FROM: Gina McCarthy 

Assistant Admiñ 

THRU: Lone Schmidt 

Associate GenefaVCounsel 

Air and Radiation Law Office 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

AUG 062012 

FRO

OFFICE OF


AIR AND RADIATION 

SUBJECT: Inadvertent Errors in the Final Amendments to the New Source 

Performance Standards for Petroleum Refineries (NSPS Subpart Ja) 

(Tier 3; SAN 5036; Rll' 20O..AN)--Correction of Inadvertent Errors 

Michael Goo 

Associate Administrator 

Office of Policy 

Lisa P. Jackson 

Administrator 

Several inadvertent errors were made in the process of preparing the final rulemaking signature package 

for the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111 new source performance standard (NSPS) for petroleum 

refineries that you signed on June 1, 2012. Printing of the final rule is currently on hold pending 

approval of our Incorporation by Reference (IBR) amendments by the Office of the Federal Register 

(OFR). We recommend making the changes discussed below while awaiting approval of the IBR 

request. 

First, an error was made when we incorrectly referenced the date of the stay of certain provisions in the 

preamble summary and background information sections. We incorrectly referenced the first date of a 

short term stay (September 26, 2008) rather than the date on which an indefinite stay was issued 

(December 22, 2008). 

Second, an error was made in section 60.100(b) by referring to "a flare as defined in 60.101a" rather 

than simply referring to "a flare." As "flares" are not specifically defined in subpart J, and the different 

compliance date in subpart Ja applies to flares as defined in subpart Ja, the June 24, 2008, rule used the 

phrase "flares as defined in §60.101a." As noted in the preamble to the December 22, 2008, proposal: 

"The intent of the provision was not to expand the definition of fuel gas combustion device under 

subpart J; rather, it was included only to clarify that flares were not subject to the new flare requirements 

in subpart Ja until after the date of publication of the final rule" (73 FR 78529). While we did not 

propose to change the regulatory text in the December 22, 2008, proposal, we again received comments 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
that this reference to the definition of flare in subpart Ja could expand the applicability of subpart J 

retroactively. To avoid confusion and unintended consequences, we intended to correct the rule 

language in section 60.100(b) to remove the reference to section 60.101a, but, through a clerical error, 

this correction was not included in the package signed on June 1, 2012. 

Third, an error was made in the compliance dates for the flare requirements. The subpart Ja rule 

recognizes the need to sequence compliance with the flare requirements to avoid safety hazards. As 

such, the rule provides a 3-year compliance period for refineries that must install new treatment 

equipment and monitors so that their modified flares will comply with the flare requirements. The 3-year 

compliance period should begin on the effective date of the rule, which is 60 days after publication in 

the Federal Register. However, the rule inadvertently provided 3 years from the date of publication in 

the Federal Register rather than 3 years and 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. 

A related error concerns the compliance date for meeting the short-term hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 

concentration limit on fuel gas going to a flare. The final rule incorrectly requires immediate compliance 

with this short-term H2S concentration limit for all flares that become subject to subpart Ja. However, 

the rule should only require immediate compliance for all new flares and for modified flares that were 

previously subject to subpart J. The rule should provide a 3-year compliance period for modified flares 

that were not previously subject to subpart J, or were complying with subpart J requirements as specified 

in a federal consent decree or that had alternative monitoring provisions in place. When we drafted the 

final rule, we assumed that all affected flares under NSPS subpart Ja would already be in compliance 

with this short-term H2S concentration limit or could immediately comply with this limit because an 

almost identical limit is contained in NSPS subpart J, and most flares are already subject to this 

standard. However, not all flares have, in fact, taken actions to comply with this limit under subpart J. 

Therefore, it is necessary to correct the rule language. Further, requiring immediate compliance with the 

short-term H2S concentration limit for flares that become subject to subpart Ja through modification, but 

that were not previously subject to this short-term H 2 S concentration limit in subpart J is inconsistent 

with other statements in the preamble where we state that time will be needed for planning, designing, 

purchasing and installing treatment equipment needed to meet other flare requirements in the rule. 

Fourth, an error was made in the definition of "delayed coking unit." The final rule expanded the 

definition of a delayed coking unit compared to the definition in the proposed rule, which could cause 

some delayed coking units that would not have been affected sources under the proposed definition to be 

affected sources under the final rule. Since, under CAA section 111, a unit is defined as a "new source" 

from the date of proposal only if there is a standard "which will be applicable to such source," and is 

otherwise defined as a new source based upon the final rule date (see CAA section 111 (a)(2)), using the 

proposal date as the new source date for such units was in error. Accordingly, we are addressing this 

inadvertent error by resetting the applicability date to the effective date of these final amendments for 

those delayed coking units that were not included within the proposed 2008 definition of "delayed 

coking unit." 

Finally, we are including minor technical corrections, including incorrect references to paragraphs in 

two places in the rule, the misspelling of a word and a technical error in the definition of "air preheat" in 

the rule, which inadvertently refers to the recovery of "latent heat of exhaust gas," but should have 

referred to the recovery of "sensible heat of exhaust gas." We also note that, as we worked through the
cc: Linda Chappell/OA, 1 101A

review of our IBR request with the OFR, we found that several minor changes were needed in section 

60.17 to conform to OFR guidelines. We typically address these types of edits with the OFR following 

signature; however, we are including the edits within this memorandum for completeness. 

The attached redlined pages of the preamble and rule identify all the errors described above and show 

the corrected text. The preamble changes appear on pages 1, 2, 7, 8, 9,25, 42, 5 1-52, 142-145, 148-150 

and 158-159; the rule changes are shown on pages 203-211, 213-217, 240, 245-246, 262, 265-266, 280, 

288, 290 and 300. 

We recommend that you correct these inadvertent errors and approve these changes by signing and 

dating below.