Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 65653 

21.2 Price Eligibility 

* * * * * 

21.2.2 Price Application 

Apply prices based on the criteria in 

400 and the following standards: 

[Revise item 21.2.2a by deleting the 

reference to NFMs to read as follows:] 

a. Standard Mail parcels are based on 

the container level and entry (see 

443.5.0. 

* * * * * 

21.3 Mail Preparation 

21.3.1 Basic Standards 

Prepare combined mailings as 

follows: 

a. Different parcel types must be 

prepared separately for combined parcel 

mailings as indicated below: 

[Revise item a1 through a4 by deleting 

the references to NFMs to read as 

follows:] 

1. Standard Mail, Parcel Select, and 

Package Services machinable parcels. 

Use ‘‘STD/PSVC MACH’’ for line 2 

content labeling. 

2. Standard Mail, Parcel Select, and 

Package Services irregular parcels at 

least 2 ounces and up to (but not 

including) 6 ounces, except for tubes, 

rolls, triangles, and other similarly 

irregularly-shaped pieces. Use ‘‘STD/ 

PSVC’’ for line 2 content labeling. 

3. Standard Mail, Parcel Select, and 

Package Services tubes, rolls, triangles, 

and similarly irregularly-shaped parcels; 

and all parcels weighing less than 2 

ounces. Use ‘‘STD/PSVC IRREG’’ for 

line 2 content labeling. 

4. Combine all parcel types in 5-digit 

and 5-digit scheme containers. Use 

‘‘STD/PSVC PARCELS’’ for line 2 

content labeling. 

* * * * * 

[Revise title of 21.3.2 to read as 

follows:] 

21.3.2 Combining Standard Mail, 

Parcel Select, and Package Services 

Machinable Parcels 

* * * * * 

[Revise title of 21.3.3 to read as 

follows:] 

21.3.3 Combining Standard Mail, 

Parcel Select, and Package Services 

Apps-Machinable Parcels 

* * * * * 

[Revise title of 21.3.4 to read as 

follows:] 

21.3.4 Combining Standard Mail 

(Under 2 Ounces), Parcel Select, and 

Package Services Other Irregular 

Parcels 

* * * * * 

23.0 Full-Service Automation Option 

* * * * * 

[Revise the title of 23.2 as follows:] 

23.2 General Eligibility Standards 

[Renumber current 23.3 and 23.4 as 

new 23.4 and 23.5, and add new 23.3 as 

follows:] 

23.3 Eligibility for Waiver of Annual 

Fees and Waiver of Deposit of Permit 

Imprint Mail Restrictions 

Mailers who present only full-service 

automation mailings (of First-Class Mail 

cards, letters, and flats, Standards Mail 

letters and flats, or Bound Printed 

Matter flats) that contain 90 percent or 

more pieces eligible for full-service 

automation prices are eligible for the 

following exceptions to standards: 

a. The annual presort mailing or 

destination entry fees, as applicable, 

will be waived for qualified full-service 

mailings. 

b. Mailers may present qualified fullservice mailings with mailpieces 

bearing a current valid permit imprint 

for acceptance at any USPS acceptance 

office that has PostalOne! acceptance 

functions without payment of any 

additional permit imprint application or 

annual mailing fees. 

c. If any mailing (of the classes and 

shapes of mail in 23.3) presented under 

a mailing permit does not contain at 

least 90 percent of the pieces qualifying 

for full-service automation prices: 

1. The mailer must pay the applicable 

annual fee before that mailing may be 

accepted. 

2. The provision in 23.3b for 

presentation of mailings at multiple 

offices is discontinued for all mailings 

presented under the applicable permit 

imprint. 

* * * * * 

707 Periodicals 

* * * * * 

2.0 Price Application and 

Computation 

2.1 Price Application 

* * * * * 

2.1.2 Applying Outside-County Piece 

Prices 

* * * Apply piece prices for OutsideCounty mail as follows: 

* * * * * 

c. Nonmachinable flats: 

* * * * * 

[Revise item 2.1.2c2 as follows:] 

2. Apply the ‘‘Nonmachinable Flats— 

Nonbarcoded’’ prices to pieces that meet 

the standards for nonmachinable flats in 

707.26 but do not include a barcode. 

* * * * * 

708 Technical Specifications 

* * * * * 

6.0 Standards for Barcoded Tray 

Labels, Sack Labels, and Container 

Placards 

* * * * * 

6.2 Specifications for Barcoded Tray 

and Sack Labels 

* * * * * 

6.2.4 3-Digit Content Identifier 

Numbers 

* * * * * 

Exhibit 6.2.4 3-Digit Content Identifier 

Numbers 

CLASS AND MAILING CIN HUMANREADABLE CONTENT LINE 

* * * * * 

STANDARD MAIL 

[Delete the following heading and the 

six rows beneath it in their entirety.] 

STD Not Flat-Machinable Pieces Less 

Than 6 Ounces—Nonautomation 

[Delete the following heading and the 

five rows beneath it in their entirety.] 

STD Not Flat-Machinable Pieces 6 

Ounces Or More—Nonautomation 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes if our proposal is 

adopted. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27365 Filed 10–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0223; FRL–9482–5] 

RIN 2060–AO60 

New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) is to request public comment 

on a proposed approach the EPA has 

developed to carry out the statutorily 

required periodic evaluation of the new 

source performance standards (NSPS) 

program. Consistent with Executive 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65654 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review,’’ issued on 

January 18, 2011, this proposed 

approach will provide a streamlined 

process to ensure that public and 

private resources are focused on the 

rules that provide the greatest public 

health protection and are most likely to 

warrant revision to include current 

technology and eliminate obsolete or 

unnecessary requirements. By 

demonstrating the continued efficacy of 

the standards, the agency will be able to 

fulfill its statutory requirement to 

review, and, if necessary, revise NSPS at 

a minimum of every 8 years. This 

ANPRM is part of the EPA’s effort to 

meet these statutory obligations. The 

agency is seeking comment on the 

overall approach to managing the NSPS 

program, in particular the criteria used 

to determine that no review is needed 

for a subset of NSPS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 23, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0223. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the Federal Docket Management System 

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

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the NSPS Review Under CAA 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) ANPRM Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0223. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) policy is 

that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at 

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

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Public Reading Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Janice Godfrey, Policy and Strategies 

Group, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (D205–02), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

3391; fax number: (919) 541–4991; email address: godfrey.janice@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. 

The information in this ANPRM is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the NSPS program? 

B. What is the status of the NSPS program? 

C. What is the purpose of this ANPRM? 

III. Developing an NSPS Evaluation Strategy 

A. What are the goals of an evaluation 

strategy for the NSPS program? 

B. Which NSPS do not need review? 

C. NSPS Potentially in Need of a Review 

IV. Request for Comment and Next Steps 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Please provide data and explanatory 

information in a format that is thorough 

and complete enough for use by the EPA 

to justify any modifications to the 

proposed approach. Do not submit CBI 

to the EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 65655 

1EPA promulgated emission limits for nitrogen 

oxides and sulfur dioxide to the NSPS for Portland 

Cement plants which had previously only regulated 

particulate matter emissions. 

2 In this rulemaking, EPA extended the coverage 

of the NSPS program to include additional affected 

facilities (e.g., delayed coking units) at a petroleum 

refinery. 

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 

ANPRM will be available on the 

Worldwide Web through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

The TTN provides information about 

various areas of air pollution control. 

Following signature, an electronic 

version of this document will be posted 

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg under 

‘‘Recent Additions.’’ 

The EPA has also created a technical 

support document (TSD) that provides 

supporting data and information for this 

ANPRM. The TSD will also be available 

in the docket and on the TTN at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg under ‘‘Recent 

Additions.’’ 

II. Background Information 

A. What is the NSPS program? 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111 

requires the EPA Administrator to list 

categories of stationary sources if such 

sources cause or contribute significantly 

to air pollution which may reasonably 

be anticipated to endanger public health 

or welfare. The EPA must then issue 

NSPS for such source categories. NSPS 

reflect the degree of emission limitation 

achievable through the application of 

the ‘‘best system of emission reduction’’ 

which the EPA determines has been 

adequately demonstrated. The EPA may 

consider certain costs and non-air 

quality health and environmental 

impacts and energy requirements when 

establishing NSPS. For a NAAQS 

pollutant or a Hazardous Air Pollutant 

(one listed under 112), only new or 

modified or reconstructed stationary 

sources are regulated. For other 

regulated pollutants, section 111(d) also 

requires states to set standards for 

existing sources. 

Under section 111(b), the EPA has the 

authority to define the source categories, 

determine the pollutants for which 

standards should be developed, identify 

the facilities within each source 

category to be covered, and set the 

emission level of the standards. Air 

pollutants currently regulated through 

various CAA section 111(b) standards 

include particulate matter (PM, PM2.5, 

PM10), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon 

monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), volatile 

organic compounds (VOC), sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), sulfuric acid mist, 

fluorides, hydrogen sulfide, reduced 

sulfur compounds, total reduced sulfur, 

and landfill gas. CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B) generally requires the EPA 

to ‘‘at least every 8 years review and, if 

appropriate, revise’’ NSPS. While 

conducting a review of existing NSPS, 

the EPA has also promulgated emission 

limits for pollutants not currently 

regulated for that source category and 

added additional affected facilities 

where appropriate. See, e.g., 75 FR 

54970 (Sept. 9, 2010),1 73 FR 35883 

(June 24, 2009).2 In addition, section 

111(b)(1)(B) also states that the EPA 

need not conduct this review if the EPA 

determines that reviewing an NSPS ‘‘is 

not appropriate in light of readily 

available information on the efficacy of 

such standard.’’ 

In setting or revising NSPS, CAA 

section 111(a)(1) provides that NSPS are 

to ‘‘reflect the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the 

application of the best system of 

emission reduction which (taking into 

account the cost of achieving such 

reduction and any non-air quality health 

and environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated.’’ The format of NSPS can 

vary from source category to source 

category (and even from facility type to 

facility type within an NSPS) including 

a numerical emission limit, a design 

standard, an equipment standard, or a 

work practice standard. In determining 

the best system of emission reduction, 

we typically conduct a review that 

identifies what emission reduction 

systems exist and how much they 

reduce air pollution in practice. This 

allows the EPA to identify potential 

emission limits. We evaluate each 

system in conjunction with cost of 

achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental 

impact and energy requirements. The 

resultant standard is usually a 

numerical emissions limit, expressed as 

a performance level (i.e., a rate-based 

standard or percent control). Although 

such standards are based on the 

effectiveness of one or more specific air 

pollution control systems, section 

111(b)(5) provides that the EPA may not 

prescribe a particular technology that 

must be used to comply with an NSPS, 

except in instances where the 

Administrator determines it is not 

feasible to prescribe or enforce a 

standard of performance, as defined in 

section 111(h). Upon promulgation, 

NSPS become national standards to 

which all new, modified, or 

reconstructed sources must comply. 

B. What is the status of the NSPS 

program? 

Since December 23, 1971, the 

Administrator has promulgated over 70 

NSPS. These standards can be found in 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 

40 CFR part 60. A list of all NSPS 

promulgated under the authority of 

CAA 111(b)(1)(B) is provided in Table 1, 

which includes the promulgation date 

of the original standards and 

information on the most recent activity. 

Not all Federal Register actions indicate 

a review of the standard. In many cases 

the most recent action includes only 

minor amendments. For example, on 

October 17, 2000, EPA made final minor 

amendments to numerous NSPS to 

include miscellaneous editorial changes 

and technical corrections to stationary 

testing and monitoring rules. See 

65FR61768 through 65FR61792. 

Seventeen standards have been 

promulgated or revised within the last 

8 years. In addition to those standards 

that are current within their review 

cycle, there are also multiple standards 

in different phases of the review 

process, including some standards that 

are in various stages of the litigation 

process. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65656 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—LIST OF CAA § 111(b)(1)(B)NSPS 3

NSPS Subpart Date of promulgation 

(FR citation) 

Date of most recent action 

(FR citation) 4

Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture ................................................ PP 11/12/1980 (45FR74846) 10/17/2000 5 6 (65FR61760) 

Asphalt Concrete (Hot Mix Asphalt) ........................................... I 03/08/1974 02/14/1989 4 (54FR6667) 

Asphalt Processing and Roofing Manufacture ........................... UU 08/06/1982 (47FR34147) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61762) 

Auto/Light Duty Truck Surface Coating ..................................... MM 12/24/1980 (45FR85410) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61760) 

Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces ............................................... N 03/08/1974 (39FR9318) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61756) 

Basic Process Steelmak- ...........................................................

ing Facilities (Integrated Steel Plants) .......................................

Na 01/02/1986 (51FR161) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61756) 

Beverage Can Surface Coating ................................................. WW 08/25/1983 (48FR38728) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61763) 

Bulk Gasoline Terminals ............................................................ XX 08/18/1983 (48FR37578) 12/19/2003 (68FR70965) 

Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries ................................ UUU 09/28/1992 (57FR44496) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61778) 

Coal Prep Plants ........................................................................ Y 01/15/1976 (41FR2234) 10/08/2009 (74FR51977) 

Electric Utility Steam Generating Units 7 .................................... Da 06/11/1979 (44FR33581) 01/28/2009 4 (74FR5078) 

Ferroalloy Production Facilities .................................................. Z 05/04/1976 (41FR18501) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61758) 

Flexible Vinyl/Urethane Coating and Printing ............................ FFF 06/29/1984 (49FR26885) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61768) 

Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators 4 ........................................ D 12/12/1971 01/28/2009 3 4 (74FR5078) 

Glass Manufacturing .................................................................. CC 10/07/1980 (45FR66742) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61759) 

Grain Elevators ........................................................................... DD 08/03/1978 (43FR34347) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61759) 

Graphic Arts Industry/Publi-cation Rotogravure Printing ........... QQ 11/08/1982 (47FR50644) 04/09/2004 4 (69FR18803) 

Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Steam Generating Units ... Db 11/25/1986 (51FR42768) 01/28/2009 4 (74FR5084) 

Kraft Pulp Mills ........................................................................... BB 02/23/1978 (43FR7568) 09/21/2006 4 (71FR55127) 

Large Appliances Surface Coating ............................................ SS 10/27/1982 (47FR47778) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61761) 

Lead Acid Batteries .................................................................... KK 04/16/1982 (47FR16564) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61760) 

Lime Manufacturing .................................................................... HH 03/07/1978 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61760) 

Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities ............................................... SSS 10/03/1988 (53FR38892) 02/12/1999 (64FR7467)

Metal Coil Surface Coating ........................................................ TT 11/01/1982 (47FR49606) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61761) 

Metal Furniture Surface Coating ................................................ EE 10/29/1982 (47FR49278) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61759) 

Metallic Mineral Processing Plants ............................................ LL 02/21/1984 (49FR6458) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61760) 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ................................................. WWW 03/12/1996 (60FR9905) 09/21/2006 (71FR55127) 

New Residential Wood Heaters ................................................. AAA 08/02/1985 (50FR31504) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61764) 

Nitric Acid Plants ........................................................................ G 12/23/1971 02/14/1989 4 (54FR6666) 

Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants ...................................... OOO 08/01/1985 (50FR31328) 04/28/2009 (74FR19309) 

Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants—Equipment Leaks ... KKK 06/24/1985 (50FR26122) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61773) 

Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions .................... LLL 10/01/1985 (50FR40158) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61773) 

Petroleum Dry Cleaners ............................................................. JJJ 09/21/1984 (49FR37331) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61773) 

Petroleum Refineries .................................................................. J 03/08/1974 (39FR9308) 06/24/2008 (73FR35865) 

Petroleum Refineries .................................................................. Ja 06/24/2008 (73FR35867) 12/22/2008 4 (73FR78552) (Stay) 

Phosphate Fertilizers—Diammonium Phosphate Plants ........... V 08/06/1975 (40FR33155) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61757) 

Phosphate Fertilizers—Granular Triple Superphosphate Storage Facilities.X 08/06/1975 (40FR33156) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61757) 

Phosphate Fertilizers—Superphosphoric Acid Plants ............... U 08/06/1975 (40FR33155) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61757) 

Phosphate Fertilizers—Triple Superphosphate Plants .............. W 08/06/1975 (40FR33156) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61757) 

Phosphate Fertilizers—Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Plants ... T 08/06/1975 (40FR33154) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61757) 

Phosphate Rock Plants .............................................................. NN 04/16/1982 (47FR16589) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61760) 

Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates ............................. VVV 09/11/1989 (54FR37551) 

Polymers Manufacturing Industry ............................................... DDD 12/11/1990 (55FR51035) 12/14/2000 (65FR78278)

Portland Cement ........................................................................ F 12/23/1971 (36FR24877) 08/09/2010 (75FR54970) 

Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations.RR 10/18/1983 (48FR48375) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61761) 

Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants ......................................... S 01/26/1976 (41FR3826) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61757) 

Primary Copper Smelters ........................................................... P 01/15/1976 (41FR2338) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61756) 

Primary Lead Smelters ............................................................... R 01/15/1976 (41FR2340) 02/14/1989 4 (54FR6668) 

Primary Zinc Smelters ................................................................ Q 01/15/1976 (41FR2340) 02/14/1989 4 (54FR6668) 

Refineries: Equipment Leaks ..................................................... GGG 05/30/1984 (49FR22606) 06/02/2008 4 (73FR31376) 

Refineries: Wastewater .............................................................. QQQ 11/23/1988 (53FR47623) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61778) 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing ........................................................ BBB 09/15/1987 (52FR34874) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61765) 

Secondary Brass and Bronze Production Plants ....................... M 03/08/1974 (39FR9318) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61756) 

Secondary Lead Smelters .......................................................... L 03/08/1974 (39FR9317) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61756) 

Small Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Steam Generating 

Units.

Dc 09/12/1990 (55FR37674) 01/28/2009 (74FR5091) 

SOCMI Air Ox Unit Processes ................................................... III 06/29/1990 (55FR 26922) 12/14/2000 (65FR78278) 

SOCMI Distillation ...................................................................... NNN 06/29/1990 (55FR 26942) 12/14/2000 (65FR78279) 

SOCMI Equipment Leaks ........................................................... VV 01/18/1983 (48FR48335) 06/02/2008 4 (73FR31375) (Stay) 

SOCMI Reactor Processes ........................................................ RRR 08/31/1993 (58FR45962) 12/14/2000 (65FR78279) 

Stationary Combustion Turbines ................................................ KKKK 06/06/2006 (71FR38497) 3/20/2009 4 (74FR11858) 

Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines IIII 7/11/2006 (71FR39172) 06/08/2011 (75FR32612) 

Stationary Gas Turbines ............................................................ GG 09/10/1979 (44FR 52798) 02/24/2006 4 (71FR9458) 

Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines ............ JJJJ 01/18/2008 (73FR 3591) 06/08/2011 (75FR32612) 

Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces ........................................... AA 09/23/1975 (40FR43850) 02/22/2005 (70FR8532) 

Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen 

Decarburization Vessels.

AAa 10/31/1984 (49FR43845) 02/22/2005 (70FR8533) 

Sulfuric Acid Plants .................................................................... H 12/23/1971 (36FR24877) 02/14/1989 (54FR6666) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 65657 

3Table only includes NSPS promulgated under 

the authority of CAA § 111(b) (1) (B), and does not 

include standards promulgated under the authority 

of CAA § 129 or § 111(d). 4 ‘‘Date of Most Recent Action’’ refers to the most 

recently dated Federal Register action affecting the 

referenced Subpart as referenced in the electronic 

Code of Federal Regulations (http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/). 

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

editorial and technical changes to test method and 

continuous emission modeling system (CEMS) 

performance specification requirements for Part 60 

and other regulations. This included organizational 

changes and the promulgation of Performance 

Specification 15, for Fourier Transform Infrared 

(FTIR) CEMS. 

6Action was only minor amendment and not a 

full review of the standard. 

7Subpart D was superseded by subpart Da and, 

thus, will not be reviewed or revised as all subpart 

D units that modify or reconstruct would be subject 

to subpart Da. 

8Subpart K was superseded by subpart Ka and, 

thus, will not be reviewed or revised as all subpart 

K units that modify or reconstruct would be subject 

to subpart Ka. 

TABLE 1—LIST OF CAA § 111(b)(1)(B)NSPS 3—Continued 

NSPS Subpart Date of promulgation 

(FR citation) 

Date of most recent action 

(FR citation) 4

Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines .......... TTT 01/29/1988 (53FR2676) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61778) 

Synthetic Fibers .......................................................................... HHH 04/05/1984 (49FR13651) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61768) 

Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels 8 ................................. Ka 04/04/1980 (45FR23379) 12/14/2000 (65FR78275) 

Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (incl. Petroleum Liquid 

Storage Vessels).

Kb 04/08/1987 (52FR11429) 10/15/2003 4 (68FR 59333) 

Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants ...................... PPP 02/25/1985 (50FR7699) 10/17/2000 3 4 (65FR61778) 

C. What is the purpose of this ANPRM? 

The purpose of this ANPRM is to 

request public comment on a strategy 

for focusing reviews of the NSPS so as 

to maximize the public health and 

welfare benefits while ensuring that the 

resources of stakeholders, state and 

local agencies, and the federal 

government are used most efficiently 

and effectively. As part of this strategy, 

we are proposing criteria that would be 

used to assess whether review of a 

particular NSPS is necessary during the 

review cycle. A listing of any NSPS for 

which we recommend not reviewing the 

standard based on these criteria (after 

considering comments to this ANPRM) 

will be published in the Federal 

Register for public comment. 

Subsequent to this ANPRM, all NSPS 

for which no review is warranted will 

be addressed with detailed technical 

information in a rulemaking proposal 

which will provide a further 

opportunity for public comment. 

If, after review of the public 

comments, EPA determines there is 

sufficient evidence that a full review of 

a standard is warranted, EPA would 

withdraw its no review conclusion for 

that standard. Otherwise by having 

demonstrated the continued 

effectiveness of an NSPS, the agency 

will have fulfilled its statutory 

obligations under 111(b) with respect to 

the 8-year review requirement for that 

standard. 

In addition to fulfilling the mandate 

in CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), this 

process is also responsive to Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review,’’ issued on 

January 18, 2011, which directs each 

federal agency to ‘‘periodically review 

its existing significant regulations to 

determine whether any such regulations 

should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded, or repealed so as to make the 

agency’s regulatory program more 

effective or less burdensome in 

achieving the regulatory objectives.’’ 

The EPA’s proposed approach will 

allow this process to be made more 

efficient, so that both public and private 

resources can be focused where it makes 

the most sense. This strategy will reduce 

the resource burden to the government 

and stakeholders by eliminating the 

need for costly and time consuming 

reviews of certain standards, which are 

not expected to result in any 

environmental benefits. By determining 

which NSPS are not in need of review, 

the agency can then focus its resources 

on the remaining NSPS that are in need 

of revision (or at least a closer review to 

determine if revision is needed). This 

ANPRM is seeking comment on this 

proposed process and on the 

appropriateness of the proposed criteria 

for making a finding that a current NSPS 

does not need review, and the 

application of those criteria in this 

evaluation of the NSPS program. 

Additionally, this ANPRM is seeking 

comment on pertinent factors for the 

prioritization of NSPS to be reviewed, 

and potentially revised. 

III. Developing an NSPS Evaluation 

Strategy 

A. What are the goals of an evaluation 

strategy for the NSPS program? 

The primary goal of the NSPS strategy 

is to assist the agency in fulfilling our 

statutory obligations in a streamlined 

process that ensures both public and 

private resources are focused on the 

rules that provide the greatest 

improvement in air quality, health and 

welfare benefits and are most likely to 

warrant review and revision to include 

current technology and eliminate 

obsolete or unnecessary requirements. 

At the same time, this focus on NSPS 

where greatest emission reductions can 

be achieved promotes better use of 

resources for industry, government 

agencies, environmental organizations, 

and all other stakeholders and 

participants in the regulatory review 

process. Additionally, in some 

instances, sources remain well 

controlled through other CAA programs, 

such as the national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), 

that have provided similar, if not more 

stringent, regulations than what would 

be required through the revision of 

existing NSPS or implementation of 

new NSPS. We are also aware that, in 

some instances, an evaluation of NSPS 

may show the current requirements of 

the standard continue to meet the 

statutory requirements, and no review is 

required. 

To optimize the air quality, health 

and welfare benefits of the NSPS 

program, the EPA is proposing to 

prioritize NSPS reviews such that those 

NSPS likely to bring about greater 

benefits to public health and welfare 

through air quality improvements, 

including environmental justice 

considerations, are reviewed first. This 

prioritization is being done with 

consideration of multiple pollutants and 

processes, and synchronization of 

regulatory efforts as the primary driver, 

allowing the EPA to seek opportunities 

for increased air quality, health and 

welfare benefits, and greater 

administrative efficiency. 

B. Which NSPS do not need review? 

1. What is the EPA’s authority in 

determining whether to review NSPS? 

As described previously, CAA section 

111(b) (1) (B) requires the agency to 

review and, if appropriate, revise NSPS 

‘‘at least every 8 years’’. Section 111(b) 

(1) (B) also gives the EPA authority to 

determine that reviewing an NSPS ‘‘is 

not appropriate in light of readily 

available information on the efficacy of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65658 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

such standard.’’ In most instances, the 

EPA has met the requirement of this 

section solely through formal review 

and revision (when deemed 

appropriate) of standards. 

We note that the majority of NSPS 

will be reviewed and considered for 

revision, as there are likely potential 

process improvements and technology 

advances that would alter the best 

system of emission reduction. In 

addition, a regular evaluation gives the 

EPA and the public the opportunity to 

consider whether requirements of a 

particular NSPS are outmoded or no 

longer necessary. However, there are 

some NSPS where currently available 

information indicates that there are no 

potential gains to public health and 

welfare from a review of the NSPS. 

When the continued efficacy of a 

standard is demonstrated, the agency 

believes that using its authority to not 

devote resources to a rulemaking in 

these cases should also be considered as 

an option. All NSPS, including those 

that we determined do not need review, 

will be subject to continual evaluation 

cycles, at least every 8 years. This 

ANPRM presents three independent 

criteria that the agency believes can be 

used to demonstrate that review of 

NSPS would not provide emission 

reductions and associated air quality, 

health and welfare benefits. 

2. What are the criteria we believe are 

appropriate for determining the 

continued efficacy of NSPS? 

We have identified three criteria that 

we have determined are appropriate to 

determine that review of existing NSPS 

would not result in any health and 

welfare benefits, and, thus, should not 

be reviewed in the current review cycle. 

For this programmatic evaluation, we 

believe that in most cases NSPS that 

meet any one of these criteria do not 

need to be reviewed. However, several 

possible conditions exist where a review 

might be appropriate, even if one or 

more of the criteria described above are 

met. For instance, if there are emissions 

units not addressed by the existing 

NSPS, or if there has been stakeholder 

interest (e.g., environmental justice 

concerns) in updating an NSPS, then 

additional deliberation would be 

necessary before a decision not to 

review NSPS could be made. 

The first criterion focuses on the 

existence of updated or new control 

technology, which is used to inform a 

decision on the potential improvement 

in air quality or health and welfare 

benefits. We address the criterion with 

the following questions: Have there 

been advances in control technologies, 

process operations, design or efficiency 

improvements, or other factors that 

would lead to selection of a more 

stringent best system of emission 

reduction? Are there available controls 

for pollutants or emission sources that 

were previously uncontrolled? If 

available information on control 

technology indicates that review of the 

standard would not result in more 

stringent emission limits or no greater 

level of control, and would not provide 

improvements in air quality and health 

and welfare benefits, such standard 

would be listed as a potential candidate 

for no review. 

There are certain source categories for 

which the information available from 

national databases (e.g., the National 

Emissions Inventory), publicly available 

data, the EPA’s interaction with 

stakeholders from industries, 

environmental organizations, state, 

local, and Tribal governments on other 

rulemakings provides a strong technical 

basis to assess the availability and 

economic feasibility of employing new 

control technologies, or design or 

efficiency improvements that could 

result in a revised best system of 

emission reduction determination. As 

an example, information developed 

under the CAA section 112 air toxics 

program provides a significant amount 

of information on control technologies 

and pollution control measures for 

stationary sources. 

We specifically request comment on 

this criterion and the level of certainty 

required in making a finding that no 

review is needed based upon an 

evaluation of readily available 

information that indicates no greater 

level of control would be expected at 

the conclusion of an evaluation under 

this criterion. 

The second criterion considers 

whether we anticipate any new, 

modified, or reconstructed sources 

within a source category, which would 

trigger applicability under the NSPS in 

question over the next 8 years. The 

predicted growth rate of an industry is 

used as an indicator of satisfying this 

criterion to the extent that no new, 

modified, or reconstructed sources are 

anticipated over the next 8 years. It is 

possible to have a predicted negative 

growth rate, and still trigger NSPS 

applicability through modification or 

construction of new sources at a rate 

less than the closure rate of existing 

facilities. Some of the source categories 

covered by the NSPS represent very 

mature industries for which there is 

currently no growth, and this trend has 

existed for numerous years. For 

example, industries that rely on metal 

and mineral raw materials have tended 

to move out of the country to be closer 

to the sources of the raw materials. 

Copper mines in the U.S. have closed 

while new mines have opened in South 

America where there is greater access to 

raw materials. In other industries there 

have historically been multiple 

processes used to make some products, 

but cost, efficiency, and other forces 

have reduced the variety of processes in 

use. The result of these trends may be 

that NSPS address emission sources 

which are no longer in use, technology 

is outdated, and which likely will not be 

used in the future. Some other source 

categories include industries whose 

primary product has been superseded 

by a substitute product which serves the 

same purpose, but is produced using an 

entirely different process (e.g., optical 

storage media as a substitute for 

magnetic tape) and as a result there are 

no expected new facilities or 

modifications of existing facilities. If 

this criterion were met, the rule would 

remain in effect for the remainder of the 

review cycle in the event that sources 

no longer in operation were to begin 

operation again. 

The agency is requesting comment on 

the appropriateness of this second 

criterion. Specifically, we request 

comment on the level of certainty 

required in making a finding that no 

review is needed based on the 

expectation that no new sources are to 

be constructed, reconstructed or 

modified in the source category within 

the current 8 year review cycle. 

The third criterion that may support 

a finding that review is not necessary is 

the existence of other regulatory 

programs that are applicable to the same 

pollutants (either directly or as 

surrogates) and emission sources as the 

NSPS, such that a revision of the NSPS 

would result in best system of emission 

reduction requirements that are no more 

stringent than another applicable CAA 

requirement. When evaluating a 

standard by this criterion, we will also 

ensure that no inconsistencies or 

conflicts exist with these other rules. 

The intent of this criterion is to avoid 

reviewing NSPS to adopt more stringent 

emission limitations that are already 

being achieved by another regulation, 

and, thus, providing no or limited actual 

additional health and welfare benefit 

while redirecting resources from 

revision of standards where there are 

potential significant emission decreases. 

For example, the air toxics program 

implemented under CAA section 112(d) 

includes standards for major sources of 

toxic air pollutants based on Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT). Although the CAA section 

112(d) program regulates air toxics, 

rules under the program sometimes 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 65659 

regulate the air toxics through the use of 

surrogates, such as criteria pollutants 

(PM and VOC). Section 112 establishes 

a minimum baseline or ‘‘MACT floor’’ 

for standards, which, for existing 

sources in categories or subcategories 

with 30 or more sources, is based on the 

average emission limitation achieved by 

the best performing 12 percent of 

existing sources. For new sources, the 

standards for a source category or 

subcategory cannot be less stringent 

than the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar sources, as 

determined by the Administrator (CAA 

section 112(d)(3)). The MACT floors 

form the least stringent regulatory 

option the EPA may consider in the 

determination of MACT standards 

under section 112(d) for a source 

category. The EPA must also determine 

whether to control emissions ‘‘beyondthe-floor,’’ after considering the costs, 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements of such more stringent 

control (CAA section 112(d) (2)). 

MACT for new sources is the most 

stringent level of control identified 

under CAA section 112(d). Therefore, 

where the EPA regulated air toxics 

through regulation of criteria pollutants 

as surrogates for the toxic pollutant(s), 

it would be expected in most cases that 

the level of the MACT standard would 

reflect a level that would meet or exceed 

the best system of emission reduction 

when the same pollutants are covered. 

Therefore, where the MACT and NSPS 

have comparable applicability (e.g., 

covers the same emission sources and 

effectively controls the same pollutants), 

the MACT would in many cases 

accomplish emissions reductions that 

would be equivalent to or greater than 

those achieved by a revised NSPS. In 

such cases, even if new facilities are 

constructed, the MACT would serve to 

achieve the level of control that would 

otherwise be achieved through updating 

the NSPS through the review process. 

Under CAA section 112(d) (6), the 

MACT standards are also subject to 

technology reviews every 8 years. 

Another potential consideration for 

applying this criterion is the potential 

interaction with other CAA programs 

such as Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) requirements for 

New Source Review (NSR). The CAA 

and corresponding implementing 

regulations require that a permitting 

authority conduct a BACT analysis on a 

case-by-case basis, and the permitting 

authority must evaluate the amount of 

emissions reductions that each available 

emissions-reducing technology or 

technique would achieve, as well as the 

energy, environmental, economic and 

other costs associated with each 

technology or technique. Based on this 

assessment, the permitting authority 

must establish a numeric emissions 

limitation that reflects the maximum 

degree of reduction achievable for each 

pollutant subject to BACT through the 

application of the selected technology or 

technique. BACT requirements must be 

at least as stringent as the best system 

of emission reduction set by the NSPS. 

The agency is requesting comment on 

the appropriateness of this third 

criterion. Although we are taking the 

position that this criterion is sufficient 

to make a finding that no review is 

needed, we solicit comment on whether 

interaction with other CAA 

requirements would make source 

categories meeting this criterion more 

appropriate for a streamlined review 

that incorporates the level of control 

achieved by the MACT into the NSPS, 

rather than a no review determination. 

We also solicit comment on how 

interaction with the CAA’s NSR 

programs (including the BACT, offset 

and netting regulations) should be 

accounted for in developing and 

implementing this criterion. 

In addition to the three detailed 

criteria, several possible conditions 

exist where a review might be 

appropriate, even if one or more of the 

criteria described above are met. For 

instance, if there are emissions units not 

addressed by the existing NSPS, or if 

there has been stakeholder interest (e.g., 

environmental justice concerns) in 

updating an NSPS, then additional 

deliberation would be necessary before 

a decision not to review NSPS could be 

made. In addition, if there are pollutants 

that are not currently regulated by an 

NSPS, but which the agency believes 

should be, we would likely take the 

opportunity to review the existing 

standards to see if they should be 

updated at the same time. If the NSPS 

is outdated, or could be made less 

burdensome without lessening the 

public health protection it provides, or 

conflicts with another applicable 

requirement, review might well be 

appropriate. These conditions have been 

considered in addition to a standard’s 

ability to meet one or more of the three 

criteria as the agency developed the 

NSPS evaluation. In instances where 

one of the above conditions indicated 

the need for further consideration, those 

NSPS would be recommended to 

undergo a traditional review, with 

subsequent potential revision. 

In addition to taking comment on the 

general approach described in this 

ANPRM, we also request comment on 

the following: (1) Are the three criteria 

appropriate for determining whether 

NSPS should be reviewed, (2) are there 

additional criteria that should be used 

to make a finding that NSPS remains 

efficacious and, therefore, review of the 

standard is not needed, and (3) are there 

different criteria that should be used. In 

judging the appropriateness of criteria, 

commenters should also consider 

Executive Order 13563, which calls for 

periodic review of regulations ‘‘to make 

the agency’s regulatory program more 

effective or less burdensome in 

achieving the regulatory objectives.’’ 

3. How many NSPS are potentially not 

in need of review? 

Of the NSPS requiring periodic 

review, the majority of NSPS would be 

subject to review and potential revision, 

and would not meet the criteria for 

establishing no review as defined in this 

document. However, using the criteria 

outlined in this ANPRM, the agency has 

identified a limited number of NSPS as 

potential candidates to not undergo 

review. These NSPS are listed in Table 

2 along with the applicable criteria. 

TABLE 2—NSPS POTENTIALLY MEETING CRITERIA TO NOT BE REVIEWED BASED ON CAA 111(B)(1)(B) AUTHORITY

Subpart NSPS 

No review criteria 

Level of control 

in current 

standard remains 

appropriate 

No expected 

applicability of 

NSPS 

(No new/modified/reconstructed sources) 

Equivalent/more 

stringent requirements in other 

CAA actions 

P ....................... Primary Copper Smelters ................................................................. X X X 

Q ....................... Primary Zinc Smelters ...................................................................... X X X 

T ....................... Phosphate Fertilizers—Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Plants ......... ............................ ............................ X 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65660 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

9The criterion that no new control technology 

exists that would result in more stringent 

requirements can be met when there is no new 

technology in existence at all or when there is no 

new technology that provides more effective 

controls. In the case of Primary Zinc smelters both 

conditions are met. 

TABLE 2—NSPS POTENTIALLY MEETING CRITERIA TO NOT BE REVIEWED BASED ON CAA 111(B)(1)(B) AUTHORITY— 

Continued 

Subpart NSPS 

No review criteria 

Level of control 

in current 

standard remains 

appropriate 

No expected 

applicability of 

NSPS 

(No new/modified/reconstructed sources) 

Equivalent/more 

stringent requirements in other 

CAA actions 

U ....................... Phosphate Fertilizers—Super Phosphoric Acid Plants .................... ............................ ............................ X 

V ....................... Phosphate Fertilizers—Diammonium Phosphate Plants .................. ............................ ............................ X 

W ...................... Phosphate Fertilizers—Triple Superphosphate Plants ..................... ............................ X X 

X ....................... Phosphate Fertilizers—Granular Triple Superphosphate Storage 

Facilities.

............................ X X 

EE ..................... Metal Furniture Surface Coating ...................................................... ............................ X ............................

MM .................... Auto/Light Duty Truck Surface Coating ............................................ ............................ ............................ X 

NN .................... Phosphate Rock Plants .................................................................... X X ............................

QQ .................... Graphic Arts Industry/Publication Rotogravure Printing ................... ............................ ............................ X 

BBB .................. Rubber Tire Manufacturing ............................................................... ............................ ............................ X 

HHH .................. Synthetic Fibers ................................................................................ X ............................ ............................

SSS .................. Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities ..................................................... ............................ X ............................

We are requesting comment on the list 

of NSPS provided in Table 2 as 

potentially not in need of review. 

Specifically, we are soliciting comment 

on the appropriateness of NSPS not 

undergoing review based on the criteria 

indicated in Table 2. We are also 

soliciting comment on any additional 

NSPS that should be considered as 

potentially not in need of review based 

on the criteria provided in this 

document. For example, the following 

three NSPS may meet the third criterion 

that revision of the NSPS would result 

in best system of emission reduction 

requirements that are no more stringent 

than another applicable CAA 

requirement (i.e., NESHAP). However, a 

more detailed assessment would be 

necessary to ensure that the emission 

points covered by the other regulatory 

programs are comparable to those 

covered by the NSPS: 

• Large Appliances Surface Coating, 

Subpart SS 

• Flexible Vinyl/Urethane Coating and 

Printing, Subpart FFF 

• Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for 

Business Machines, Subpart TTT 

EPA is soliciting comments as to the 

extent to which the NESHAP 

sufficiently covers the above NSPS 

categories. 

4. What are examples of how the no 

review criteria would be applied to 

NSPS categories? 

Evaluation of NSPS categories for 

which no review is recommended may 

be influenced by comments received 

regarding the criteria as discussed in 

this document. However, we present as 

examples three NSPS categories that 

meet one or more of the criteria for 

which we believe, based on a 

preliminary evaluation, review of the 

standards is not necessary. These three 

categories are described below, along 

with a brief description of the reasons 

for their selection. A more detailed 

description of these three examples, 

including the rationale for 

recommending no review, is provided 

in the TSD. All NSPS for which no 

review is recommended, including the 

three examples presented in this 

ANPRM, will be presented, with 

detailed technical supporting 

documentation, in a proposal following 

this ANPRM and will have further and 

full opportunity for public comment. 

a. Primary Zinc Smelters NSPS Example 

Primary Zinc Smelters is a source 

category for which currently available 

information indicates that there is no 

need at this time for review of the NSPS 

(40 CFR 60 subpart Q). Following an 

evaluation of the currently available 

technologies (i.e., double-absorption on 

sulfuric acid plant), we believe that a 

revised standard would not result in a 

more stringent level of control because 

no new control technologies, or design 

or efficiency improvements exist that 

would result in more stringent 

requirements.9 We do not find the 

current requirements of the rule to be 

outmoded or unnecessarily 

burdensome. We also do not expect any 

applicability of the standard over the 

next 8 years as no new, modified, or 

reconstructed facilities subject to the 

NSPS are expected, due to changes in 

the types of processes typically used 

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

since 1974, and only one facility 

remains in operation). Furthermore, this 

category meets the criterion presented 

in this document that another CAA 

requirement would apply to any new, 

modified, or reconstructed facility with 

provisions that are effectively as 

stringent as what would likely be 

considered the best system of emission 

reduction under NSPS review. 

Specifically, in complying with the 

NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

GGGGGG), the source must use control 

technologies that provide equal or more 

stringent SO2, PM, and opacity 

requirements than would result from 

revisions to the NSPS for both roaster 

and sinter processes. The agency 

believes that the Primary Zinc Smelters 

NSPS (subpart Q) meets all three of the 

criteria to not review a standard as 

described in this document. Therefore, 

the current standard would remain in 

effect until the next review cycle. 

b. Magnetic Tape Production Operations 

NSPS Example 

The second example of an NSPS 

category for which currently available 

information indicates that there is no 

need at this time for review of the NSPS 

is Magnetic Tape Production Operations 

(40 CFR 60 subpart SSS), consisting of 

coating and mixing operations at 

affected facilities. The agency 

concluded this because this industry 

has been in continual decline for over 

20 years. As a result, there is no growth 

anticipated in the industry over the next 

8 years, and there are no anticipated 

new sources, reconstructions, or 

modifications that would trigger NSPS 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 65661 

10A sector-based approach is based on integrated 

assessments that consider multiple pollutants in a 

comprehensive and coordinated manner to manage 

emissions and CAA requirements. (National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 

and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement 

Plants; August, 2010.) 

applicability. Consumer preferences and 

technology have changed such that the 

primary product of this industry has 

been superseded by a substitute 

product(s) which serves the same 

purpose, but is produced using an 

entirely different process (i.e., optical 

storage media). On this basis, we believe 

that there would be no emission 

reductions and associated air quality 

and health and welfare benefits in 

reviewing the best system of emission 

reduction for the magnetic tape 

production operations NSPS category. 

The new process for manufacturing 

optical storage media (e.g., compact 

disks) is assessed under the NESHAP for 

Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and 

Products (40 CFR part 63 subpart PPPP). 

Therefore, the current rule would 

remain in effect for the remainder of the 

review cycle. In subsequent NSPS 

reviews, the EPA would consider 

whether rescinding the rule 

permanently is an appropriate action in 

accordance with E.O. 13563. 

c. Graphic Arts Industry/Publication 

Rotogravure Printing NSPS Example 

The third example of an NSPS 

category for which currently available 

information indicates that there is no 

need at this time for review of the 

applicable NSPS is Graphic Arts 

Industry/Publication Rotogravure 

Printing (40 CFR part 60 subpart QQ). In 

accordance with criterion 3, the 

NESHAP (40 CFR subpart KK) for 

Printing and Publishing is significantly 

more stringent than the NSPS under 

subpart QQ. The NESHAP recently went 

through the EPA’s Risk and Technology 

Review (RTR) process and no additional 

technology standards were adopted 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Only 

two new facilities have been built in the 

past 15 years since the NESHAP was 

promulgated in 1996. Both of these 

facilities placed their presses in 

permanent total enclosures using carbon 

absorbers to achieve very efficient 

solvent recovery. As part of the EPA’s 

RTR, it was determined that no new 

advancements in practices, processes or 

control technologies beyond those in 

place at the two new facilities were 

identified. The BACT level control at 

the two new facilities is representative 

of current industry practice and is state 

of the art technology, and a revised best 

system of emission reduction for the 

solvent recovery practice listed in the 

NSPS would not be more stringent. 

Under criterion 2, there has been almost 

no growth in the industry in the past 

decade. The number of publication 

rotogravure printing facilities has 

declined from 27 to under 20 in the last 

10 years. Only two facilities have been 

built in the last 15 years. No new 

facilities are anticipated during the next 

8 year review cycle. Therefore, we do 

not expect applicability of the NSPS in 

the foreseeable future. Therefore, we 

believe no additional emission 

reductions would be achieved from a 

revision to the current standard. Thus 

the agency believes that the Publication 

Rotogravure Printing NSPS (subpart QQ) 

meets the criteria to not review as 

described in this document. 

Detailed evaluations of the Primary 

Zinc Smelters source category, the 

Magnetic Tape Production Operations 

source category, and the Graphic Arts 

Industry/Publication Rotogravure 

Printing source category can be found in 

the TSD. Following comment on this 

ANPRM, more detailed analyses will be 

completed for other NSPS that meet one 

or more of the criteria listed in this 

document. The EPA is seeking comment 

on the appropriateness of the 

application of the proposed criteria as 

shown in these three examples. We are 

also seeking comment on any additional 

independent criteria that could be used 

in making a determination to not review 

NSPS. 

C. NSPS Potentially in Need of Review 

After identifying those NSPS that do 

not currently need review, the focus of 

the NSPS strategy will be on reviewing, 

and potentially revising, those 

remaining standards as required by the 

statute. This will be done through 

prioritization of NSPS based on multipollutant and sector-based 10

approaches. The benefits of multipollutant and sector-based analyses and 

approaches include the ability to 

identify optimal strategies that consider 

feasibility, costs, and benefits across 

multiple pollutant types—criteria, 

toxics, and others. 

We intend to prioritize NSPS in need 

of a review based on a number of 

different criteria. Possible prioritization 

criteria would include the types and 

magnitude of emissions, population 

exposure, trends in industry growth, 

advances in control measures and 

technologies, level and accuracy of 

monitoring required by the existing 

standards, expected NSPS applicability, 

ability to synchronize NSPS review with 

other CAA requirements (e.g., RTR 

under CAA sections 112(f) and 112(d) 

(6)), and availability of relevant 

information. 

IV. Request for Comment and Next 

Steps 

As described throughout this ANPRM, 

the EPA is soliciting comments to 

develop an evaluation plan for the NSPS 

program. We also encourage readers to 

submit other comments and supporting 

data that could help us further improve 

NSPS review strategies. To ensure a 

well balanced response and develop the 

best possible product, we encourage the 

submittal of both comments offering 

suggestions and changes and those 

supporting the strategies included in 

this ANPRM. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled Regulatory Planning and 

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

because we expected this action to raise 

novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations will be documented 

in the docket for this action. Because 

this action does not propose or impose 

any requirements, and instead seeks 

comments and suggestions for the 

agency to consider in possibly 

developing a subsequent proposed rule, 

the various statutes and Executive 

Orders that normally apply to 

rulemakings do not apply in this case. 

Should the EPA subsequently determine 

to pursue a rulemaking, the EPA will 

address the statutes and Executive 

Orders as applicable to that rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 18, 2011. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27441 Filed 10–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS