72875
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
II.
Where
can
I
find
more
information
about
this
proposal
and
corresponding
direct
final
rule?

I.
What
Action
Is
EPA
Taking
Today?

The
EPA
is
proposing
to
approve
as
a
revision
to
the
Indiana
particulate
matter
SIP
emission
control
regulations
that
pertain
to
Knauf
Fiber
Glass
(
Knauf)
which
is
located
in
Shelbyville,
Indiana,
as
requested
by
the
State
of
Indiana
on
October
17,
2002.
This
SIP
submission
makes
changes
to
federally
enforceable
Indiana
air
pollution
control
rules.
Indiana
made
these
changes
at
the
request
of
Knauf,
and
they
apply
to
the
operation
of
the
Knauf
fiberglass
plant
in
Shelbyville,
Indiana.
The
rule
revisions
modify
the
PM
emissions
limits
adopted
by
the
State
in
the
1980s
which
EPA
approved
as
part
of
the
current
Indiana
SIP.
The
revised
rules
delete
references
to
equipment
no
longer
in
use
by
Knauf
and
update
names
of
equipment
which
remains
in
use.
Because
the
revised
rules
reduce
both
allowable
emissions
and
the
allowable
emissions
rate
and
reflect
current
operations
at
the
Knauf
facility,
EPA
approval
of
these
revisions
should
not
result
in
an
adverse
impact
on
air
quality.

II.
Where
Can
I
Find
More
Information
About
This
Proposal
and
Corresponding
Direct
Final
Rule?

For
additional
information
see
the
direct
final
rule
published
in
the
rules
and
regulations
section
of
this
Federal
Register.

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
4201
et
seq.

Dated:
November
7,
2002.
Bharat
Mathur,
Acting
Regional
Administrator,
Region
5.
[
FR
Doc.
02
 
30938
Filed
12
 
6
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
63
[
FRL
 
7419
 
6]

RIN
2060
 
AK52
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Source
Categories:
General
Provisions;
and
Requirements
for
Control
Technology
Determinations
for
Major
Sources
in
Accordance
with
Clean
Air
Act
Sections,
Sections
112(
g)
and
112(
j)

AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule;
amendments.
SUMMARY:
In
this
action,
we
are
proposing
specific
amendments
to
the
General
Provisions
for
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP),
and
to
the
rule
establishing
requirements
for
case­
by­
case
determinations
under
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
section
112(
j).
We
are
proposing
to
establish
a
new
timetable
for
the
submission
of
section
112(
j)
Part
2
applications
which
is
derived
from
our
agreed
timetable
for
promulgation
of
the
remaining
NESHAP.
This
new
timetable
for
Part
2
applications
is
intended
both
to
avoid
the
expenditure
of
unnecessary
resources
by
affected
sources
and
permitting
authorities,
and
to
create
new
incentives
for
prompt
completion
of
the
remaining
standards.
We
are
also
proposing
to
make
several
changes
in
the
section
of
the
General
Provisions
rule
that
establishes
general
procedures
for
preparation,
maintenance,
and
periodic
revision
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
(
SSM)
plans.
These
amendments
are
being
proposed
pursuant
to
a
settlement
agreement
concerning
a
petition
for
judicial
review
of
the
prior
amendments
to
these
rules
published
on
April
5,
2002.
We
are
also
proposing
to
revise
a
recordkeeping
provision
which
we
adopted
in
response
to
comments
we
received
on
the
prior
amendments
because
we
have
concluded
that
the
recordkeeping
provision
should
be
more
narrow
in
applicability.

DATES:
Comments.
Submit
comments
on
or
before
January
20,
2003.
Public
Hearing.
If
anyone
contacts
us
requesting
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing
by
December
16,
2002,
a
public
hearing
will
be
held
on
December
19,
2002.

ADDRESSES:
Comments.
Written
comments
may
be
submitted
to:
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center,
Attention
Docket
Number
OAR
 
2002
 
0038,
Part
63
General
Provisions
(
Subpart
A)
and
Section
112(
j)
Regulations
(
Subpart
B)
Litigation
Settlement
Amendments
II,
Mailcode
6102T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460.
Public
Hearing.
If
a
public
hearing
is
held,
it
will
be
held
at
10
a.
m.
on
December
19,
2002
in
our
EPA
facility
complex,
109
T.
W.
Alexander
Drive,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina,
or
at
an
alternate
site
nearby.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr.
Rick
Colyer,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C504
 
05),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711,
telephone
(
919)
541
 
5262,
e­
mail
colyer.
rick@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Regulated
Entities
Categories
and
entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
include
all
section
112
source
categories
listed
under
section
112(
c)
of
the
CAA.

Industry
Group:
Source
Category
Fuel
Combustion:
Coal­
and
Oil­
fired
Electric
Utility
Steam
Generating
Units
Combustion
Turbines
Engine
Test
Facilities
Industrial
Boilers
Institutional/
Commercial
Boilers
Process
Heaters
Reciprocating
Internal
Combustion
Engines
Rocket
Testing
Facilities
Non­
Ferrous
Metals
Processing:
Primary
Aluminum
Production
Primary
Copper
Smelting
Primary
Lead
Smelting
Primary
Magnesium
Refining
Secondary
Aluminum
Production
Secondary
Lead
Smelting
Ferrous
Metals
Processing:
Coke
Ovens:
Charging,
Top
Side,
and
Door
Leaks
Coke
Ovens:
Pushing,
Quenching,
Battery
Stacks
Ferroalloys
Production:
Silicomanganese
and
Ferromanganese
Integrated
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
Iron
Foundries
Steel
Foundries
Steel
Pickling
 
HCl
Process
Facilities
and
Hydrochloric
Acid
Regeneration
Mineral
Products
Processing:
Asphalt
Processing
Asphalt
Roofing
Manufacturing
Asphalt/
Coal
Tar
Application
 
Metal
Pipes
Brick
and
Clay
Products
Manufacturing
Ceramics
Manufacturing
Lime
Manufacturing
Mineral
Wool
Production
Portland
Cement
Manufacturing
Refractories
Manufacturing
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
Wool
Fiberglass
Manufacturing
Petroleum
and
Natural
Gas
Production
and
Refining:
Oil
and
Natural
Gas
Production
Natural
Gas
Transmission
and
Storage
Petroleum
Refineries
 
Catalytic
Cracking
Units,
Catalytic
Reforming
Units,
and
Sulfur
Plant
Units
Petroleum
Refineries
 
Other
Sources
Not
Distinctly
Listed
Liquids
Distribution:
Gasoline
Distribution
(
Stage
1)
Marine
Vessel
Loading
Operations
Organic
Liquids
Distribution
(
Non­

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
59
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
72876
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Gasoline)
Surface
Coating
Processes:
Aerospace
Industries
Auto
and
Light
Duty
Truck
(
Surface
Coating)
Large
Appliance
(
Surface
Coating)
Magnetic
Tapes
(
Surface
Coating)
Manufacture
of
Paints,
Coatings,
and
Adhesives
Metal
Can
(
Surface
Coating)
Metal
Coil
(
Surface
Coating)
Metal
Furniture
(
Surface
Coating)
Miscellaneous
Metal
Parts
and
Products
(
Surface
Coating)
Paper
and
Other
Webs
(
Surface
Coating)
Plastic
Parts
and
Products
(
Surface
Coating)
Printing,
Coating,
and
Dyeing
of
Fabrics
Printing/
Publishing
(
Surface
Coating)
Shipbuilding
and
Ship
Repair
(
Surface
Coating)
Wood
Building
Products
(
Surface
Coating)
Wood
Furniture
(
Surface
Coating)
Waste
Treatment
and
Disposal:
Hazardous
Waste
Incineration
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
Off­
Site
Waste
and
Recovery
Operations
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
(
POTW)
Site
Remediation
Agricultural
Chemicals
Production:
Pesticide
Active
Ingredient
Production
Fibers
Production
Processes:
Acrylic
Fibers/
Modacrylic
Fibers
Production
Spandex
Production
Food
and
Agriculture
Processes:
Manufacturing
of
Nutritional
Yeast
Solvent
Extraction
for
Vegetable
Oil
Production
Pharmaceutical
Production
Processes:
Pharmaceuticals
Production
Polymers
and
Resins
Production:
Acetal
Resins
Production
Acrylonitrile­
Butadiene­
Styrene
Production
Alkyd
Resins
Production
Amino
Resins
Production
Boat
Manufacturing
Butyl
Rubber
Production
Cellulose
Ethers
Production
Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers
Production
Epoxy
Resins
Production
Ethylene­
Propylene
Rubber
Production
Flexible
Polyurethane
Foam
Production
Hypalon
(
tm)
Production
Maleic
Anhydride
Copolymers
Production
Methyl
Methacrylate­
Acrylonitrile­
Butadiene­
Styrene
Production
Methyl
Methacrylate­
Butadiene­
Styrene
Terpolymers
Production
Neoprene
Production
Nitrile
Butadiene
Rubber
Production
Nitrile
Resins
Production
Non­
Nylon
Polyamides
Production
Phenolic
Resins
Production
Polybutadiene
Rubber
Production
Polycarbonates
Production
Polyester
Resins
Production
Polyether
Polyols
Production
Polyethylene
Terephthalate
Production
Polymerized
Vinylidene
Chloride
Production
Polymethyl
Methacrylate
Resins
Production
Polystyrene
Production
Polysulfide
Rubber
Production
Polyvinyl
Acetate
Emulsions
Production
Polyvinyl
Alcohol
Production
Polyvinyl
Butyral
Production
Polyvinyl
Chloride
and
Copolymers
Production
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
Production
Styrene­
Acrylonitrile
Production
Styrene­
Butadiene
Rubber
and
Latex
Production
Production
of
Inorganic
Chemicals:
Ammonium
Sulfate
Production
 
Caprolactam
By­
Product
Plants
Carbon
Black
Production
Chlorine
Production
Cyanide
Chemicals
Manufacturing
Fumed
Silica
Production
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
Hydrogen
Fluoride
Production
Phosphate
Fertilizers
Production
Phosphoric
Acid
Manufacturing
Production
of
Organic
Chemicals:
Ethylene
Processes
Quaternary
Ammonium
Compounds
Production
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Miscellaneous
Processes:
Benzyltrimethylammonium
Chloride
Production
Carbonyl
Sulfide
Production
Chelating
Agents
Production
Chlorinated
Paraffins
Production
Chromic
Acid
Anodizing
Commercial
Dry
Cleaning
(
Perchloroethylene)
 
Transfer
Machines
Commercial
Sterilization
Facilities
Decorative
Chromium
Electroplating
Ethylidene
Norbornene
Production
Explosives
Production
Flexible
Polyurethane
Foam
Fabrication
Operations
Friction
Materials
Manufacturing
Halogenated
Solvent
Cleaners
Hard
Chromium
Electroplating
Hydrazine
Production
Industrial
Dry
Cleaning
(
Perchloroethylene)
 
Dry­
to­
dry
Machines
Industrial
Dry
Cleaning
(
Perchloroethylene)
 
Transfer
Machines
Industrial
Process
Cooling
Towers
Leather
Finishing
Operations
Miscellaneous
Vicose
Processes
OBPA/
1,3­
Diisocyanate
Production
Paint
Stripping
Operations
Photographic
Chemicals
Production
Phthalate
Plasticizers
Production
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
Pulp
and
Paper
Production
Rubber
Chemicals
Manufacturing
Rubber
Tire
Manufacturing
Semiconductor
Manufacturing
Symmetrical
Tetrachloropyridine
Production
Wet­
formed
Fiberglass
Mat
Production
Categories
of
Area
Sources:
Chromic
Acid
Anodizing
Commercial
Dry
Cleaning
(
Perchloroethylene)
 
Dry­
to­
Dry
Machines
Commercial
Dry
Cleaning
(
Perchloroethylene)
 
Transfer
Machines
Commercial
Sterilization
Facilities
Decorative
Chromium
Electroplating
Halogenated
Solvent
Cleaners
Hard
Chromium
Electroplating
Hazardous
Waste
Incinerators
Portland
Cement
Production
Secondary
Aluminum
Production
Secondary
Lead
Smelting
This
list
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
To
determine
whether
you
are
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
examine
your
source
category
specific
section
112
regulation.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

Docket
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0038.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Part
63
General
Provisions
(
Subpart
A)

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
17:
59
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
72877
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
and
Section
112(
j)
Regulations
(
Subpart
B)
Litigation
Settlement
Amendments
II
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
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
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Part
63
General
Provisions
(
Subpart
A)
and
Section
112(
j)
Regulations
(
Subpart
B)
Litigation
Settlement
Amendments
II
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
1742).
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying
docket
materials.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
previously
identified.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
If
you
wish
to
submit
CBI
or
information
that
is
otherwise
protected
by
statute,
please
follow
the
instructions
below.
Do
not
use
EPA
Dockets
or
e­
mail
to
submit
CBI
or
information
protected
by
statute.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
To
access
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
from
the
EPA
Internet
Home
Page,
select
``
Information
Sources,''
``
Dockets,''
and
``
EPA
Dockets.''
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0038.
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
a­
and­
r­
Docket@
epa.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0038.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
email
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
Send
your
comments
to:
Part
63
General
Provisions
(
Subpart
A)
and
Section
112(
j)
Regulations
(
Subpart
B)
Litigation
Settlement
Amendments
II,
U.
S.
EPA,
Mailcode:
6102T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0038.
Deliver
your
comments
to:
Public
Reading
Room,
Room
B102,
EPA
West,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0038.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation.
Fax
your
comments
to
202
 
566
 
1741,
Attention
Docket
ID.
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0038.
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
Attention:
Mr.
Rick
Colyer,
c/
o
OAQPS
Document
Control
Officer,
Mailcode
C404
 
02,
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
15:
06
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
72878
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
0038.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
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
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comments
that
includes
any
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comments
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
identified
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

Public
Hearing
Persons
interested
in
presenting
oral
testimony
or
inquiring
as
to
whether
a
hearing
is
to
be
held
should
contact
Ms.
Janet
Eck,
U.
S.
EPA,
Mailcode
C539
 
03,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
(
919)
541
 
7946,
no
later
than
December
17,
2002.
Persons
interested
in
attending
the
public
hearing
must
also
contact
Ms.
Eck
to
verify
the
time,
date,
and
location
of
the
hearing.
The
public
hearing
will
provide
interested
parties
the
opportunity
to
present
data,
views,
or
arguments
concerning
these
proposed
amendments.

Worldwide
Web
(
WWW)
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
today's
proposed
rule
amendments
will
also
be
available
on
the
WWW
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
signature,
a
copy
of
the
rule
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
or
promulgated
rules
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg.
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.
If
more
information
regarding
the
TTN
is
needed,
call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(
919)
541
 
5384.

Applicable
Law
This
rulemaking
is
being
undertaken
pursuant
to
the
procedures
established
by
CAA
section
307(
d).
The
special
procedures
for
rulemakings
governed
by
section
307(
d)
were
utilized
when
EPA
originally
promulgated,
and
when
EPA
subsequently
amended,
each
of
the
rules
to
which
this
proposal
applies.
The
Administrator
has
specifically
determined
that
it
is
appropriate
to
utilize
the
procedures
in
section
307(
d)
for
this
rulemaking.

Outline
The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
Background
A.
General
Provisions
B.
CAA
Section
112(
j)
Provisions
C.
The
Sierra
Club
Litigation
D.
Review
of
Proposed
Settlement
Under
CAA
Section
113(
g)
II.
Proposed
Amendments
to
the
General
Provisions
III.
Proposed
Amendments
to
the
Section
112(
j)
Provisions
A.
New
Schedule
for
Part
2
Applications
B.
Requests
for
Applicability
Determination
C.
Prior
Section
112(
g)
Determinations
D.
Content
of
Part
2
Applications
IV.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
E.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution
or
Use
F.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
G.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
as
Amended
by
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
H.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
I.
Background
A.
General
Provisions
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
list
categories
and
subcategories
of
major
sources
and
area
sources
of
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
HAP)
and
to
establish
NESHAP
for
the
listed
source
categories
and
subcategories.
Major
sources
of
HAP
are
those
that
have
the
potential
to
emit
equal
to
or
greater
than
10
tons/
yr
of
any
one
HAP
or
25
tons/
yr
of
any
combination
of
HAP.
Area
sources
of
HAP
are
those
sources
that
do
not
have
potential
to
emit
equal
to
or
greater
than
10
tons/
yr
of
any
one
HAP
and
25
tons/
yr
of
any
combination
of
HAP.
The
General
Provisions
in
40
CFR
part
63
establish
the
framework
for
emission
standards
and
other
requirements
developed
pursuant
to
section
112
of
the
CAA.
The
General
Provisions
eliminate
the
repetition
of
general
information
and
requirements
in
individual
NESHAP
by
consolidating
all
generally
applicable
information
in
one
location.
They
include
sections
on
applicability,
definitions,
compliance
dates
and
requirements,
monitoring,
recordkeeping
and
reporting,
among
others.
In
addition,
they
include
administrative
sections
concerning
actions
that
the
EPA
(
or
delegated
authorities)
must
take,
such
as
making
determinations
of
applicability,
reviewing
applications
for
approval
of
new
construction,
responding
to
requests
for
extensions
or
waivers
of
applicable
requirements,
and
generally
enforcing
national
air
toxics
standards.
The
General
Provisions
become
applicable
to
a
CAA
section
112(
d)
source
category
rule
when
the
source
category
rule
is
promulgated
and
becomes
effective.
The
NESHAP
General
Provisions
were
first
promulgated
on
March
16,
1994
(
59
FR
12408).
We
subsequently
proposed
a
variety
of
amendments
to
that
initial
rule,
based
in
part
on
settlement
negotiations
with
industrial
trade
organizations
which
had
sought
judicial
review
of
the
rule
and
in
part
on
our
practical
experience
in
developing
and
implementing
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT)
standards
under
the
General
Provisions
(
66
FR
16318,
March
23,
2001).
We
then
promulgated
final
amendments
to
the
General
Provisions
pursuant
to
that
proposal
(
67
FR
16582,
April
5,
2002).

B.
CAA
Section
112(
j)
Provisions
The
1990
Amendments
to
section
112
of
the
CAA
include
a
new
section
112(
j),
which
is
entitled
``
Equivalent
Emission
Limitation
by
Permit.''
Section
112(
j)(
2)
provides
that
the
provisions
of
section
112(
j)
apply
if
the
EPA
misses
a
deadline
for
promulgation
of
a
standard
under
section
112(
d)
established
in
the
source
category
schedule
for
standards.
After
the
effective
date
of
a
title
V
permit
program
in
a
State,
section
112(
j)(
3)
requires
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
source
in
a
source
category,
for
which
the
EPA
failed
to
promulgate
a
section
112(
d)
standard,
to
submit
a
permit
application
18
months
after
the
missed
promulgation
deadline.
We
first
promulgated
a
rule
to
implement
section
112(
j)
on
May
20,
1994
(
59
FR
26429).
We
subsequently
proposed
a
variety
of
amendments
to
that
initial
rule,
based
in
part
on
settlement
negotiations
with
industrial
trade
organizations
which
had
sought
judicial
review
of
the
rule
and
in
part
on
our
own
further
evaluation
of
the
existing
procedures
(
66
FR
16318,
March
23,
2001).
We
then
promulgated
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
15:
06
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
72879
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
final
amendments
to
the
section
112(
j)
rule,
along
with
our
final
amendments
to
the
General
Provisions
(
67
FR
16582,
April
5,
2002).

C.
The
Sierra
Club
Litigation
We
promulgated
the
final
rule
amending
the
MACT
General
Provisions
and
the
requirements
for
case­
by­
case
determinations
under
Clean
Air
Act
section
112(
j)
on
April
5,
2002
(
67
FR
16582).
The
Sierra
Club
filed
a
petition
seeking
judicial
review
of
that
final
rule
on
April
25,
2002,
Sierra
Club
v.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
No.
02
 
1135
(
D.
C.
Circuit).
Sierra
Club
also
filed
a
petition
seeking
administrative
reconsideration
of
certain
provisions
in
the
final
rule,
pursuant
to
CAA
section
307(
d)(
7)(
B).
Shortly
after
the
filing
of
the
petition,
EPA
commenced
discussions
with
Sierra
Club
concerning
a
settlement
agreement.
We
reached
initial
agreement
with
Sierra
Club
on
the
terms
of
a
settlement
and
lodged
the
tentative
agreement
with
the
court
on
August
15,
2002.
Under
the
proposed
settlement,
we
agreed
to
propose
a
rule
to
make
specified
amendments
to
the
General
Provisions
and
section
112(
j)
rules
no
later
than
2
months
after
signature
and
to
take
final
action
on
the
proposed
amendments
within
7
months
after
signature.

D.
Review
of
Proposed
Settlement
Under
CAA
Section
113(
g)
As
required
by
section
113(
g)
of
the
CAA,
EPA
published
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
affording
interested
persons
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
terms
of
the
proposed
settlement
in
Sierra
Club
v.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
No.
02
 
1135
(
D.
C.
Circuit)
(
67
FR
54804,
August
26,
2002).
In
response
to
that
notice,
we
received
110
timely
comments,
the
vast
majority
of
which
opposed
one
or
more
provisions
of
the
proposed
settlement.
While
we
do
not
believe
we
are
legally
required
to
discuss
or
summarize
our
review
of
the
comments
on
the
proposed
settlement
we
received
as
part
of
the
process
required
by
section
113(
g),
we
think
it
is
appropriate
in
this
instance
to
describe
our
assessment
of
and
response
to
certain
of
these
comments.
Virtually
all
of
the
commenters
expressed
concern
about
the
practical
consequences
of
the
proposal
to
reduce
the
time
between
the
section
112(
j)
Part
1
and
Part
2
applications
from
24
months
to
12
months.
We
agree
with
the
commenters
that
this
approach
would
have
resulted
in
wasteful
expenditures
by
the
applicants
and
the
permitting
agencies
to
prepare
and
to
process
permit
applications
which
in
all
likelihood
would
never
have
been
acted
upon.
Given
the
strong
opposition
to
this
approach
reflected
in
the
comments
both
by
industry
sources
and
organizations
and
by
State
and
local
permitting
authorities,
we
were
pleased
when
Sierra
Club
agreed
to
discuss
modifying
the
proposed
settlement
to
establish
an
alternative
timetable
for
submission
of
Part
2
section
112(
j)
applications.
Organizations
representing
the
State
and
local
permitting
authorities
played
a
very
helpful
role
in
the
discussions
concerning
a
revised
settlement.
These
organizations
noted
that
EPA
had
already
reached
an
agreement
with
Sierra
Club
on
a
schedule
for
promulgation
of
all
remaining
MACT
standards
that
were
included
on
the
original
schedule
established
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112(
e)(
1)
and
(
3).
We
anticipate
that
this
agreed
upon
schedule
for
promulgation
of
the
remaining
MACT
standards
will
be
incorporated
in
a
forthcoming
consent
decree
in
Sierra
Club
v.
Whitman,
01
 
1337
(
D.
D.
C.).
The
State
and
local
governmental
organizations
suggested
that
a
timetable
which
would
require
submission
of
section
112(
j)
Part
2
applications
only
if
the
agreed
upon
schedule
is
not
met
would
both
eliminate
the
expenditure
of
significant
resources
on
an
ultimately
futile
process
and
create
new
incentives
for
EPA
and
the
other
stakeholders
to
cooperate
in
meeting
the
promulgation
schedule.
After
Sierra
Club
agreed
to
consider
the
alternative
approach
suggested
by
the
State
and
local
governmental
organizations,
EPA
and
Sierra
Club
then
negotiated
a
revised
settlement
based
on
that
approach.
Under
the
timetable
we
are
proposing
pursuant
to
the
revised
settlement,
section
112(
j)
Part
2
applications
for
affected
sources
in
those
categories
for
which
MACT
standards
are
scheduled
to
be
promulgated
while
this
rulemaking
is
pending
will
be
due
on
May
15,
2003,
and
section
112(
j)
Part
2
applications
for
affected
sources
in
categories
for
which
the
MACT
standards
are
scheduled
to
be
promulgated
thereafter
will
be
due
60
days
after
the
corresponding
scheduled
promulgation
dates.
In
the
revised
settlement,
we
have
also
agreed
to
propose
the
same
amendments
to
the
General
Provisions
concerning
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
(
SSM)
plans
which
were
set
forth
in
the
original
settlement.
Although
we
received
numerous
comments
opposing
these
amendments
as
well,
we
believe
that
many
of
these
comments
materially
misconstrued
both
the
intent
and
the
effect
of
these
proposed
amendments.
In
any
case,
we
note
that
there
will
be
a
full
opportunity
for
those
who
have
concerns
regarding
either
the
need
for
or
the
effect
of
these
amendments
to
comment
during
this
rulemaking.
We
also
believe
these
comments
are
likely
to
be
more
constructive
and
appropriately
focused
when
the
commenters
have
had
an
opportunity
to
review
our
explanation
of
the
basis
for
these
proposed
amendments
set
forth
below.
The
EPA
and
Sierra
Club
executed
a
final
settlement
agreement
in
Sierra
Club
v.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
No.
02
 
1135
(
DC
Circuit),
and
filed
it
with
the
Court
on
November
26,
2002.
This
rulemaking
is
being
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
that
final
agreement.

II.
Proposed
Amendments
to
the
General
Provisions
In
today's
action,
we
are
proposing
to
make
several
changes
in
the
section
of
the
General
Provisions
rule
that
establishes
general
procedures
for
preparation,
maintenance,
and
periodic
revision
of
SSM
plans.
We
consider
these
proposed
revisions
to
be
modest
in
character,
and
we
believe
they
are
generally
consistent
with
the
policies
articulated
in
the
preamble
when
we
proposed
the
last
set
of
amendments
concerning
SSM
plans.
We
are
also
proposing
to
revise
a
new
recordkeeping
provision
which
we
adopted
in
the
prior
rulemaking
in
response
to
a
comment
we
received,
because
we
have
concluded
that
the
new
recordkeeping
provision
is
too
broad
in
its
effect.
We
are
proposing
some
minor
changes
in
the
language
in
40
CFR
63.6(
e)(
1)(
i)
to
correct
a
potential
problem
in
interpreting
the
relationship
between
the
general
duty
to
minimize
emissions
established
by
that
section
and
a
facility's
compliance
with
its
SSM
plan.
That
section
was
modified
in
the
last
rulemaking
because
it
appeared
at
that
time
to
impose
on
a
source
a
general
duty
to
further
reduce
emissions,
even
when
the
source
is
already
in
full
compliance
with
the
applicable
MACT
standards.
We
deemed
this
result
to
be
unreasonable
and
made
corresponding
changes
in
the
language
of
the
rule.
We
emphasize
that
nothing
in
today's
proposal
is
intended
to
alter
our
determination
that
the
general
duty
to
minimize
emissions
is
satisfied
when
emission
levels
required
by
the
MACT
standard
have
been
achieved.
However,
as
part
of
these
changes,
we
adopted
some
language
which
could
be
construed
as
contrary
to
the
policies
regarding
the
relationship
between
the
general
duty
to
minimize
emissions
and
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
15:
06
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
72880
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
SSM
plans
which
we
stated
in
the
preamble
of
the
proposal
of
the
original
amendments.
We
note
at
the
outset
that
SSM
plans
must
be
drafted
in
a
manner
which
satisfies
the
general
duty
to
minimize
emissions
(
40
CFR
63.6(
e)(
3)(
i)(
A)).
Thus,
compliance
with
a
properly
drafted
SSM
plan
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
will
necessarily
also
constitute
compliance
with
the
duty
to
minimize
emissions,
even
though
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards
themselves
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
may
not
be
practicable.
However,
in
the
proposal
preamble
to
the
original
amendments,
we
stated
explicitly
that
``
compliance
with
an
inadequate
or
improperly
developed
SSM
plan
is
no
defense
for
failing
to
minimize
emissions''
(
66
FR
16327,
March
23,
2001).
We
note
that
this
understanding
of
the
effect
of
the
amendments
was
explicitly
restated
in
comments
by
the
organizations
that
represent
the
agencies
that
generally
enforce
these
requirements,
the
State
and
Territorial
Air
Pollution
Program
Administrators
(
STAPPA)
and
the
Association
of
Local
Air
Pollution
Control
Officials
(
ALAPCO).
See
Docket
A
 
2001
 
02.
Sierra
Club
subsequently
pointed
out
to
us
that
the
actual
language
of
the
section
as
promulgated
could
be
construed
to
indicate
that
a
facility
that
complies
with
its
SSM
plan
 
regardless
of
whether
the
plan
is
inadequate
or
improperly
developed
 
thereby
satisfies
its
general
duty
to
minimize
emissions.
We
did
not
intend
this
result.
We
believe
such
a
construction
could
encourage
potential
abuse,
particularly
because
SSM
plans
do
not
have
to
be
reviewed
or
approved
by
the
permitting
authority
before
they
take
effect,
and
because
such
plans
may
also
be
revised
by
the
facility
without
prior
notice
to
the
permitting
authority.
The
revisions
to
40
CFR
63.6(
e)(
1)(
i)
which
we
are
proposing
today
are
intended
to
assure
that
this
section
is
not
construed
in
this
manner.
Nothing
in
these
revisions
is
intended
either
to
change
the
general
principle
that
compliance
with
a
MACT
standard
is
not
mandatory
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
or
to
require
a
source
to
further
minimize
emissions
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
once
it
has
achieved
levels
which
would
constitute
compliance
with
the
MACT
standard
at
other
times.
We
are
also
proposing
some
changes
to
40
CFR
63.6(
e)(
3)(
v),
the
section
that
governs
submission
of
SSM
plans
to
the
EPA
Administrator,
and
to
the
State
or
local
permitting
authorities
which
operate
as
the
Administator's
authorized
representatives.
The
present
rule
provides
that
the
current
SSM
plan
must
be
made
available
upon
request
to
the
Administrator
for
``
inspection
and
copying.''
The
``
Administrator''
is
defined
to
include
a
State
which
has
received
delegation
and
is
therefore
the
Administrator's
``
authorized
representative''
(
40
CFR
63.2).
We
stated
in
the
preamble
of
the
proposal
for
the
previous
amendments
that
the
permit
writer
or
the
Administrator
may
also
require
submission
of
the
SSM
plan
(
66
FR
16326,
March
23,
2001).
This
is
sensible
because
the
SSM
plan
is
an
integral
part
of
the
permit
file,
regardless
of
whether
the
plan
is
physically
available
at
the
EPA
Regional
Office
or
the
permitting
authority
that
has
received
delegation
or
is
maintained
only
at
the
affected
source.
However,
we
note
that
the
present
rule
does
not
expressly
require
that
SSM
plans
be
submitted
to
the
Administrator
or
to
the
permitting
authority
upon
request.
This
potential
omission
was
also
noted
in
previous
comments
by
STAPPA/
ALAPCO.
See
Docket
A
 
2001
 
02.
SSM
plans
are
developed
in
connection
with
individual
MACT
standards
promulgated
under
CAA
section
112
and
are
therefore
covered
by
CAA
section
114(
a).
Under
CAA
section
114(
c)
and
40
CFR
70.4(
b)(
3)(
viii),
information
in
SSM
plans
must
be
made
available
to
the
public,
unless
the
submitter
makes
a
satisfactory
showing
that
disclosure
would
divulge
methods
or
processes
that
are
entitled
to
protection
under
the
Trade
Secrets
Act,
18
U.
S.
C.
1905.
SSM
plans
are
considered
to
be
submitted
to
the
Administrator
under
CAA
Section
114
even
if
they
are
submitted
to
a
State
or
local
agency
acting
on
the
Administrator's
behalf
(
40
CFR
2.301(
b)(
2)).
Sierra
Club
has
expressed
concern
about
the
adequacy
of
the
provisions
in
the
present
rule
to
assure
the
degree
of
public
access
to
SSM
plans
required
by
law.
In
particular,
Sierra
Club
is
concerned
that
some
permitting
authorities
might
not
construe
the
rule
to
require
that
an
SSM
plan
be
obtained
from
the
affected
source
when
it
is
requested
by
a
member
of
the
public,
and
that
the
rule
does
not
expressly
require
submission
of
an
SSM
plan
when
the
permitting
authority
or
Administrator
requests
it.
Although
the
rule
clearly
requires
that
such
plans
must
be
made
available
for
inspection
and
copying
by
EPA
or
the
permitting
authority,
Sierra
Club
believes
that
interested
members
of
the
public
may
encounter
protracted
delays
in
obtaining
access
to
the
non­
confidential
portions
of
an
SSM
plan.
We
understand
these
concerns
about
the
practicality
of
public
access
under
the
present
system,
and
we
have
agreed
to
propose
some
revisions
to
the
rule
to
facilitate
better
public
access.
The
new
language
requires
sources
to
submit
a
copy
of
the
SSM
plan
to
the
permitting
authority
at
the
time
it
is
first
adopted
and
when
it
is
subsequently
revised.
In
most
instances,
revised
versions
of
the
SSM
plan
may
be
submitted
with
the
semiannual
report
required
by
40
CFR
63.10(
d)(
5).
Under
our
proposal,
the
source
may
elect
to
submit
the
SSM
plan
in
an
electronic
format.
If
the
submitter
claims
that
any
portion
of
an
SSM
plan,
or
any
revision
of
an
SSM
plan,
is
CBI
entitled
to
protection
under
section
114(
c)
of
the
CAA
or
40
CFR
2.301,
the
material
which
is
claimed
as
confidential
must
be
clearly
designated
in
the
submission.
While
the
applicable
law
generally
requires
that
we
provide
public
access
to
those
portions
of
SSM
plans
which
are
not
entitled
to
confidentiality
under
the
Trade
Secrets
Act,
we
note
that
it
is
hypothetically
possible
that
some
information
in
a
particular
SSM
plan
would
be
deemed
to
be
sensitive
from
a
Homeland
Security
perspective.
In
most
instances,
we
think
that
such
sensitive
information
would
also
be
entitled
to
confidential
treatment
under
CAA
section
114(
c).
However,
we
note
that
the
entire
Federal
government
is
presently
reviewing
public
access
requirements
to
assure
that
they
are
compatible
with
Homeland
Security,
and
it
is
possible
that
we
may
in
the
future
propose
other
changes
in
public
access
to
SSM
plans
as
part
of
this
important
effort.
We
note
that
many
sources
have
already
adopted
SSM
plans,
and
that
the
language
we
are
proposing
does
not
establish
a
specific
transitional
process
for
submission
of
those
existing
plans
to
permitting
authorities.
If
we
adopt
the
proposed
changes,
we
want
to
minimize
the
burden
and
disruption
associated
with
this
transition,
and
we
are
requesting
comment
on
how
this
may
best
be
accomplished.
One
option
would
be
to
provide
a
specific
time
period
within
which
the
existing
plans
must
be
submitted.
Another
option
would
be
to
require
that
the
plans
be
submitted
as
part
of
the
next
semiannual
compliance
report.
We
are
also
proposing
a
change
to
40
CFR
63.6(
e)(
3)(
vii).
The
current
rule
provides
that
EPA
or
the
permitting
authority
``
may''
require
that
an
SSM
plan
be
revised
if
certain
specified
deficiencies
are
found.
However,
we
cannot
envision
any
circumstance
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
15:
06
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
72881
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
where
revision
of
an
SSM
plan
should
not
be
mandatory
if
it
is
specifically
found
to
be
deficient
by
EPA
or
the
permitting
authority
according
to
one
of
the
criteria
set
forth
in
this
section.
Therefore,
we
have
agreed
to
propose
to
change
the
language
to
make
such
revisions
mandatory
rather
than
discretionary.
We
are
required
to
propose
all
of
the
foregoing
amendments
to
the
SSM
plan
provisions
in
the
MACT
General
Provisions
rule
by
the
final
settlement
agreement
that
we
executed
with
Sierra
Club.
We
solicit
comments
on
all
these
proposals.
In
addition
to
the
proposals
required
under
our
final
settlement
agreement
with
Sierra
Club,
we
are
also
proposing
to
revise
a
provision
concerning
reporting
of
SSM
events
which
we
adopted
in
the
previous
rulemaking
in
response
to
comments
we
received.
We
have
concluded
that
the
new
language
we
adopted
was
unnecessarily
broad
in
its
scope
and
we
are
proposing
to
substantially
narrow
its
applicability.
During
the
previous
rulemaking
concerning
revisions
to
the
General
Provisions
and
section
112(
j)
rules,
we
received
comments
from
STAPPA/
ALAPCO
indicating
that
it
would
assist
permitting
agencies
in
performing
their
oversight
function
if
facilities
were
required
to
include
the
number
and
a
description
of
all
malfunctions
that
occurred
during
the
prior
reporting
period
in
the
required
semiannual
report.
See
Docket
A
 
2001
 
02.
In
response
to
that
comment,
we
added
a
new
reporting
obligation
to
the
language
governing
periodic
SSM
reporting
in
40
CFR
63.10(
d)(
5)(
i).
However,
the
language
we
added
was
not
limited
to
malfunctions
and
required
that
the
facility
report
``
the
number,
duration,
and
a
brief
description
of
each
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.''
We
have
concluded
that
the
inclusion
of
startups
and
shutdowns
in
this
reporting
requirement
is
unnecessary
and
burdensome.
With
respect
to
malfunctions,
the
rule
expressly
requires
that
the
SSM
plan
must
be
revised
by
the
facility
if
there
is
an
event
meeting
the
characteristics
of
a
malfunction
which
is
not
addressed
by
the
plan
(
40
CFR
63.6(
e)(
3)(
vii).
Although
the
facility
is
required
by
40
CFR
63.6(
e)(
3)(
iv)
to
immediately
report
those
instances
where
the
actions
it
takes
are
not
in
conformity
with
the
SSM
plan
and
the
standard
is
exceeded,
this
provision
may
not
be
sufficient
to
give
the
permitting
authority
all
the
information
it
needs
to
assure
that
SSM
plans
properly
address
all
types
of
malfunctions.
Thus,
we
think
that
the
requirement
that
the
owner
or
operator
report
the
number,
duration,
and
type
of
malfunctions
which
occurred
during
the
prior
reporting
period
may
provide
useful
information
to
the
permitting
authority.
We
recognize
that
some
sources
are
concerned
that
the
requirement
to
periodically
report
malfunctions
may
be
interpreted
to
require
reporting
of
minor
problems
that
have
no
impact
on
emissions.
However,
we
do
not
construe
the
provision
in
this
manner.
Under
our
regulations,
``
malfunction''
is
defined
as
``
any
sudden,
infrequent,
and
not
reasonably
preventable
failure
of
air
pollution
control
and
monitoring
equipment,
process
equipment,
or
a
process
to
operate
in
a
normal
or
usual
manner.''
See
40
CFR
63.2.
Only
those
events
that
meet
this
definition
would
be
subject
to
the
reporting
requirement.
During
an
event
that
meets
this
definition,
the
facility
is
not
required
to
comply
with
otherwise
applicable
emission
limits,
and
the
SSM
plan
must
specify
alternative
procedures
which
satisfy
the
general
duty
to
minimize
emissions.
Minor
or
routine
events
that
have
no
appreciable
impact
on
the
ability
of
a
source
to
meet
the
standard
need
not
be
classified
by
the
source
as
a
malfunction,
addressed
in
the
SSM
plan,
or
included
in
periodic
reports.
Thus,
if
a
source
experiences
a
minor
problem
that
does
not
affect
its
ability
to
meet
the
applicable
emission
standard,
the
problem
need
not
be
addressed
by
the
SSM
plan
and
would
not
be
a
reportable
``
malfunction''
under
our
regulations.
Unlike
malfunctions,
we
think
that
the
extension
of
this
requirement
to
startups
and
shutdowns
was
unwarranted.
In
some
industries,
startup
and
shutdown
events
are
numerous
and
routine.
So
long
as
the
provisions
of
the
SSM
plan
are
followed,
there
does
not
appear
to
be
any
real
utility
in
requiring
that
each
individual
startup
and
shutdown
be
reported
or
described.
In
those
instances
where
a
startup
and
shutdown
includes
actions
which
do
not
conform
to
the
SSM
plan
and
the
standard
is
exceeded,
the
facility
is
otherwise
required
to
promptly
report
these
deviations
from
the
plan.
We
encourage
all
interested
parties
to
comment
both
on
our
proposal
to
delete
startups
and
shutdowns
from
this
reporting
provision,
and
on
our
rationale
for
the
retention
of
the
periodic
reporting
of
malfunctions.
In
addition
to
seeking
comment
on
the
revisions
to
the
provisions
governing
SSM
plans
described
above,
we
are
also
requesting
comment
concerning
two
other
changes
to
the
General
Provisions
which
we
made
during
the
prior
rulemaking
in
response
to
industry
comments.
During
the
prior
rulemaking,
the
Colorado
Association
of
Commerce
and
Industry
suggested
that
we
revise
the
definition
of
``
monitoring''
in
40
CFR
63.2
to
include
the
phrase
``
or
to
verify
a
work
practice
standard.''
See
Docket
item
No.
IV
 
D
 
03.
There
are
times
when
we
must
adopt
a
work
practice
standard
under
CAA
section
112(
h)
rather
than
an
emission
standard
under
CAA
section
112(
d),
and
compliance
with
such
a
work
practice
standard
is
sometimes
verified
by
activities
which
may
not
require
``*
*
*
collection
and
use
of
measurement
data
or
other
information
to
control
the
operation
of
a
process
or
pollution
control
device
*
*
*''
Therefore,
we
thought
that
the
suggested
revision
was
a
sensible
one.
However,
because
the
additional
language
was
not
originally
proposed
by
EPA,
and
it
has
been
subsequently
suggested
that
this
revision
might
have
unintended
consequences,
we
have
decided
to
take
additional
comment
concerning
the
value
of
this
language
and
the
effects
it
might
have
when
read
in
conjunction
with
other
regulatory
requirements,
including
other
provisions
of
the
General
Provisions.
In
the
prior
rulemaking,
we
also
made
a
small
change
in
the
language
of
40
CFR
63.9(
h)(
2)(
ii)
by
adding
the
phrase
``(
or
activities
that
have
the
same
compliance
date)''
in
response
to
a
comment
submitted
by
Dow
Chemical
Company.
See
Docket
item
No.
IV
 
D
 
19.
Although
separate
notices
are
appropriate
for
compliance
obligations
with
different
compliance
dates
(
e.
g.,
equipment
leaks
versus
process
vents),
Dow
was
concerned
that
separate
compliance
reports
might
be
required
for
compliance
obligations
that
have
the
same
date
and
requested
the
option
of
filing
a
single
compliance
status
report
covering
multiple
compliance
obligations.
Because
the
new
language
in
question
was
not
originally
proposed
by
EPA,
and
some
have
questioned
whether
it
clearly
achieves
the
intended
purpose,
we
have
decided
to
request
additional
comment
concerning
the
need
for
this
change
and
potential
alternatives.

III.
Proposed
Amendments
to
the
Section
112(
j)
Provisions
A.
New
Schedule
for
Part
2
Applications
The
final
settlement
agreement
which
we
have
executed
with
Sierra
Club
requires
us
to
propose
to
replace
the
existing
schedule
for
submission
of
section
112(
j)
Part
2
applications,
under
which
most
Part
2
applications
would
have
been
due
on
May
15,
2004,
with
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
15:
06
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
72882
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
a
schedule
which
will
establish
a
specific
deadline
for
submission
of
Part
2
applications
for
all
affected
sources
in
a
given
category
or
subcategory.
With
respect
to
those
listed
categories
or
subcategories
for
which
MACT
standards
are
scheduled
to
be
promulgated
by
November
30,
2002
or
by
February
28,
2003,
we
are
proposing
a
Part
2
application
deadline
of
May
15,
2003.
Establishing
an
earlier
deadline
for
these
sources
would
not
be
practicable
because
we
do
not
anticipate
completing
this
rulemaking
until
April
2003.
With
respect
to
those
categories
or
subcategories
for
which
MACT
standards
are
scheduled
to
be
promulgated
at
a
later
time,
we
are
proposing
Part
2
application
deadlines
which
are
60
days
after
each
respective
scheduled
promulgation
date.
The
deadlines
for
Part
2
applications
which
we
are
proposing
for
each
category
or
subcategory
are
set
forth
below
in
Tables
1
and
2
of
this
preamble.

TABLE
1.
 
SECTION
112(
j)
PART
2
APPLICATION
DUE
DATES
Due
date
MACT
standard
5/
15/
03
..................................................
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
Flexible
Polyurethane
Foam
Fabrication
Operations
Coke
Ovens:
Pushing,
Quenching,
and
Battery
Stacks
Reinforced
Plastic
Composites
Production
Semiconductor
Manufacturing
Refractories
Manufacturing
1
Brick
and
Structural
Clay
Products
Manufacturing,
and
Clay
Ceramics
Manufacturing
2
Asphalt
Roofing
Manufacturing
and
Asphalt
Processing
3
Integrated
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
and
Fumed
Silica
4
Engine
Test
Facilities
and
Rocket
Testing
Facilities
3
Metal
Furniture
(
Surface
Coating)
Printing,
Coating,
and
Dyeing
of
Fabrics
Wood
Building
Products
(
Surface
Coating)
10/
30/
03
................................................
Combustion
Turbines
Lime
Manufacturing
Site
Remediation
Iron
and
Steel
Foundries
Taconite
Iron
Ore
Processing
Miscellaneous
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing
(
MON)
5
Organic
Liquids
Distribution
Primary
Magnesium
Refining
Metal
Can
(
Surface
Coating)
Plastic
Parts
and
Products
(
Surface
Coating)
Chlorine
Production
Miscellaneous
Metal
Parts
and
Products
(
Surface
Coating)
(
and
Asphalt/
Coal
Tar
Application
 
Metal
Pipes)
3
4/
28/
04
..................................................
Industrial
Boilers,
Institutional/
Commercial
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
6
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
Reciprocating
Internal
Combustion
Engines
Auto
and
Light­
Duty
Truck
(
Surface
Coating)
8/
13/
05
..................................................
Industrial
Boilers,
Institutional/
Commercial
Boilers,
and
Process
Heaters
7
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
8
1
Includes
Chromium
Refractories
Production.
2
Two
subcategories
of
Clay
Products
Manufacturing.
3
Two
source
categories.
4
Includes
all
sources
within
the
category
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production
that
burn
no
hazardous
waste,
and
all
sources
in
the
category
Fumed
Silica.
5
Covers
23
source
categories,
see
Table
2
of
this
preamble.
6
Includes
all
sources
in
the
three
categories,
Industrial
Boilers,
Institutional/
Commercial
Boilers,
and
Process
Heaters
that
burn
no
hazardous
waste.
7
Includes
all
sources
in
the
three
categories,
Industrial
Boilers,
Institutional/
Commercial
Boilers,
and
Process
Heaters
that
burn
hazardous
waste.
8
Includes
furnaces
that
produce
acid
from
hazardous
waste
at
sources
in
the
category
Hydrochloric
Acid
Production.

TABLE
2.
 
MON
SOURCE
CATEGORIES
Manufacture
of
Paints,
Coatings,
and
Adhesives
Alkyd
Resins
Production
Maleic
Anhydride
Copolymers
Production
Polyester
Resins
Production
Polymerized
Vinylidene
Chloride
Production
Polymethyl
Methacrylate
Resins
Production
Polyvinyl
Acetate
Emulsions
Production
Polyvinly
Alcohol
Production
Polyvinyl
Butyral
Production
Ammonium
Sulfate
Production
 
Caprolactam
By­
Product
Plants
TABLE
2.
 
MON
SOURCE
CATEGORIES
 
Continued
Quaternary
Ammonium
Compounds
Production
Benzyltrimethylammonium
Chloride
Production
Carbonyl
Sulfide
Production
Chelating
Agents
Production
Chlorinated
Paraffins
Production
Ethylidene
Norbornene
Production
Explosives
Production
Hydrazine
Production
OBPA/
1,3­
Diisocyanate
Production
TABLE
2.
 
MON
SOURCE
CATEGORIES
 
Continued
Photographic
Chemicals
Production
Phthalate
Plasticizers
Production
Rubber
Chemicals
Manufacturing
Symmetrical
Tetrachloropyridine
Production
We
have
always
been
reluctant
to
establish
any
timetable
which
would
require
submission
of
a
large
number
of
Part
2
applications
which
would
in
all
likelihood
never
be
acted
upon
by
the
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
15:
06
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
72883
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
permitting
authorities.
Submission
of
Part
2
applications
would
generally
be
a
futile
exercise
in
those
instances
where
a
final
Federal
MACT
standard
governing
the
facilities
in
question
is
scheduled
for
promulgation
prior
to
the
18­
month
deadline
for
action
on
the
applications
by
the
respective
permitting
authorities.
It
has
been
our
consistent
view
that
requiring
submission
of
such
applications
would
represent
an
unwarranted
expenditure
of
private
and
public
resources.
Thus,
we
are
pleased
that
the
proposed
schedule
under
the
final
settlement
will
permit
us
to
avoid
such
a
wasteful
exercise
unless
there
are
further
delays
in
promulgation
of
the
remaining
MACT
standards.
We
note
also
that
the
prompt
and
significant
consequences
if
a
promulgation
deadline
is
missed
will
create
new
incentives
for
EPA
and
the
other
stakeholders
to
assure
that
the
agreed
upon
promulgation
deadlines
are
met.
We
recognize
that
the
proposed
schedule
for
submission
of
section
112(
j)
Part
2
applications
leaves
relatively
little
time
for
sources
to
prepare
and
submit
such
applications
if
a
particular
promulgation
deadline
is
missed.
In
recognition
of
the
tight
time
frames,
we
will
try
to
provide
prompt
advance
notice
to
affected
sources
and
to
permitting
authorities
if
we
have
reason
to
believe
that
we
will
not
be
able
to
meet
an
impending
promulgation
deadline
for
a
particular
MACT
standard.
We
note
that
the
MACT
standards
for
which
we
are
proposing
a
Part
2
application
deadline
of
May
15,
2003
are
actually
scheduled
to
be
promulgated
while
this
rulemaking
is
in
progress.
There
will
be
no
need
to
adopt
a
Part
2
application
deadline
for
affected
sources
in
any
category
for
which
a
final
MACT
standard
has
been
promulgated
under
CAA
section
112(
d)
and/
or
(
h)
prior
to
the
completion
of
this
rulemaking.
We
are
proposing
to
state
explicitly
in
the
amendments
to
the
section
112(
j)
rule
that
no
further
process
to
develop
a
case­
by­
case
MACT
determination
under
section
112(
j)
is
required
for
any
source
once
a
generally
applicable
Federal
MACT
standard
governing
that
source
has
been
promulgated.
The
revised
timetable
for
submission
of
Part
2
applications
we
are
proposing
requires
significant
changes
in
the
structure
of
the
existing
section
112(
j)
rule.
In
contrast
to
the
current
general
timetable
for
Part
2
applications,
which
applies
to
all
of
the
remaining
MACT
standards
which
were
included
in
the
schedule
adopted
under
CAA
section
112(
e)(
1)
and
(
3),
we
are
proposing
a
phased
timetable
for
Part
2
applications
with
different
dates
for
sources
in
different
categories
based
on
the
scheduled
promulgation
date.
We
are
also
proposing
to
make
the
new
schedule
as
uniform
as
practicable
for
all
affected
sources
in
each
category
or
subcategory,
regardless
of
whether
the
source
in
question
has
previously
requested
an
applicability
determination
under
40
CFR
63.52(
e)(
2)(
i)
or
has
previously
obtained
a
case­
by­
case
determination
under
CAA
section
112(
g).
These
proposed
changes
will
require
that
the
existing
section
112(
j)
rule
be
substantially
rewritten.
In
order
to
allow
the
rulemaking
process
required
by
the
final
settlement
agreement
to
proceed
expeditiously
and
to
encourage
commenters
to
focus
on
the
broad
issues
presented
by
the
new
approach,
we
are
not
proposing
specific
regulatory
text.
Rather,
we
are
providing
a
detailed
discussion
in
this
preamble
of
the
changes
we
are
proposing
to
make.
While
we
do
not
want
to
discourage
those
commenters
who
want
to
propose
specific
regulatory
text
for
our
consideration,
we
believe
that
comments
will
be
most
constructive
if
they
focus
on
the
larger
question
of
how
the
existing
rule
should
be
restructured
to
achieve
our
proposed
objectives.
When
we
first
proposed
the
creation
of
a
two­
part
process
for
section
112(
j)
applications,
we
specified
a
6­
month
period
between
the
submission
of
the
general
initial
notification
in
the
Part
1
application
and
the
submission
of
more
detailed
supporting
information
in
the
Part
2
application.
That
initial
proposal
was
based
on
the
premise
that
every
applicant
would
automatically
be
given
the
maximum
extension
of
time
to
supplement
an
incomplete
application
that
is
authorized
by
CAA
section
112(
j)(
4).
In
the
final
rule,
we
observed
that
there
is
another
provision
in
the
statute
which
may
be
reasonably
construed
to
provide
authority
for
us
to
establish
an
incremental
process
for
the
submission
of
section
112(
j)
applications.
The
hammer
provision
in
section
112(
j)(
2)
itself
establishes
the
requirement
to
submit
permit
applications
``
beginning
18
months
after''
the
statutory
date
for
promulgation
of
a
standard.
Reading
this
provision
in
context,
we
believe
that
the
statute
can
be
reasonably
construed
as
authorizing
us
to
provide
a
period
of
time
after
the
hammer
date
in
which
the
information
necessary
for
a
fully
informative
section
112(
j)
application
can
be
compiled.
We
have
not
changed
our
view
that
this
is
a
reasonable
construction
of
the
statutory
provision
in
question,
and
we
are
reiterating
this
construction
of
the
statute
as
part
of
our
rationale
for
these
proposed
rule
amendments.

B.
Requests
for
Applicability
Determination
As
we
explained
above,
we
are
proposing
to
establish
a
single
uniform
Part
2
application
deadline
for
all
sources
in
a
given
category
or
subcategory,
which
is
based
in
turn
on
the
agreed
upon
promulgation
date
for
the
MACT
standard
for
that
category
or
subcategory.
However,
to
achieve
this
objective
it
will
be
necessary
to
establish
new
procedures
for
those
affected
sources
which
have
previously
submitted
a
request
for
applicability
determination
under
40
CFR
63.52(
e)(
2)(
i).
That
provision
establishes
a
process
by
which
major
sources
can
request
that
the
permitting
authority
determine
whether
or
not
specific
sources
at
their
facility
belong
in
any
category
or
subcategory
requiring
a
case­
by­
case
determination
under
section
112(
j).
All
requests
for
applicability
determinations
were
due
at
the
same
time
as
the
section
112(
j)
Part
1
applications,
on
May
15,
2002.
Under
the
procedures
in
the
current
rule,
a
negative
determination
by
the
permitting
authority
concerning
such
a
request
means
that
no
further
action
is
required,
while
a
positive
determination
means
that
the
applicant
must
then
submit
a
Part
2
application
within
24
months.
In
order
to
adopt
the
single
uniform
deadline
for
Part
2
applications
for
each
affected
source
in
a
category
or
subcategory
which
we
are
required
to
propose
by
the
final
settlement,
it
is
necessary
to
amend
the
provisions
governing
requests
for
applicability
determinations.
We
lack
precise
information
concerning
how
many
such
requests
for
applicability
determination
were
submitted
to
permitting
authorities
on
or
before
May
15,
2002,
but
we
believe
that
hundreds
of
such
requests
are
pending.
We
know
that
some
of
these
requests
reflect
genuine
uncertainty
concerning
the
scope
of
the
activities
or
equipment
governed
by
a
particular
category
or
subcategory.
For
some
of
these
requests,
the
subsequent
issuance
of
a
proposed
MACT
standard
or
other
subsequent
events
may
have
resolved
such
uncertainty.
However,
we
also
believe
that
many
of
these
requests
were
filed
merely
because
the
filing
of
such
a
request
operated
to
defer
the
deadline
for
submission
of
a
Part
2
application.
Under
the
proposal
required
by
the
final
settlement,
such
an
indefinite
deferral
of
the
Part
2
application
deadline
will
no
longer
be
allowed.

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
15:
06
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
72884
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
We
do
not
seek
to
limit
the
right
of
those
affected
sources
who
may
have
genuine
uncertainty
regarding
the
scope
of
a
particular
category
or
subcategory
to
obtain
a
decision
on
applicability
issues
by
the
permitting
authority,
but
we
also
do
not
want
to
burden
the
permitting
authorities
with
a
process
that
requires
them
to
take
final
action
on
those
pending
requests
which
do
not
present
genuine
applicability
issues.
Accordingly,
we
are
proposing
to
require
that
each
affected
source
which
still
wishes
to
pursue
a
previously
filed
request
for
applicability
determination
under
40
CFR
63.52(
e)(
2)(
i)
which
is
still
pending
must
resubmit
and
supplement
that
request
within
60
days
after
EPA
publishes
final
action
in
this
rulemaking
or
within
60
days
after
EPA
publishes
a
proposed
MACT
standard
for
the
category
or
subcategory
in
question,
whichever
is
later.
Our
experience
tells
us
that
most
uncertainties
regarding
applicability
can
be
resolved
by
applying
the
specific
applicability
language
in
the
proposed
MACT
standard.
That
is
why
we
are
proposing
to
delay
any
requirement
to
resubmit
and
supplement
a
request
for
applicability
determination
until
after
a
proposed
MACT
standard
is
available.
We
are
proposing
to
require
that
each
resubmitted
request
for
an
applicability
determination
be
supplemented
to
specifically
discuss
the
relation
between
the
source(
s)
in
question
and
the
applicability
provision
in
the
proposed
MACT
standard
for
the
category
or
subcategory
in
question,
and
to
explain
why
there
may
still
be
uncertainties
that
require
a
determination
of
applicability.
We
are
also
proposing
to
require
that
the
permitting
authority
act
upon
each
resubmitted
and
supplemented
request
for
an
applicability
determination
within
an
additional
60
days
after
the
applicable
deadline
for
the
resubmitted
request.
We
believe
this
approach
will
preserve
the
rights
of
those
affected
sources
which
still
have
legitimate
applicability
concerns
even
after
issuance
of
a
proposed
MACT
standard.
We
also
expect
there
will
be
a
significant
reduction
in
the
number
of
pending
requests,
since
the
current
procedural
incentives
for
submission
of
such
requests
will
have
been
eliminated.
With
respect
to
those
requests
that
are
resubmitted,
the
proposed
mandatory
supplementation
should
delineate
the
issues
more
clearly
and
improve
the
record
for
a
decision
concerning
the
request
by
the
permitting
authority.
While
we
anticipate
that
the
issuance
of
a
proposed
MACT
standard
will
generally
operate
to
resolve
existing
applicability
issues
rather
than
raising
new
ones,
it
is
hypothetically
possible
that
a
facility
will
have
new
questions
based
on
the
applicability
provision
in
a
proposed
MACT
standard.
There
is
at
present
no
formal
process
for
addressing
such
issues,
but
we
encourage
all
major
sources
that
have
questions
concerning
the
applicability
of
a
proposed
MACT
standard
to
their
operations
or
equipment
to
seek
guidance
from
responsible
personnel
at
the
permitting
authority
and
the
EPA
Regional
Office.
We
note
that
there
are
special
timing
issues
with
respect
to
any
requests
for
applicability
determination
which
have
been
submitted
concerning
sources
that
may
be
in
a
category
or
subcategory
for
which
the
MACT
standard
in
question
is
scheduled
to
be
promulgated
by
November
30,
2002
or
by
February
28,
2003.
There
will
be
no
need
to
address
these
concerns
if
the
standards
are
promulgated
on
schedule.
However,
if
any
one
of
these
standards
is
delayed,
and
if
the
delayed
standard
still
has
not
been
promulgated
by
the
time
we
take
final
action
concerning
this
proposal,
special
procedures
will
be
required.
Those
facilities
which
have
sources
which
may
be
in
such
a
category
or
subcategory,
and
who
previously
submitted
a
request
for
applicability
determination
which
is
still
pending,
cannot
be
required
to
submit
their
Part
2
application
on
May
15,
2003.
In
such
an
instance,
we
propose
that
any
Part
2
application
will
be
required
120
days
after
EPA
publishes
final
action
in
this
rulemaking
if
the
request
for
applicability
determination
is
not
resubmitted
within
60
days
after
publication,
or
within
180
days
after
EPA
publishes
final
action
in
this
rulemaking
if
the
request
is
resubmitted
and
a
determination
concerning
the
request
by
the
permitting
authority
is
required.
We
consider
it
improbable
that
we
will
need
to
adopt
such
procedures,
but
we
are
proposing
them
now
in
the
unlikely
event
they
are
required.
We
note
also
that
those
major
sources
which
elect
to
resubmit
requests
for
applicability
determination
with
respect
to
sources
that
may
be
governed
by
one
of
the
MACT
standards
which
are
scheduled
to
be
promulgated
by
August
31,
2003,
may
not
be
entitled
to
receive
a
determination
by
the
permitting
authority
on
the
resubmitted
request
until
shortly
after
the
scheduled
promulgation
date.
If
such
a
standard
is
delayed,
and
there
is
no
negative
determination
by
the
permitting
authority
on
the
resubmitted
request,
the
Part
2
application
for
sources
within
the
category
in
question
will
be
due
on
October
30,
2003.
This
tight
time
frame
underscores
the
importance
of
careful
coordination
between
such
sources
and
the
permitting
authority
if
it
appears
that
a
MACT
standard
will
be
delayed.
As
discussed
above,
EPA
will
endeavor
to
provide
timely
information
to
affected
sources
and
permitting
authorities
if
it
becomes
apparent
that
the
Agency
will
not
meet
the
promulgation
schedule
for
any
of
the
remaining
MACT
standards.

C.
Prior
Section
112(
g)
Determinations
Our
proposal
to
establish
a
single
uniform
Part
2
application
deadline
for
all
sources
in
a
given
category
or
subcategory
also
requires
that
we
make
some
changes
to
the
current
procedures
governing
CAA
section
112(
j)
applications
for
those
sources
which
have
previously
received
a
case­
by­
case
determination
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112(
g).
In
evaluating
this
question,
it
is
important
to
understand
the
substantive
relationship
between
these
separate
statutory
requirements.
In
general,
we
anticipate
that
emission
control
requirements
established
as
part
of
a
previous
caseby
case
determination
under
section
112(
g)
will
subsequently
be
adopted
by
the
permitting
authority
to
satisfy
any
applicable
section
112(
j)
requirements
as
well.
This
is
because
the
determination
required
for
any
sources
subject
to
CAA
section
112(
g)
is
supposed
to
be
based
on
new
source
MACT,
and
the
subsequent
application
of
section
112(
j)
requirements
to
those
same
sources
will
be
based
on
existing
source
MACT.
Moreover,
to
assure
that
inconsequential
differences
in
emission
control
do
not
result
in
unduly
burdensome
sequential
case­
by­
case
determinations,
the
current
section
112(
j)
rule
requires
the
permitting
authority
to
adopt
any
prior
case­
bycase
determination
under
section
112(
g)
as
its
determination
for
the
same
sources
under
section
112(
j)
if
it
``
determines
that
the
emission
limitations
in
the
prior
case­
by­
case
determination
are
substantially
as
effective
as
the
emission
limitations
which
the
permitting
authority
would
otherwise
adopt
under
section
112(
j).''
See
40
CFR
63.52(
a)(
3),
(
b)(
2),
and
(
e)(
2)(
ii).
Under
the
applicable
provisions
of
the
present
rule,
sources
which
have
previously
obtained
a
case­
by­
case
determination
under
CAA
section
112(
g)
are
generally
required
to
submit
a
request
for
an
``
equivalency
determination''
to
decide
if
the
applicable
section
112(
g)
requirements
are
``
substantially
as
effective''
as
the
requirements
which
would
otherwise
apply
under
section
112(
j).
As
explained
above,
we
believe
that
this
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
15:
06
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
72885
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
determination
will
generally
be
positive.
However,
40
CFR
63.52(
e)(
2)(
ii)
provides
that,
if
such
a
determination
is
negative,
the
source
must
then
submit
a
Part
2
application
within
24
months.
As
in
the
case
of
requests
for
applicability
determination,
changes
to
the
existing
rule
will
be
required
to
place
all
sources
in
a
given
category
or
subcategory
on
the
same
schedule
for
submission
of
Part
2
applications.
However,
in
this
instance,
we
believe
that
the
solution
is
considerably
simpler.
We
are
proposing
to
adopt
the
proposed
Part
2
application
deadline
for
a
given
category
or
subcategory
as
the
final
deadline
for
submission
of
a
request
for
an
``
equivalency
determination''
by
any
affected
source
that
previously
obtained
a
case­
by­
case
determination
under
CAA
section
112(
g).
Under
this
proposal,
those
sources
which
submitted
such
requests
earlier
under
the
provisions
of
the
existing
rule
need
not
resubmit
them.
However,
we
are
also
proposing
that
all
requests
for
an
equivalency
determination,
regardless
of
when
they
were
submitted,
will
be
construed
in
the
alternative
as
a
section
112(
j)
Part
2
application
as
well.
The
effect
of
this
proposal
will
be
to
require
that
the
permitting
authority
first
make
an
equivalency
determination.
In
the
event
of
a
negative
determination,
the
permitting
authority
will
then
proceed
to
adopt
a
separate
set
of
requirements
pursuant
to
section
112(
j).
Under
this
proposal,
this
process
will
be
completed
in
the
same
18­
month
period
that
applies
to
the
processing
of
all
other
Part
2
applications.
This
proposal
will
assure
that
the
deadline
for
submission
of
Part
2
applications
will
be
the
same
for
all
affected
sources
within
a
category
or
subcategory,
regardless
of
whether
a
source
previously
obtained
a
case­
bycase
determination
under
section
112(
g).
We
do
not
think
this
proposal
imposes
any
new
burden
on
sources
or
permitting
authorities,
because
the
permitting
authority
should
already
have
all
of
the
information
required
for
a
Part
2
application
in
any
instance
where
it
is
already
administering
section
112(
g)
requirements
applicable
to
the
same
source.

D.
Content
of
Part
2
Applications
We
are
hopeful
that
no
source
will
be
required
to
submit
a
section
112(
j)
Part
2
application
under
the
schedule
we
are
proposing
in
this
rulemaking.
We
also
note
that
the
Part
2
application
requirements
in
the
current
section
112(
j)
rule
are
significantly
narrower
than
the
application
requirements
in
the
original
section
112(
j)
rule.
However,
in
the
event
that
some
Part
2
applications
must
ultimately
be
submitted,
we
think
it
is
appropriate
to
give
some
additional
guidance
concerning
the
information
they
must
contain
and
to
request
comment
on
a
few
related
issues.
We
believe
that
an
affected
source
submitting
a
Part
2
application
may
elect
to
rely
directly
on
the
content
of
the
applicable
proposed
MACT
standard
in
identifying
affected
emission
points.
We
also
think
that
applicants
may
reasonably
limit
the
information
they
submit
concerning
HAP
emissions
to
those
specific
HAP
or
groups
of
HAP
which
would
be
subject
to
actual
control
in
the
applicable
proposed
MACT
standard.
We
encourage
all
section
112(
j)
Part
2
applicants
to
utilize
the
regulatory
approach
in
the
applicable
proposed
MACT
standard
as
a
practical
template
in
compiling
Part
2
applications.
We
also
encourage
applicants
who
have
previously
submitted
to
the
permitting
authority
some
of
the
information
required
in
the
Part
2
application
to
meet
the
requirements
in
question
by
crossreferencing
such
prior
submissions.
Moreover,
although
the
submission
by
an
affected
source
of
a
proposed
caseby
case
MACT
determination
as
part
of
its
Part
2
application
is
entirely
discretionary,
we
note
that
some
industry
representatives
have
stated
that
they
would
generally
elect
to
include
such
information
as
a
precautionary
matter.
While
we
do
not
seek
to
discourage
this
practice,
we
believe
that
the
burden
associated
with
inclusion
of
such
information
will
not
be
significant
in
instances
where
a
Federal
MACT
standard
has
already
been
proposed,
the
applicable
proposed
standard
has
already
been
evaluated
by
the
facility,
and
the
facility
has
already
had
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
applicable
proposed
standard.
We
also
want
to
do
whatever
we
can
to
minimize
any
unnecessary
burdens
associated
with
submission
of
a
Part
2
application.
We
do
not
want
to
require
the
submission
of
any
information
which
is
not
truly
necessary
to
prepare
for
potential
issuance
of
case­
by­
case
MACT
determinations.
To
that
end,
we
are
requesting
comment
on
the
approach
outlined
above
and
whether
there
may
be
other
ways
to
minimize
any
unnecessary
burden.
We
also
request
comments
on
the
following
specific
questions.
Does
the
applicant
need
to
provide
``
estimated
total
uncontrolled
and
controlled
emission
rates''
to
enable
the
permitting
authority
to
prepare
for
a
potential
case­
by­
case
determination?
If
the
applicant
does
not
have
the
information
required
to
provide
meaningful
estimates
of
emission
rates,
should
new
emission
testing
be
required?
Is
it
appropriate
to
require
individual
applicants
to
submit
``
information
relevant
to
establishing
the
MACT
floor''
in
their
Part
2
applications?
Are
there
any
Part
2
application
requirements
which
can
be
met
simply
by
referring
to
the
applicable
proposed
MACT
standard?

IV.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866,
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993)
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
We
have
determined
that
neither
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
General
Provisions
nor
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
section
112(
j)
rule
are
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
under
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
and
this
proposal
was
therefore
not
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.

B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled,
``
Federalism
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
Federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
Federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''

VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
15:
06
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
72886
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
These
proposed
amendments
do
not
have
Federalism
implications
under
the
terms
of
this
Executive
Order.
We
do
not
believe
that
the
proposed
changes
in
the
General
Provisions
rule
have
any
significant
federalism
implications.
With
respect
to
the
alteration
in
the
schedule
for
submission
of
section
112(
j)
Part
2
applications,
we
note
that
the
CAA
itself
requires
that
State
and
local
permitting
authorities
receive
and
process
applications
for
case­
by­
case
MACT
determinations
pursuant
to
section
112(
j).
This
is
one
of
the
responsibilities
that
State
and
local
permitting
authorities
have
agreed
to
assume.
We
have
tried
to
construe
the
statutory
provisions
in
question
in
a
manner
that
minimizes
the
burden
on
these
agencies
associated
with
this
responsibility.
We
have
determined
that
the
proposed
change
in
the
schedule
for
submission
of
such
applications
does
not
itself
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.
Nevertheless,
in
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA,
State,
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
these
proposed
amendments
from
State
and
local
officials.

C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000)
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes.''
These
proposed
amendments
to
the
General
Provisions
and
the
section
112(
j)
rule
would
not
have
tribal
implications.
They
would
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
or
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
There
are
currently
no
tribal
governments
that
have
approved
title
V
permit
programs
to
which
sources
would
submit
case­
by­
case
permit
applications
under
section
112(
j).
Accordingly,
Executive
Order
13175
would
not
apply
to
this
action.

D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
EPA
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
that
EPA
considered.
The
EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5
 
501
of
the
Executive
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
These
amendments
are
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
they
are
amending
information
collection
requirements
and
do
not
affect
health
or
safety
risks.
Furthermore,
this
rule
has
been
determined
not
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866.

E.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution
or
Use
These
proposed
amendments
are
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
they
are
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

F.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
on
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
costbenefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least­
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least­
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
leastcostly
most
cost­
effective,
or
leastburdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA's
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
The
EPA
has
determined
that
these
proposed
amendments
do
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
in
any
1
year.
We
do
not
expect
annual
expenditures
by
State,
local
and
tribal
governments
in
connection
with
implementation
of
these
amendments
to
exceed
$
100
million.
In
any
case,
any
obligation
of
State
or
local
permitting
authorities
to
take
particular
actions
under
these
proposed
amendments
is
not
directly
enforceable
by
a
court
of
law,
and
any
failure
by
a
State
or
local
permitting
authority
to
meet
such
an
obligation
would
at
most
result
in
a
determination
that
the
permitting
authority
is
not
adequately
administering
its
permit
program
under
CAA
section
502(
i).
Thus,
it
can
be
argued
that
such
obligations
are
not
enforceable
duties
within
the
meaning
of
section
421(
5)(
A)(
i)
of
UMRA,
2
U.
S.
C.
658(
5)(
A)(
i).
Moreover,
even
if
such
obligations
were
deemed
to
be
enforceable
duties,
such
duties
might
be
viewed
as
falling
within
the
exception
for
a
condition
of
Federal
assistance
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
15:
06
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
72887
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
under
section
421(
5)(
A)(
i)(
I),
2
U.
S.
C.
658(
5)(
A)(
i)(
I).
We
have
also
determined
that
the
proposed
amendments
will
not
result
in
expenditures
by
the
private
sector
of
$
100
million
in
any
1
year.
We
fully
expect
to
promulgate
the
remaining
MACT
standards
on
or
near
schedule,
eliminating
the
need
for
sources
to
prepare
and
submit
section
112(
j)
Part
2
applications.
We
recognize
that
some
sources
may
choose
to
begin
preparing
the
Part
2
application,
but
cannot
estimate
the
total
expenditures
this
would
entail,
although
we
believe
it
to
be
only
a
small
fraction
of
the
$
100
million
criterion.
We
also
expect
relatively
few
resubmissions
of
applicability
determination
requests.
In
any
case,
all
such
resubmissions
will
be
done
at
the
source's
discretion,
and
we
expect
the
aggregate
expenditure
on
them
to
be
small.
Based
on
these
determinations,
today's
proposed
amendments
are
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202,
203,
and
205
of
the
UMRA.

G.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
as
Amended
by
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
proposed
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
amendments
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
as
defined
in
each
applicable
subpart,
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
We
have
determined
that
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
General
Provisions
would
not
themselves
cause
any
economic
impacts
on
small
entities.
Rather,
any
economic
impacts
on
small
entities
would
be
associated
with
the
incorporation
of
specific
elements
of
the
General
Provisions
in
the
individual
MACT
standards
which
are
promulgated
for
particular
source
categories.
We
believe
that
adoption
of
the
proposed
amendments
will
not
lead
to
a
substantial
impact
on
small
entities
through
the
incorporation
of
the
General
Provisions
in
individual
MACT
standards.
For
most
MACT
standards,
we
anticipate
that
any
affected
facilities
will
not
be
small
entities.
For
those
MACT
standards
where
small
entities
would
be
affected,
we
believe
any
economic
impact
will
be
minimal
since
the
only
specific
action
which
may
be
required
is
the
submission
to
the
permitting
authority
of
an
existing
document
which
has
already
been
prepared
and
is
on
file
at
the
source.
We
also
have
not
prepared
any
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
for
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
section
112(
j)
rule.
At
this
time,
we
do
not
expect
that
any
Part
2
applications
will
have
to
be
submitted
or
case­
by­
case
determinations
will
have
to
be
made
under
section
112(
j)
and
thus
no
small
businesses
would
be
affected
by
such
determinations.
We
continue
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts.

H.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
As
required
by
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA),
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.,
the
OMB
must
clear
any
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
that
qualify
as
an
information
collection
request
(
ICR)
under
the
PRA.
Approval
of
an
ICR
is
not
required
in
connection
with
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
General
Provisions
rule.
This
is
because
the
General
Provisions
do
not
themselves
require
any
reporting
and
recordkeeping
activities,
and
no
ICR
was
submitted
in
connection
with
their
original
promulgation
or
their
subsequent
amendment.
Any
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
imposed
only
through
the
incorporation
of
specific
elements
of
the
General
Provisions
in
the
individual
MACT
standards
which
are
promulgated
for
particular
source
categories.
In
any
case,
we
believe
that
adoption
of
the
proposed
amendments
will
not
materially
alter
the
burden
imposed
on
affected
sources
through
the
incorporation
of
the
General
Provisions
in
individual
MACT
standards.
We
anticipate
that
any
incremental
changes
in
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
burden
estimate
for
individual
MACT
standards
will
be
addressed
in
the
context
of
the
periodic
renewal
process
required
by
the
PRA.
Approval
is
also
not
required
for
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
section
112(
j)
rule.
We
expect
to
promulgate
all
remaining
MACT
standards
before
the
Part
2
application
due
dates
associated
with
those
standards
(
see
Table
1
of
this
preamble),
which
would
eliminate
the
need
for
sources
to
submit
the
Part
2
application.
Approval
is
also
not
necessary
for
resubmission
of
applicability
determination
requests.
We
expect
there
to
be
few
resubmissions,
and
all
of
these
will
be
entirely
at
the
sources'
discretion;
the
rule
does
not
require
submission
or
resubmission
of
such
requests.
Thus
we
do
not
project
any
recordkeeping
or
reporting
burden
to
be
incurred
by
sources
as
a
result
of
these
amendments.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
Under
section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
(
NTTAA)
of
1995
(
Public
Law
No.
104
 
113),
all
Federal
agencies
are
required
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
(
VCS)
in
their
regulatory
and
procurement
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
business
practices)
developed
or
adopted
by
one
or
more
voluntary
consensus
bodies.
The
NTTAA
requires
Federal
agencies
to
provide
Congress,
through
annual
reports
to
OMB,
with
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
15:
06
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
72888
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
236
/
Monday,
December
9,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
explanations
when
an
agency
does
not
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
These
proposed
amendments
do
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
considering
the
use
of
any
VCS.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
substances,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
December
3,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
cited
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
63
 
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
63
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401,
et
seq.

Subpart
A
 
[
Amended]

2.
Section
63.6
is
amended
by:
a.
Revising
paragraph
(
e)(
1)(
i);
b.
Adding
6
sentences
to
the
beginning
of
paragraph
(
e)(
3)(
v);
and
c.
Revising
the
introductory
text
to
paragraph
(
e)(
3)(
vii).
The
revisions
and
additions
read
as
follows:

§
63.6
Compliance
with
standards
and
maintenance
requirements.

*
*
*
*
*
(
e)
*
*
*
(
1)(
i)
At
all
times,
including
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction,
owners
or
operators
must
operate
and
maintain
any
affected
source,
including
associated
air
pollution
control
equipment
and
monitoring
equipment,
in
a
manner
consistent
with
safety
and
good
air
pollution
control
practices
for
minimizing
emissions
to
the
levels
required
by
the
relevant
standards.
Determination
of
whether
acceptable
operation
and
maintenance
procedures
are
being
used
will
be
based
on
information
available
to
the
Administrator
which
may
include,
but
is
not
limited
to,
monitoring
results,
review
of
operation
and
maintenance
procedures
(
including
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
required
in
paragraph
(
e)(
3)
of
this
section),
review
of
operation
and
maintenance
records,
and
inspection
of
the
source.
*
*
*
*
*
(
3)
*
*
*
(
v)
The
owner
or
operator
must
submit
to
the
Administrator
a
copy
of
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
at
the
time
it
is
first
adopted.
The
owner
or
operator
must
also
submit
to
the
Administrator
a
copy
of
any
subsequent
revisions
of
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
Such
revisions
must
be
submitted
at
the
time
they
are
adopted
if
the
revisions
are
required
in
order
to
adequately
address
an
event
involving
a
type
of
malfunction
not
included
in
the
plan,
or
the
revisions
alter
the
scope
of
the
activities
at
the
source
which
are
deemed
to
be
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
or
otherwise
modify
the
applicability
of
any
emission
limit,
work
practice
requirement,
or
other
requirement
in
a
standard
established
under
this
part.
All
other
revisions
to
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
may
be
submitted
with
the
semiannual
report
required
by
§
63.10(
d)(
5).
The
owner
or
operator
may
elect
to
submit
the
required
copy
of
the
initial
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
and
of
all
subsequent
revisions
to
the
plan,
in
an
electronic
format.
If
the
owner
or
operator
claims
that
any
portion
of
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
or
any
revision
of
the
plan,
submitted
to
the
Administrator
is
confidential
business
information
entitled
to
protection
under
section
114(
c)
of
the
CAA
or
40
CFR
2.301,
the
material
which
is
claimed
as
confidential
must
be
clearly
designated
in
the
submission.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(
vii)
Based
on
the
results
of
a
determination
made
under
paragraph
(
e)(
1)(
i)
of
this
section,
the
Administrator
may
require
that
an
owner
or
operator
of
an
affected
source
make
changes
to
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
for
that
source.
The
Administrator
must
require
appropriate
revisions
to
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
if
the
Administrator
finds
that
the
plan:
*
*
*
*
*
3.
Section
63.10
is
amended
by
revising
the
second
sentence
of
paragraph
(
d)(
5)(
i)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.10
Recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.

*
*
*
*
*
(
d)
*
*
*
(
5)(
i)
*
*
*
Reports
shall
only
be
required
if
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
occurred
during
the
reporting
period,
and
they
must
include
the
number,
duration,
and
a
brief
description
of
each
malfunction.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[
FR
Doc.
02
 
31012
Filed
12
 
6
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
300
[
FRL
 
7393
 
3]

National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan;
National
Priorities
List
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Notice
of
intent
to
delete
the
Industrial
Latex
Corp.
Superfund
Site
from
the
National
Priorities
List.

SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
Region
II
Office
announces
its
intent
to
delete
the
Industrial
Latex
Corp.
Superfund
Site
from
the
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL)
and
requests
public
comment
on
this
action.
The
Industrial
Latex
site
is
located
in
the
Borough
of
Wallington,
Bergen
County,
New
Jersey.
The
NPL
constitutes
appendix
B
to
the
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
(
NCP),
40
CFR
part
300,
which
EPA
promulgated
pursuant
to
section
105
of
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980
(
CERCLA),
as
amended.
EPA
and
the
State
of
New
Jersey,
through
the
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
have
determined
that
all
appropriate
remedial
actions
have
been
completed
at
the
Industrial
Latex
site
and
no
further
fund­
financed
remedial
action
is
appropriate
under
CERCLA.
In
addition,
EPA
and
the
State
of
New
Jersey
have
determined
that
the
remedial
actions
taken
at
the
Industrial
Latex
site
protect
public
health
and
the
environment
without
any
further
monitoring
or
restriction.
DATES:
The
EPA
will
accept
comments
concerning
its
intent
to
delete
on
or
before
January
8,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
should
be
mailed
to:
Stephanie
Vaughn,
Remedial
Project
Manager,
New
Jersey
Remediation
Branch,
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
II,
290
Broadway,
19th
Floor
New
York,
New
York
10007
 
1866.
Comprehensive
information
on
the
Industrial
Latex
site
is
contained
in
the
Administrative
Record
and
is
available
for
viewing,
by
appointment
only,
at:
U.
S.
EPA
Records
Center,
290
Broadway
 
18th
Floor,
New
York,
New
York
10007
 
1866.
Hours:
9
a.
m.
to
5
p.
m.
 
Monday
through
Friday.
Contact
the
Records
Center
at
(
212)
637
 
4308.
Information
on
the
Site
is
also
available
for
viewing
at
the
Information
VerDate
0ct<
31>
2002
15:
06
Dec
06,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
09DEP1.
SGM
09DEP1
