539 

C. How does the EPA perform the NSPS 

review? 

As noted in section II.A of this 

preamble, CAA section 111 requires the 

EPA to, at least every 8 years, review 

and, if appropriate, revise the standards 

of performance applicable to new, 

modified, and reconstructed sources. If 

the EPA revises the standards of 

performance, those standards must 

reflect the degree of emission limitation 

achievable through the application of 

the BSER considering the cost of 

achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental 

impact and energy requirements. CAA 

section 111(a)(1). 

In reviewing an NSPS to determine 

whether it is ‘‘appropriate’’ to revise the 

standards of performance, the EPA 

evaluates the statutory factors, which 

may include consideration of the 

following information: 

• Expected growth for the source 

category, including how many new 

facilities, reconstructions, and 

modifications may trigger NSPS in the 

future. 

• Pollution control measures, 

including advances in control 

technologies, process operations, design 

or efficiency improvements, or other 

systems of emission reduction, that are 

‘‘adequately demonstrated’’ in the 

regulated industry. 

• Available information from the 

implementation and enforcement of 

current requirements indicating that 

emission limitations and percent 

reductions beyond those required by the 

current standards are achieved in 

practice. 

• Costs (including capital and annual 

costs) associated with implementation 

of the available pollution control 

measures. 

• The amount of emission reductions 

achievable through application of such 

pollution control measures. 

• Any non-air quality health and 

environmental impact and energy 

requirements associated with those 

control measures. 

In evaluating whether the cost of a 

particular system of emission reduction 

is reasonable, the EPA considers various 

costs associated with the particular air 

pollution control measure or a level of 

control, including capital costs and 

operating costs, and the emission 

reductions that the control measure or 

particular level of control can achieve. 

The Agency considers these costs in the 

context of the industry’s overall capital 

expenditures and revenues. The Agency 

also considers cost effectiveness 

analysis as a useful metric and a means 

of evaluating whether a given control 

achieves emission reduction at a 

reasonable cost. A cost effectiveness 

analysis allows comparisons of relative 

costs and outcomes (effects) of two or 

more options. In general, cost 

effectiveness is a measure of the 

outcomes produced by resources spent. 

In the context of air pollution control 

options, cost effectiveness typically 

refers to the annualized cost of 

implementing an air pollution control 

option divided by the amount of 

pollutant reductions realized annually. 

After the EPA evaluates the statutory 

factors, the EPA compares the various 

systems of emission reductions and 

determines which system is ‘‘best,’’ and 

therefore represents the BSER. The EPA 

then establishes a standard of 

performance that reflects the degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

the implementation of the BSER. In 

performing this analysis, the EPA can 

determine whether subcategorization is 

appropriate based on classes, types, and 

sizes of sources, and may identify a 

different BSER and establish different 

performance standards for each 

subcategory. The result of the analysis 

and BSER determination leads to 

standards of performance that apply to 

facilities that begin construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after the 

date of publication of the proposed 

standards in the Federal Register. 

Because the new source performance 

standards reflect the best system of 

emission reduction under conditions of 

proper operation and maintenance, in 

doing its review, the EPA also evaluates 

and determines the proper testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements needed to ensure 

compliance with the emission 

standards. 

See section II.D of this preamble for 

information on the specific data sources 

that were reviewed as part of this action. 

D. What data and information were 

used to support this action? 

We reviewed recent federal, State, and 

local rulemakings associated with VOL 

storage vessels. We also reviewed 

vendor websites and contacted selected 

floating roof suppliers to collect 

information to support our review of the 

existing requirements for organic liquid 

storage vessels and our BSER 

assessments. We met with industry 

representatives that own and operate 

VOL storage vessels to discuss their 

experience with various control 

equipment. 

We used the equations in Chapter 7 of 

AP–42: Compilation of Air Emission 

Factors to estimate emissions from 

different VOL storage vessels based on 

size, contents, and control configuration 

(e.g., type of floating roof with different 

seal and fitting controls). We estimated 

emission reductions by comparing the 

controlled emissions with emissions 

from an uncontrolled fixed roof storage 

vessel. 

Our cost estimates were based largely 

on vendor costs developed from 

previous rulemakings. For some control 

methods, we had limited recent data 

from vendors or State and local 

rulemakings. All costs were escalated to 

2022 dollars using the Chemical 

Engineering Plant Cost Index for capital 

expenditures and Bureau of Labor 

Statistics data for labor rates. 

III. What actions are we proposing? 

The EPA is proposing revisions to the 

NSPS for VOL storage vessels pursuant 

to the EPA’s review of NSPS subpart Kb. 

The EPA is proposing to codify the 

NSPS revisions proposed in this action 

in a new subpart NSPS subpart Kc. The 

proposed NSPS subpart Kc would be 

applicable to sources that commence 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after October 4, 2023. 

This section outlines the proposed 

actions for NSPS subpart Kc. The EPA 

is proposing new vapor pressure 

applicability thresholds for controls 

under NSPS subpart Kc. The EPA is also 

proposing new standards for VOL 

storage vessels subject to control 

requirements. Under NSPS subpart Kc 

we are proposing that the standard of 

performance reflecting the application 

of BSER for VOL storage vessels subject 

to control requirements and used to 

store liquids with maximum true vapor 

pressures below 11.1 psia (76.6 kPa) is 

an IFR. The updated standards are 

projected to increase the average control 

efficiency of IFR storage vessels to 98 

percent. As an alternative compliance to 

the proposed IFR design standard, we 

are proposing to permit either the use of 

an EFR or the use of a closed vent 

system and a control device that meet 

an equivalent standard of control. For 

controlled storage vessels that store 

liquids with a maximum true vapor 

pressure equal to or greater than 11.1 

psia (76.6 kPa), we are proposing to find 

that the BSER is a closed vent system 

and a control device. We are proposing 

that the standard of performance 

reflecting the emission limitation 

achievable is a 98 percent reduction in 

VOC emissions (increased from 95 

percent in the NSPS subpart Kb). EPA 

is also including modification 

requirements under NSPS subpart Kc 

and discusses the relevant criteria for 

meeting modifications in this section. 

This section also details the proposed 

testing, monitoring and inspection 

requirements, degassing provisions, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68540 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

provisions for SSM, and electronic 

reporting requirements. As described in 

this section, the revisions proposed in 

this action were determined to be costeffective and to reflect the application of 

the best system of emission reduction 

(BSER) for VOL storage vessels. 

A. What vapor pressure applicability 

thresholds are we proposing and why? 

NSPS subpart Kb established control 

requirements, at 40 CFR 60.112b(a), for 

storage vessels based on vessel capacity 

and VOL vapor pressures. In our review 

of NSPS subpart Kb, we assessed the 

vapor applicability thresholds for 

affected facilities and for controls on 

affected storage vessels to determine 

whether these thresholds needed to be 

revised for purposes of NSPS subpart 

Kc. In NSPS subpart Kb there are two 

different sets of vapor pressure 

applicability thresholds: one for 

determining affected facilities and one 

for determining controls. 

In NSPS subpart Kb, the vapor 

pressure applicability thresholds for 

defining affected facilities were slightly 

lower than those used for affected 

facilities for which controls were 

required. The EPA included the two 

separate applicability requirements sets 

in NSPS subpart Kb, one to identify 

storage vessels near the control 

applicability thresholds and another to 

establish limited monitoring procedures 

for vessels with variable components 

and vapor pressures. We are proposing 

to not include specific vapor pressure 

applicability thresholds in defining an 

affected facility under NSPS subpart Kc. 

As such, the proposed affected facility 

under NSPS subpart Kc is any storage 

vessel with a capacity of 20,000 gallons 

or more used to store a volatile organic 

liquid without exclusion for storage 

vessels under a set vapor pressure. This 

proposed change simplifies the 

applicability under NSPS subpart Kc 

and establishes a baseline for 

monitoring and recordkeeping in 

accordance with good air pollution 

control practices for storage vessels that 

do not meet the vapor pressure emission 

control threshold. 

In our review of NSPS subpart Kb, in 

assessing the vapor applicability 

thresholds that require emission 

controls, we estimated the cost of 

including an IFR as part of a new fixed 

roof storage vessel installation for a 

variety of surrogate organic liquids 

covering a wide range of vapor 

pressures for both 20,000 gallon and 

40,000 gallon capacity storage vessels. 

We used the AP–42 equations for liquid 

storage tanks to estimate emissions for 

fixed roof storage vessels and IFR 

storage vessels. Costs were estimated 

based on various vendor quotes, 

escalated to 2022$. For more detail 

regarding the analyses conducted, see 

memorandum Control Options for 

Storage Vessels included in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0358. 

For storage vessels of 20,000 gallon 

capacity or more but less than 40,000 

gallon capacity, we evaluated the cost 

and cost effectiveness of different vapor 

pressure applicability thresholds, 

including: 

• 4.0 psia based on NSPS subpart Kb 

value (27.6 kPa) 

• 1.9 psia based on thresholds used in 

several NESHAP including 40 CFR part 

63, subparts G and CC. 

• 1.5 psia based on thresholds in 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD) Rule 463. 

• 1.0 psia to evaluate an option 

beyond 1.5 psia. 

We conducted this analysis using a 

model storage vessel of 20,000 gallon 

capacity. We assessed costs for two 

different levels of IFR: one meeting the 

basic requirements of NSPS subpart Kb 

and one with upgraded seal 

requirements (requiring a mechanical 

shoe seal or liquid-mounted primary 

seal with a rim-mounted secondary 

seal). Table 1 summarizes the results of 

our analysis for these small storage 

vessels. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR STORAGE VESSELS WITH A CAPACITY BETWEEN 20,000 AND 40,000 

GALLONS

Threshold 

VOC 

emissions 

reduction 

(tpy) 

TCI 1

($) 

TAC 2 without 

product 

recovery 

($/yr) 

TAC 2 with 

product 

recovery 

($/yr) 

CE3

($/ton VOC) 

Costs for Meeting NSPS Subpart Kb Requirements for IFR 

4.0 psia ................................................................................ 2.04 $48,877 $6,035 $4,257 $2,100 

1.9 psia ................................................................................ 0.97 48,877 6,035 5,190 5,300 

1.5 psia ................................................................................ 0.77 48,877 6,035 5,368 7,000 

1.0 psia ................................................................................ 0.51 48,877 6,035 5,590 10,900 

Costs for IFR with Upgraded Seal Requirements (‘Option 1’) 

4.0 psia ................................................................................ 2.29 55,008 6,793 4,802 2,100 

1.9 psia ................................................................................ 1.09 55,008 6,793 5,847 5,000 

1.5 psia ................................................................................ 0.86 55,008 6,793 6,046 7,000 

1.0 psia ................................................................................ 0.57 55,008 6,793 6,295 11,000 

1Total Capital Investment (TCI). 

2Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital. 

3 Cost effectiveness. 

A similar analysis was conducted for 

storage vessels with a design capacity of 

40,000 gallons or more. For this 

analysis, we used a model storage vessel 

with a 60,000 gallon capacity, which we 

consider representative of storage 

vessels at the smaller end of the range 

of storage vessels with a capacity of 

40,000 gallons or more. We evaluated 

the cost and cost effectiveness of 

different vapor pressure applicability 

thresholds, including: 

• 0.75 psia based on NSPS subpart Kb 

value (5.2 kPa). 

• 0.50 based on thresholds in 

SCAQMD Rule 463. 

• 0.35 psia to evaluate an option 

beyond 0.5 psia. 

Table 2 summarizes the results of our 

analysis for storage vessels with a 

capacity of 40,000 gallons or more. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68541 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THRESHOLD ANALYSIS FOR STORAGE VESSELS WITH A CAPACITY OF 40,000 GALLONS OR MORE

Threshold 

VOC 

emissions 

reduction 

(tpy) 

TCI 1

($) 

TAC 2 without 

product 

recovery 

($/yr) 

TAC 2 with 

product 

recovery 

($/yr) 

CE3

($/ton VOC) 

Costs for Meeting NSPS Subpart Kb Requirements for IFR 

0.75 psia .............................................................................. 1.36 $54,979 $6,789 $5,609 $4,100 

0.50 psia .............................................................................. 0.90 54,979 6,789 6,002 6,600 

0.35 psia .............................................................................. 0.63 54,979 6,789 6,238 9,900 

Costs for IFR with Upgraded Seal Requirements (‘Option 1’) 

0.75 psia .............................................................................. 1.42 62,914 7,769 6,532 4,600 

0.50 psia .............................................................................. 0.95 62,914 7,769 6,944 7,300 

0.35 psia .............................................................................. 0.66 62,914 7,769 7,192 10,800 

1Total Capital Investment (TCI). 

2Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital. 

3 Cost effectiveness. 

Based on this analysis, we are 

proposing for NSPS subpart Kc to revise 

the vapor applicability thresholds that 

require emission controls. We are 

proposing to revise the maximum true 

vapor pressure threshold for small 

storage vessels (those with capacity of at 

least 20,000 gallons but less than 40,000 

gallons) to 1.5 psia and for larger storage 

vessels (those with capacity of 40,000 

gallons or more) to 0.5 psia. These 

thresholds yield emission reductions at 

a cost of approximately $6,000 and 

$7,000 per ton of VOC reduced 

respectively, which is within the range 

of what the EPA has considered costeffective for the control of VOC 

emissions in other recent NSPS 

rulemakings. See, e.g., 88 FR 29982 

(May 9, 2023) (finding a value of $6,800/ 

ton of VOC emissions reductions costeffective for automobile and light duty 

truck surface coating operations (NSPS 

subpart MMa)). The cost effectiveness 

for VOLs with vapor pressures less than 

the proposed maximum true vapor 

pressure cutoffs are approximately 

$10,000 and $11,000 per ton of VOC 

reduced. This is not cost-effective 

because it is significantly higher than 

what the EPA has historically found to 

be cost-effective for VOC regulations. 

The EPA solicits comment on the 

proposed vapor pressure applicability 

described in this section. 

B. What other changes to applicability 

are we proposing and why? 

NSPS subpart Kb includes several 

provisions that exempt specific groups 

of VOL storage vessels from 

applicability under the standard. These 

exemptions are outlined in 40 CFR 

60.110b (d) and include specific 

exemptions for storage vessels that 

operate at coke oven by-product plants, 

bulk gasoline plants, and gasoline 

service stations. The exemptions 

include pressure vessels operating in 

excess of 204.9 kPA, vessels attached to 

mobile vehicles, and vessels that store 

beverage alcohol. These exemptions are 

being carried over into the proposal for 

NSPS Kc as the justifications for their 

exemption remains unchanged from the 

original NSPS subpart Kb promulgation. 

The EPA is also proposing to carry 

over the exemption requirements in 40 

CFR 60.110b(d)(4), which covers storage 

vessels with capacities less than or 

equal to 1,589.874 m3 (∼420,000 gallons) 

used for petroleum or condensate 

stored, processed, or treated prior to 

custody transfer. The EPA previously 

explained the applicability of this 

exemption in the preamble to NSPS 

subpart Ka (45 FR 23377) stating, ‘‘this 

exemption applies to storage between 

the time that the petroleum liquid is 

removed from the ground and the time 

the custody of the petroleum liquid is 

transferred from the well or producing 

operations to the transportation 

operations. If it is determined in the 

future that VOC emissions from new 

production field vessels smaller than 

1,589,873 liters (420,000 gallons) are 

significant, separate standards of 

performance will be developed.’’ Since 

promulgation of NSPS subpart Ka, the 

EPA promulgated subparts OOOO and 

OOOOa for the oil and natural gas 

sector, which include standards of 

performance for these types of storage 

vessels. The EPA has also proposed 

revised standards for these sources in its 

latest review, as part of the proposed 

NSPS subpart OOOOb and the emission 

guideline for existing sources at 

proposed subpart OOOOc. See 87 FR 

74702. As such, the EPA proposes to 

carry the language of this exemption 

into NSPS subpart Kc. 

NSPS subpart Kb also includes an 

exemption for vessels subject to the 

NESHAP for solvent extraction for 

vegetable oil production outlined in 40 

CFR 63 subpart GGGG. The EPA 

determined as part of its review, that the 

standards proposed in NSPS subpart Kc 

improve upon the existing NESHAP 

subpart GGGG standards. As such, the 

EPA proposes that vessels subject to 

NESHAP subpart GGGG, would not be 

exempted from NSPS subpart Kc 

applicability. 

The EPA solicits comment on these 

proposed exemptions and changes to 

the applicability provisions. 

C. What are the proposed BSER and 

compliance alternatives for newly 

constructed, modified, and 

reconstructed storage vessels? 

The EPA is proposing standards of 

performance that reflect the BSER as 

well as alternative compliance 

standards for controlled storage vessels 

under NSPS subpart Kc. The proposed 

BSER analyses and proposed standards 

for NSPS subpart Kc are dependent on 

the maximum true vapor pressure of a 

stored VOL and follow the precedent 

established in NSPS subpart Kb. For 

storage vessels storing VOL with 

maximum true vapor pressures less than 

11.1 psia, the EPA discusses the BSER 

analysis and proposes standards of 

performance for newly constructed and 

reconstructed IFRs in section III.D. The 

EPA also is proposing two alternative 

compliance options for storage vessels 

with maximum true vapor pressures less 

than 11.1 psia. These alternative 

compliance options are EFRs and closed 

vent system and control. Details 

regarding alternative compliance 

standards for newly constructed and 

reconstructed storage vessels are 

discussed in section III.E. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68542 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

For storage vessels with maximum 

true vapor pressures greater than or 

equal to 11.1 psia, the EPA is proposing 

to determine that the BSER is closed 

vent system and control, and the 

standard of performance reflecting the 

BSER is a 98 percent reduction in VOC 

emissions. The BSER analysis and 

standard of performance for storage 

vessels with VOL maximum true vapor 

pressures greater than or equal to 11.1 

psia are discussed in section III.F. 

Additionally, we are proposing 

requirements that are applicable to 

storage vessels that are controlled using 

a closed vent system and a control 

device to meet either proposed 

standard, and those proposed 

requirements are also discussed in 

section III.F. 

In section III.G the EPA proposes 

what constitutes a modification for 

purposes of NSPS subpart Kc. 

Discussion regarding the BSER analysis, 

standards of performance for modified 

storage vessels and compliance 

alternatives are discussed in sections 

III.F and III.H. 

D. What is the BSER and standard of 

performance for new and reconstructed 

storage vessels with maximum true 

vapor pressures less than 11.1 psia? 

In our review of NSPS subpart Kb for 

storage vessels storing VOL with 

maximum true vapor pressures less than 

11.1 psia, we focused on control options 

for IFR storage vessels because IFR 

storage vessels are more effective at 

controlling emissions and are 

technologically achievable. Therefore, 

IFR storage vessel control options were 

evaluated to determine BSER for VOL 

vapor pressures less than 11.1 psia. 

Because floating roof tanks are 

unsuitable for controlling VOL with 

vapor pressures greater than or equal 

11.1 psia, the EPA conducted a separate 

analysis to determine the BSER and 

standard of performance for those 

storage vessels. 

The control options we evaluated for 

IFR storage vessels included: 

• Baseline. NSPS subpart Kb control 

requirements (with NSPS subpart Kc 

proposed lower vapor pressure 

thresholds detailed in section III.A) 

• Option IFR–1. NSPS subpart Kb but 

primary seal must either be liquidmounted or mechanical shoe seal and 

must have a rim-mounted secondary 

seal. 

• Option IFR–2. Option 1 

requirements + require fixed roof legs or 

cable suspended roof (cannot have 

adjustable roof legs that penetrate 

through the floating roof). 

• Option IFR–3. Option 2 

requirements + require welded seems 

and best guidepole fittings. 

All three of the listed options above 

also include provisions for requiring 

gauge-hatches/sample ports to be 

gasketed. We determined that all of 

these IFR control options are in use in 

the industry and thus adequately 

demonstrated. 

The cost effectiveness of these control 

options is dependent on the size and 

contents of the storage vessel. We 

estimated that approximately 240 new 

storage vessels become subject to the 

NSPS subpart Kb every year, such that 

1,200 new storage vessels could become 

subject to NSPS subpart Kc over the 

next five years if no change in 

thresholds is adopted. We projected that 

with lower vapor pressure thresholds, 

approximately 20 percent more storage 

vessels could become subject to the 

NSPS subpart Kc standards each year. 

We assigned the estimated 1,440 new 

storage vessels across a range of storage 

vessel sizes and vapor pressures for the 

stored liquids to develop national 

impact estimates for each IFR control 

option. For more information on the 

nationwide cost analysis of IFR control 

options for new storage vessels, see 

memorandum Control Options for 

Storage Vessels in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2023–0358. 

The national impacts projected for 

each IFR control option are presented in 

Table 3 of this preamble. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL IMPACTS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS FOR NEW AND RECONSTRUCTED IFR STORAGE

VESSELS

Control option 

VOC 

emissions 

reduction 1

(tpy) 

TCI 2

(million $) 

TAC 3 without 

product 

recovery 

(million $/yr) 

TAC 3 with 

product 

recovery 

(million $/yr) 

Overall CE1 4

($/ton VOC) 

CE4 to Kb 

baseline 

($/ton VOC) 

ICE5

($/ton VOC) 

Baseline—Kb ............... 41,886 $127 $15.7 ($20.8) ($496) ........................ ........................

Option IFR–1 ................ 42,420 145 17.9 (19.1) (449) 3,180 3,180 

Option IFR–2 ................ 42,684 173 21.3 (15.8) (370) 6,250 12,272 

Option IFR–3 ................ 42,961 199 24.6 (12.8) (297) 7,470 10,966 

1 Relative to uncontrolled fixed roof storage vessel. 

2Total Capital Investment (TCI). 

3Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital. 

4 Cost effectiveness. 

5 Incremental cost effectiveness (compared to previous option). 

Based on this analysis, we are 

proposing to determine that for new and 

reconstructed storage vessels with vapor 

pressures less than 11.1 psia, BSER is 

Option IFR–1. Specifically, we are 

proposing to require that the primary 

seal must either be liquid-mounted or a 

mechanical shoe seal and must have a 

rim-mounted secondary seal. While 

Table 3 displays numerous options that 

have favorable cost effectiveness values, 

incremental cost effectiveness was the 

determining factor in selecting the 

appropriate IFR control option. The EPA 

estimated that the incremental cost 

effectiveness of Option IFR–1 is 

projected to yield emission reductions 

at a cost of approximately $3,200 per 

ton of VOC reduced on average, which 

we determined is cost- effective and is 

well within the range of what the EPA 

has considered cost-effective for the 

control of VOC emissions. The other 

control options we evaluated for IFR 

storage vessels had incremental cost 

effectiveness of $11,000 or more per ton 

of VOC reduced, which is well above 

what we have determined to be costeffective for the control of VOC 

emissions. IFRs are the most common 

emission control method for VOL 

storage vessels and thus are adequately 

demonstrated. Further, IFRs do not 

require power or addition of add-on 

controls; therefore, there are minimal 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. 

IFRs with a liquid-mounted or 

mechanical shoe primary seal and rimmounted secondary seal (Option IFR–1) 

were selected as the most appropriate 

option for new and reconstructed 

storage vessels under the BSER 

determination. The EPA therefore 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68543 

proposes an equipment standard 

pursuant to CAA section 111(h)(5) that 

would require that new storage vessels 

be constructed as IFR, that the primary 

seal must either be liquid-mounted or 

mechanical shoe seal and must have a 

rim-mounted secondary seal, that gaugehatches/sample ports to be gasketed, 

and that the guidepole configurations 

incorporate the provisions outlined in 

the 2000 EPA Storage Tank Emissions 

Reduction Partnership Program 

(STERPP). 

The EPA solicits comment on the 

proposal to determine that the BSER for 

storage vessels storing VOL with 

maximum true vapor pressures less than 

11.1 psia is Option IFR–1, or whether 

one of the alternative options would be 

justified. The EPA also solicits comment 

on the proposed equipment standard. 

E. What compliance alternatives are 

available for new and reconstructed 

storage vessels with maximum true 

vapor pressures less than 11.1 psia? 

As discussed in section III.D of this 

preamble, we are proposing to 

determine that, for new and 

reconstructed storage vessels with a 

maximum true vapor pressure less than 

11.1 psia, the BSER and equipment 

standard is IFR with enhanced rim seal 

requirements: specifically, the primary 

seal must either be liquid-mounted or 

mechanical shoe seal and must have a 

rim-mounted secondary seal. We are 

also proposing to revise the NSPS 

requirements for EFR storage vessels as 

an alternative compliance option to 

equipment standard for newly 

constructed and reconstructed storage 

vessels. The average control efficiency 

for the proposed Option IFR–1 was 

determined to be 98 percent. In 

reviewing the NSPS, we found that 

certain EFR storage vessels could 

achieve the same level of control as the 

proposed control option for IFR storage 

vessels (Option IFR–1). As such, we are 

proposing to permit the use of EFR 

storage vessels that we determined 

achieve equivalent performance as an 

IFR storage vessel across a range of 

different capacities. Based on AP–42 

emission calculation methods, we found 

that an EFR storage vessel that has 

primary and secondary seals as 

specified in Option IFR–1, welded 

seams (typical construction for EFR), 

and that use an unslotted guidepole 

with gasketed sliding cover and pole 

wiper have emissions comparable to an 

IFR storage vessel under Option IFR–1. 

If a slotted guidepole is used, a liquid 

mounted primary seal must be used and 

the slotted guidepole must have a 

gasketed sliding cover, pole sleeve and 

pole wiper (with or without float). We 

recognize that other control 

combinations for the EFR storage vessel 

may achieve comparable emissions to 

an Option IFR–1 storage vessel 

depending on the size and content of 

the storage vessel, and the typical 

meteorological conditions. Although we 

are not attempting to identify every such 

combination in proposing to codify this 

compliance alternative, CAA section 

111(h)(5) permits facilities to request an 

alternative means of emission limitation 

to assess equivalency of EFR controls to 

IFR controls under site-specific 

conditions. 

We are also proposing to permit 

storage vessels with a maximum true 

vapor pressure less than 11.1 psia to use 

closed vent system and control devices 

as an alternative compliance to the 

equipment standard, so long as the 

storage vessel achieves a 98 percent 

reduction in VOC emissions to be 

equivalent to the proposed IFR 

standard. Such storage vessels would be 

required to meet the proposed 

requirements for closed vent systems 

and control devices described in section 

III.F. 

The EPA solicits comment on these 

proposed compliance alternatives for 

storage vessels with a maximum true 

vapor pressure less than 11.1 psia. 

F. What is the BSER and standard of 

performance for new, modified, and 

reconstructed storage vessels with 

maximum true vapor pressures equal to 

or greater than 11.1 psia? 

As noted previously, the EPA is 

proposing that for newly constructed 

and reconstructed VOL storage vessels 

with a maximum true vapor pressure 

less than 11.1 psia, the BSER is IFR with 

enhanced rim seal requirements. 

Because floating roof tanks are 

unsuitable for controlling VOL with 

vapor pressures greater than or equal 

11.1 psia, the EPA conducted a separate 

analysis to determine the BSER and 

standard of performance for those 

storage vessels that are new, modified, 

or reconstructed. In NSPS subpart Kb, 

closed vent systems and control devices 

are the BSER for storage vessels for 

organic liquids with maximum true 

vapor pressures of 11.1 psia or greater 

and have served as an alternative 

compliance option for storage vessels 

with lower vapor pressures. Therefore, 

in reviewing NSPS subpart Kb, the EPA 

also reviewed the control requirements 

associated with storage vessels that use 

closed vent systems and control devices. 

We assessed the cost and cost 

effectiveness of a closed vent system 

and control device for a range of storage 

vessels used to store liquids with high 

vapor pressures. We are proposing to 

continue to find the BSER to be closed 

vent systems and control devices for 

new, modified, or reconstructed storage 

vessels for organic liquids with 

maximum true vapor pressures of 11.1 

psia or greater, and to set the standard 

of performance to require that these 

storage vessels must achieve a 98 

percent reduction in VOC emissions. 

For storage vessels used to store 

organic liquids with maximum true 

vapor pressures of 11.1 psia or greater, 

we estimated the cost of a flare 

dedicated to a single storage vessel. We 

estimated the costs separately for flares 

meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 

60.18 (95 percent reduction) or using 

the flare requirements in 40 CFR 63.670 

(98 percent reduction). We used two 

times the maximum filling rate to size 

the flares, we determined the time 

period needed at the maximum filling 

rate to achieve the modeled working 

losses, and we determined the average 

flow rate needed for the remaining time 

period to correspond to the modeled 

standing losses. Because of the high 

vapor pressure of the liquid contents, 

flares meeting the requirements in 40 

CFR 63.670 are expected to be able to 

use the methods in 40 CFR 63.670(j)(6) 

to determine minimum net heating 

value of the gas stream. Depending on 

the assist-type of the flare, supplemental 

gas may be needed during periods of 

low flow, which is the vast majority of 

the time. We expect facilities would use 

a pressure valve in the closed vent 

system to prevent low flows and prevent 

back flow from the flare to the storage 

vessel when emptying the storage 

vessel. These pressure valves could be 

set to ensure gas flow to the flare is 

always sufficient to prevent overassisting, but we assumed flares with 

low flows would use supplemental 

natural gas. For smaller storage vessels 

(20,000 to 60,000 gallons capacity), 

there were added costs associated with 

meeting the combustion zone operating 

limits in 40 CFR 63.670. For the larger 

storage vessels, routine flows from the 

storage vessels were sufficient to meet 

the combustion zone operating limits in 

40 CFR 63.670. We estimate there would 

be 25 new storage vessels used for 

storing high vapor pressure liquids for 

which closed vent system and control 

device would be required, primarily in 

the 40,000 to 60,000 gallon capacity 

range. For more details regarding the 

nationwide of costs for closed vent 

systems and control devices, see 

memorandum Control Options for 

Storage Vessels in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2023–0358. The nationwide 

impacts projected for these two control 

options evaluated for purposes of NSPS 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68544 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

6See 42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(4). 

7See, e.g., U.S. EPA Applicability Determination 

Index, Control Number: 0400015, (referencing 40 

CFR 60.14(e)(4)–(5)). 

subpart Kc (95 percent and 98 percent control) are provided in Table 4 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL IMPACTS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS FOR CLOSED VENT SYSTEMS AND CONTROL DEVICE

FOR HIGH VAPOR PRESSURE LIQUIDS

Control option 

VOC 

emissions 

reduction 1

(tpy) 

TCI 2

(million $) 

TAC 3 without 

product 

recovery 

(million $/yr) 

CE4

($/ton VOC) 

ICE5

($/ton VOC) 

95 percent control ................................................................ 928 $2.69 $2.61 $2,820 $2,820 

98 percent control ................................................................ 957 2.69 2.71 2,830 3,360 

1 Relative to uncontrolled fixed roof storage vessel. 

2Total Capital Investment (TCI). 

3Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital. 

4 Cost effectiveness. 

5 Incremental cost effectiveness. 

Based on our analysis, we are 

proposing that the BSER for storage 

vessels operating with maximum true 

vapor pressures equal to or greater than 

11.1 psia is the use of a closed vent 

system and control device meeting a 98 

percent control efficiency. The EPA 

considers the cost-effectiveness of both 

control options to be within the range of 

what the EPA has considered costeffective for the control of VOC 

emissions. While the incremental costeffectiveness of 98 percent control is 

slightly higher than for 95 percent 

control, it is also well within the range 

of what the EPA has considered costeffective. Although these control 

devices use power and result in 

additional combustion emissions, there 

is no significant difference between 95 

and 98 percent control levels in as 

regards to the non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, or energy 

requirements. Accordingly, the EPA 

proposes to find the use of a closed vent 

system and control device meeting a 98 

percent control efficiency is the BSER 

and proposes to set a standard of 

performance for new, reconstructed, and 

modified storage vessels operating with 

vapor pressures equal to or greater than 

11.1 psia as 98 percent control of VOC 

emissions. 

The EPA is also proposing to establish 

requirements for closed vent systems 

and control devices to ensure that 

storage vessels using them to comply 

with the proposed standards actually 

achieve 98 percent control efficiency. In 

order for the closed vent system and 

control device to meet 98 percent 

control efficiency, the storage vessel 

must not vent to the atmosphere. 

Conservation vents and pressure relief 

devices are often used to vent emissions 

from storage vessels when the pressure 

within the storage vessel approaches the 

maximum design pressure of the storage 

vessel. Many atmospheric storage 

vessels have pressure ratings of 1 or 2 

psig and would therefore vent often if 

the vapor pressure of the stored liquid 

is above 2 psi. Consequently, to ensure 

direct venting from the storage vessel 

does not occur, we are proposing to 

require storage vessels have a design 

operating gauge pressure no less than 1 

psi greater than the maximum vapor 

pressure of the liquid being stored and 

any back pressure anticipated when the 

storage vessel is filled at its maximum 

rate. While vapor pressures are 

commonly reported in terms of absolute 

pressure, a storage vessel containing a 

liquid with a vapor pressure of 4 psia 

would generally have a headspace 

pressure of 4 psi above atmospheric 

pressure, or 4 psig. Storage vessel 

owners or operators would also have to 

evaluate the back pressure of the control 

system used and ensure that the closed 

vent system can handle the maximum 

filling rate of the storage vessel without 

increasing pressure in the storage vessel 

above this 5 psig value or else establish 

a higher design and operating pressure 

for the storage vessels. For example, if 

the back pressure of the closed vent 

system (or the pressure drop from the 

storage vessel to the control device) is 

3 psi at the maximum filling rate, and 

the liquid stored has a maximum true 

vapor pressure of 4 psia, the minimum 

opening pressure of any pressure relief 

device on the storage vessel would have 

to be 8 psig (3+4+additional 1). We are 

also proposing to require that any 

vacuum breaking device have a close 

pressure no less than 0.1 psig vacuum 

to prevent losses from the vacuum 

breaker vent. 

The EPA solicits comment on our 

proposed BSER determination and 

standard of performance for new, 

reconstructed, and modified storage 

vessels operating with vapor pressures 

equal to or greater than 11.1 psia, as 

well as the proposed requirements for 

closed vent systems and control devices. 

G. What actions constitute a 

modification for storage vessels and 

why? 

For purposes of CAA section 111, 

modifications are defined as ‘‘any 

physical change in, or change in the 

method of operation of,’’ an existing 

facility which increases the amount of 

any air pollutant (to which a standard 

applies) emitted into the atmosphere by 

that facility or which results in the 

emission of any air pollutant (to which 

a standard applies) into the atmosphere 

not previously emitted.6 40 CFR 60.2. 

NSPS Subpart A further provides 

provisions explaining how a 

modification is identified as well as 

defining certain exemptions to those 

general rules. In particular, 40 CFR 

60.14(e)(4) states that the ‘‘[u]se of an 

alternative fuel or raw material’’ is not 

considered a modification if the existing 

facility was designed to accommodate 

that alternative use. In prior EPA actions 

making applicability determinations for 

purposes of NSPS Kb, the EPA has 

previously cited to this provision to 

assert that a change in the type of 

material stored in a storage vessel is not, 

by itself, a modification if the storage 

vessel is capable of accommodating the 

storage of the new materials.7 However, 

the EPA has revisited the previous 

interpretation as discussed in the 

following paragraphs and now proposes, 

for purposes of NSPS Kc, that a change 

in the liquid stored in the storage vessel 

to an organic liquid with a higher 

maximum true vapor pressure does not 

constitute a ‘‘use of an alternative fuel 

or raw material,’’ and would be 

considered a change in the method of 

operation of the storage vessel. Thus, 

the EPA proposes that a change in the 

liquid stored which results in increased 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68545 

VOC emissions would be a modification 

under NSPS Kc. The EPA recognizes 

that the proposed approach to 

modifications for purposes of NSPS 

subpart Kc represents a change of the 

EPA’s previous interpretation of the 

provision in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4) that 

asserted that change in liquid alone did 

not trigger a modification. However, the 

EPA proposes to find that this change in 

interpretation for purposes of defining a 

modification for NSPS subpart Kc is 

appropriate, in particular, because as 

discussed below the changes in the 

organic liquid stored in a storage vessel 

do not constitute changes in ‘‘fuel or 

raw material,’’ as the primary function 

of this affected facility is the storage of 

materials, and the materials stored are 

neither raw material nor fuel inputs to 

a process at the facility itself. FCC v. Fox 

Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 

515–16 (2009) (when the Agency 

acknowledges change in position, ‘‘it 

suffices that the new policy is 

permissible under the statute, that there 

are good reasons for it, and that the 

Agency believes it to be better, which 

the conscious change of course 

adequately indicates’’). 

As noted earlier in this preamble, as 

the EPA has defined modification for 

purposes of CAA section 111, using a 

different fuel or raw material in the 

process that the facility was specifically 

designed for does not itself constitute a 

modification under the exemption 

identified in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4). 

However, for storage vessels, the 

primary function of this affected facility 

is the storage of materials, and the 

materials stored are neither raw material 

nor fuel inputs to a process at the 

facility itself. Therefore, for purposes of 

NSPS Kc, the EPA now proposes to 

determine that the exemption outlined 

in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4) does not apply, 

because the organic liquid stored in the 

vessels subject to this part does not 

constitute fuels or raw materials. 

Accordingly, the EPA proposes to 

consider the change in materials stored 

in a storage vessel to be an operational 

change under CAA section 111(a)(4). 

Thus, where an owner or operator 

changes the operation of the tank to 

store materials with higher vapor 

pressures, this change results in an 

increased emission potential. The EPA 

proposes to find that this change is an 

operation meeting the definition of 

‘‘modification’’ under CAA section 

111(a)(4) and 40 CFR 60.14(a). If the 

modified storage vessel meets the 

applicability criteria of NSPS subpart 

Kc, then it would be subject to the 

standards of performance and other 

requirements established in the final 

rule. 

The EPA has identified no other 

exemption in 40 CFR 60.14(e) which 

applies to a change in the organic liquid 

stored in a storage vessel. The EPA 

further proposes to determine that a 

change in the organic liquid stored at a 

storage vessel constitutes a modification 

under the statutory definition because it 

is reasonable to consider a change in the 

organic liquid stored to a new liquid 

with a higher true vapor pressure to be 

a change in operation, especially 

because such a change is expected to 

increase VOC emissions. Thus, the EPA 

proposes that a change in the liquid 

stored which results in increased VOC 

emissions would be a modification 

under NSPS subpart Kc. If the previous 

content of the storage vessel was below 

the vapor pressure threshold, a change 

in the liquid stored in the vessel to one 

that is above the vapor pressure 

threshold would increase the amount of 

VOC emitted from the storage vessel and 

should be considered a modification of 

the storage vessel and trigger the NSPS 

subpart Kc control requirements. 

The EPA solicits comment on the 

proposed change in interpretation of 40 

CFR 60.14(e) as it applies to modifying 

storage vessels subject to NSPS subpart 

Kc. 

H. What are the BSER and standards of 

performance for modified storage 

vessels with maximum true vapor 

pressures less than 11.1 psia? 

The EPA evaluated BSER for modified 

storage vessels for NSPS subpart Kc 

with maximum true vapor pressures less 

than 11.1 psia. In most cases, the EPA 

expects that modified storage vessels 

will have existing fixed roofs, because 

IFRs were not previously required by 

NSPS subpart Kb. The costs of 

retrofitting a fixed roof storage vessel 

with an IFR are the same as the costs of 

adding an IFR to a new storage vessel. 

Some modified storage vessels that 

newly trigger into the NSPS, however, 

may already have IFRs, and upgrading 

only certain elements of the IFR can 

have significantly different costs than 

when installing a new IFR. Therefore, to 

assess BSER for modified storage 

vessels, we developed national cost 

estimates separately for modified 

storage vessels depending on whether or 

not the storage vessels had existing IFRs 

prior to modification. 

We estimate a total of 30 storage 

vessels would become newly affected 

facilities due to modifications over the 

first 5 years after promulgation of NSPS 

subpart Kc. We estimate 10 percent of 

these storage vessels would have an 

existing IFR and that the existing IFR 

was compliant with the IFR 

requirements in NSPS subpart Kb. For 

more information on the nationwide 

cost analysis of IFR control options for 

modified storage vessels, see 

memorandum Control Options for 

Storage Vessels in Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2023–0358. 

Table 5 of this preamble summarizes 

the costs and cost effectiveness of the 

impacts of modified storage vessels 

without an IFR prior to the 

modification, under the baseline of the 

existing Kb requirements and all three 

IFR options. The incremental costs are 

somewhat higher than for new and 

reconstructed storage vessels because 

we projected that the vapor pressures of 

the organic liquids stored in the 

modified storage vessels would be near 

the vapor pressure applicability 

threshold. Thus, we projected that 

storage vessels that triggered into the 

NSPS subpart Kc because of a change in 

the liquid stored would generally have 

lower vapor pressure organic liquids, on 

average, than compared to new storage 

vessels. Based on this analysis, we are 

proposing for NSPS subpart Kc to find 

that Option IFR–1 (enhanced rim seal 

requirements) is cost-effective and 

represents BSER for modified fixed roof 

storage vessels. Like for new and 

reconstructed sources, the costeffectiveness of all options is well 

within the range of what the EPA has 

considered to be cost-effective in past 

rulemakings. However, while the 

incremental cost effectiveness of Option 

IFR–1 is also reasonable, the 

incremental cost-effectiveness of Option 

IFR–2 and Option IFR–3 are 

significantly higher than what the EPA 

has previously found reasonable. 

Accordingly, while the costeffectiveness of all options is quite 

reasonable, the high incremental costeffectiveness is the determining factor in 

the EPA’s consideration of costs. The 

EPA’s consideration of non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts, as 

well as energy requirements, is also the 

same as for new and reconstructed 

storage vessels. Therefore, the EPA is 

proposing to determine that Option 

IFR–1 is the BSER for existing storage 

vessels with maximum true vapor 

pressures less than 11.1 psia that modify 

and do not have an existing floating 

roof. These proposed requirements are 

also applicable to new sources (sources 

constructed after the proposal date) that 

modify after the proposal date. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68546 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL IMPACTS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS FOR MODIFIED FIXED ROOF STORAGE VESSELS

WITH MAXIMUM TRUE VAPOR PRESSURES LESS THAN 11.1 PSIA 

Control option 

VOC 

emissions 

reduction 1

(tpy) 

TCI 2

(million $) 

TAC 3 without 

product 

recovery 

($/yr) 

TAC 3 with 

product 

recovery 

($/yr) 

CE4

($/ton VOC) 

ICE5

($/ton VOC) 

Existing Kb ............................................... 501 $2.32 $286,000 ($150,000) ($299) ($299) 

Option IFR–1 ............................................ 507 2.65 327,000 (114,000) (224) 5,900 

Option IFR–2 ............................................ 510 3.18 392,000 (51,200) (100) 21,100 

Option IFR–3 ............................................ 513 3.67 453,000 7,300 14 19,100 

1 Relative to uncontrolled fixed roof storage vessel. 

2Total Capital Investment (TCI). 

3Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital. 

4 Cost effectiveness. 

5 Incremental cost effectiveness. 

Table 6 of this preamble summarizes 

the costs and cost effectiveness of the 

impacts of modified storage vessels with 

maximum true vapor pressures less than 

11.1 psia that already have an existing 

IFR prior to the modification. The costs 

per ton of VOC reduced when 

modifying controls on an existing IFR 

are much higher than when installing a 

new IFR on an existing fixed roof 

storage vessel. The cost effectiveness 

and incremental cost effectiveness of all 

three IFR options are well above what 

the EPA has found to be reasonable for 

the control of VOC emissions. 

Consequently, we are proposing for 

NSPS subpart Kc that, for modified 

storage vessels with maximum true 

vapor pressures less than 11.1 psia with 

an existing IFR, the NSPS subpart Kb 

control requirements without upgrading 

the rim seal requirements represent the 

application of BSER, and we propose to 

retain those standards for these sources 

in NSPS subpart Kc. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL IMPACTS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS FOR MODIFIED IFR STORAGE VESSELS

Control option 

VOC 

emissions 

reduction 

(tpy) 

TCI 1

($) 

TAC 2 without 

product 

recovery 

($/yr) 

TAC 2 with 

product 

recovery 

($/yr) 

CE3

($/ton VOC) 

ICE4

($/ton VOC) 

Existing Kb ............................................... 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Option IFR–1 ............................................ 0.48 64,000 7,900 7,480 15,700 15,700 

Option IFR–2 ............................................ 0.73 169,100 20,900 20,300 27,800 50,700 

Option IFR–3 ............................................ 0.87 254,600 31,400 30,700 35,300 74,600 

1Total Capital Investment (TCI). 

2Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital. 

3 Cost effectiveness. 

4 Incremental cost effectiveness. 

For existing EFR storage vessels, like 

existing IFR storage vessels, 

improvements to the floating roof and 

guidepole design would not result in 

significant additional emission 

reductions beyond those achieved by 

the use of the EFR itself. As a result, as 

for the IFR analysis just discussed, costeffectiveness would be expected to be 

quite high such that the costs associated 

with the limited additional emission 

reductions would not be considered 

reasonable. Accordingly, we propose for 

NSPS subpart Kc, that if the modified 

tank has an existing EFR, the BSER and 

standard of performance is consistent 

with the EFR requirements as specified 

in NSPS subpart Kb. 

In very rare cases, a fixed roof storage 

vessel may already be vented through a 

closed vent system to a control device 

at the time that it undergoes a 

modification. In NSPS subpart Kb, the 

control requirement for these control 

devices is 95 percent. As discussed in 

section III.F. of this preamble, we are 

proposing to require storage vessels 

with maximum true vapor pressures 

equal to or greater than 11.1 psia that 

are subject to NSPS subpart Kc to meet 

a 98 percent control efficiency based on 

a BSER identified as a closed vent 

system and control device. The primary 

difference between a flare, thermal 

oxidizer, or carbon adsorption system 

achieving 98 percent control efficiency 

rather than 95 percent control efficiency 

is largely in the operation of the control 

system rather than the design. Thus, we 

conclude that storage vessels that 

already vent through a closed vent 

system to a control device can 

technically achieve 98 percent control 

efficiency. As discussed in section III.F. 

of this preamble, we evaluated the 

incremental cost of operating a control 

system to achieve 98 percent control 

efficiency compared to 95 percent 

control efficiency and determined that it 

is cost-effective to meet a 98 percent 

control requirement. We consider that 

the analysis in section III.F. of this 

preamble to also be applicable to 

modified storage vessels because there 

are no meaningful differences in the 

costs of achieving 98 percent control 

efficiency as compared to new or 

reconstructed storage vessels. Therefore, 

for NSPS subpart Kc, we conclude that 

if a storage vessel with an existing 

closed vent system routed to a control 

device meets the qualifications for 

modification discussed in section III.G, 

the BSER is a closed vent system to a 

control device and standard of 

performance is 98 percent control of 

VOC emissions, the same as new or 

reconstructed storage vessels. 

The EPA solicits comment on the 

proposed standards for modified storage 

vessels, including whether the EPA 

should finalize any of the alternative 

options. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68547 

I. What control requirements are we 

proposing for IFR and EFR storage 

vessels emptying and degassing and 

why? 

Occasionally, floating roof storage 

vessels need to be taken out of service 

to clean, inspect, or repair the storage 

vessel or floating roof. For example, 

some floating roof seal components may 

wear out more quickly over time than 

the main structure of the floating roof. 

Depending on the seal type, this repair 

may require that the storage vessel be 

taken out of service. When the storage 

vessel is emptied, the floating roof will 

land on support legs or, if suspended by 

cables, reach a fixed height position. 

Commonly, the support legs or cable 

suspension will have two different fixed 

settings. One setting would be at a low 

height (for example, one foot) to 

maximize the working volume of the 

storage vessel when it is in service. The 

other setting would be a high 

‘‘maintenance’’ height that allows 

maintenance crews to enter the storage 

vessel and walk under the roof once the 

floating roof is landed and the storage 

vessel is emptied. The vapor space can 

have significant volatile content due to 

volatilization of the organic liquid as the 

storage vessel is emptied or from liquid 

film that may cling to the wall and floor 

after the tank is emptied. The VOC 

emissions from the emptying and 

degassing process is dependent on the 

vapor pressure of the liquid stored, the 

dimensions of the storage vessel, and 

the height of the floating roof when 

landed (for maintenance), which 

impacts the size of the vapor space 

below the floating roof. The EPA 

evaluated different scenarios in which a 

control device could be utilized to 

achieve a 98 percent destruction 

efficiency until the vapor space 

concentration is within 10 percent of 

the lower explosive limit (LEL). 

We evaluated the cost and VOC 

emissions for a wide variety of storage 

vessel sizes and VOL contents. We 

found that degassing controls were 

generally only cost-effective for larger 

storage vessels with vapor pressures 

greater than 1.5 psia. We evaluated the 

following options to determine the 

applicability threshold for control 

during degassing events: 

• Baseline: Uncontrolled degassing. 

• Degassing Option 1: Control 

degassing for storage vessels with a 

capacity of 1-million gallon or more 

storing organic liquids with a maximum 

true vapor pressure of 1.5 psia or more. 

• Degassing Option 2a: Control 

degassing for storage vessels with a 

capacity of 300,000 gallon or more 

storing organic liquids with a maximum 

true vapor pressure of 1.5 psia or more. 

• Degassing Option 2b: Control 

degassing for storage vessels with a 

capacity of 1-million gallon or more 

storing organic liquids with a maximum 

true vapor pressure of 0.5 psia or more. 

Degassing Options 2a and 2b were 

both evaluated against Degassing Option 

1 to evaluate whether lowering the size 

threshold or lowering the vapor 

pressure threshold could be costeffective. Nationwide impacts were 

estimated based on our projected 

distribution of storage vessels. 

Furthermore, we estimated that storage 

vessels would be emptied and degassed 

once every 10 years. For more details 

regarding the nationwide estimated of 

degassing emissions and costs and 

emission reductions for degassing 

controls, see memorandum Control 

Options for Storage Vessels in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0358. The 

nationwide impacts projected for the 

degassing control options are 

summarized in Table 7 of this preamble. 

We evaluated the cost effectiveness and 

incremental cost effectiveness of the 

three different options. While all three 

options were cost-effective, degassing 

option 1 was selected because the 

incremental cost effectiveness of the 

remaining options exceeded reasonable 

values established for the control of 

VOC emissions in prior rulemaking. 

Based on our analysis, we are proposing 

that, for degassing emissions, a control 

device utilized to achieve a 98 percent 

destruction efficiency is the BSER for 

storage vessels with a capacity of 1- 

million gallon or more storing organic 

liquids with a maximum true vapor 

pressure of 1.5 psia or more. The EPA’s 

consideration of non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts as well as 

energy requirements is the same as 

considered for control devices in section 

III.F. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to 

establish a standard of performance of 

98 percent control until the vapor space 

concentration is within 10 percent of 

the LEL for these storage vessels that 

applies during degassing events. 

The EPA solicits comment on the 

proposed BSER and standard of 

performance for degassing events, 

including the applicability threshold for 

application of those standards. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL IMPACTS FOR DEGASSING CONTROLS

Control option 

VOC 

emissions 

(tpy) 

VOC 

emissions 

reduction 

(tpy) 

TAC 1 without 

product 

recovery 

(million $/yr) 

CE2

($/ton VOC) 

ICE3

($/ton VOC) 

Baseline ............................................................................... 33.30 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Degassing Option 1 ............................................................. 18.92 14.38 $69,860 $4,859 ........................

Degassing Option 2a ........................................................... 14.89 18.41 119,000 6,465 $12,196 

Degassing Option 2b ........................................................... 13.38 19.92 129,740 6,514 10,809 

1Total annualized costs (TAC) considering annualized cost of capital. 

2 Cost effectiveness (CE). 

3 Incremental cost effectiveness (ICE). The ICE of Degassing Options 2a and 2b are calculated against Degassing Option 1. 

J. What requirements are we proposing 

for storage vessel testing, monitoring, 

and inspections and why? 

Because the NSPS reflects BSER 

under conditions of proper operation 

and maintenance, in doing our review, 

we also evaluate and determine the 

proper testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements needed to ensure 

compliance with the requirements of 

NSPS subpart Kc. This section includes 

our discussion on current testing and 

monitoring requirements of the NSPS 

subpart Kb and any revisions or 

additions we are proposing to include 

for NSPS subpart Kc. 

We reviewed and compared 

monitoring and inspection requirements 

across several rules, including NSPS 

subpart Kb and the storage vessel 

requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

WW and 40 CFR part 65, subpart C. 

Generally, these requirements are 

similar to each other, and we strove to 

develop monitoring and inspection 

requirements consistent with these 

federal standards and that provide the 

best clarity for the specific 

requirements. However, we note that the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68548 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

8Mokhiber, Russell. Multinational Monitor; 

Washington Vol. 24, Iss. 4, (April 2003): 30. 

current NSPS subpart Kb includes 

provision for inspections every 5 years 

for IFRs that have a dual seal system. 

We are proposing to require dual seal 

IFRs for storage vessels with a 

maximum vapor pressure less than 11.1 

psia, but as discussed later in this 

section, we are also proposing the use 

of lower explosive limit (LEL) 

monitoring within the headspace of the 

IFR as a means to enhance inspections 

and more readily identify 

malfunctioning internal floating roofs. 

Because a top-side inspection can be 

easily conducted in conjunction with 

the annual LEL monitoring, we are 

proposing to require annual LEL 

monitoring and floating roof inspections 

for all floating roofs, including IFRs 

with a dual seal system. 

We are proposing to add annual 

monitoring of IFR storage vessels using 

a LEL monitor to identify floating roofs 

with poorly functioning seals or fitting 

controls. We identified at least two 

States or localities (New Jersey rule 

7:27–16 and SCAQMD Rule 1178) that 

have LEL monitoring for IFR storage 

vessels. Our emission estimates from 

various storage vessel requirements 

assume that proper seals and other 

equipment are in-place and operating as 

required. If these controls are not 

operating as intended, the emissions 

from these storage vessels can be much 

higher. We found that the visual 

inspections are subjective and may, at 

times, not be performed well. For 

example, although a hired contractor for 

BP’s Carson Refinery had reported no 

problems with the facility’s 26 floating 

roof storage vessels from 1994 to 2002, 

a SCAQMD inspection ‘‘revealed that 

more than 80 percent of the storage 

vessels had numerous leaks, gaps, torn 

seals, and other defects that caused 

excess emissions.’’ 8 Therefore, for 

purposes of NSPS subpart Kc, we sought 

a less subjective means to monitor and 

verify performance of the floating roofs. 

We concluded that periodic LEL 

monitoring could be used to ensure the 

floating roofs are performing as 

intended. 

The New Jersey and SCAQMD rules 

set a maximum LEL that triggers an 

obligation for corrective action at the 

storage vessel, and we modeled our 

proposed NSPS subpart Kc provision 

following these State rules. For storage 

vessels installed after June 1, 1984, 

these rules set a maximum LEL of 30 

percent. However, the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) standard 

sets a maximum LEL of 25 percent for 

explosion prevention for IFR storage 

vessels. Per our review, we conclude 

that establishing a maximum LEL level 

for IFR storage vessels in NSPS subpart 

Kc that will trigger an obligation for the 

owner and operator to repair the IFR, 

discussed further in the next paragraph, 

which will ensure the emission 

reductions expected by the application 

of BSER are achieved. From the data we 

collected, there were very few 

measurements that exceeded 25 percent 

LEL that did not also exceed 50 percent 

LEL. Thus, when failures occurred, the 

LEL was often very high. Based on these 

observations and considering the more 

stringent NFPA standard, we propose 

for NSPS subpart Kc, for new, modified, 

and reconstructed storage vessels, the 

use of LEL monitor to identify floating 

roofs with poorly functioning seals or 

fitting controls and we propose that the 

appropriate LEL levels for IFR storage 

vessels is 25 percent. 

We acknowledge that it is difficult to 

estimate the emission impacts of these 

LEL monitoring requirements because 

we do not have data on the number of 

poorly functioning floating roofs. NSPS 

subpart Kb already requires repair of 

floating roofs that fail inspection and 

failure of the proposed NSPS subpart Kc 

LEL monitoring would trigger the same 

repairs. As such, we consider that these 

repairs are already required in NSPS 

subpart Kb and the LEL requirement 

predominately makes the required 

inspections less subjective. In the worstcase scenario, a poorly operated IFR 

storage vessel can have emissions 

similar to those of a fixed roof storage 

vessel. In establishing the floating roof 

requirements, we already determined 

that installing a floating roof was costeffective and that the costs of replacing 

a poorly functioning floating roof is not 

significantly different from the costs of 

retrofitting a fixed roof storage vessel. In 

our cost analysis, we projected floating 

roofs have a 15-year life, so our 

annualized costs account for IFR 

replacement every 15 years. We expect 

that most poorly performing floating 

roofs can be repaired, rather than 

replaced, but we expect that 

replacement will be necessary in some 

cases. We propose to require in NSPS 

subpart Kc that for new, modified, and 

reconstructed storage vessels whose 

IFRs have failed to the point that 25 

percent LEL is exceeded, the owner or 

operator must repair the IFR and, if 

necessary, to replace the IFR when 

repairs are ineffective. 

We are proposing in NSPS subpart Kc 

specific testing requirements when 

monitoring LEL for storage vessels with 

IFRs. We are proposing that LEL 

standard be assessed on a 5-minute 

rolling average basis and that LEL 

monitoring be conducted for a 

minimum of 20 minutes unless an 

exceedance is measured prior to 

completing 20 minutes of LEL 

monitoring. We are proposing that LEL 

be measured within the storage vessel 

no more than 3 feet above the IFR. We 

are proposing that LEL monitoring be 

conducted when the wind speed at the 

top of the tank is 5 miles per hour or 

less where practicable, but the testing 

will be invalid and must be reconducted 

at a later date (no later than 30 days 

from the previous attempted 

measurement) if the wind speed at the 

top of the tank is greater than the annual 

average wind speed at the site’s location 

or 15 miles per hour, whichever is less. 

The EPA solicits comment on the 

proposed testing, monitoring, and 

inspection requirements, including 

whether our selection of maximum 25 

percent LEL is appropriate, or whether 

this number should be higher or lower. 

There are a number of other 

monitoring and inspection requirements 

included as part of this proposal. The 

EPA is proposing equipping floating 

roof storage vessels with a visual or 

audible alarm system to monitor when 

the floating roof approaches specified 

landing heights. For closed vent 

systems, the EPA is proposing quarterly 

visual, audible, and olfactory 

inspections, annual EPA Method 21 

instrument monitoring, and monitoring 

of bypasses. The EPA also proposes that 

storage vessels using closed vent 

systems and control devices must equip 

pressure relief devices with appropriate 

monitoring to identify releases. 

The EPA is proposing specific 

requirements for flare and non-flare 

control devices to ensure they achieve 

the required control efficiency on an 

ongoing basis. Specifically, we are 

proposing initial testing of non-flare 

control devices and periodic testing 

every five years. During the performance 

test, the owner or operator would set an 

operating limit on the control device; 

continuous compliance with the 

operating limit would be demonstrated 

on a 3-hour rolling average basis. We 

propose that flares would be monitored 

consistent with the flare requirements in 

40 CFR part 63 subpart CC. 

Lastly the EPA is proposing applying 

the requirements in 40 CFR 60.116b(f) 

for waste mixtures to all mixtures with 

indeterminate or variable compositions. 

K. Proposal of NSPS Subpart Kc Without 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Exemptions 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68549 

9See 40 CFR part_60_Subpart_Kc_60.116c(a)_

Initial_Notification.xlsx and 40 CFR part_60_

subpart_Kc_60.116c(b)_Semiannual_Report.xlsx, 

available in the docket for this action. 

Circuit) vacated portions of two 

provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 

112 regulations governing the emissions 

of HAP during periods of SSM. 

Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM 

exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), holding that under 

section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions 

standards or limitations must be 

continuous in nature and that the SSM 

exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some section 112 

standard apply continuously. The EPA 

has determined the reasoning in the 

Court’s decision in Sierra Club applies 

equally to CAA section 111 because the 

definition of emission or standard in 

CAA section 302(k), and the embedded 

requirement for continuous standards, 

also applies to the NSPS. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 

we are proposing standards in this rule 

that apply at all times. The NSPS 

general provisions in 40 CFR 60.11(c) 

currently exclude opacity requirements 

during periods of SSM and the 

provision in 40 CFR 60.8(c) contains an 

exemption from non-opacity standards. 

We are proposing in NSPS subpart Kc 

specific requirements at 40 CFR 

60.112c(a)(1) that override the general 

provisions for SSM provisions. We are 

proposing a combination of design, 

equipment, work practice, and 

operational standards in NSPS subpart 

Kc that apply at all times. 

The EPA has attempted to ensure that 

the general provisions we are proposing 

to override are inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether we have successfully done so. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead, they 

are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of emissions control, process, or 

monitoring equipment (40 CFR 60.2). 

The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as 

not requiring emissions that occur 

during periods of malfunction to be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA 

section 111 or in case law requires that 

the EPA consider malfunctions when 

determining what standards of 

performance reflect the degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

‘‘the application of the best system of 

emission reduction’’ that the EPA 

determines is adequately demonstrated. 

While the EPA accounts for variability 

in setting emissions standards, nothing 

in CAA section 111 requires the Agency 

to consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. The EPA is not required to 

treat a malfunction in the same manner 

as the type of variation in performance 

that occurs during routine operations of 

a source. A malfunction is a failure of 

the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or 

usual manner’’ and no statutory 

language compels EPA to consider such 

events in setting CAA section 111 

standards of performance. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions in the 

analogous circumstances (setting 

‘‘achievable’’ standards under CAA 

section 112) has been upheld as 

reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S. 

Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606– 

610 (2016).] 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

111 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 111 

standard was, in fact, sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable, 

and was not instead caused, in part, by 

poor maintenance or careless operation. 

40 CFR 60.2 (definition of 

‘‘Malfunction’’). 

If the EPA determines in a particular 

case that an enforcement action against 

a source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can 

raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action and the Federal 

District Court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA proposes that its 

interpretation of the CAA and, in 

particular, CAA section 111 is 

reasonable and encourages practices 

that will avoid malfunctions. 

Administrative and judicial procedures 

for addressing exceedances of the 

standards fully recognize that violations 

may occur despite good faith efforts to 

comply and can accommodate those 

situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 

F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016). 

L. Electronic Reporting 

The EPA is proposing that owners and 

operators of volatile organic liquid 

storage vessels (including petroleum 

liquid storage vessels) subject to NSPS 

subpart Kb and NSPS subpart Kc, 

submit electronic copies of certain 

required notifications and reports 

through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance 

and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI). A description of the electronic 

data submission process is provided in 

the memorandum Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Rules, available in the docket for this 

action. Specifically, the proposed rule 

requires that for NSPS subpart Kb the 

reports specified in 40 CFR 

60.115b(a)(1), 60.115b(a)(3), 

60.115b(a)(4), 60.115b(b)(1), 

60.115b(b)(2), 60.115b(b)(4), 

60.115b(d)(1), 60.115b(d)(3), and 

60.116b(d) be submitted as a portable 

document format upload in CEDRI, and 

for NSPS subpart Kc the rule requires 

that owners and operators use the 

appropriate spreadsheet templates to 

submit the initial notification specified 

in 40 CFR 60.116c(a) and semiannual 

reports specified in 40 CFR 60.116c(b) 

to CEDRI. Draft versions of the proposed 

templates for the NSPS subpart Kc 

initial notification and semiannual 

report are included in the docket for this 

action.9 The EPA specifically requests 

comment on the content, layout, and 

overall design of the templates. We note 

that for NSPS subpart Kb, we are only 

proposing to change the format of the 

reporting requirements to require 

electronic reporting (i.e., we are not 

proposing any new data elements). 

Additionally, the EPA has identified 

two broad circumstances in which 

electronic reporting extensions may be 

provided. These circumstances are (1) 

outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI 

which preclude an owner or operator 

from accessing the system and 

submitting required reports and (2) force 

majeure events, which are defined as 

events that will be or have been caused 

by circumstances beyond the control of 

the affected facility, its contractors, or 

any entity controlled by the affected 

facility that prevent an owner or 

operator from complying with the 

requirement to submit a report 

electronically. Examples of force 

majeure events are acts of nature, acts 

of war or terrorism, or equipment failure 

or safety hazards beyond the control of 

the facility. The EPA is providing these 

potential extensions to protect owners 

and operators from noncompliance in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68550 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

10EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective 

Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 

11E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA 

Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/ 

documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013- 

09-30.pdf. 

12 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century 

Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 

2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.

archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digitalgovernment/digital-government.html. 

cases where they cannot successfully 

submit a report by the reporting 

deadline for reasons outside of their 

control. In both circumstances, the 

decision to accept the claim of needing 

additional time to report is within the 

discretion of the Administrator, and 

reporting should occur as soon as 

possible. 

The electronic submittal of the reports 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking 

will increase the usefulness of the data 

contained in those reports, is in keeping 

with current trends in data availability 

and transparency, will further assist in 

the protection of public health and the 

environment, will improve compliance 

by facilitating the ability of regulated 

facilities to demonstrate compliance 

with requirements and by facilitating 

the ability of delegated State, local, 

Tribal, and territorial air agencies and 

the EPA to assess and determine 

compliance, and will ultimately reduce 

burden on regulated facilities, delegated 

air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic 

reporting also eliminates paper-based, 

manual processes, thereby saving time 

and resources, simplifying data entry, 

eliminating redundancies, minimizing 

data reporting errors, and providing data 

quickly and accurately to the affected 

facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the 

public. Moreover, electronic reporting is 

consistent with the EPA’s plan 10 to 

implement Executive Order 13563 and 

is in keeping with the EPA’s agencywide policy 11 developed in response to 

the White House’s Digital Government 

Strategy.12 For more information on the 

benefits of electronic reporting, see the 

memorandum Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Rules, referenced earlier in this section. 

M. Other Proposed Actions 

NSPS subpart Kb includes a number 

of technical methods which have been 

updated or replaced in the NSPS 

subpart Kc proposal. Two of these 

methods, American Society for Testing 

and Materials (ASTM) D2879 and 

American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Bulletin 2517, are used in determining 

vapor pressures including the maximum 

true vapor pressure. 

We propose to replace ASTM D2879, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Vapor 

Pressure-Temperature Relationship and 

Initial Decomposition Temperature of 

Liquids by Isoteniscope,’’ with both 

ASTM D6378–22, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Vapor 

Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products, 

Hydrocarbons, and HydrocarbonOxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion 

Method),’’ and ASTM D6377–20 

‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Vapor Pressure of 

Crude Oil: VPCRx (Expansion Method).’’ 

This change is consistent with the 

actions finalized in the 2020 

amendments to the Organic Liquids 

Distribution (OLD) NESHAP (85 FR 

40740). ASTM D2879 involves both an 

isoteniscope and heating the sample to 

a boil. The proposed replacement is an 

automated device method that produces 

more accurate vapor pressure 

measurements. ASTM D6378–22 is used 

for measuring vapor pressures between 

7 kPa and 150 kPa. ASTM D6377–20 is 

used for measuring vapor pressures 

between 29 kPa and 180 kPa. For each 

analysis, you must use a 4:1 vapor to 

liquid ratio. 

Additionally, we propose replacing 

the API Bulletin 2517, Evaporative Loss 

from External Floating-Roof Tanks, with 

information available in AP–42, Chapter 

7. While API Bulletin 2517 does not 

prescribe methods for measuring liquid 

vapor pressure, it acts as a reference and 

includes a table of vapor pressures for 

pure substances at temperatures 

between 40 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit. 

API Bulletin 2517 also includes 

information for calculating Reid vapor 

pressures crude oil and refined 

petroleum stocks. AP–42, Chapter 7 

includes comparable information and is 

publicly available. EPA is also 

proposing not to incorporate ASTM 

D323 into the proposed subpart. ASTM 

D323, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Vapor 

Pressure of Petroleum Products (Reid 

Method)’’ is used for the determination 

of the Reid vapor pressure which can be 

used in conjunction with ASTM D2879 

for determining vapor pressures. The 

inclusion of ASTM D6378 and ASTM 

D6377, makes the need for ASTM D323 

unnecessary in the proposed standard. 

N. Compliance Dates 

Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), 

the effective date of the final rule 

requirements in NSPS subpart Kc will 

be the promulgation date. Affected 

sources that commence construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

October 4, 2023 must comply with all 

requirements of NSPS subpart Kc, no 

later than the effective date of the final 

rule or upon startup, whichever is later. 

The EPA is proposing amendments to 

NSPS subpart Kb to include electronic 

submission requirements. Affected 

NSPS subpart Kb sources that 

commence construction, reconstruction 

or modification after July 23, 1984, and 

before October 4, 2023 must comply 

with the updated requirements to 

submit reports electronically no later 

than the effective date of the final rule. 

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

The proposed revisions in NSPS 

subpart Kc reduce emissions of VOCs, 

some of which may also be hazardous 

air pollutants (HAPs). The EPA 

estimates that the updated standards 

would reduce VOC emissions by 1,085 

tons per year, which includes the 

impacts from new, modified, and 

reconstructed storage vessels. More 

information regarding the air quality 

impacts and emission reductions are 

included in the memorandum Control 

Options for Storage Vessels. 

B. What are the cost impacts? 

This final action will cost (in 2022 

dollars) approximately $20.6 million in 

total capital cost and result in total 

annualized cost savings of $4.48 million 

per year (including product recovery) 

based on our analysis of the proposed 

actions in NSPS subpart Kc. More 

information about the estimated cost of 

the proposed actions can be found in 

the memorandum Control Options for 

Storage Vessels. 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

For economic impact analyses of rules 

that directly affect a single or a few 

industries, the EPA often prepares a 

partial equilibrium analysis. In this type 

of economic analysis, the focus of the 

effort is on estimating impacts on a 

single affected industry or several 

affected industries, and all impacts of 

this rule on industries outside of those 

affected are assumed to be zero or so 

inconsequential to not be considered in 

the analysis. If the compliance costs, 

which are key inputs to an economic 

impact analysis, are quite insignificant, 

then the impact analysis could consist 

of a calculation of annual (or 

annualized) costs as a percentage of 

sales for affected companies. This latter 

type of analysis is called a screening 

analysis and is applied when a partial 

equilibrium or more complex economic 

impact analysis approach is deemed not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68551 

13https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice. 

14See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ 

technical-guidance-assessing-environmentaljustice-regulatory-analysis. 

necessary given the expected size of the 

impacts. 

The net present value of the estimated 

cost impacts of the proposed NSPS 

subpart Kc is $18.9 million, discounted 

at a 3 percent rate over a 5-year analytic 

time frame from 2024 to 2028 in 2022 

dollars. Using a 7 percent discount rate, 

the net present value of the estimated 

cost impacts is $16.9 million. The 

equivalent annualized value in 2022 

dollars is a cost of approximately $4.1 

million using a discount rate of three 

and seven percent. 

Storage vessels in NSPS subpart Kb 

are most closely associated with the 

petroleum and coal products industry 

(NAICS 324000), chemical products 

industry (NAICS 325000), and the 

petroleum bulk stations terminals 

industry (NAICS 424710). While we do 

not know the precise distribution of 

new and modified storage vessels across 

the affected sectors, we know that there 

are affected storage vessels in the sectors 

mentioned earlier in this preamble. 

These sectors contribute gross value 

added, ranging from $129 to $440 

billion per sector, to the national 

economy. In comparison, the proposed 

requirements in NSPS subpart Kc have 

estimated total costs of $20.6 million. 

The total cost is the total incurred 

collectively amongst numerous sectors, 

and each of the sectors examined have 

sales of at least $129 billion. Thus, the 

compliance costs of this action are 

insignificant relative to the scale for the 

sectors affected, and it is appropriate to 

evaluate the economic impacts by 

conducting a screening analysis 

comparing the costs to entity-level sales. 

Given the results of the analysis, these 

economic impacts are relatively low for 

affected industries and entities 

impacted by this proposed rule, and 

there will not be substantial impacts on 

the markets for affected products. The 

costs of the proposed rule are not 

expected to result in a significant 

market impact, regardless of whether 

they are passed on to the purchaser or 

absorbed by the firms. We also expect 

minimal impacts on employment. 

D. What are the benefits? 

These proposed revisions in NSPS 

subpart Kc would reduce emissions of 

VOCs, some of which may also be 

HAPs. Because VOCs react in the 

atmosphere to produce ozone, these 

standards would help to reduce 

atmospheric ozone concentrations and 

reduce health effects associated with 

high levels of ozone. Furthermore, the 

proposed requirements to submit 

reports and test results electronically 

would improve monitoring, compliance, 

and implementation of the rule. 

E. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

Executive Order 12898 directs the 

EPA to identify the populations of 

concern who are most likely to 

experience unequal burdens from 

environmental harms, which are 

specifically minority populations 

(people of color), low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

Additionally, Executive Order 13985 is 

intended to advance racial equity and 

support underserved communities 

through Federal government actions (86 

FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA 

defines environmental justice (EJ) as 

‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income, 

with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies.’’ 13 The EPA further defines 

fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no group of 

people should bear a disproportionate 

burden of environmental harms and 

risks, including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ In recognizing that people of 

color and low-income populations often 

bear an unequal burden of 

environmental harms and risks, the EPA 

continues to consider ways of protecting 

them from adverse public health and 

environmental effects of air pollution. 

For purposes of analyzing regulatory 

impacts, the EPA relies upon its June 

2016 ‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing 

Environmental Justice in Regulatory 

Analysis,’’ 14 which provides 

recommendations that encourage 

analysts to conduct the highest quality 

analysis feasible, recognizing that data 

limitations, time, resource constraints, 

and analytical challenges will vary by 

media and circumstance. The Technical 

Guidance states that a regulatory action 

may involve potential EJ concerns if it 

could: (1) Create new disproportionate 

impacts on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or Indigenous 

peoples; (2) exacerbate existing 

disproportionate impacts on minority 

populations, low-income populations, 

and/or Indigenous peoples; or (3) 

present opportunities to address 

existing disproportionate impacts on 

minority populations, low-income 

populations, and/or Indigenous peoples 

through this action under development. 

We are unable to quantitatively 

estimate the potential EJ impact of NSPS 

subparts Kb and Kc for the following 

reasons. Over the next 5 years, the EPA 

estimates that 1,440 new tanks and 27 

modified tanks would be subject to 

NSPS subpart Kc. However, the 

locations of any new VOL storage 

vessels that would be subject to NSPS 

subpart Kc are unknown. Furthermore, 

there is insufficient data available 

regarding the locations of existing VOL 

storage vessels. We estimate that there 

are approximately more than 10,000 

existing Volatile Organic Liquid Storage 

Vessels, but do not have a list of specific 

units and their locations. Therefore, we 

cannot perform a proximity 

demographic analysis of populations 

near existing units as a proxy for units 

that may be modified or reconstructed 

and become subject to NSPS subpart Kc. 

Finally, because we based the analysis 

of the impacts and emission reductions 

on model plants, we are not able to 

ascertain specifically how the potential 

benefits of this rule would be 

distributed across the population. Thus, 

we are limited in our ability to estimate 

the potential EJ impacts of this rule. 

However, we anticipate the proposed 

requirements in NSPS subpart Kc would 

generally minimize future emissions in 

surrounding communities of new, 

modified, or reconstructed VOL storage 

vessels. The three most relevant 

industry NAICS industry segments 

affected under NSPS Kc include 

Petroleum and Coal Products 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 324000), 

Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 

325000), and Petroleum and Bulk 

Stations and Terminals (NAICS code 

422710). Specifically, the EPA 

determined that the standards should be 

revised to amend the vapor pressure 

applicability thresholds, require stricter 

seal requirements on IFR tanks, 

establish equivalent control 

requirements for external floating roofs, 

and strengthen the closed vent system 

standard to account for 98 percent 

destruction efficiency. The changes 

would have beneficial effects on air 

quality and public health for 

populations exposed to emissions from 

new, modified or reconstructed VOL 

storage vessels and would provide 

additional health protection for affected 

populations, including communities 

already overburdened by pollution, 

which are often people of color, lowincome, and indigenous communities. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive orders can be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
68552 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094 Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the PRA. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document that the EPA 

prepared has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 2791.01. You can find a copy of 

the ICR in the docket for this rule, and 

it is briefly summarized here. 

The EPA is proposing requirements 

for storage vessels including periodic 

inspections based on the type of storage 

vessel. This information will be 

collected to assure compliance with 

NSPS subpart Kc. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Owners or operators of VOL storage 

vessels. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart Kc). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

588. 

Frequency of response: Initially and 

Semiannually. 

Total estimated burden: 16,394 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $2,009,357 (per 

year), includes $528,240 in annualized 

capital and no operation or maintenance 

costs. 

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 the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this rule. You may also 

send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

receipt, OMB must receive comments no 

later than November 3, 2023. The EPA 

will respond to any ICR-related 

comments in the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. The small entities 

subject to the requirements of this 

action are small businesses and small 

governmental jurisdictions. The Agency 

has determined that small entities may 

experience an impact of likely below 1 

percent relative to sales for any affected 

small entity, and an even larger margin 

before it would approach a 1 percent 

impact for a substantial number of small 

entities. Details of this analysis are 

presented in the memorandum 

Economic Impact Analysis for the 

Proposed New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) for the Volatile 

Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Tanks) 

included in the docket. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local, or Tribal governments 

or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It would not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed action does have Tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. NSPS subpart Kb includes 

provisions for storage vessels that 

already have impacts on Tribal 

Governments that have tanks in excess 

of 20,000 gallons that meet the vapor 

pressure cutoffs for general rule 

applicability or control applicability. 

The NSPS subpart Kc proposal includes 

some updates to the VOC standards and 

monitoring requirements for storage 

vessels that meet the revised vapor 

pressure cutoffs for control. 

Additionally, basic requirements for 

recordkeeping and good air pollution 

control practices are being proposed for 

all storage vessels greater than 20,000. 

These changes would only impact 

storage vessels that are constructed, 

modified, or reconstructed after the 

proposal date. Consistent with the EPA 

Policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribes, the 

EPA will offer government-togovernment consultation with tribes and 

will conduct additional outreach to 

inform them of the content of the 

proposed rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) directs Federal agencies 

to include an evaluation of the health 

and safety effects of the planned 

regulation on children in Federal health 

and safety standards and explain why 

the regulation is preferable to 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the EPA does 

not believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. These proposed revisions 

would reduce emissions of VOCs, some 

of which may also be hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs). These standards 

would help to reduce atmospheric 

ozone concentrations and reduce health 

effects associated with high levels of 

ozone. 

However, EPA’s Policy on Children’s 

Health applies to this action. 

Information on how the Policy was 

applied is available under ‘‘Children’s 

Environmental Health’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This action for Kb and Kc involves 

technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 

conducted a search to identify 

potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. However, the 

Agency identified no such standards. 

Searches were conducted for EPA 

Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3A, 3B, 

3C, 4, 6, 10, 15, 16, 16A, 18, 21, 22, and 

25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The 

EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 

21, 22, and 25A. Additional information 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 4, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68553 

for the voluntary consensus standard 

search and determinations can be found 

in the memorandum titled, Voluntary 

Consensus Standard Results for Review 

of Standards of Performance for Volatile 

Organic Liquid Storage Vessels 

(Including Petroleum Liquid Storage 

Vessels). All potential standards were 

reviewed to determine the practicality 

of the voluntary consensus standards 

(VCS) for this rule. Although there were 

no applicable voluntary consensus 

standards identified, we are amending 

40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by 

reference two ASTM methods as 

discussed in section III.M. These 

include the following: 

• ASTM D6377–20, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Vapor 

Pressure of Crude Oil: 

VPCRx (Expansion Method). The method 

is an automated device method for 

measuring vapor pressures for crude oils 

samples between 29 kPa and 180 kPa at 

37.8 °C. The method is suitable for 

testing with a 4:1 vapor-liquid ratio. 

• ASTM D6378–22, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Vapor 

Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products, 

Hydrocarbons, and HydrocarbonOxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion 

Method). The method is an automated 

device method for measuring vapor 

pressures between 7 kPa and 150 kPa at 

37.8 °C for tested samples with boiling 

points at 0 °C. The method is suitable 

for volatile organic liquids, 

hydrocarbons and liquid petroleum 

products sampled at a 4:1 vapor-liquid 

ratio. 

The ASTM standards are available 

from the American Society for Testing 

and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, Post Office Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. See 

https://www.astm.org. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14096: Revitalizing our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All 

The EPA believes that it is not 

practicable to assess whether the human 

health or environmental conditions that 

exist prior to this action result in 

disproportionate and adverse effects on 

communities with EJ concerns. Over the 

next 5 years, the EPA estimates that 

1,440 new tanks and 27 modified tanks 

will be subject to NSPS subpart Kc. 

However, the locations of any new VOL 

storage vessels that would be subject to 

NSPS subpart Kc are not known. 

Furthermore, there is insufficient data 

available regarding the locations of 

existing VOL storage vessels is also not 

known. The EPA estimates that there are 

approximately more than 10,000 

existing vessels subject to NSPS subpart 

Kb, but do not have a list of specific 

units and their locations. Therefore, we 

cannot perform a proximity 

demographic analysis of populations 

near existing units as a proxy for units 

that may be modified or reconstructed 

and become subject to NSPS subpart Kc. 

Finally, because we based the analysis 

of the impacts and emission reductions 

on model plants, we are not able to 

ascertain specifically how the potential 

benefits of this rule would be 

distributed across the population. Thus, 

we are limited in our ability to estimate 

the potential EJ impacts of this rule. 

The information supporting this 

Executive Order review is contained in 

in section IV.E. All pertinent supporting 

documents such as the technical memo, 

‘‘Control Options for Storage Vessels’’ 

which discusses the costs and 

environmental impacts of the regulatory 

options considered have been placed in 

the docket. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21976 Filed 10–3–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 52i 

[Docket No. NIH–2022–0001] 

RIN 0925–AA70 

National Institute on Minority Health 

and Health Disparities Research 

Endowment Programs 

AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS or Department), 

through the National Institutes of Health 

(NIH), is proposing to amend the 

regulation governing the National 

Institute on Minority Health and Health 

Disparities (NIMHD) Research 

Endowment Programs (REP) to update 

the heading of the regulation to reflect 

the new name of the program, the 

eligibility requirements for the program 

to indicate the new expanded eligibility 

for research endowment awards that is 

mandated by statute, the heading of one 

section of the regulation, and certain 

references to regulations and policies 

cited in the regulation that apply to 

program grant awards. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 4, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket Number NIH 2022– 

0001 and/or RIN 0925–AA70, by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

You may send comments 

electronically in the following way: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for sending comments. 

Written Submissions 

You may send written comments in 

the following ways: 

Please allow enough time for mailed 

comments to be received before the 

close of the comment period. 

• Mail (for paper or CD–ROM 

submissions): Daniel Hernandez, NIH 

Regulations Officer, National Institutes 

of Health, Office of Management 

Assessment, Rockledge 1, 6705 

Rockledge Drive, Suite 601, Room 601– 

T, MSC 7901, Bethesda, Maryland 

20892–7901. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier (for paper or 

CD–ROM submissions): Daniel 

Hernandez, Rockledge 1, 6705 

Rockledge Drive, Suite 601, Room 601– 

T, MSC 7901, Bethesda, Maryland 

20892–7901. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking. All comments will be 

posted without change to 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to the 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov and insert the 

docket number provided in brackets in 

the heading on page one of this 

document into the: ‘‘Search’’ box and 

follow the prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Hernandez, NIH Regulations 

Officer, Office of Management 

Assessment, NIH, Rockledge 1, 6705 

Rockledge Drive, Suite 601, Room 601– 

T, Bethesda, MD 20817, MSC 7901, by 

email at dhernandez@mail.nih.gov, or 

by telephone at 301–435–3343 (not a 

toll-free number). For program 

information contact: Dr. Nathan Stinson, 

Director, Division of Community Health 

and Population Sciences, NIMHD, by 

email stinsonn@nih.gov, or telephone 

301–594–8704. Information concerning 

the requirements, application deadline 

dates, and an on-line application for 

NIMHD REP awards may be obtained 

from the NIMHD via https://

www.nimhd.nih.gov/programs/ 

extramural/research-endowment.html. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1