National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries, 42052-42055 [2011-17901]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
42052
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 OF T01–0533—Continued
42°19.4′ N, 071°02.9′ W.
8.2
Celebrate the Clean Harbor Swim ...................................................
•
•
•
•
8.3
Boston Light Swim ...........................................................................
• Date: August 13, 2011.
• Time: 6 a.m. to 12 p.m.
• Location: All waters of Boston Harbor between the L Street Bath
House and Little Brewster Island within the following points (NAD
83):
42°19.7′ N, 071°02.2′ W.
42°19.9′ N, 071°10.7′ W
42°19.8′ N, 070°53.6′ W.
42°19.6′ N, 070°53.4′ W.
Date: August 13, 2011.
Rain Date: following day.
Time: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
Location: All waters of Gloucester Harbor within the following points
(NAD 83):
42°35.3′ N, 070°39.8′ W.
42°35.9′ N, 070°39.2′ W.
42°35.9′ N, 070°39.8′ W.
42°35.3′ N, 070°40.2′ W.
9
September
9.1
Mayflower Triathlon ..........................................................................
• Date: September 3, 2011.
• Time: 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
• Location: All waters of Plymouth Inner Harbor within the following
points (NAD 83):
41°58.3′ N, 070°40.6′ W
41°58.7′ N, 070°39.1′ W.
41°56.8′ N, 070°37.8′ W.
41°57.1′ N, 070°39.2′ W.
9.2
Duxbury Beach Triathlon .................................................................
• Date: September 24, 2011.
• Time: 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.
• Location: All waters of Duxbury Bay on the south side of the Powder
Point Bridge within the following points (NAD 83):
42°02.8′ N, 070°39.1′ W.
42°03.0′ N, 070°38.7′ W.
42°02.8′ N, 070°38.6′ W.
42°02.7′ N, 070°39.0′ W.
Dated: July 7, 2011.
J.N. Healey,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Sector Boston.
[FR Doc. 2011–17983 Filed 7–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146; FRL–9439–2]
RIN 2060–AO55
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Petroleum Refineries
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; partial withdrawal.
AGENCY:
On October 28, 2009, the EPA
proposed to withdraw the residual risk
and technology review portions of the
final rule amending the National
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:32 Jul 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries.
EPA is now providing final notice of the
partial withdrawal.
DATES: As of August 17, 2011, EPA
withdraws portions of the final rule
signed by then Administrator Stephen
Johnson on January 16, 2009.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Air and Radiation
Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Brenda Shine, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Refining and
Chemicals Group (E143–01),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone number: (919) 541–3608; fax
number: (919) 541–0246; e-mail address:
shine.brenda@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) establishes a two-stage regulatory
process to address emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from
stationary sources. In the first stage,
after the EPA has identified categories of
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
sources emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in section 112(b) of the CAA,
section 112(d) calls for the
Administrator to promulgate national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants for those sources. The EPA is
then required to review these
technology-based standards, and to
revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into
account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)’’ no
less frequently than every 8 years, under
CAA section 112(d)(6). The second stage
in standard-setting focuses on reducing
any remaining ‘‘residual’’ risk according
to CAA section 112(f).
On January 16, 2009, then
Administrator Stephen Johnson signed a
final rule amending the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries,
and the signed rule was made publicly
available on the EPA’s website. The
signed rule included several different
actions. First, it promulgated maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)
standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and (3) for heat exchange systems,
which the EPA had not addressed in the
original Refinery MACT 1 rule (40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC). Second, pursuant
to CAA section 112(f)(2), the rule
addressed residual risk for all Refinery
MACT 1 sources, including heat
exchange systems. Third, it addressed
the technology review pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6) for all sources
addressed in the original Refinery
MACT 1 rule. Finally, the rule updated
the table in the Refinery MACT 1
standards (Table 6) that cross-references
the General Provisions in 40 CFR part
63, subpart A, and made a few
additional clarifications to dates and
cross-references in the Refinery MACT 1
standards.
The signed rule was submitted to the
Office of the Federal Register for
publication. Rahm Emanuel, Assistant
to the President and Chief of Staff,
issued a memorandum on January 20,
2009, directing Agencies to withdraw
from the Office of the Federal Register
‘‘all proposed or final regulations that
have not been published in the Federal
Register so that they can be reviewed
and approved by a department or
agency head.’’ Although there was an
exception for ‘‘regulations subject to
statutory or judicial deadlines,’’ the
Agency chose not to apply the exception
in this case. One portion of the final
rule, the CAA section 112(d)(6) review,
was performed pursuant to the terms of
a Consent Decree, which, as modified,
required that by January 16, 2009, the
EPA ‘‘shall sign and promptly forward
to the Federal Register for publication
either final revisions to the standards for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:32 Jul 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
petroleum refineries in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
7412(d)(6) or a final determination that
no revisions are necessary.’’ Then
Administrator Stephen Johnson signed
the rule on January 16, 2009, and
promptly forwarded it to the Office of
the Federal Register, thus, fulfilling this
obligation.1
Upon further review, the EPA
determined that the residual risk and
technology reviews may not accurately
characterize the risk posed by this
source category. Shortly after the rule
was signed, the EPA responded to a
Request for Correction under the EPA’s
Information Quality Guidelines from the
city of Houston.2 In that response, we
recognized that we were currently
taking action (and planned to take
additional action) to gather better
emissions information from the refining
industry. Additionally, we noted that,
during the comment period on the
proposed rule, similar issues were
raised concerning the representativeness
of the emissions data and whether they
provided an accurate basis for
characterizing the risks posed.
After consideration of the public
comments on the proposal to withdraw
portions of the final rule, we are
providing final notice of the Agency’s
decision to partially withdraw the final
rule. As stated in the preamble to the
proposed withdrawal, the EPA will
provide the public with an opportunity
to comment on any new proposed rule
that may be issued addressing the
residual risk and technology review
requirements of the CAA for this source
category.
II. Summary of Comments and
Responses
The EPA received a total of six
comment letters concerning the
proposed partial withdrawal. Comment
letters were received from industry
trade associations, local environmental
organizations, environmental groups,
and members of the public. Summaries
of the comments and our complete
responses are included in the following
section.
1 We note that on January 30, 2009, the litigants
notified EPA by letter that they believed the Agency
had discharged its obligation under the Consent
Decree, and that ‘‘further review of the rule
pursuant to the Emanuel memo will not violate the
Consent Decree.’’ (See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2003–0146–0209.)
2 Letter to U.S. EPA Information Quality
Guidelines staff from the Honorable Bill White,
Mayor of Houston, July 9, 2008, Docket Item No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146–0166.3; EPA’s response
is Letter to Mayor Bill White, Houston, Texas, from
Elizabeth Craig, Acting Assistant Administrator,
Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA, April 7,
2009. (See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
0146–0210.)
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42053
Comment: Four commenters
supported the EPA’s proposed partial
withdrawal of the Refinery MACT 1
standards signed on January 16, 2009,
and supported further analysis leading
to a revised set of proposed standards.
Several of these commenters asserted
that the withdrawal is necessary
because the EPA failed to adequately
address their comments on the
standards that were proposed on
September 4, 2007 (72 FR 50716), and
November 10, 2008 (73 FR 66694). Some
of the comments submitted on those
previous proposals and reiterated by the
commenters included: (1) Objections to
the EPA’s interpretation of the CAA
requirement that the standards provide
an ‘‘ample margin of safety’’; (2)
assertions that the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk allowed by the CAA
is 1 in 1 million; (3) objections to the
length of time allowed for compliance
with standards for storage vessels with
floating roofs; (4) identification of
multiple deficiencies in the risk
assessment methodology, including use
of actual emissions rather than
allowable emissions and the estimation
of emissions at census block centroids
rather than property lines; and (5)
assertions that the emissions data used
in the risk assessment were
underestimated and unrepresentative.
The commenters requested that the EPA
collect more accurate emissions data
and re-analyze the residual risk for
Refinery MACT 1 using a methodology
without the identified deficiencies.
Response: We appreciate the four
commenters’ support for the withdrawal
of the residual risk and technology
review portions of the revisions to the
Refinery MACT 1 standards. In this
notice, the EPA is not making any
decisions regarding the scope of
residual risk and technology review
standards under the CAA or on the
specific data that would form the basis
for a particular decision. Substantive
comments on those issues should be
raised in the context of future proposed
rules addressing the CAA residual risk
and technology review for one or more
specific source categories.
Comment: Two commenters objected
to the proposed withdrawal of the
residual risk and technology review
portions of the Refinery MACT 1
standards that were signed on January
16, 2009. These commenters noted that
the EPA spent several years collecting
data and considering stakeholder
comments, finally reaching the
conclusion that the Refinery MACT 1
standards provide an ample margin of
safety based on data that the EPA judged
to be representative of the source
category. The commenters asserted that
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
42054
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
the docket for the Refinery MACT 1
rulemaking (Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–
2003–0146) does not include any
specific support for the EPA’s decision
to reject that previous conclusion.
According to the commenters, the only
support for withdrawing the rule and
redoing the analyses is provided in
public comments submitted for the
proposed rules, and the EPA considered
those comments prior to finalizing the
rule signed on January 16, 2009. The
commenters requested that the EPA
present any additional data received or
analyses performed since January 16,
2009, to support withdrawal of the
standards, and clearly explain any
differences in assumptions or
methodologies used in the analyses.
One commenter asserted that residual
risk and technology review for Refinery
MACT 1 has been a time- and resourceconsuming process, and due to the
EPA’s other obligations under the CAA,
it is not in the best interest of the public
for the EPA to repeat the entire process
without good cause. The commenter
detailed a number of analyses in the
docket showing that the EPA believed
its emissions estimates and risk
assessment methodologies were
appropriate for the rulemaking. The
commenter also noted that, if the EPA
always postponed regulatory action
because data may become available in
the future, no regulatory actions would
ever be completed. According to the
commenter, refiners continue to make
improvements in emissions reductions,
and the heat exchange system standards
will reduce emissions from cooling
towers, so further data collection would
only serve to support the conclusion
that the current standards provide an
ample margin of safety.
Two commenters addressed the EPA’s
responsibilities under the Data Quality
Act (DQA) related to the Request for
Correction filed by Mayor White of
Houston (RFC 02003). The commenters
stated that the EPA fulfilled its DQA
obligations through its response to
Mayor White on April 7, 2009 (Docket
Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0146–
0210), which describes the steps that the
EPA plans to take to improve annual
emissions estimates. Since the EPA has
addressed the DQA concerns raised by
Mayor White, the commenters asserted
that it is not necessary for the Agency
to take action on the proposed
withdrawal of the Refinery MACT 1
standards to further address those
concerns.
Response: As the commenters noted,
we did reach the conclusions presented
in the rule that was signed on January
16, 2009, through analysis of the data
we had at the time. The commenters are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:32 Jul 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
correct that, as of the time of the
proposed withdrawal, we had not yet
received any specific, additional data to
support changing the conclusions
reached in the final rule. However, our
proposal was not based on the receipt of
such information. Our decision to
withdraw the residual risk and
technology review portions of the
January 16, 2009, rule does not mean
that we have made a decision to change
our conclusions regarding what
requirements are necessary and
appropriate for the Refinery MACT 1
standards. Instead, as we noted when
we proposed the withdrawal, we believe
it is necessary to develop a more robust
analysis based on the improved
information we are in the process of
gathering and developing.
With respect to duplicating the ‘‘timeand resource-consuming process’’
associated with the risk and technology
review, we note that the EPA is now
initiating the risk and technology review
for the Refinery MACT 2 standards (40
CFR part 63, subpart UUU) and plans to
conduct the Refinery MACT 1 and 2
reviews at the same time. Thus, our data
collection efforts for purposes of the
Refinery MACT 2 risk and technology
review will also provide a significant
portion of the information we will need
for purposes of our new residual risk
and technology review of the Refinery
MACT 1 standards. Moreover, we
believe that by more closely aligning our
risk and technology review for Refinery
MACT 1 and 2 sources, we will be able
to develop a significantly improved
analysis of the risks associated with
petroleum refineries, and, therefore, can
better determine the most effective way
to address any residual risk posed by
emissions from petroleum refineries. We
see significant benefits in combining
these efforts, both in terms of a more
transparent risk evaluation of these colocated sources for the neighboring
public and in terms of more
consolidated standards for the regulated
community. The EPA has already taken
action to gather better emissions
information from the refining industry,
and to follow through on the
commitments made in the response
letter to Mayor White of Houston
(Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
0146–0210). For these reasons, we have
concluded that the benefits of a
consolidated risk and technology review
outweigh the incremental analytical
effort required to perform a new risk
assessment for Refinery MACT 1
sources after collecting this more robust
data.
One commenter suggested that the
additional data may lead to the
conclusion that the existing standards
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
provide an ample margin of safety. We
agree that is a possible outcome;
however, any conclusions regarding the
residual risk review for the Refinery
MACT 1 standards will need to await
our consideration of the more robust
data we are now gathering. Those data
will provide greater certainty for the
final conclusions, and help to ensure
the final standards are technically and
legally defensible.
Finally, the EPA agrees that it has
responded to the DQA request from
Mayor White of Houston through the
April 7, 2009, letter identified by the
two commenters (Docket Item No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2003–0146–0210). In that
letter, we outlined several initiatives
that were either ongoing or planned for
the near future in order to improve the
quality of data we have concerning
emissions from petroleum refineries,
and we are continuing to move forward
with all of those initiatives. We plan to
use this improved information as we
move forward to address emissions from
petroleum refineries, including
performing the residual risk and
technology review for Refinery MACT 1
and 2 sources.
Comment: Two commenters noted
that, if the EPA proceeds with the
proposed partial withdrawal of Refinery
MACT 1 standards, the Agency should
make clear that the withdrawal
completes the action related to the
September 4, 2007, proposal. In other
words, the commenters stated that the
date for determining compliance with
any new standards would be the
proposal date of those new standards
rather than September 4, 2007.
Response: We agree with the
commenters. The appropriate dates for
determining compliance with future
standards would be the dates those
standards are proposed and finalized.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
withdrawing a final action that was
signed by the Administrator and made
publicly available on the the EPA
website, but that never took effect
through publication in the Federal
Register. This action:
• Is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601, et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA;
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); and
• This notice does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 8, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–17901 Filed 7–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
40 CFR Part 97
[FRL–9435–6]
Data Availability Concerning Transport
Rule Allowance Allocations to Existing
Units
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:32 Jul 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
Notification of data availability
(NODA).
ACTION:
In the Transport Rule Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs), EPA
finalized allowance allocations for 2012
and thereafter to existing units subject
to the Transport Rule FIP trading
programs in Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin. As required in
the Transport Rule, this NODA notifies
the public of the availability of data on
these allowance allocations for existing
units. Through this NODA, EPA is also
making available to the public the data
upon which the allocations were based.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions concerning this action should
be addressed to Brian Fisher, telephone
(202) 343–9633, and e-mail
fisher.brian@epa.gov, Michael Cohen,
telephone (202) 343–9497 and e-mail
cohen.michael@epa.gov, or Robert
Miller, telephone (202) 343.9077, and
e-mail miller.robertl@epa.gov. The
mailing address for the aforementioned
contacts is U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, CAMD (6204J), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
detailed unit-by-unit data, calculations,
and allowance allocation
determinations are set forth in a
technical support document in an Excel
spreadsheet format titled ‘‘Unit Level
Allocations Under the Transport Rule
FIP’’ and available on EPA’s Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/airtransport/
actions.html.
EPA is not requesting responses to the
data made available through this NODA,
which makes available data on
allowance allocations finalized in the
Transport Rule. Providing an allocation
to an existing unit does not constitute a
determination that the unit is a covered
unit, and not providing an existing-unit
allocation to a unit does not constitute
a determination that the unit is not a
covered unit. See §§ 97.411(a)(1),
97.511(a)(1), 97.611(a)(1), and
97.711(a)(1) of the Transport Rule.
Under the Transport Rule FIPs, EPA
must record allowance allocations by
certain deadlines. In particular,
allowance allocations addressed by this
NODA for existing units for 2012 must
be recorded, within 90 days of the
publication of the Transport Rule in the
Federal Register, in the compliance
accounts of existing units. See
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42055
§§ 97.421(a), 97.521(a), 97.621(a), and
97.721(a) of the Transport Rule.
For 2013 and beyond, the
Administrator must record, by certain
specified deadlines, allowance
allocations for existing units. See
§§ 97.421(b) through (f), 97.521(b)
through (f), 97.621(b) through (f), and
97.721(b) through (f) of the Transport
Rule.
Under certain circumstances, the
allowance allocations addressed in this
NODA to existing units are subject to
termination or correction, and the
provisions establishing these allocations
may be replaced by a SIP revision. See
§§ 97.411(a)(2), 97.511(a)(2),
97.611(a)(2), and 97.711(a)(2)
(concerning termination of allocations
of non-operating units) and 97.411(c),
97.511(c), 97.611(c), and 97.711(c)
(concerning incorrect allocations) of the
Transport Rule and §§ 52.38(a)(3)
through (5) and (b)(3) through (5) and
52.39(d) through (i) of the Transport
Rule (concerning SIP revisions).
Dated: July 6, 2011.
Jackie Krieger,
Chief of Staff, Office of Atmospheric
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011–17903 Filed 7–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9440–4]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.
AGENCY:
On May 24, 2011, EPA
published a Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion (76 FR 30081) and a direct final
rule of Partial Deletion (76 FR 30027) for
the remaining portions of Operable Unit
9 (OU9), the Residential Populated
Areas, of the California Gulch
Superfund Site (Site), located in Lake
County, Colorado, from the National
Priorities List. The EPA is withdrawing
the Final Rule of Partial Deletion due to
adverse comments that were received
during the public comment period.
After consideration of the comments
received, if appropriate, EPA will
publish a Notice of Partial Deletion in
the Federal Register based on the
parallel Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion and place a copy of the final
partial deletion package, including a
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42052-42055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17901]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146; FRL-9439-2]
RIN 2060-AO55
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Petroleum Refineries
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; partial withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 28, 2009, the EPA proposed to withdraw the residual
risk and technology review portions of the final rule amending the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum
Refineries. EPA is now providing final notice of the partial
withdrawal.
DATES: As of August 17, 2011, EPA withdraws portions of the final rule
signed by then Administrator Stephen Johnson on January 16, 2009.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146. All documents in the docket are
listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Brenda Shine, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Refining and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-
3608; fax number: (919) 541-0246; e-mail address: shine.brenda@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage
regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, after the EPA has
identified categories of
[[Page 42053]]
sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the
CAA, section 112(d) calls for the Administrator to promulgate national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for those sources. The
EPA is then required to review these technology-based standards, and to
revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently
than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6). The second stage in
standard-setting focuses on reducing any remaining ``residual'' risk
according to CAA section 112(f).
On January 16, 2009, then Administrator Stephen Johnson signed a
final rule amending the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries, and the signed rule was made
publicly available on the EPA's website. The signed rule included
several different actions. First, it promulgated maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3) for heat exchange systems, which the EPA had not addressed in the
original Refinery MACT 1 rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC). Second,
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), the rule addressed residual risk for
all Refinery MACT 1 sources, including heat exchange systems. Third, it
addressed the technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for
all sources addressed in the original Refinery MACT 1 rule. Finally,
the rule updated the table in the Refinery MACT 1 standards (Table 6)
that cross-references the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
A, and made a few additional clarifications to dates and cross-
references in the Refinery MACT 1 standards.
The signed rule was submitted to the Office of the Federal Register
for publication. Rahm Emanuel, Assistant to the President and Chief of
Staff, issued a memorandum on January 20, 2009, directing Agencies to
withdraw from the Office of the Federal Register ``all proposed or
final regulations that have not been published in the Federal Register
so that they can be reviewed and approved by a department or agency
head.'' Although there was an exception for ``regulations subject to
statutory or judicial deadlines,'' the Agency chose not to apply the
exception in this case. One portion of the final rule, the CAA section
112(d)(6) review, was performed pursuant to the terms of a Consent
Decree, which, as modified, required that by January 16, 2009, the EPA
``shall sign and promptly forward to the Federal Register for
publication either final revisions to the standards for petroleum
refineries in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
7412(d)(6) or a final determination that no revisions are necessary.''
Then Administrator Stephen Johnson signed the rule on January 16, 2009,
and promptly forwarded it to the Office of the Federal Register, thus,
fulfilling this obligation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We note that on January 30, 2009, the litigants notified EPA
by letter that they believed the Agency had discharged its
obligation under the Consent Decree, and that ``further review of
the rule pursuant to the Emanuel memo will not violate the Consent
Decree.'' (See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146-0209.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon further review, the EPA determined that the residual risk and
technology reviews may not accurately characterize the risk posed by
this source category. Shortly after the rule was signed, the EPA
responded to a Request for Correction under the EPA's Information
Quality Guidelines from the city of Houston.\2\ In that response, we
recognized that we were currently taking action (and planned to take
additional action) to gather better emissions information from the
refining industry. Additionally, we noted that, during the comment
period on the proposed rule, similar issues were raised concerning the
representativeness of the emissions data and whether they provided an
accurate basis for characterizing the risks posed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Letter to U.S. EPA Information Quality Guidelines staff from
the Honorable Bill White, Mayor of Houston, July 9, 2008, Docket
Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146-0166.3; EPA's response is Letter to
Mayor Bill White, Houston, Texas, from Elizabeth Craig, Acting
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA,
April 7, 2009. (See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146-0210.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After consideration of the public comments on the proposal to
withdraw portions of the final rule, we are providing final notice of
the Agency's decision to partially withdraw the final rule. As stated
in the preamble to the proposed withdrawal, the EPA will provide the
public with an opportunity to comment on any new proposed rule that may
be issued addressing the residual risk and technology review
requirements of the CAA for this source category.
II. Summary of Comments and Responses
The EPA received a total of six comment letters concerning the
proposed partial withdrawal. Comment letters were received from
industry trade associations, local environmental organizations,
environmental groups, and members of the public. Summaries of the
comments and our complete responses are included in the following
section.
Comment: Four commenters supported the EPA's proposed partial
withdrawal of the Refinery MACT 1 standards signed on January 16, 2009,
and supported further analysis leading to a revised set of proposed
standards. Several of these commenters asserted that the withdrawal is
necessary because the EPA failed to adequately address their comments
on the standards that were proposed on September 4, 2007 (72 FR 50716),
and November 10, 2008 (73 FR 66694). Some of the comments submitted on
those previous proposals and reiterated by the commenters included: (1)
Objections to the EPA's interpretation of the CAA requirement that the
standards provide an ``ample margin of safety''; (2) assertions that
the maximum individual lifetime cancer risk allowed by the CAA is 1 in
1 million; (3) objections to the length of time allowed for compliance
with standards for storage vessels with floating roofs; (4)
identification of multiple deficiencies in the risk assessment
methodology, including use of actual emissions rather than allowable
emissions and the estimation of emissions at census block centroids
rather than property lines; and (5) assertions that the emissions data
used in the risk assessment were underestimated and unrepresentative.
The commenters requested that the EPA collect more accurate emissions
data and re-analyze the residual risk for Refinery MACT 1 using a
methodology without the identified deficiencies.
Response: We appreciate the four commenters' support for the
withdrawal of the residual risk and technology review portions of the
revisions to the Refinery MACT 1 standards. In this notice, the EPA is
not making any decisions regarding the scope of residual risk and
technology review standards under the CAA or on the specific data that
would form the basis for a particular decision. Substantive comments on
those issues should be raised in the context of future proposed rules
addressing the CAA residual risk and technology review for one or more
specific source categories.
Comment: Two commenters objected to the proposed withdrawal of the
residual risk and technology review portions of the Refinery MACT 1
standards that were signed on January 16, 2009. These commenters noted
that the EPA spent several years collecting data and considering
stakeholder comments, finally reaching the conclusion that the Refinery
MACT 1 standards provide an ample margin of safety based on data that
the EPA judged to be representative of the source category. The
commenters asserted that
[[Page 42054]]
the docket for the Refinery MACT 1 rulemaking (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0146) does not include any specific support for the EPA's decision
to reject that previous conclusion. According to the commenters, the
only support for withdrawing the rule and redoing the analyses is
provided in public comments submitted for the proposed rules, and the
EPA considered those comments prior to finalizing the rule signed on
January 16, 2009. The commenters requested that the EPA present any
additional data received or analyses performed since January 16, 2009,
to support withdrawal of the standards, and clearly explain any
differences in assumptions or methodologies used in the analyses.
One commenter asserted that residual risk and technology review for
Refinery MACT 1 has been a time- and resource-consuming process, and
due to the EPA's other obligations under the CAA, it is not in the best
interest of the public for the EPA to repeat the entire process without
good cause. The commenter detailed a number of analyses in the docket
showing that the EPA believed its emissions estimates and risk
assessment methodologies were appropriate for the rulemaking. The
commenter also noted that, if the EPA always postponed regulatory
action because data may become available in the future, no regulatory
actions would ever be completed. According to the commenter, refiners
continue to make improvements in emissions reductions, and the heat
exchange system standards will reduce emissions from cooling towers, so
further data collection would only serve to support the conclusion that
the current standards provide an ample margin of safety.
Two commenters addressed the EPA's responsibilities under the Data
Quality Act (DQA) related to the Request for Correction filed by Mayor
White of Houston (RFC 02003). The commenters stated that the EPA
fulfilled its DQA obligations through its response to Mayor White on
April 7, 2009 (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146-0210), which
describes the steps that the EPA plans to take to improve annual
emissions estimates. Since the EPA has addressed the DQA concerns
raised by Mayor White, the commenters asserted that it is not necessary
for the Agency to take action on the proposed withdrawal of the
Refinery MACT 1 standards to further address those concerns.
Response: As the commenters noted, we did reach the conclusions
presented in the rule that was signed on January 16, 2009, through
analysis of the data we had at the time. The commenters are correct
that, as of the time of the proposed withdrawal, we had not yet
received any specific, additional data to support changing the
conclusions reached in the final rule. However, our proposal was not
based on the receipt of such information. Our decision to withdraw the
residual risk and technology review portions of the January 16, 2009,
rule does not mean that we have made a decision to change our
conclusions regarding what requirements are necessary and appropriate
for the Refinery MACT 1 standards. Instead, as we noted when we
proposed the withdrawal, we believe it is necessary to develop a more
robust analysis based on the improved information we are in the process
of gathering and developing.
With respect to duplicating the ``time- and resource-consuming
process'' associated with the risk and technology review, we note that
the EPA is now initiating the risk and technology review for the
Refinery MACT 2 standards (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU) and plans to
conduct the Refinery MACT 1 and 2 reviews at the same time. Thus, our
data collection efforts for purposes of the Refinery MACT 2 risk and
technology review will also provide a significant portion of the
information we will need for purposes of our new residual risk and
technology review of the Refinery MACT 1 standards. Moreover, we
believe that by more closely aligning our risk and technology review
for Refinery MACT 1 and 2 sources, we will be able to develop a
significantly improved analysis of the risks associated with petroleum
refineries, and, therefore, can better determine the most effective way
to address any residual risk posed by emissions from petroleum
refineries. We see significant benefits in combining these efforts,
both in terms of a more transparent risk evaluation of these co-located
sources for the neighboring public and in terms of more consolidated
standards for the regulated community. The EPA has already taken action
to gather better emissions information from the refining industry, and
to follow through on the commitments made in the response letter to
Mayor White of Houston (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146-0210). For
these reasons, we have concluded that the benefits of a consolidated
risk and technology review outweigh the incremental analytical effort
required to perform a new risk assessment for Refinery MACT 1 sources
after collecting this more robust data.
One commenter suggested that the additional data may lead to the
conclusion that the existing standards provide an ample margin of
safety. We agree that is a possible outcome; however, any conclusions
regarding the residual risk review for the Refinery MACT 1 standards
will need to await our consideration of the more robust data we are now
gathering. Those data will provide greater certainty for the final
conclusions, and help to ensure the final standards are technically and
legally defensible.
Finally, the EPA agrees that it has responded to the DQA request
from Mayor White of Houston through the April 7, 2009, letter
identified by the two commenters (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146-
0210). In that letter, we outlined several initiatives that were either
ongoing or planned for the near future in order to improve the quality
of data we have concerning emissions from petroleum refineries, and we
are continuing to move forward with all of those initiatives. We plan
to use this improved information as we move forward to address
emissions from petroleum refineries, including performing the residual
risk and technology review for Refinery MACT 1 and 2 sources.
Comment: Two commenters noted that, if the EPA proceeds with the
proposed partial withdrawal of Refinery MACT 1 standards, the Agency
should make clear that the withdrawal completes the action related to
the September 4, 2007, proposal. In other words, the commenters stated
that the date for determining compliance with any new standards would
be the proposal date of those new standards rather than September 4,
2007.
Response: We agree with the commenters. The appropriate dates for
determining compliance with future standards would be the dates those
standards are proposed and finalized.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is withdrawing a final action that
was signed by the Administrator and made publicly available on the the
EPA website, but that never took effect through publication in the
Federal Register. This action:
Is a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
[[Page 42055]]
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA;
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994);
and
This notice does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 8, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-17901 Filed 7-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
