[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59867-59876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15840]



[[Page 59867]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022; FRL-11253-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AW06


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 
Hazardous Waste Combustors Malfunction and Electronic Reporting 
Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) from Hazardous Waste Combustors (HWC) to remove the exemptions 
and revise other provisions associated with emission standard 
exemptions for periods of malfunction, to add electronic reporting 
provisions, to amend emergency safety vent provisions, and to correct 
other minor provisions. The removal of the exemption for periods of 
malfunction is predicated on the previous vacatur of emission standard 
exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) from 
the applicable general provisions. We are also proposing to remove or 
revise some associated requirements that are unnecessary, 
inappropriate, or redundant in the absence of the malfunction 
exemption, such as in recordkeeping and reporting. Emission standards 
will apply during periods of malfunction as required under the Clean 
Air Act (CAA). The addition of electronic reporting provisions will 
provide for simplified reporting by sources and will enhance the 
availability of data on sources to the EPA and the public. In addition, 
the EPA is proposing amendments to emergency safety vent provisions and 
one correction to the rule to correct an inadvertent error in the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) related to the use of Method 23 to 
determine compliance with the dioxin and furan standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 9, 2024. Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information 
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before August 23, 2024.
    Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before July 29, 2024, we will hold a virtual public hearing. See 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering 
for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0022, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2004-0022 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0022.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Rachel Smoak, Mail Drop: E143-02, 109 
T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-0253; and email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Participation in virtual public hearing.
    To request a virtual public hearing, contact the public hearing 
team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected]. If 
requested, the hearing will be held via virtual platform on August 8, 
2024. The hearing will convene at 11 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will 
conclude at 3 p.m. ET. The EPA may close a session 15 minutes after the 
last pre-registered speaker has testified if there are no additional 
speakers. The EPA will announce further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/hazardous-waste-combustors-national-emission-standards-hazardous.
    If a public hearing is requested, the EPA will begin pre-
registering speakers for the hearing no later than one (1) business day 
after a request has been received. To register to speak at the virtual 
hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/hazardous-waste-combustors-national-emission-standards-hazardous or contact the public 
hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at 
[email protected]. The last day to pre-register to speak at the 
hearing will be August 5, 2024. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post 
a general agenda that will list pre-registered speakers at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/hazardous-waste-combustors-national-emission-standards-hazardous.
    The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as 
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the 
hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
    Each commenter will have four (4) minutes to provide oral 
testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy 
of their oral testimony electronically (via email) by emailing it to 
[email protected]. The EPA also recommends submitting the text of 
your oral testimony as written comments to the rulemaking docket.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations 
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written 
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment 
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and 
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will 
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/hazardous-waste-combustors-national-emission-standards-hazardous. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth 
above, please monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at 
(888) 372-8699 or by email at [email protected] to determine if 
there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in 
the Federal Register announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or special 
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the 
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by July 
31, 2024. The EPA may not be

[[Page 59868]]

able to arrange accommodations without advanced notice.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022. All documents in the docket are 
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) 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. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket 
materials are available electronically in Regulations.gov.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0022. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit electronically to https://www.regulations.gov/ 
any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be 
submitted as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an 
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any 
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID, 
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify 
electronically within the digital storage media the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version 
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must 
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures 
outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media 
that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage 
media clearly that it does not contain CBI and note the docket ID. 
Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and 
the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information 
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
    Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), 
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google 
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the 
OAQPS CBI Office at the email address [email protected], and as 
described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket 
ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that 
exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not 
have your own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to 
request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the 
postal service, please send it to the following address: OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022. The mailed CBI material should be 
double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show 
through the outer envelope.
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this preamble the 
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We 
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may 
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for 
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms 
here:

CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HWC hazardous waste combustor(s)
ICR information collection request
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NIC notice of intent to comply
NOC notification of compliance
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDF portable document format
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?
III. Proposed Actions
    A. What actions are we proposing, and what is the rationale for 
those actions?
    B. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the 
rationale for the proposed compliance dates?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?

[[Page 59869]]

V. Request for Comments
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's 
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal. 
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely 
to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly 
applicable to the affected sources. State, local, and Tribal government 
entities would not be affected by this proposed action. The source 
category that is the subject of this proposal is hazardous waste 
combustors (HWC) regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous 
Waste Combustors (HWC NESHAP). The HWC NESHAP includes hazardous waste 
combusting sources from five initial source categories: hazardous waste 
incinerators, Portland cement manufacturing, clay products 
manufacturing (including lightweight aggregate kilns), industrial 
boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. As defined in the 
Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and 
Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final 
Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the Hazardous Waste 
Incineration source category is any source that incinerates hazardous 
waste in ``any furnace, or other device, used in the process of burning 
waste for the primary purpose of reducing the volume of the waste by 
removing combustible matter.'' The Portland Cement Manufacturing source 
category includes ``any facility engaged in manufacturing Portland 
cement by either the wet or dry process.'' The Clay Products 
Manufacturing source category includes lightweight aggregate kilns and 
is defined as ``any facility engaged in manufacturing of clay products 
such as brick, vitrified clay pipe, structural clay tile, and clay 
refractories.'' The Industrial Boilers source category, ``includes 
boilers used in manufacturing, processing, mining, and refining or any 
other industry to provide steam, hot water, and/or electricity.'' The 
Hydrochloric Acid Production Furnace source category includes ``any 
facility engaged in the production of hydrochloric acid.'' Hazardous 
waste combusting sources from these source categories are regulated as 
hazardous waste combustors under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, the HWC 
NESHAP.

    Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                             Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Source category                  NESHAP         NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum and coal products         40 CFR part 63,                 3241
 manufacturing.                      subpart EEE.
Chemical manufacturing............  40 CFR part 63,                  325
                                     subpart EEE.
Cement and concrete product         40 CFR part 63,                 3273
 manufacturing.                      subpart EEE.
Other nonmetallic mineral product   40 CFR part 63,                 3279
 manufacturing.                      subpart EEE.
Hazardous waste treatment and       40 CFR part 63,               562211
 disposal.                           subpart EEE.
Remediation and other waste         40 CFR part 63,                 5629
 management services.                subpart EEE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at 
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/hazardous-waste-combustors-national-emission-standards-hazardous. Following publication 
in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version 
of the proposal and key technical documents at this same website.
    A memorandum showing the rule edits that would be necessary to 
incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE proposed in this 
action is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022). 
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA also will post a 
copy of this document to https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/hazardous-waste-combustors-national-emission-standards-hazardous.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 
and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory 
process to develop standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) from stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves 
establishing technology-based standards and the second stage involves 
evaluating those standards that are based on maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed 
to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This 
second stage is commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.'' 
In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA 
to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years and revise 
the standards as necessary taking into account any ``developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies.'' This review is 
commonly referred to as the ``technology review''. This action proposes 
to amend the current rule to remove an exemption that is inconsistent 
with the statute and to update the reporting requirements in 
preparation for conducting the required residual risk and technology 
reviews.

[[Page 59870]]

B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP 
regulate its HAP emissions?

    Hazardous waste combustors are incinerators, cement kilns, 
lightweight aggregate kilns, boilers, or hydrochloric acid production 
furnaces that combust hazardous waste for the purpose of waste 
reduction, thermal energy recovery, and/or production of a product. The 
HWC NESHAP covers hazardous air pollutant emissions from hazardous 
waste combustors at major and area sources. The key pollutants the EPA 
regulates from these sources include polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and 
furans (PCDD/PCDF), mercury, cadmium, lead, arsenic, beryllium, 
chromium, hydrogen chloride, chlorine, other hydrocarbon HAP, and non-
enumerated metal HAP.
    The HWC NESHAP was first promulgated in 1999 and regulated 
hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate 
kilns.\1\ These standards were amended and standards for hazardous 
waste solid fuel boilers, liquid fuel boilers, and hydrochloric acid 
production furnaces were added in 2005.\2\ Subsequent amendments to the 
HWC NESHAP were made in 2005, 2006, and 2008.\3\ The EPA sought and 
received a full voluntary remand of the rule in 2009 to reexamine the 
rule in its totality.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 64 FR 52828 (September 30, 1999).
    \2\ 70 FR 59402 (October 12, 2005).
    \3\ 70 FR 75042 (December 19, 2005); 71 FR 62388 (October 25, 
2006); and 73 FR 64068 (October 28, 2008).
    \4\ Sierra Club v. EPA, Docket No. 05-1441 (consolidated with 
Docket Nos. 05-1442, 05-1443,05-1445, 05-1449) (D.C. Cir.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a 2008 decision (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008)), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit (the court) vacated portions of two provisions in the NESHAP 
General Provisions governing the emissions of HAP during periods of 
SSM. Specifically, the court vacated NESHAP General Provisions language 
that exempted sources from HAP non-opacity and opacity emission 
standards contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). The court held 
that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or 
limitations must be continuous in nature and that ``the SSM exemption 
violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply 
continuously.''

III. Proposed Actions

A. What actions are we proposing, and what is the rationale for those 
actions?

    In this proposal, we are proposing the following revisions to the 
HWC NESHAP: (1) removal or revision of provisions associated with 
emission limit exemptions for periods of malfunction, including some 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements and General Provisions 
applicability; (2) amendment to emergency safety vent provisions, 
including recordkeeping requirements; (3) addition of electronic 
reporting provisions; and (4) a technical correction related to the use 
of Method 23 to determine compliance with the PCDD/PCDF standards. The 
proposed decisions, as well as the rationale for those decisions, are 
presented below.
1. Periods of malfunction
    We are proposing revisions to the malfunction provisions of the 
NESHAP in order to ensure that they are consistent with the decision in 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), in which the court 
vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the requirement to 
comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards 
during periods of SSM. We are proposing the elimination of the 
malfunction exemption in this rule which appears at 40 CFR 
63.1206(b)(1)(i), (c)(2)(v), and (c)(4)(i). The EPA is in the process 
of gathering and evaluating data about startup and shutdown to evaluate 
whether sources can meet the normal operations standards during periods 
of startup and shutdown or if alternative standards for these periods 
are warranted and, if alternative standards are warranted, to develop 
them. Due to the amount of time needed for these activities, the 
removal of the startup and shutdown exemptions along with revisions to 
associated recordkeeping and reporting provisions will be undertaken in 
a subsequent planned rulemaking action.
    With the issuance of the mandate in Sierra Club v. EPA, on October 
16, 2009, the vacatur became effective and the regulatory provisions 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) became null and void. The EPA 
amended 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) on March 11, 2021, to reflect the 
court order and correct the CFR to remove the SSM exemption.\5\ We are 
removing any cross-references to the vacated provisions in the 
regulatory language to conform to the court's order in Sierra Club v. 
EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 86 FR 13819 (March 11, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also proposing several revisions to the General Provisions 
Applicable to Subpart EEE table (table 1 to subpart EEE) in the HWC 
NESHAP as is explained in more detail below. We also are proposing to 
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the 
malfunction exemption as further described below.
    We are not proposing changes to the emissions limits of the HWC 
NESHAP even though we are removing the exemption from emission limits 
during periods of malfunction. Periods of startup, normal operations, 
and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's 
operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor 
routine. Instead, they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not 
reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process, or 
monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The 
EPA has interpreted CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that 
occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of 
CAA section 112 standards. This reading has been upheld as reasonable 
by the D.C. Circuit since at least 2016. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 
F.3d 579, 606-610 (D.C. Cir.) (2016). Although no statutory language 
compels the EPA to set different standards for periods of malfunction, 
we have the discretion to do so where feasible.
2. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements and General Provisions 
Applicability
    Because we are proposing amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, 
we are also proposing related revisions to the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements and to table 1 to subpart EEE.
a. Section 63.1206(b)(1) General Duty
    We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 
CFR 63.6(e) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), 
which describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the 
language in that section is no longer either necessary or appropriate 
considering the elimination of the malfunction exemption. We are 
proposing instead to add regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1206(b)(1) that 
reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the 
reference to periods covered by a malfunction exemption. The current 
language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty 
entails during periods of malfunction. With the elimination of the 
malfunction exemption, there is no need

[[Page 59871]]

to differentiate between normal operations and malfunction events in 
describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is 
proposing for 40 CFR 63.1206(b)(1) does not include that language from 
40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry 
for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 
63.6(e)(1)(ii). Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are no 
longer necessary with the elimination of the malfunction exemption or 
are redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 
63.1206(b)(1).
b. SSM Plan
    We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 
CFR 63.6(e) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)(i)(A), 
which requires owners or operators to satisfy the general duty to 
minimize emissions at all times. The cross-reference to the general 
duty requirement is redundant with the general duty requirement being 
added at 40 CFR 63.1206(b)(1).
c. Compliance With Standards
    We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 
CFR 63.6(f) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), which 
requires that non-opacity emission standards apply at all times except 
as otherwise specified in an applicable subpart. Consistent with Sierra 
Club, the EPA amended 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) on March 11, 2021, 
to reflect the mandate and correct the CFR to remove the SSM exemption. 
However, the second sentence of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) contains language 
that is premised on the existence of an exemption and is inappropriate 
in the absence of the malfunction exemption.
    We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 
CFR 63.6(h) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), which 
requires that opacity and visible emission standards apply at all times 
except as otherwise specified in an applicable subpart. Consistent with 
Sierra Club, the EPA amended 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) on March 11, 2021, to 
reflect the mandate and correct the CFR to remove the SSM exemption. 
However, the second sentence of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) contains language 
that is premised on the existence of an exemption and is inappropriate 
in the absence of the malfunction exemption.
d. Section 63.1207(g) Performance Testing
    We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 
CFR 63.7(e) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), which 
describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead 
proposing to add a performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 
63.1207(g). The performance testing requirements we are proposing to 
add differ from the General Provisions performance testing provisions 
in several respects. The regulatory text does not include the language 
in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the malfunction exemption and 
language that precluded operations during periods of SSM periods from 
being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance 
testing. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under 
this subpart should not be conducted during periods of SSM because 
conditions may not be representative of normal operating conditions. 
The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the owner or 
operator to record the process information that is necessary to 
document operating conditions during the test and include in such 
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal 
operation; conducting performance testing under operating conditions 
representative of the extreme range of normal conditions is consistent 
with this requirement. The language in 40 CFR 63.7(e) requires that the 
owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records ``as 
may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test'' 
but does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The 
regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on 
that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the 
information.
e. Monitoring
    We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 
CFR 63.8(c) by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i), 
which requires that owners or operators maintain and operate each 
continuous monitoring system in compliance with the general duty 
requirement. The cross-reference to the general duty requirement in 
that subparagraph is not necessary considering other requirements of 40 
CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR 
63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control 
program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
f. Section 63.1211(a) Reporting
    We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.1211(a), which summarizes 
reporting requirements, by adding language that requires sources that 
fail to meet an applicable standard at any time to report the 
information concerning such events in both the excessive emissions and 
continuous monitoring system performance report and summary report 
already required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must 
contain the start date, start time, end date, end time, and the cause 
of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the 
affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description 
of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, 
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering 
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this 
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine 
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure 
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document 
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a 
failure to meet an applicable standard.
g. Section 63.1211(e) Recordkeeping
    We are proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry for 40 
CFR 63.10 by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i), which 
describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. 
It will continue to be important to know when such startup and shutdown 
periods begin and end in order to determine compliance with the 
appropriate standard for normal operations. We are proposing to add 
recordkeeping requirements to 40 CFR 63.1211(e) that require 
recordkeeping of startup and shutdown events and require reporting 
related to all exceedances.
    We are also proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry 
for 40 CFR 63.10 by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(ii), which describes the recordkeeping requirements during 
a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR 
63.1211(e). The regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from 
the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions 
requires the creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and 
duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and 
monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing that sources record the 
start date, start time, end date, end time, and cause (including an 
unknown cause, if applicable) of any event in which an affected source 
fails to meet an applicable standard. The EPA is also

[[Page 59872]]

proposing to add a requirement that sources keep records that includes 
the affected source or equipment, whether the failure occurred during a 
period of SSM, actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the 
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for 
which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the 
method used to estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would 
include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations, 
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known 
process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep 
records of this information to ensure that there is adequate 
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure 
to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the 
source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has 
failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are also proposing to revise the table 1 to subpart EEE entry 
for 40 CFR 63.10 by removing the applicability of 40 CFR 
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B), which requires sources to record actions to 
minimize emissions and record corrective actions. This requirement is 
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.1211(e).
3. Emergency Safety Vent Operating Plan
    We are proposing revisions to the emergency safety vent openings 
provisions to remove the requirement for an emergency safety vent 
operating plan in 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(4)(ii) and bolster the associated 
reporting requirements. With the elimination of the exemption for 
periods of malfunction, affected units are subject to an emission 
standard during openings of emergency safety events that occur outside 
of periods of startup and shutdown. The applicability of a standard 
during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to 
plan for and achieve compliance and thus emergency safety vent 
operating plans are no longer necessary.
4. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is proposing that owners or operators of hazardous waste 
combustor facilities submit electronic copies of required notices of 
intent to comply (NIC), notifications of compliance (NOC), 
notifications of changes that may adversely affect compliance, 
compliance progress reports, excessive emissions and continuous 
monitoring system performance reports and summary reports, performance 
test reports, performance evaluation reports, and periodic SSM reports 
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the 
electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum 
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) Rules, available in the docket for this action. The proposed 
rulemaking requires that the owner or operator submit performance test 
results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \6\ at the 
time of the test in the format generated through the use of the ERT or 
an electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT website, 
and it requires that the owner or operator submit other performance 
test results in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment 
module of the ERT. Similarly, the proposed rulemaking requires the 
owner or operator to submit performance evaluation results of 
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) measuring relative 
accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the ERT at 
the time of the test in the format generated through the use of the ERT 
or an electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT 
website, and it requires that the owner or operator submit other 
performance evaluation results in PDF using the attachment module of 
the ERT. The proposed rulemaking requires the owner or operator to 
submit NOC, NIC, compliance progress reports, excessive emissions and 
continuous monitoring system performance reports and summary reports, 
periodic SSM reports, and notifications of changes that may adversely 
affect compliance as a PDF upload in CEDRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in 
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. These 
circumstances are: (1) outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude 
an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required 
reports, and (2) force majeure events, which are defined as events that 
will be or have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the 
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the 
affected facility that prevent an owner or operator from complying with 
the requirement to submit a report electronically. Examples of force 
majeure events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or 
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. 
The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners or 
operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully 
submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their 
control. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of 
needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the 
Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated State, local, 
Tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \7\ to implement 
Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's agency-wide 
policy \8\ developed in response to the White House's Digital 
Government Strategy.\9\ For more information on the benefits of 
electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for

[[Page 59873]]

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, referenced earlier in this 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \8\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \9\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Technical Correction
    On March 20, 2023, 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE was updated to 
remove the requirement for Administrator approval to use EPA Method 23 
in compliance demonstrations for PCDD/PCDF, reflecting revisions to EPA 
Method 23 made in March 2023.\10\ The reference to requiring 
Administrator approval for such measurements in 40 CFR 
63.1207(f)(1)(xv) was inadvertently retained in the rule, and so we 
propose to remove the requirement and reserve 40 CFR 63.1207(f)(1)(xv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 88 FR 16732 (March 20, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What compliance dates are we proposing, and what is the rationale 
for the proposed compliance dates?

    The EPA is proposing to allow 180 days from the date of the final 
rule for compliance with the malfunction exemption removal, emergency 
safety vent operating plan removal, recordkeeping and reporting and 
General Provisions revisions, and electronic reporting requirements 
other than performance test and performance evaluation reports. The EPA 
is proposing to allow 90 days from the date of the final rule for 
compliance with electronic submission of performance test and 
performance evaluation results. Because the proposed technical 
correction is non-substantive, the EPA is proposing to make it 
effective immediately upon promulgation of the final rule.
    The EPA is proposing changes that affect ongoing compliance for 
this subpart, namely removing the provisions that provide an exemption 
from the requirements to meet the standard during periods of 
malfunction, removing the requirement for an emergency safety vent 
operating plan, adding electronic reporting provisions, and updating 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements and General Provisions 
applicability in keeping with the proposed revisions. Our experience 
with other similar industries shows that such facilities generally 
require a period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule 
requirements, to evaluate their operations for any changes needed to 
meet the revised requirements, and to update their operations to 
reflect their revised requirements.
    In contrast, the EPA is proposing no changes to the content of 
performance test and performance evaluation reports, only the method of 
reporting. Our experience with requiring electronic reporting of 
performance tests and performance evaluations in other industries shows 
that as the ERT has been in use by source testing companies since 2004, 
less time is necessary for its implementation, and that facilities 
generally require a period of 90 days to understand and become familiar 
with the process of submitting performance test and performance 
evaluation results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI. Accordingly, 
we propose that 90 days would be sufficient time for facilities with 
hazardous waste combustors to complete these tasks.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The hazardous waste combustor source category comprises 
incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, solid fuel 
boilers, liquid fuel boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces 
that combust hazardous waste. Currently, the EPA has identified 177 
hazardous waste combustors at 96 facilities owned by 82 corporate 
entities. Of these, 70 are incinerators, 67 are liquid fuel boilers, 17 
are hydrochloric acid production furnaces, 14 are cement kilns, 7 are 
solid fuel boilers, and 2 are lightweight aggregate kilns. We estimate 
that four new hazardous waste combustors may begin operations in the 
next five years.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We do not anticipate that the proposed amendments to this subpart 
will impact air quality. The addition of electronic reporting 
provisions, amendments to the emergency safety vent provisions, and 
correction of inadvertent errors do not affect the stringency of the 
standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. Because malfunctions are, by 
definition, not reasonably preventable, we do not expect the removal of 
the emissions limit exemption for periods of malfunction to impact 
hazardous air pollutant emissions or, subsequently, air quality.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The EPA estimated costs for this proposed action based on the 
results of the analysis for information collection activities, as 
presented in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section, Economic Impact 
Analysis memorandum, and accompanying Information Collection Request 
(ICR) documents in the docket. The EPA estimated the incremental 
industry costs of the rule to be $2,600 per unit in the first year and 
$840 in each of the subsequent years. Total incremental industry costs 
of the rule are estimated to be $470,000 in the first year and $150,000 
in each of the subsequent years. These costs are small relative to the 
estimated revenue of the hazardous waste treatment and disposal 
industry (approximately $9 billion in 2021).

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Because of the low costs, relatively small number of affected 
existing units (fewer than 200) and because the EPA anticipates 4 
affected new sources in the next 5 years, the EPA expects minimal 
economic impacts under the final rule.

E. What are the benefits?

    The proposed amendments require electronic submittal of performance 
tests, deviation reports, and annual compliance reports, which will 
streamline reporting for affected sources and increase the usefulness 
of the data and improve data accessibility for the public. The 
electronic reporting requirements will, therefore, further assist in 
the protection of public health and the environment and will ultimately 
result in less burden on the regulated community. No air quality 
benefits are expected, quantified, or monetized.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon 
its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice 
in Regulatory Analysis,'' which provides recommendations that encourage 
analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing 
that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and analytical 
challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The Technical Guidance 
states that a regulatory action may involve potential EJ concerns if it 
could: (1) create new disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ 
concerns; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on 
communities with EJ concerns; or (3) present opportunities to address 
existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns 
through this action under development.
    The EPA's EJ technical guidance states that ``[t]he analysis of 
potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address three 
questions: (A) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with 
environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for 
population groups of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential 
EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the 
regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory 
option(s)

[[Page 59874]]

under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under 
consideration, are potential EJ concerns created or mitigated compared 
to the baseline?'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in 
Regulatory Analysis, U.S. EPA, June 2016. Section 3--Key Analytic 
Considerations, page 11. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The environmental justice analysis is presented for the purpose of 
providing the public with as full as possible an understanding of the 
potential impacts of this proposed action. The EPA notes that analysis 
of such impacts is distinct from the determinations proposed in this 
action under CAA section 112, which are based solely on the statutory 
factors the EPA is required to consider under that section.
    To examine the potential for any EJ concerns that might be 
associated with HWC NESHAP facilities, we performed a proximity 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of individual demographic 
groups of the populations living within 5 km (~3.1 miles) and 50 km 
(~31 miles) of the facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this 
analysis to the national average for each of the demographic groups. It 
should be noted that proximity to affected facilities does not indicate 
that any exposures or impacts will occur and should not be interpreted 
as a direct measure of exposure or impact. This limits the usefulness 
of proximity analyses when attempting to answer questions from EPA's EJ 
Technical Guidance.
    The results show that for populations within 5 km of the 96 
hazardous waste combustor facilities, the following demographic groups 
were above the national average: Black (19 percent versus 12 percent 
nationally), Hispanic/Latino (21 percent versus 19 percent nationally), 
people age 0 to 17 years (24 percent versus 22 percent nationally), 
people living below the poverty level (19 percent versus 13 percent 
nationally), people below two times the poverty level (38 percent 
versus 29 percent nationally), and people over the age of 25 without a 
high school diploma (15 percent versus 12 percent nationally).
    The results show that for populations within 50 km of the 96 
hazardous waste combustor facilities, the percent of the population 
that is Black is above the national average (14 percent versus 12 
percent nationally).
    A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed is 
included as Table 2 of this preamble. The methodology and the results 
of the demographic analysis are presented in the document titled 
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Hazardous 
Waste Combustor NESHAP Facilities, which is available in the docket for 
this action.

                Table 2--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Hazardous Waste Combustors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Nationwide        Population        Population
                     Demographic group                         average for     within 50 km of   within 5 km of
                                                                reference       96 facilities     96 facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..........................................       329,824,950        55,520,566         1,772,399
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Race and Ethnicity by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.....................................................                60                62                53
Black.....................................................                12                14                19
American Indian...........................................               0.6               0.3               0.3
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)..........                19                14                21
Other and Multiracial.....................................                 9                 8                 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Age by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age 0 to 17 years.........................................                22                22                24
Age 18 to 64 years........................................                62                62                62
Age >=65 years............................................                16                16                14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.......................................                13                12                19
Below 2x Poverty Level....................................                29                28                38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over Age 25 and without a High School Diploma.............                12                10                15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated...................................                 5                 4                 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census' 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-
  year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. The total population counts are based on the 2020 Decennial
  Census block populations. To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a
  distinct demographic category. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino,
  regardless of race.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    Because the EPA does not expect this action to impact air quality, 
this action is not relevant to human health and the EPA's Policy on 
Children's Health does not apply. This action also does not concern an 
environmental health risk or safety risk, so Executive Order 13045: 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
does not apply.

[[Page 59875]]

V. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. The EPA has attempted 
to ensure that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are 
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the 
malfunction exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether 
we have successfully done so. The EPA is also soliciting comment on 
whether a work practice standard for periods of malfunction for reasons 
of safety should be set for hazardous waste combustors and, if yes, 
what the work practice standard should comprise.
    The EPA also solicits comment on the proposed compliance dates, and 
we specifically request submission of information from sources in this 
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be 
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the 
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in 
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and is 
therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rulemaking 
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2803.01. You can 
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, and 
it is briefly summarized here.
    The goal of this information collection request (ICR) is to collect 
new monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping data from hazardous waste 
combustors (HWC) subject to emission standards under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart EEE, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
from Hazardous Waste Combustors. The key revisions to this subpart are 
the removal of exemptions for emissions during malfunction periods in 
response to Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 
and the addition of e-reporting using the EPA's Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) to replace physically 
mailing many of the reports and notifications required under this 
subpart. These revisions require modifications to the monitoring, 
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of the rule. The information 
collected in this ICR will be used to ensure compliance with this 
subpart. All information submitted to the agency in response to the ICR 
will be managed in accordance with applicable laws and the EPA's 
regulations governing treatment of confidential business information at 
40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Any information determined to constitute a 
trade secret will be protected under 18 U.S.C. 1905.
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of hazardous waste 
combustors subject to emission standards under 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
EEE.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste 
Combustors (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE).
    Estimated number of respondents: 96.
    Frequency of response: Semiannually, quarterly.
    Total estimated burden: 2,560 hours (per year). Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $257,000 (per year), includes $0 annualized 
capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    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 the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at 
the beginning of this rulemaking. The EPA will respond to any ICR-
related comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using 
the interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this 
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB 
must receive comments no later than August 23, 2024.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small 
businesses in the NESHAP and industrial source categories listed in 
Table 1 operating hazardous waste combustors. The Agency has determined 
that, in the 2025 analysis year, 9 potentially affected small entities 
operating 18 units at 9 facilities may experience an impact of less 
than 1 percent of revenue under the proposed rulemaking. Details of 
this analysis are presented in the document titled Economic Impact 
Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors Malfunction and Electronic 
Reporting Amendments.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action 
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not 
exceed $100 million or more.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. The EPA is not aware of any hazardous waste 
combustor unit owned or operated by Tribal governments. This action 
will not have substantial direct costs or impacts 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. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to the proposed amendments.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those

[[Page 59876]]

regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order.
    Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety 
risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's Policy on 
Children's Health also does not apply.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and 
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All

    The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions 
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to 
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. As stated 
in section IV.F of this preamble, we performed a proximity demographic 
analysis for 96 existing facilities with hazardous waste combustors 
that are currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. A total of 
1.8 million people live within 5 kilometers (approximately 0.1 miles) 
of these facilities. The proportion of demographic groups living near 
these hazardous waste combustors are above the national average for 
Black, Hispanic or Latino, people aged 0 to 17 years, people below the 
poverty level, people below two times the poverty level, and people 
over the age of 25 and without a high school diploma. See section IV.F 
of this preamble for further results of the analysis.
    The EPA believes that this action is not likely to change existing 
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental 
justice concerns. The EPA does not anticipate that the proposed 
amendments to the subpart will impact air quality because the EPA does 
not expect any of the proposed provisions to affect hazardous air 
pollutant emissions, and so is not likely to change existing 
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental 
justice concerns. Because malfunctions are, by definition, not 
reasonably preventable, we do not expect the removal of the emissions 
limit exemption for periods of malfunction to impact hazardous air 
pollutant emissions or, subsequently, air quality. The addition of 
electronic reporting provisions, amendments to the emergency safety 
vent provisions, and correction of inadvertent errors are primarily 
changes to recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and so do not 
impact hazardous air pollutant emissions.
    The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained 
in section IV.F of this preamble. The demographic analysis is presented 
in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Hazardous Waste Combustor NESHAP Facilities, which is 
available in the docket for this action, EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-15840 Filed 7-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P