Page 1 of 42

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

E.O. 12866 NSPS Review Under CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B) 2060-

AO60 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 20110609

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

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

RIN 2060-AO60

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Review 

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

SUMMARY: The purpose of this Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANRPM) is to request public comment on a 

proposed approach the EPA has developed to carry out the 

statutorily required periodic evaluation of the New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) Program. Consistent with 

Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

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

will provide a streamlined process to ensure that public 

and private resources are focused on the rules that provide 

the greatest public health protection and are most likely 

to warrant revision to include current technology and 
Page 2 of 42

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 [insert date 

30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this 

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

documents in the docket are listed in the Federal Docket 

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

Publicly available docket materials are available either 

electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

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

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

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

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

excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 

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

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Page 3 of 42

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

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

be included in the public docket without change and may be 

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

personal information provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 

by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 

be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous 

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

identity or contact information unless you provide it in 

the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 

directly to the EPA without going through 

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 
Page 4 of 42

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 

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

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

other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 

material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are available either 

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

the Public Reading Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Janice Godfrey, 

Policy and Strategies Group, Office of Air Quality Planning 

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

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541-3391; fax number: (919) 541-4991; e-mail 

address: godfrey.janice@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline. The information in this ANPRM is organized as 

follows:

I. General Information
Page 5 of 42

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 notice?

III. Review Plan for the NSPS Program

A. What are the goals of a review plan for the NSPS 

program?

B. Which NSPS do not need review?

1. What is the EPA’s authority in determining 

whether to review NSPS? 

2. What are the criteria we assert are 

appropriate for determining the continued 

efficacy of NSPS? 

3. Which NSPS are potentially not in need of 

review?

4. What are examples of how the “no review” 

criteria would be applied to NSPS Categories?

a. Primary Zinc NSPS example

b. Magnetic Tape NSPS example

c. Graphic Arts Industry/Publication 

Rotogravure Printing NSPS example

C. NSPS Potentially in Need of a Review

IV. Request for Comment and Next Steps

I. General Information

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

EPA?

Please provide data and explanatory information in a 

format that is thorough and complete enough for use by the 

EPA to justify any modifications to the proposed approach. 

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

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 
Page 6 of 42

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.

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

related information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this notice will be available on the 

Worldwide Web through the Technology Transfer Network 

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

air pollution control. Following signature, an electronic 

version of this document will be posted at 

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

The EPA has also created a technical support document 

(TSD) that provides supporting data and information for 

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

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

Additions.” 

II. Background Information

A. What is the NSPS program?
Page 7 of 42

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), 
Page 8 of 42

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

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

the EPA need not conduct this review if the EPA determines

that reviewing an NSPS “is not appropriate in light of 

readily available information on the efficacy of such 

standard.” 

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

provides that NSPS are to “reflect the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the application of the best 

system of emission reduction which (taking into account the 

cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality 

health and environmental impact and energy requirements) 

 

1

EPA 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.
Page 9 of 42

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 non-air quality health and environmental impact and 

energy requirements. The resultant standard is usually a

numerical emissions limit, expressed as a performance level 

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

such standards are based on the effectiveness of one or 

more specific air pollution control systems, section 111 

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

technology that must be used to comply with a NSPS, except 

in instances where the Administrator determines it is not 

feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance, 

as defined in section 111(h). Upon promulgation, NSPS 

become national standards to which all new, modified, or 

reconstructed sources must comply.
Page 10 of 42

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 FR actions indicate a 

review of the standard. In many cases the most recent 

action includes only minor amendments. For example, on 

October 17, 2000 EPA made final minor amendments to 

numerous NSPS to include miscellaneous editorial changes 

and technical corrections to stationary testing and 

monitoring rules. See 65FR61768 through 65FR61792. 

Seventeen standards have been promulgated or revised within 

the last 8 years. In addition to those standards that are 

current within their review cycle, there are also multiple 

standards in different phases of the review process, 

including some standards that are in various stages of the 

litigation process.

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

NSPS Subpart Date of Date of Most 

 

3

Table 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). 
Page 11 of 42

Promulgation 

(FR Citation)

Recent Action 

(FR Citation)4

Ammonium Sulfate 

Manufacture

PP 11/12/1980 

(45FR74846)

10/17/20005,6

(65FR61760)

Asphalt Concrete 

(Hot Mix 

Asphalt)

I 03/08/1974 02/14/19894

(54FR6667)

Asphalt 

Processing and 

Roofing 

Manufacture

UU 08/06/1982 

(47FR34147)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61762)

Auto/Light Duty 

Truck Surface 

Coating

MM 12/24/1980 

(45FR85410)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61760)

Basic Oxygen 

Process Furnaces

N 03/08/1974 

(39FR9318)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61756)

Basic Process 

Steelmaking 

Facilities 

(Integrated 

Steel Plants)

Na 01/02/1986 

(51FR161)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61756)

Beverage Can 

Surface Coating

WW 08/25/1983 

(48FR38728)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61763)

Bulk Gasoline 

Terminals

XX 08/18/1983 

(48FR37578)

12/19/2003

(68FR70965)

Calciners and 

Dryers in 

Mineral 

Industries

UUU 09/28/1992 

(57FR44496)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61778)

 

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/).

5

On October 17, 2000 (65FR61743), EPA made editorial and technical changes to test method and CEMS 

performance specification requirements for Part 60 and other regulations. This included organizational 

changes and the promulgation of Performance Specification 15, for FTIR CEMS.

6

Action was only minor amendment and not a full review of the standard.
Page 12 of 42

Coal Prep Plants Y 01/15/1976 

(41FR2234)

10/08/2009 

(74FR51977)

Electric Utility 

Steam Generating 

Units7

Da 06/11/1979 

(44FR33581)

01/28/20094

(74FR5078)

Ferroalloy 

Production 

Facilities

Z 05/04/1976 

(41FR18501)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61758)

Flexible 

Vinyl/Urethane 

Coating and 

Printing

FFF 06/29/1984 

(49FR26885)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61768)

Fossil-Fuel 

Fired Steam 

Generators4

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

(74FR5078)

Glass 

Manufacturing

CC 10/07/1980 

(45FR66742)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61759)

Grain Elevators DD 08/03/1978 

(43FR34347)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61759)

Graphic Arts 

Industry/Publication 

Rotogravure 

Printing

QQ 11/08/1982 

(47FR50644)

04/09/20044

(69FR18803)

Industrial, 

Commercial, 

Institutional 

Steam Generating 

Units

Db 11/25/1986 

(51FR42768)

01/28/20094

(74FR5084)

 

7

Subpart D was superseded by subpart Da and, thus, will not be reviewed or revised as all subpart D units 

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

Kraft Pulp Mills BB 02/23/1978 

(43FR7568)

09/21/20064

(71FR55127) 

Large Appliances 

Surface Coating

SS 10/27/1982 

(47FR47778)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61761)

Lead Acid 

Batteries

KK 04/16/1982 

(47FR16564)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61760)

Lime 

Manufacturing

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

(65FR61760)

Magnetic Tape 

Coating 

Facilities

SSS 10/03/1988 

(53FR38892)

02/12/1999

(64FR7467)

Metal Coil 

Surface Coating

TT 11/01/1982 

(47FR49606)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61761)

Metal Furniture 

Surface Coating

EE 10/29/1982 

(47FR49278)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61759)

Metallic Mineral 

Processing 

Plants

LL 02/21/1984 

(49FR6458)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61760)

Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills

WWW 03/12/1996 

(60FR9905)

09/21/2006

(71FR55127)

New Residential 

Wood Heaters

AAA 08/02/1985 

(50FR31504)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61764)

Nitric Acid 

Plants

G 12/23/1971 02/14/19894

(54FR6666)

Nonmetallic 

Mineral 

Processing 

Plants

OOO 08/01/1985 

(50FR31328)

04/28/2009 

(74FR19309)

Onshore Natural 

Gas Processing 

Plants -

Equipment Leaks

KKK 06/24/1985 

(50FR26122)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61773)

Onshore Natural 

Gas Processing: 

SO2 Emissions

LLL 10/01/1985 

(50FR40158)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61773)

Petroleum Dry 

Cleaners

JJJ 09/21/1984 

(49FR37331)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61773)

Petroleum 

Refineries

J 03/08/1974 

(39FR9308)

06/24/2008 

(73FR35865)

Petroleum 

Refineries

Ja 06/24/2008 

(73FR35867)

12/22/20084

(73FR78552)

(Stay)
Page 14 of 42

Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Diammonium 

Phosphate Plants

V 08/06/1975 

(40FR33155)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61757)

Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Granular Triple 

Superphosphate 

Storage 

Facilities

X 08/06/1975 

(40FR33156)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61757)

Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Superphosphoric 

Acid Plants

U 08/06/1975 

(40FR33155)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61757)

Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Triple 

Superphosphate 

Plants

W 08/06/1975 

(40FR33156)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61757)

Phosphate 

Fertilizers -

Wet-Process 

Phosphoric Acid 

Plants

T 08/06/1975 

(40FR33154)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61757)

Phosphate Rock 

Plants

NN 04/16/1982 

(47FR16589)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61760)

Polymeric 

Coating of 

Supporting 

Substrates

VVV 09/11/1989 

(54FR37551)

Polymers 

Manufacturing 

Industry

DDD 12/11/1990 

(55FR51035)

12/14/2000

(65FR78278)

Portland Cement F 12/23/1971 

(36FR24877)

08/09/2010

(75FR54970)

Pressure 

Sensitive Tape 

and Label 

Surface Coating 

Operations

RR 10/18/1983 

(48FR48375)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61761)
Page 15 of 42

Primary Aluminum 

Reduction Plants

S 01/26/1976 

(41FR3826)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61757)

Primary Copper 

Smelters

P 01/15/1976 

(41FR2338)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61756)

Primary Lead 

Smelters 

R 01/15/1976 

(41FR2340)

02/14/19894

(54FR6668)

Primary Zinc 

Smelters

Q 01/15/1976 

(41FR2340)

02/14/19894

(54FR6668)

Refineries: 

Equipment Leaks 

GGG 05/30/1984 

(49FR22606)

06/02/20084

(73FR31376)

Refineries: 

Wastewater

QQQ 11/23/1988 

(53FR47623)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61778)

Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing

BBB 09/15/1987 

(52FR34874)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61765)

Secondary Brass 

and Bronze 

Production 

Plants

M 03/08/1974 

(39FR9318)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61756)

Secondary Lead 

Smelters

L 03/08/1974 

(39FR9317)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61756)

Small 

Industrial, 

Commercial, 

Institutional 

Steam Generating 

Units

Dc 09/12/1990 

(55FR37674)

01/28/2009 

(74FR5091)

SOCMI Air Ox 

Unit Processes

III 06/29/1990 (55FR

26922)

12/14/2000

(65FR78278)

SOCMI 

Distillation

NNN 06/29/1990 (55FR

26942)

12/14/2000

(65FR78279)

SOCMI Equipment 

Leaks 

VV 01/18/1983 

(48FR48335)

06/02/20084

(73FR31375)

(Stay)

SOCMI Reactor 

Processes

RRR 08/31/1993 

(58FR45962)

12/14/2000

(65FR78279)
Page 16 of 42

Stationary 

Combustion 

Turbines

KKKK 06/06/2006 

(71FR38497)

3/20/20094

(74FR11858)

Stationary 

Compression 

Ignition 

Internal 

Combustion 

Engines 

IIII 7/11/2006 

(71FR39172)

06/08/2011

(75FR32612)

Stationary Gas 

Turbines

GG 09/10/1979 (44FR

52798)

02/24/20064

(71FR9458)

Stationary Spark 

Ignition 

Internal 

Combustion 

Engines

JJJJ 01/18/2008

(73FR 3591)

06/08/2011 

(75FR32612)

Steel Plants: 

Electric Arc 

Furnaces

AA 09/23/1975 

(40FR43850)

02/22/2005 

(70FR8532)

Steel Plants: 

Electric Arc 

Furnaces and 

Argon-Oxygen 

Decarburization 

Vessels

AAa 10/31/1984 

(49FR43845)

02/22/2005 

(70FR8533)

Sulfuric Acid 

Plants

H 12/23/1971 

(36FR24877)

02/14/1989 

(54FR6666)

Surface Coating 

of Plastic Parts 

for Business 

Machines

TTT 01/29/1988 

(53FR2676)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61778)

Synthetic Fibers HHH 04/05/1984 

(49FR13651)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61768)
Page 17 of 42

Volatile Organic 

Liquid Storage 

Vessels8

Ka 04/04/1980 

(45FR23379)

12/14/2000

(65FR78275)

Volatile Organic 

Liquid Storage 

Vessels (incl.

Petroleum Liquid 

Storage Vessels)

Kb 04/08/1987 

(52FR11429)

10/15/20034

(68FR 59333)

Wool Fiberglass 

Insulation 

Manufacturing 

Plants

PPP 02/25/1985 

(50FR7699)

10/17/20003,4

(65FR61778)

C. What is the purpose of this notice?

The purpose of this ANRPM 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 notice) will be published in 

 

8

Subpart K was superseded by subpart Ka and, thus, will not be reviewed or revised as all subpart K units 

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

the Federal Register for public comment. Subsequent to this 

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

addressed with detailed technical information in a 

rulemaking proposal which will provide a further 

opportunity for public comment. 

If, after review of the public comments, EPA 

determines there is sufficient evidence that a full review 

of a standard is warranted, EPA would withdraw its no 

review conclusion for that standard. Otherwise by having 

demonstrated the continued effectiveness of an NSPS, the 

Agency will have fulfilled its statutory obligations under 

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

that standard.

In addition to fulfilling the mandate in CAA section 

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

Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 

issued on January 18, 2011, which directs each Federal 

agency to “periodically review its existing significant 

regulations to determine whether any such regulations 

should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so 

as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective 

or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.”

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

made more efficient, so that both public and private 
Page 19 of 42

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, which are not expected 

to result in any environmental benefits. By determining 

which NSPS are not in need of review, the Agency can then 

focus its resources on the remaining NSPS that are in need 

of revision (or at least a closer review to determine if 

revision is needed). This notice is seeking comment on this 

proposed process and on the appropriateness of the proposed

criteria for making a finding that a current NSPS does not 

need review, and the application of those criteria in this 

evaluation of the NSPS program. Additionally, this notice 

is seeking comment on pertinent factors for the 

prioritization of NSPS to be reviewed, and potentially 

revised.

III. Developing an NSPS Evaluation Strategy 

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

NSPS program?

The primary goal of the NSPS strategy is to assist the 

Agency in fulfilling our statutory obligations in a 

streamlined process that ensures both public and private 

resources are focused on the rules that provide the 

greatest improvement in air quality, health and welfare
Page 20 of 42

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 
Page 21 of 42

pollutants and processes, and synchronization of regulatory 

efforts as the primary driver, allowing the EPA to seek 

opportunities for increased air quality, health and welfare 

benefits, and greater administrative efficiency.

B. Which NSPS do not need review?

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

review NSPS?

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

requires the Agency to review and, if appropriate, revise 

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

gives the EPA authority to determine that reviewing an NSPS 

“is not appropriate in light of readily available 

information on the efficacy of such standard.” In most 

instances, the EPA has met the requirement of this section 

solely through formal review and revision (when deemed 

appropriate) of standards. 

We note that the majority of NSPS will be reviewed and 

considered for revision, as there are likely potential

process improvements and technology advances that would 

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

regular evaluation gives the EPA and the public the 

opportunity to consider whether requirements of a 

particular NSPS are outmoded or no longer necessary. 
Page 22 of 42

However, there are some NSPS where currently available 

information indicates that there are no potential gains to 

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

the continued efficacy of a standard is demonstrated, the 

Agency believes that using its authority to not devote 

resources to a rulemaking in these cases should also be 

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

determined do not need review, will be subject to continual 

evaluation cycles, at least every 8 years. This notice 

presents three independent criteria that the Agency 

believes can be used to demonstrate that review of NSPS 

would not provide emission reductions and associated air 

quality, health and welfare benefits. 

2. What are the criteria we believe are appropriate for 

determining the continued efficacy of NSPS?

We have identified three criteria that we have 

determined are appropriate to determine that review of 

existing NSPS would not result in any health and welfare

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

review cycle. For this programmatic evaluation, we believe 

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

do not need to be reviewed. However, several possible

conditions exist where a review might be appropriate, even 

if one or more of the criteria described above are met. For 
Page 23 of 42

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 
Page 24 of 42

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 
Page 25 of 42

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 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 
Page 26 of 42

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 
Page 27 of 42

additional health and welfare benefit while redirecting 

resources from revision of standards where there are 

potential significant emission decreases. 

For example, the air toxics program implemented under 

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

toxic air pollutants based on Maximum Achievable Control 

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

regulates air toxics, rules under the program sometimes 

regulate the air toxics through the use of surrogates, such 

as criteria pollutants (PM and VOC). Section 112 

establishes a minimum baseline or “MACT floor” for 

standards, which, for existing sources in categories or 

subcategories with 30 or more sources, is based on the 

average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 

12 percent of existing sources. For new sources, the 

standards for a source category or subcategory cannot be 

less stringent than the emission control that is achieved 

in practice by the best controlled similar sources, as 

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

The MACT floors form the least stringent regulatory option 

the EPA may consider in the determination of MACT standards 

under section 112(d) for a source category. The EPA must 

also determine whether to control emissions ‘‘beyond-the-
Page 28 of 42

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) 
Page 29 of 42

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

corresponding implementing regulations require that a 

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

amount of emissions reductions that each available 

emissions-reducing technology or technique would achieve, 

as well as the energy, environmental, economic and other 

costs associated with each technology or technique. Based 

on this assessment, the permitting authority must establish 

a numeric emissions limitation that reflects the maximum 

degree of reduction achievable for each pollutant subject 

to BACT through the application of the selected technology 

or technique. BACT requirements must be at least as 

stringent as the best system of emission reduction set by 

the NSPS. 

The Agency is requesting comment on the 

appropriateness of this third criterion. Although we are 

taking the position that this criterion is sufficient to 

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

on whether interaction with other Clean Air Act 

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 
Page 30 of 42

solicit comment on how interaction with the Clean Air Act’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 
Page 31 of 42

need for further consideration, those NSPS would be

recommended to undergo a traditional review, with 

subsequent potential revision. 

In addition to taking comment on the general approach 

described in this notice, we also request comment on the 

following: (1) are the three criteria appropriate for 

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

additional criteria that should be used to make a finding 

that NSPS remains efficacious and, therefore, review of the 

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

criteria that should be used. In judging the 

appropriateness of criteria, commenters should also 

consider Executive Order 13563, which calls for periodic 

review of regulations “to make the agency's regulatory 

program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the 

regulatory objectives.”

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

Of the NSPS requiring periodic review, the majority of 

NSPS would be subject to review and potential revision, and 

would not meet the criteria for establishing no review as 

defined in this document. However, using the criteria 

outlined in this notice, the Agency has identified a 

limited number of NSPS as potential candidates to not 
Page 32 of 42

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 Criterion

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

U Phosphate Fertilizers 

- Superphosphoric 

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
Page 33 of 42

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 criteria 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:
Page 34 of 42

 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 
Page 35 of 42

this notice and will have further and full opportunity for 

public comment. 

a. Primary Zinc Smelters NSPS example

Primary Zinc Smelters is a source category for which 

currently available information indicates that there is no 

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

Q). Following an evaluation of the currently available 

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

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

in a more stringent level of control because no new control 

technologies, or design or efficiency improvements exist 

that would result in more stringent requirements9. We do not 

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 

 

9

The criterion that no new control technology exists that would result in a more stringent requirements 

can be met when there is no new technology in existence at all or when there is no new technology that 

provides more effective controls. In the case of Primary Zinc smelters both conditions are met. 
Page 36 of 42

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, 
Page 37 of 42

reconstructions, or modifications that would trigger NSPS 

applicability. Consumer preferences and technology have 

changed such that the primary product of this industry has 

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

same purpose, but is produced using an entirely different 

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

believe that there would be no emission reductions and 

associated air quality and health and welfare benefits in 

reviewing the best system of emission reduction for the 

magnetic tape production operations NSPS category. The new 

process for manufacturing optical storage media (e.g.

compact disks) is assessed under the NESHAP for Surface 

Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (40 CFR 63 subpart 

PPPP). Therefore, the current rule would remain in effect 

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 
Page 38 of 42

CFR 60 subpart QQ). In accordance with criteria 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 adsorbers to achieve very 

efficient solvent recovery. As part of the EPA’s Risk and 

Technology Review (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 criteria 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 
Page 39 of 42

anticipated during the next 8 year review cycle. Therefore,

we do not expect applicability of the NSPS in the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, we believe no additional 

emission reductions would be achieved from a revision to 

the current standard. Thus the Agency believes that the 

Publication Rotogravure Printing NSPS (subpart QQ) meets 

the criteria to not review as described in this document. 

Detailed evaluations of the Primary Zinc Smelters 

source category, the Magnetic Tape Production Operations 

source category, and the Graphic Arts Industry/Publication 

Rotogravure Printing source category can be found in the 

TSD. Following comment on this notice, more detailed 

analyses will be completed for other NSPS that meet one or 

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 
Page 40 of 42

standards as required by the statute. This will be done 

through prioritization of NSPS based on multi-pollutant and 

sector-based10 approaches. The benefits of multi-pollutant 

and sector-based analyses and approaches include the 

ability to identify optimal strategies that consider

feasibility, costs, and benefits across multiple pollutant 

types – criteria, toxics, and others.

We intend to prioritize NSPS in need of a review based 

on a number of different criteria. Possible prioritization 

criteria would include the types and magnitude of 

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., risk and 

technology reviews under CAA sections 112(f) and 

112(d)(6)), and availability of relevant information. 

IV. Request for Comment and Next Steps

As described throughout this notice, the EPA is 

soliciting comments to develop an evaluation plan for the 

NSPS program. We also encourage readers to submit other 

 

10

 A Sector-based approach is based on integrated assessments that consider multiple pollutants in a 

comprehensive and coordinated manner to manage emissions and CAA requirements. (National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards 

of Performance for Portland Cement Plants; August, 2010.)
Page 41 of 42

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 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 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Review
Page 42 of 42

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

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:

________________

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.