31470 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

revision of the enforcement period in 33 

CFR 165.1312(d). This rule is 

categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 

2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREA. 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 165.1312 revise paragraph (d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 165.1312 Security Zone; Portland Rose 

Festival on Willamette River. 

* * * * * 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

is enforced annually in June. The event 

will be 6 days in length and the specific 

dates of enforcement will be published 

each year in the Federal Register. In 

2015, the zone will be enforced on 

Wednesday, June 3, through Monday, 

June 8. 

Dated: May 11, 2015. 

D.J. Travers, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Sector Columbia River. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13397 Filed 6–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0505; FRL–9928–25– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS42 

Completion of Requirement To 

Promulgate Emissions Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this action the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

finalizes its proposed determination that 

the EPA completed its statutory 

obligation under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) to promulgate emissions 

standards for source categories 

accounting for not less than 90 percent 

of the aggregated emissions of each of 

seven specific hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) enumerated in the CAA. On 

December 16, 2014, the EPA published 

the proposed determination that stated 

the basis for the agency’s conclusion 

that it completed this obligation in 

February of 2011 by identifying the 

promulgated standards that collectively 

satisfy this obligation and provided the 

public an opportunity to comment on 

the EPA’s determination. This action 

finalizes the EPA’s determination. 

DATES: This action is effective on June 

3, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0505. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, 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, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC 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 EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this action, contact Mr. 

Nathan Topham, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards; Sector Policies 

and Programs Division, Metals and 

Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243–02); 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27111; 

telephone number: (919) 541–0483; fax 

number: (919) 541–3207; email address: 

topham.nathan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of this document. The 

information presented in this preamble 

is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

B. Judicial Review 

II. Background Information 

III. How has the EPA satisfied its obligation 

under CAA section 112(c)(6)? 

A. What are the emissions standards that 

the EPA has promulgated to meet the 90 

percent requirement under CAA section 

112(c)(6)? 

B. What are the surrogate pollutants used 

by the EPA when establishing CAA 

section 112(d)(2) standards for the source 

categories identified in the proposed 

determination? 

IV. Summary of Significant Comments and 

Responses 

A. General/Legal Opposition to the EPA’s 

Surrogacy Determinations 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

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 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will also be available on the 

Internet through the EPA’s Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a 

forum for information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. Following signature 

by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will 

post a copy of this final action at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/

eparules.html. Following publication in 

the Federal Register, the EPA will post 

the Federal Register version of the rule 

at this same Web site. 

B. Judicial Review 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial 

review of this final action is available 

only by filing a petition for review in 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit by 

August 3, 2015. Under CAA section 

307(b)(2), the requirements established 

by this final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by the EPA to 

enforce the requirements. Section 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 31471 

1The EPA’s initial determination was signed on 

February 21, 2011, and published in the Federal 

Register on March 21, 2011. 

2 In addition to standards issued pursuant to 

section 112(d)(2) or (4), EPA also includes 

standards issued pursuant to section 129 as 

satisfying the 112(c)(6) requirement because section 

129(a)(2) requires MACT standards that are 

virtually identical to the those standards required 

pursuant to section 112(d)(2). In addition, section 

129(h)(3)(A) states that ‘‘the performance standards 

under subsection (a) of this section and section 

[111] of this title applicable to a category of solid 

waste incineration units shall be deemed standards 

under section [112](d)(2)of this title.’’ 

3Some standards used non-HAP compounds (or 

groups of compounds) as surrogates for HAP. 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides 

that ‘‘[o]nly an objection to a rule or 

procedure which was raised with 

reasonable specificity during the period 

for public comment (including any 

public hearing) may be raised during 

judicial review.’’ This section also 

provides a mechanism for us to convene 

a proceeding for reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f 

the person raising an objection can 

demonstrate to the EPA that it was 

impracticable to raise such objection 

within [the period for public comment] 

or if the grounds for such objection 

arose after the period for public 

comment (but within the time specified 

for judicial review) and if such objection 

is of central relevance to the outcome of 

the rule.’’ Any person seeking to make 

such a demonstration to us should 

submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 

the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 

EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC West 

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to 

both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background Information 

CAA section 112(c)(6) requires the 

EPA to take action with respect to the 

sources of seven specific persistent, 

bioaccumulative HAP. The section 

states, ‘‘With respect to alkylated lead 

compounds, polycyclic organic matter, 

hexachlorobenzene, mercury, 

polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,8- 

tetrachlorodibenzofurans and 2,3,7,8- 

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, the 

Administrator shall, not later than 5 

years after November 15, 1990, list 

categories and subcategories of sources 

assuring that sources accounting for not 

less than 90 per centum of the aggregate 

emissions of each such pollutant are 

subject to standards under subsection 

(d)(2) or (d)(4) of this section.’’ 

CAA section 112(c)(6) requires the 

EPA to ensure that source categories 

responsible for at least 90 percent of the 

aggregate emissions of each of the seven 

specified pollutants are subject to 

standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) 

or 112(d)(4). It requires the EPA to list, 

by November 15, 1995, source categories 

assuring that sources responsible for 90 

percent of the aggregate emissions are 

subject to emission standards pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4), and 

to promulgate such standards by 

November 15, 2000. Under CAA section 

112(d)(2), the EPA imposes emission 

standards that require ‘‘the maximum 

degree of reduction in emissions of the 

[HAP]’’ that the EPA concludes are 

achievable based on a consideration of 

factors identified in the statute. CAA 

section 112(d)(2). These standards are 

referred to as ‘‘maximum achievable 

control technology’’ or ‘‘MACT’’ 

standards. CAA section 112(d)(4) 

authorizes the EPA to set a health-based 

standard for a limited set of HAP for 

which a health threshold has been 

established, and that standard must 

provide for ‘‘an ample margin of safety.’’ 

CAA section 112(d)(4). 

On December 16, 2014, the EPA 

published in the Federal Register the 

proposed determination concluding that 

the requirements of CAA section 

112(c)(6) were fulfilled in February of 

2011. 79 FR 74656 (December 16, 

2014).1 The proposed determination 

provided a detailed summary of the 

litigation history regarding this action 

and provided an opportunity for 

comment on the EPA’s proposed 

determination that it has fulfilled the 

requirements of CAA section 112(c)(6). 

The proposed rulemaking explained the 

basis for the agency’s proposed 

determination by identifying the 

promulgated CAA section 112(d)(2) or 

112(d)(4) standards that collectively 

satisfy the obligation and describing 

how the EPA determined which 

regulations would collectively satisfy 

the 90 percent requirement under CAA 

section 112(c)(6) using the updated 1990 

baseline inventory of source categories 

that emit CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP, 

which was presented in Table 1 of the 

proposed determination. 79 FR at 

74661–74671. 

III. How has the EPA satisfied its 

obligation under CAA section 112(c)(6)? 

A. What are the emissions standards 

that the EPA has promulgated to meet 

the 90 percent requirement under CAA 

section 112(c)(6)? 

This action finalizes the EPA’s 

proposed determination that the Agency 

has promulgated emissions standards 

for source categories pursuant to CAA 

sections 112(d)(2) and (4) sufficient to 

satisfy the CAA section 112(c)(6) 

requirement that sources accounting for 

not less than 90 percent of the aggregate 

emissions of seven specific HAP are 

subject to standards under CAA sections 

112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4).2 Table 2 of the 

December 2014 proposal provided a list 

of the emissions standards, including 

the name of each of the source 

categories, the name of the emissions 

standards that apply, and the rule 

citation for each (i.e., CFR part and 

subpart). 79 FR 74674–74677, December 

16, 2014. Table 3 of the 2014 proposal 

provided a list of the specific 

regulations (including CFR citations, 

part and subpart) that address 90 

percent or more of each of the CAA 

section 112(c)(6) HAP. 79 FR at 74677. 

After considering and evaluating all 

public comments received in response 

to the proposed rule, we finalize our 

determination that the EPA has satisfied 

the CAA section 112(c)(6) requirement 

to establish CAA section 112(d)(2) or (4) 

standards for source categories that 

account for not less than 90 percent of 

the seven HAP listed in CAA section 

112(c)(6). 

B. What are the surrogate pollutants 

used by the EPA when establishing CAA 

section 112(d)(2) standards for the 

source categories identified in the 

proposed determination? 

As noted in the proposed rule, the 

emissions standards that collectively 

satisfy the 90 percent requirement under 

CAA section 112(c)(6) were set by the 

EPA under two approaches: (1) Through 

standards that directly regulated CAA 

section 112(c)(6) HAP; and (2) through 

standards that set emission limits for 

another HAP or compound,3 which 

serves as a surrogate for the CAA section 

112(c)(6) HAP and other non-112(c)(6) 

HAP emitted from the source category. 

The EPA noted in the proposed 

determination that, with respect to some 

of the CAA section 112(d)(2) standards 

that utilized the surrogacy approach, 

specifically those promulgated prior to 

the EPA’s development of the baseline 

emissions inventory for CAA section 

112(c)(6) and issuance of the 1998 

listing notice, the EPA did not 

specifically indicate in those 

rulemaking records that the standards 

would be counted towards satisfying the 

90 percent requirement in CAA section 

112(c)(6). For these standards, the 2014 

proposed determination explained how 

the surrogate standards control the CAA 

section 112(c)(6) HAP along with other 

HAP from the source categories and 

ensure that the sources of CAA section 

112(c)(6) HAP emissions are ‘‘subject to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
31472 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

standards’’ for the purposes of CAA 

section 112(c)(6). The information 

presented in the proposed 

determination simply described the 

actions taken in these prior rulemakings 

and explained how the surrogate 

standards control the relevant CAA 

section 112(c)(6) HAP. The proposed 

determination did not reopen these 

prior actions. All those standards were 

subject to their own notice and 

comment rulemaking processes 

consistent with CAA sections 112 and 

307(d), and, in several cases, to judicial 

review as provided by the strict statute 

of limitations imposed by CAA section 

307(b)(1). 

Table 1 of this preamble provides a 

list of the source categories listed under 

CAA section 112(c)(6), the names of the 

national standards that apply to those 

source categories, the Federal Register 

citations and CFR part and subparts for 

the rules, and the CAA section 112(c)(6) 

HAP regulated by those standards. 

TABLE 1—LIST OF SOURCE CATEGORIES, NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS, AND THE 112(C)(6) HAP SUBJECT TO

THESE STANDARDS, TO FULFILL THE CAA SECTION 112(C)(6) OBLIGATIONS

Section 112(c)(6) 

source category 

name 

National emissions standard name(s) CFR part and 

subpart 

Final rule Federal 

Register citation 112(c)(6) Pollutant 

Aerospace Industry 

(Surface Coating).

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Aerospace 

Industries.

40 CFR part 63 subpart GG.60 FR 45948, September 1, 1995.Mercury, POM. 

Alkylated Lead Production.National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry.

40 CFR part 63 subpart F.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

Alkylated Lead. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry for Process Vents, Storage 

Vessels, Transfer Operations, and 

Wastewater.

40 CFR part 63 subpart G.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

Alkylated Lead. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment 

Leaks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart H.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

Alkylated Lead. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Certain 

Processes Subject to the Negotiated 

Regulation for Equipment Leaks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart I.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

Alkylated Lead. 

Asphalt Roofing Production.National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing.40 CFR part 63 subpart LLLLL.68 FR 24562, May 7, 

2003.

POM. 

Blast Furnace and 

Steel Mills.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Integrated Iron 

and Steel Manufacturing Facilities.

40 CFR part 63 subpart FFFFF.68 FR 27645, May 

20, 2003.

POM. 

Chemical Manufacturing: Cyclic 

Crude and Intermediate Production.

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry.

40 CFR part 63 subpart F.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry for Process Vents, Storage 

Vessels, Transfer Operations, and 

Wastewater.

40 CFR part 63 subpart G.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment 

Leaks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart H.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Certain 

Processes Subject to the Negotiated 

Regulation for Equipment Leaks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart I.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

Chlorinated Solvents 

Production.

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry.

40 CFR part 63 subpart F.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

HCB. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry for Process Vents, Storage 

Vessels, Transfer Operations, and 

Wastewater.

40 CFR part 63 subpart G.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

HCB. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment 

Leaks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart H.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

HCB. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 31473 

TABLE 1—LIST OF SOURCE CATEGORIES, NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS, AND THE 112(C)(6) HAP SUBJECT TO

THESE STANDARDS, TO FULFILL THE CAA SECTION 112(C)(6) OBLIGATIONS—Continued 

Section 112(c)(6) 

source category 

name 

National emissions standard name(s) CFR part and 

subpart 

Final rule Federal 

Register citation 112(c)(6) Pollutant 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Certain 

Processes Subject to the Negotiated 

Regulation for Equipment Leaks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart I.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

HCB. 

Coke Ovens: ByProduct Recovery 

Plants.

National Emission Standard for Benzene 

Emissions from Coke By-Product Recovery Plants.

40 CFR part 61 subpart L.54 FR 38073, September 14, 1989.POM. 

Coke Ovens: Charging, Topside & 

Door Leaks.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Oven 

Batteries.

40 CFR part 63 subpart L.58 FR 57898, October 27, 1993.POM. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: 

Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart CCCCC.68 FR 18007, April 

14, 2003.

POM. 

Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching & 

Battery Stacks.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Oven 

Batteries.

40 CFR part 63 subpart L.58 FR 57898, October 27, 1993.POM. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: 

Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart CCCCC.68 FR 18007, April 

14, 2003.

POM. 

Commercial Printing: 

Gravure.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Printing and Publishing Industry.40 CFR part 63 subpart KK.61 FR 27132, May 

30, 1996.

POM. 

Electric Arc Furnaces 

(EAF)—Secondary 

Steel.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: 

Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities.

40 CFR part 63 subpart YYYYY.72 FR 74088, December 28, 2007.Mercury. 

Fabricated Metal 

Products.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating 

of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products.

40 CFR part 63 subpart MMMM.69 FR 129, January 

2, 2004.

POM. 

Gasoline Distribution 

(Stage 1).

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations).40 CFR part 63 subpart R.59 FR 64303, December 14, 1994.POM. 

Gold Mines ............... National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Gold Mine Ore 

Processing and Production Area Source 

Category.

40 CFR part 63 subpart EEEEEEE.76 FR 9450, February 17, 2011.Mercury. 

Hazardous Waste Incineration.National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous 

Waste Combustors.

40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE.64 FR 52827, September 30, 1999; 

70 FR 59402, October 12, 2005.

POM, Mercury, PCB, 

Dioxins, Furans. 

Industrial Organic 

Chemicals Manufacturing.

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry.

40 CFR part 63 subpart F.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry for Process Vents, Storage 

Vessels, Transfer Operations, and 

Wastewater.

40 CFR part 63 subpart G.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment 

Leaks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart H.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Certain 

Processes Subject to the Negotiated 

Regulation for Equipment Leaks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart I.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

Industrial Stationary 

IC Engines—Diesel.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ.69 FR 33473, June 

15, 2004.

POM. 

Industrial Stationary 

IC Engines—Natural Gas.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ.69 FR 33473, June 

15, 2004.

POM. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
31474 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—LIST OF SOURCE CATEGORIES, NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS, AND THE 112(C)(6) HAP SUBJECT TO

THESE STANDARDS, TO FULFILL THE CAA SECTION 112(C)(6) OBLIGATIONS—Continued 

Section 112(c)(6) 

source category 

name 

National emissions standard name(s) CFR part and 

subpart 

Final rule Federal 

Register citation 112(c)(6) Pollutant 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

Boilers.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process 

Heaters.

40 CFR part 63 subpart DDDDD.76 FR 15608, March 

21, 2011.

POM, Mercury, Dioxins, 

Furans. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: 

Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 

Boilers.

40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJJJ.76 FR 15554, March 

21, 2011.

POM, Mercury, Dioxins, 

Furans. 

Lightweight Aggregate Kilns.National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous 

Waste Combustors.

40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE.64 FR 52827, September 30, 1999; 

70 FR 59402, October 12, 2005.

Mercury, Dioxins, Furans. 

Medical Waste Incineration.Standards of Performance and Emissions 

Guidelines for Hospitals/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators.

40 CFR part 60 subpart Ce, Ec; & 40 

CFR part 62 subpart HHH.

74 FR 51367, October 6, 2009.POM, Mercury, PCB, 

Dioxins, Furans. 

Mercury Cell Chlor 

Alkali Production.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor Alkali 

Plants.

40 CFR part 63 subpart IIIII.68 FR 70903, December 19, 2003.Mercury. 

Municipal Waste 

Combustion.

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large Municipal Waste Combustion Units.40 CFR part 60 subpart Cb, Ea, Eb; & 

40 CFR part 62 

subpart FFF.

71 FR 27324, May 

10, 2006.

POM, Mercury, PCB, 

Dioxins, Furans. 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 

Small Municipal Waste Combustion 

Units.

40 CFR part 60 subpart AAAA, BBBB 

& 40 CFR part 62 

subpart JJJ.

65 FR 76349, December 6, 2000; 

65 FR 76337, December 6, 2000.

POM, Mercury, PCB, 

Dioxins, Furans. 

Naphthalene Production.National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry.

40 CFR part 63 subpart F.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry for Process Vents, Storage 

Vessels, Transfer Operations, and 

Wastewater.

40 CFR part 63 subpart G.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment 

Leaks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart H.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Certain 

Processes Subject to the Negotiated 

Regulation for Equipment Leaks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart I.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

Paints and Allied 

Products (Major).

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing.40 CFR part 63 subpart FFFF.68 FR 63851, November 10, 2003.POM. 

Paper Coated and 

Laminated, Packaging.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other 

Web Coating.

40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ.67 FR 72329, December 4, 2002.POM. 

Pesticides Manufacture & Agricultural 

Chemicals.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Pesticide Active 

Ingredient Production.

40 CFR part 63 subpart MMM.64 FR 33549, June 

23, 1999.

HCB. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry.

40 CFR part 63 subpart F.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

HCB. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry for Process Vents, Storage 

Vessels, Transfer Operations, and 

Wastewater.

40 CFR part 63 subpart G.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

HCB. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment 

Leaks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart H.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

HCB. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 31475 

TABLE 1—LIST OF SOURCE CATEGORIES, NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS, AND THE 112(C)(6) HAP SUBJECT TO

THESE STANDARDS, TO FULFILL THE CAA SECTION 112(C)(6) OBLIGATIONS—Continued 

Section 112(c)(6) 

source category 

name 

National emissions standard name(s) CFR part and 

subpart 

Final rule Federal 

Register citation 112(c)(6) Pollutant 

Petroleum Refining: 

All Processes.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Petroleum 

Refineries.

40 CFR part 63 subpart CC.60 FR 43244, August 

18, 1995.

POM. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units.40 CFR part 63 subpart UUU.67 FR 17761, April 

11, 2002.

POM. 

Phthalic Anhydride 

Production.

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry.

40 CFR part 63 subpart F.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry for Process Vents, Storage 

Vessels, Transfer Operations, and 

Wastewater.

40 CFR part 63 subpart G.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment 

Leaks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart H.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

National Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Certain 

Processes Subject to the Negotiated 

Regulation for Equipment Leaks.

40 CFR part 63 subpart I.59 FR 19402, April 

22, 1994.

POM. 

Plastics Material and 

Resins Manufacturing.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Group IV Polymers and Resins.40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJ.61 FR 48208, September 12, 1996.POM. 

Portland Cement 

Manufacture: Hazardous Waste Kilns.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous 

Waste Combustors.

40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE.64 FR 52827, September 30, 1999; 

70 FR 59402, October 12, 2005.

POM, Mercury, Dioxins, 

Furans. 

Portland Cement 

Manufacture: NonHazardous Waste 

Kilns.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland 

Cement Manufacturing Industry.

40 CFR part 63 subpart LLL.75 FR 54970, September 9, 2010.POM, Mercury, Dioxins, 

Furans. 

Primary Aluminum 

Production.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants.40 CFR part 63 subpart LL.62 FR 52384, October 7, 1997.POM, Mercury, Dioxins, 

Furans. 

Pulp and Paper— 

Kraft Recovery 

Furnaces.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, 

Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone 

Semichemical Pulp Mills.

40 CFR part 63 subpart MM.63 FR 18504, April 

15, 1998; 66 FR 

3180, January 12, 

2001.

POM, Mercury. 

Pulp and Paper— 

Lime Kilns.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, 

Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone 

Semichemical Pulp Mills.

40 CFR part 63 subpart MM.63 FR 18504, April 

15, 1998; 66 FR 

3180, January 12, 

2001.

POM, Mercury. 

Secondary Aluminum 

Smelting.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production.40 CFR part 63 subpart RRR.65 FR 15689, March 

23, 2000.

Dioxins, Furans. 

Secondary Lead 

Smelting.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary 

Lead Smelting.

40 CFR part 63 subpart X.60 FR 32587, June 

23, 1995; 77 FR 

555, January 5, 

2012.

POM, Dioxins, Furans. 

Sewage Sludge Incineration.Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units.

40 CFR part 60 subparts LLLL, 

MMMM.

76 FR 15372, March 

21, 2011.

Mercury. 

Ship Building and 

Repair (Surface 

Coating).

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Shipbuilding 

and Ship Repair (Surface Coating).

40 CFR part 63 subpart II.60 FR 64330, December 15, 1995.POM. 

Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (SICs Combined).National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating 

of Plastic Parts and Products.

40 CFR part 63 subpart PPPP.69 FR 20967, April 

19, 2004; 69 FR 

22601, April 26, 

2004.

POM. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
31476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

4The commenter notes that section 112(c)(6) also 

allows the EPA to set standards for these pollutants 

under section 112(d)(4) if a health threshold has 

been established for that pollutant. CAA sections 

112(c)(6) and (d)(4). This provision is not at issue 

because the EPA has not established health 

thresholds for any of the section 112(c)(6) 

pollutants at issue here. 

5Accepting as ‘‘reasonable’’ the EPA’s 

interpretation of section 112 as requiring it to set 

section 112(d)(2) standards for the section 112(c)(6) 

pollutants when it regulates a category of area 

sources listed pursuant to section 112(c)(6). 

TABLE 1—LIST OF SOURCE CATEGORIES, NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS, AND THE 112(C)(6) HAP SUBJECT TO

THESE STANDARDS, TO FULFILL THE CAA SECTION 112(C)(6) OBLIGATIONS—Continued 

Section 112(c)(6) 

source category 

name 

National emissions standard name(s) CFR part and 

subpart 

Final rule Federal 

Register citation 112(c)(6) Pollutant 

Wood Household 

Furniture Manufacturing.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations.40 CFR part 63 subpart JJ.60 FR 62930, December 7, 1995.POM. 

IV. Summary of Significant Comments 

and Responses 

During the public comment period for 

the proposed determination, we 

received comments from three 

organizations: the Council of Industrial 

Boiler Owners (CIBO), the Coalition for 

Clean Air Implementation (CCAI), and 

Sierra Club. The CIBO and CCAI 

submitted comments supporting our 

proposed determination that we have 

fulfilled the CAA section 112(c)(6) 

obligations and agreed with our use of 

surrogate pollutants. Sierra Club 

submitted comments claiming that a 

number of previously promulgated 

standards identified in the proposed 

determination are unlawful for purposes 

of CAA section 112(d)(2) such that those 

standards may not count toward 

satisfying the 90 percent requirement in 

CAA section 112(c)(6). A summary of 

significant public comments received 

during the comment period and the 

EPA’s response to those comments are 

provided below in this section of this 

preamble. All the remaining public 

comments received during the comment 

period and the EPA’s responses to those 

comments are presented in the 

Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA’s Responses for the Completion of 

Requirements to Promulgate Standards 

Under CAA Section 112(c)(6) 2015 Final 

Rule document, which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

A. General/Legal Opposition to the 

EPA’s Surrogacy Determinations 

Comment: One commenter states that 

‘‘for source categories listed under 

section [112](c)(6), the EPA must set a 

MACT standard (i.e., a standard under 

section [112](d)(2)–(3)) for each section 

112(c)(6) pollutant for which the source 

was listed.’’ 4 See Desert Citizens 

Against Pollution v. EPA, 699 F.3d 524, 

527–528 (D.C. Cir. 2012).5 Thus, the 

commenter states, ‘‘to satisfy section 

112(d)(2), the EPA must determine the 

maximum achievable degree of 

reduction for each hazardous air 

pollutant that a source category emits.’’ 

The commenter states that the CAA also 

specifies a ‘‘floor’’ for the reduction that 

the EPA must require for each pollutant. 

Therefore, the commenter believes that 

the EPA’s claim that it can meet its 

obligations under section 112(c)(6) by 

setting a single limit on the aggregate 

emissions of all HAP from an industrial 

source category is contrary to the 

language in CAA and violates the text of 

sections 112(c)(6) and 112(d), reflecting 

an unreasonable statutory 

interpretation. 

The commenter states that although 

the EPA may set surrogate standards for 

HAP where it is reasonable to do so, see 

National Lime, 233 F.3d at 637, setting 

surrogate standards instead of direct 

standards for HAP does not, according 

to the commenter, excuse the EPA from 

its clear statutory obligation to assure 

that each HAP emitted by a source 

category is reduced to the extent that 

sections 112(d)(2)–(3) requires. The 

commenter maintains that the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit has made clear, a 

surrogate is reasonable only if it allows 

the EPA to identify ‘‘the best achieving 

sources, and what they can achieve’’ 

with respect to the target HAP. Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 985 (D.C. 

Cir. 2004). 

As an example of a reasonable 

surrogate, the commenter asserts that 

particulate matter (PM) is a reasonable 

surrogate for metallic HAP only where 

the EPA demonstrates that (1) the 

metallic HAP are ‘‘invariably present’’ 

in the surrogate pollutant such that 

there is a strong correlation between the 

two; (2) the control technology used for 

PM control ‘‘indiscriminately captures’’ 

the metallic HAP along with the PM; 

and (3) the means by which sources 

achieve reductions in PM are the only 

means by which they achieve 

reductions’’ in metallic HAP emissions. 

National Lime, 233 F.3d at 639; Sierra 

Club, 353 F.3d at 984. The commenter 

maintains that the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit has held repeatedly that what 

sources ‘‘achieve’’ with respect to a 

given HAP is not limited to what they 

achieve intentionally, but also includes 

lower emission levels achieved through 

the use of cleaner fuels or raw materials 

regardless of whether such use reflects 

any deliberate intent to reduce 

emissions. Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 

875, 883 (D.C. Cir.2007) (citing National 

Lime, 233 F.3d at 640). 

The commenter states that the EPA’s 

use of ‘‘total HAP,’’ ‘‘total organic 

HAP,’’ and other such aggregate 

measures as ‘‘surrogates’’ for pollutants 

that fit into those categories is a 

definition maneuver and not a technical 

determination. The commenter states 

that this approach to surrogacy is 

unlawful because it conflicts with EPA’s 

statutory obligation under sections 

112(c)(6) and 112(d), and also the 

commenter asserts with the EPA’s own 

interpretation of those provisions, see 

Desert Citizens, 699 F.3d at 527–28, 

which is that the EPA must set MACT 

standards for each of the section 

112(c)(6) pollutants for which each 

source category was listed. The 

commenter states there is nothing left of 

this obligation if the EPA can simply 

define a category of pollutants (such as 

total HAP) broad enough to include all 

the pollutants it must regulate and then 

set an aggregate limit for the category. 

Additionally, the commenter states 

that saying that POM is a constituent of 

total HAP, for example, is just a 

different way of saying it is a HAP— 

something that Congress already clearly 

indicated by listing POM as a HAP in 

section 112(b). The commenter believes 

that such statements do nothing to 

demonstrate that emissions of total HAP 

identify the best performing sources 

with respect to POM and what sources 

can achieve with respect to POM. The 

commenter believes that if the EPA had 

authority to create surrogates by simply 

defining a group of pollutants to include 

all the pollutants it must regulate, it 

would abrogate the limits that decisions 

of the United States Court of Appeals for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 31477 

the District of Columbia Circuit have 

formulated to ensure that the EPA’s use 

of surrogates is reasonable. The 

commenter states that there would be 

nothing left, for example, of the 

requirement that the HAP to be 

regulated be ‘‘invariably present’’ in the 

surrogate pollutant, National Lime, 233 

F.3d at 639, if the EPA could simply 

define the surrogate ‘‘pollutant’’ as a 

group of pollutants that includes the 

regulated pollutant. 

The commenter argues that section 

112(c)(6) is a provision that specifically 

addresses seven persistent 

bioaccumulative toxics that Congress 

recognized were particularly harmful. 

The commenter believes that for sources 

the EPA lists as contributing to 90 

percent of the total emissions of one or 

more of these pollutants, the EPA must 

set a standard for that pollutant 

ensuring the maximum emissions 

reduction. The commenter states that 

Congress would not have singled out 

these seven pollutants if it intended for 

the EPA only to set a single limit for the 

aggregate of emissions of all the 

different HAP. 

The commenter states that even if it 

were permissible in general for the EPA 

to evade its standard-setting obligations 

by defining the surrogate ‘‘pollutant’’ as 

a group of pollutants, the EPA’s 

surrogacy claims in this rule are 

unlawful and arbitrary because they 

lack supporting data or analysis. The 

commenter argues that the EPA’s 

surrogacy explanations in the proposed 

determination are standards under 

section 307(d) because they are firsttime claims that the relevant pollutants 

are subject to standards. The EPA must 

according to the commenter comply 

with the requirements of section 307(d) 

governing CAA rulemakings for all of 

those previously issued standards. The 

commenter maintains the EPA has not 

complied with these requirements 

because according to the commenter the 

EPA has not provided documentation, 

data, or analysis in support of its 

proposed determination. For this 

reason, the commenter concludes that 

the EPA has violated section 307(d) by 

failing to explain the ‘‘methodology 

used in obtaining the data and in 

analyzing the data’’ in the proposed 

determination, by failing to provide 

opportunity for informed public 

participation and input, and by 

unlawfully basing the Agency’s 

conclusions on information or data 

which has not been made available to 

the public through the docket. The 

commenter also believes that the EPA 

has acted arbitrarily and capriciously by 

failing to provide substantial record 

evidence in support of its proposed 

section 112(c)(6) determination, by 

failing to consider relevant factors, and 

by failing to provide a rational 

connection between the facts found and 

the conclusion made. Motor Vehicle 

Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm 

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42–43. 

The commenter gives examples of 

specific surrogacy claims for specific 

source categories and processes that it 

believes are unlawful and arbitrary. We 

address the specific claims in the 

Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA’s Responses for the Completion of 

Requirements to Promulgate Standards 

Under CAA Section 112(c)(6) 2015 Final 

Rule document, which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

Response: The commenter 

misinterprets the CAA, mischaracterizes 

the EPA’s proposed determination, and 

provides comments challenging the 

substance of a number of previously 

issued EPA rules. As explained below, 

the comments challenging the 

legitimacy of the standards on which 

EPA relies to demonstrate it has 

satisfied its obligations under CAA 

section 112(c)(6) are far outside the 

scope of the proposed CAA section 

112(c)(6) determination at issue. The 

EPA, therefore, has no obligation to 

respond to those comments. 

The proposed determination 

memorializes and provides notice that 

the EPA has fulfilled, via numerous 

other previous regulatory actions, its 

duties under section 112(c)(6) of the 

CAA. The proposal lists CAA section 

112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4) standards 

previously promulgated by the EPA and 

proposed the conclusion that the listed 

standards cover sources that, in the 

aggregate, emit 90 percent or more of the 

pollutants specifically identified in 

CAA section 112(c)(6). The commenter 

does not challenge that conclusion. In 

fact, no commenter suggests that the 

source categories listed did not emit, in 

the aggregate prior to regulation, 90 

percent or more of the specified 

pollutants or that the source categories 

are not subject to the CAA section 

112(d)(2) standards identified. Instead, 

the commenter seeks to use the 

proposed determination to reopen 

standards that were finalized by the 

EPA in some cases more than 20 years 

ago. The commenter argues that the EPA 

must now demonstrate, for each 

previously promulgated rule, that each 

standard reduces HAP ‘‘to the extent 

that [112] (d)(2)–(3) requires,’’ that in 

each rulemaking the EPA properly 

identified ‘‘the best performing 

sources,’’ and that the EPA must 

provide documentation, data and 

analysis to support the validity of the 

standards in the previously promulgated 

rules. CAA section 112(c)(6) imposes no 

such obligation on the EPA. As 

explained below, the commenter aims to 

collaterally attack prior EPA actions. All 

comments that raise such collateral 

attacks are outside the scope of the 

proposed CAA section 112(c)(6) 

determination. All of the rules relied 

upon by the EPA in this determination 

were promulgated through notice and 

comment rulemaking consistent with 

CAA section 307(d), and were final 

agency actions subject to judicial 

review. CAA section 112(c)(6) does not 

provide commenters another 

opportunity to belatedly challenge these 

prior EPA actions, nor does it mandate 

that the EPA re-promulgate or otherwise 

re-open for purposes of section 112(c)(6) 

standards that were previously 

promulgated under section 112(d)(2). 

As an initial matter, it is important to 

understand the specific duties that CAA 

section 112(c)(6) imposes on the EPA, 

especially since the commenter 

consistently paraphrases the statutory 

language to assert there are duties 

beyond which the CAA requires by its 

terms. CAA section 112(c)(6) requires 

the EPA, with respect to seven specified 

HAP—alkylated lead compounds, 

polycyclic organic matter, 

hexachlorobenzene, mercury, 

polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,8- 

tetrachlorodibenzofurans and 2,3,7,8- 

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin—to ‘‘list 

categories and subcategories of sources 

assuring that sources accounting for not 

less than 90 per centum of the aggregate 

emissions of each such pollutant are 

subject to standards under subsection 

(d)(2) or (d)(4) of this section.’’ The 

provision requires the listing to be done 

by November 15, 1995, and requires that 

sources accounting for not less than 90 

percent of aggregate emissions of each of 

the enumerated pollutants be subject to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) or (4) standards 

by November 15, 2000. CAA section 

112(c)(6) does not require the EPA to 

submit a report stating that the agency 

has subjected those sources to such 

standards, or establish a deadline for 

any such report. Sierra Club v. EPA, 699 

F.3d 530, 536 (D.C. Cir. 2012) 

(Henderson Concurring)(‘‘EPA is under 

no obligation, statutory or otherwise, to 

inform anyone that it has satisfied the 

requirements of section 112(c)(6).’’). 

Moreover, while CAA section 112(c)(6) 

gives the EPA authority to list source 

categories, the rules which establish 

standards for those source categories are 

promulgated pursuant to separate CAA 

provisions. 

The CAA section 112(d)(2) standards 

(also referred to as maximum achievable 

control technology or MACT standards), 

which commenter seeks to collaterally 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
31478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

6The primary impacts of CAA section 112(c)(6) 

are to require the EPA to list area sources if major 

sources do not account for at least 90 percent of 

each of the seven HAP, and to limit the EPA’s 

discretion to set so-called generally available 

control technology or GACT standards for area 

sources. Most relevant here is the limitation on the 

EPA’s authority to establish GACT standards. CAA 

section 112(d)(5) provides that, for listed area 

sources, the EPA may set emission standards that 

‘‘provide for the use of generally available control 

technologies or management practices by such 

sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants.’’ CAA section 112(c)(6) removes the 

EPA’s discretion to establish GACT standards for 

the seven section 112(c)(6) HAP emitted if an area 

source category must be regulated pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(2) or (4) to ensure that sources 

accounting for not less than 90 percent of the seven 

HAP are subject to CAA section 112 (d)(2) or (d)(4) 

standards. As shown in this notice, none of the 

standards applicable to area sources that the EPA 

listed and relied on to demonstrate that it has met 

its obligations under CAA section 112(c)(6) were 

established pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5). 

7Several of the rulemakings that the commenter 

collaterally attacks regulated major and area sources 

together and the Agency established the same 

section CAA section 112(d)(2) standard for both the 

major and the area sources in the categories. The 

commenter makes no distinction between major 

and area sources in its comments. 

attack, regulate HAP emitted from major 

sources and in some instances area 

sources and were promulgated in 

accordance with the following CAA 

provisions. CAA section 112(c)(1) 

requires the EPA to list all major sources 

and authorizes the EPA to list area 

sources, and section 112(d)(1) requires 

the EPA to regulate all HAP from major 

sources pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(2) or (d)(4). CAA section 

112(e)(1)(A)-(E) imposes sequential 

milestones for the EPA to complete 

issuance of MACT standards, and 

requires that the final set of such 

standards be promulgated by November 

15, 2000, the same date by which under 

CAA section 112(c)(6) sources 

accounting for 90 percent of the 

enumerated HAP were required to have 

become subject to CAA section 112(d)(2) 

or (4) standards. Therefore, for major 

sources, CAA section 112(c)(6) is 

redundant with respect to the HAP to be 

regulated, the type of standards 

required, and the ultimate timing for 

completion of issuing such standards. 

The HAP specifically listed in CAA 

section 112(c)(6) are also on the CAA 

section 112(b)(1) list of HAP and, thus, 

the CAA section 112(d)(1) obligation to 

set CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) 

standards for all HAP from major 

sources applies equally to the CAA 

section 112(c)(6) HAP. CAA section 

112(c)(6) adds nothing substantive to 

this requirement. Even the CAA section 

112(e)(1) deadlines for promulgating 

such standards is ultimately identical to 

the deadline in CAA section 112(c)(6).6

As such, it is irrelevant whether the 

EPA mentioned CAA section 112(c)(6) 

during the rulemaking for any standard 

for a major source category, including 

standards where the Agency regulated 

the area sources in the category at the 

same time and in the same manner as 

the major sources (i.e. pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(2)).7

For all the rules that the commenter 

seeks to collaterally attack, the public 

was on notice during each specific 

rulemaking that the EPA was setting 

MACT standards for the HAP, including 

the CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP, emitted 

by the source category. Parties, 

including the commenter, could have 

challenged the adequacy of those 

standards at the time they were issued 

if they believed the standards did not 

sufficiently reduce the HAP emitted by 

the source category, in whatever manner 

those standards took with respect to 

regulating each HAP individually or 

collectively through a surrogate. See 

National Lime Association v. EPA, 33 

F.3d 625, 633–34 (D.C. Cir. 2000) 

(finding that CAA section 112(d)(1) 

requires the EPA to establish standards 

for all HAP emitted from major sources). 

Any challenges to the legitimacy of the 

standards, including challenges 

suggesting that certain HAP were not 

adequately regulated, should have been 

raised during the rulemaking for the 

standards. If any issue remained when 

the standards were finalized, the proper 

recourse would have been to petition for 

judicial review pursuant to CAA section 

307(b). That provision provides that ‘‘[a] 

petition for review of action of the [EPA] 

Administrator in promulgating . . . any 

emission standard or requirement under 

section 112 of this title . . . shall be 

filed within sixty days from the date 

notice of such promulgation. . . . 

appears in the Federal Register. . . .’’ 

CAA section 307(b)(1). Once the 60-day 

period has lapsed, a party may not raise 

arguments that ‘‘were available to them 

at the time the rule was adopted.’’ Nat’l 

Mining Ass’n v. DOI, 70 F.3d 1345, 1350 

(D.C. Cir. 1995). 

For the reasons stated above, because 

the commenter challenges the 

sufficiency of the underlying standards 

as they apply to certain CAA section 

112(c)(6) HAP, the commenter should 

have raised these issues in timely, direct 

challenges to those rules. CAA section 

112(c)(6) does not allow for challenges 

to the legitimacy of CAA section 112(d) 

standards adopted in prior rulemakings 

outside the 60-day window for 

challenging those standards established 

in CAA section 307(b)(1). Moreover, in 

the proposed determination, EPA did 

not re-opened those previously 

promulgated standards, either to review 

their adequacy for controlling any 

emitted HAP (including section 

112(c)(6) HAP) under section 112(d)(2), 

or for any other purpose. Therefore, this 

final determination itself cannot provide 

a new opportunity to challenge those 

previously promulgated rules under 

either section 112(d)(2) or section 

112(c)(6). 

In addition to raising belated 

comments, the commenter argues that 

CAA section 112(c)(6) requires the EPA 

to set a ‘‘specific limit’’ for each of the 

CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP. It is not 

clear what the commenter means by a 

‘‘specific limit.’’ The commenter may be 

arguing that the EPA cannot rely on 

CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) 

standards that use surrogates to 

demonstrate that it has satisfied its 

obligation under CAA section 112(c)(6). 

However, it appears that the commenter 

is arguing that CAA section 112(c)(6) 

somehow limits the EPA’s discretion to 

use particular types of surrogates when 

setting MACT standards. The 

commenter specifically objects to the 

EPA’s standard for total HAP or total 

hazardous organic pollutants. There is 

no statutory support for either 

argument. Indeed, as other sections of 

the CAA illustrate, Congress knew how 

to require pollutant-specific standards. 

For example, CAA section 129(a)(4) 

explicitly requires the EPA to set 

numeric standards ‘‘for the 

[enumerated] substances or mixtures’’ 

listed in that subsection. That provision 

expressly requires the EPA to set 

numerical emissions limitations ‘‘for’’ a 

list of nine substances emitted by solid 

waste incineration units, and expressly 

authorizes the regulation of other 

pollutants through, among other things, 

surrogate standards. Unlike CAA section 

129(a)(4), the terms of CAA section 

112(c)(6) do not direct the EPA to set 

such standards ‘‘for’’ the CAA section 

112(c)(6) HAP. Congress conspicuously 

did not take this approach in CAA 

section 112(c)(6), and, thus, left intact 

the EPA’s discretion to establish 

surrogate standards. 

CAA section 112(c)(6) requires the 

Agency to assure that ‘‘sources 

accounting for’’ at least 90 percent of the 

emissions of the listed HAP are ‘‘subject 

to standards’’ under CAA sections 

112(d)(2) or (d)(4), without specifying 

the form of those standards, or how 

those standards must operate or be 

applied to those sources. The provision 

does not expressly state that the EPA 

can meet CAA section 112(c)(6) only by 

setting specific standards ‘‘for’’ the 

listed HAP, unlike CAA section 

129(a)(4). As the commenter notes, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit upheld the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 31479 

8The EPA has updated the 1998 listing several 

times to remove source categories no longer needed 

to meet the CAA section 112(c)(6) requirement 

based on updated information, and to add source 

categories subsequently determined to be necessary 

to reach the 90 percent threshold. See, e.g., 76 FR 

9450 (February 17, 2011) (adding Gold Mine source 

category); 73 FR 1916 (January 10, 2008) (finalizing 

decision not to regulate gasoline distribution area 

sources under CAA section 112(c)(6)); 72 FR 53814 

(September 20, 2007) (adding Electric Arc Furnace 

Steelmaking Facility area source category); 67 FR 

68124 (November 8, 2002) (removing several source 

categories). 

9Letter from Browner to Pew, Response to Sierra 

Club Petition to Revise Regulations for the SOCMI 

Category, Coke Oven Batteries, Petroleum 

Refineries, Medical Waste Incinerators, and 

Municipal Waste Combustors (dated January 25, 

1999)(January 19, 2001). 

EPA’s approach of satisfying its general 

obligation under CAA section 112 to set 

standards through surrogates, as long as 

the choice of the surrogate is itself 

reasonable. National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 

233 F.3d 625, 634, 637 (D.C. Cir. 2000); 

see also, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 

F.3d 976, 982–85 (D.C. Cir. 2004). In 

fact, in the National Lime decision, 

instead of mandating that the EPA set a 

specific standard for each metallic HAP, 

the Court held that the EPA’s standards 

for PM as a surrogate for regulating the 

aggregate metallic HAP was reasonable. 

233 F.3d at 639. 

Moreover, CAA section 112(c)(6) 

contains a numeric benchmark only as 

to source categories responsible for the 

percentage of aggregate baseline 

emissions that must be controlled, not 

the amount of emissions of each 

enumerated HAP that must be reduced. 

As this Court explained in National 

Lime, where ‘‘EPA is under no 

obligation to achieve a particular 

numerical reduction in HAP . . . 

emissions,’’ but rather only to apply 

MACT based on the HAP reductions 

‘‘achieved’’ by certain facilities, ‘‘then 

the EPA may require . . . control [of a 

surrogate] without quantifying the 

reduction in [the target] HAP . . . thus 

achieved.’’ 233 F.3d at 639. The same 

rationale applies here, where the EPA’s 

only obligation under CAA section 

112(c)(6) is to apply the same MACT 

standard considered in National Lime to 

particular sources accounting for 90 

percent of emissions of the CAA section 

112(c)(6) HAP. The EPA has set 

standards pursuant to CAA sections 

112(d)(2) or (d)(4) regulating emissions 

of substances identified as surrogates for 

the CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP, and 

those standards reduce the CAA section 

112(c)(6) HAP; thus, the EPA has fully 

met its obligation to set standards 

assuring that source categories 

accounting for not less than 90 percent 

of the aggregate emissions of the CAA 

section 112(c)(6) pollutants at issue are 

subject to section 112(d)(2) or (4) 

standards. 

The commenter also contends that the 

present determination constitutes a 

separate CAA 307(d) rulemaking with 

regard to many of the previously and 

elsewhere promulgated surrogate 

standards that the EPA credits towards 

satisfying the requirement in CAA 

section 112(c)(6) that source categories 

accounting for 90 percent of the 

aggregate enumerated HAP be subjected 

to CAA section 112(d)(2) or (4) 

standards. The commenter argues that 

the EPA must demonstrate anew the 

validity of the prior separate rulemaking 

actions and provide data and 

documentation to support specific 

aspects of those rules to satisfy the 

general rulemaking requirements of 

CAA section 307(d) and the 

requirements of CAA section 112. There 

is no statutory basis for this argument, 

which is an attempt to use this nonstatutorily required determination that 

the EPA has satisfied its CAA section 

112(c)(6) obligation to reopen numerous 

rules, many of which were finalized 

over a decade ago, as a means to force 

a non-required re-opening of such 

standards. Moreover, the commenter’s 

assertion that the proposed CAA section 

112(c)(6) determination was the first 

time the EPA provided notice of its 

claim that the surrogate standards were 

being credited for controlling the CAA 

section 112(c)(6) HAP is inaccurate, 

assuming it is even relevant (nothing in 

section 112(c)(6), after all, requires EPA 

to ‘‘provide notice,’’ either sequentially 

or ultimately, that the Agency has 

finally discharged its duty to set section 

112(d)(2) standards for the subject 

source categories accounting for 90 

percent of the aggregate section 

112(c)(6) HAP. In any event, contrary to 

the commenter’s assertion, the EPA 

provided such notice of its expectations 

to discharge its section 112(c)(6) 

responsibilities when the Agency 

published the 1998 listing notice 

identifying the source categories that, 

based on the 1990 emissions inventory, 

are responsible for 90 percent of the 

aggregate emissions of each of the seven 

pollutants identified in section 112(c)(6) 

from stationary, anthropogenic sources 

(i.e., sources within the scope of CAA 

sections 112 and/or 129).8 63 FR 17838 

(April 10, 1998) (‘‘1998 listing notice’’). 

Included on the list were the MACT 

standards for the source categories at 

issue in this comment, and most of the 

specific standards in the comments 

were promulgated prior to the 1998 

listing. The commenter’s argument that 

the proposed determination constitutes 

the first time notice was given is 

without merit for any source category 

listed in the 1998 notice, particularly for 

those source categories that were 

regulated after that listing was 

published in the Federal Register. The 

argument is also without merit for the 

standards issued prior to the 1998 

notice. While the EPA might not have 

identified at the time some of these 

standards were issued that the EPA 

would count the standards towards 

meeting the 90 percent requirement in 

CAA section 112(c)(6), such intent was 

made public in the 1998 notice. Further, 

as discussed above, the public was on 

notice at the time the EPA established 

these MACT standards that the 

standards would regulate the HAP, 

including the CAA section 112(c)(6) 

HAP, emitted from the source 

categories. If the commenter believed 

that the prior actions did not 

sufficiently control the HAP, including 

the CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP, from 

those source categories, the commenter 

had a responsibility to make those 

assertions at the time the Agency 

established the CAA section 112(d) 

standards. This applied equally to the 

comments questioning the surrogate 

standards. The commenter should have 

raised its concerns with the surrogate 

standards for ‘‘total HAP’’ or ‘‘total 

organic HAP’’ at the time the standards 

were issued if it believed such 

surrogates are not reasonable or in 

compliance with the CAA. In any event, 

the commenter’s claim that the 

proposed determination was the first 

time notice is refuted by the 

administrative petitions the commenter 

filed in 1999, subsequent to the 1998 

notice, requesting the EPA to revise 

some of the standards included in the 

1998 notice and addressed in the 

comments on the proposed CAA section 

112(c)(6) determination at issue. In a 

letter dated January 19, 2001, the EPA 

denied the petitions, explaining how 

each of these standards meet the CAA 

section 112(c)(6) requirement in 

addressing the HAP enumerated in that 

section.9

Section 112(c)(6) does not require that 

the EPA take an additional, separate 

final regulatory action to re-open any 

previously promulgated standards, and 

the EPA in fact did not reopen these 

prior actions in the proposed CAA 

section 112(c)(6) determination. 

Therefore, the proposed notice does not 

support a belated, backdoor attack on 

rules that were in some cases issued 

more than 20 years ago. The proposed 

CAA section 112(c)(6) determination is 

a simple, discretionary accounting of 

the EPA’s previous regulatory efforts, 

explaining in mathematical terms that 

the EPA has previously listed sources 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
31480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

and promulgated HAP standards 

sufficient to satisfy the requirement that 

sources needed for meeting the 90 

percent requirement for each of the CAA 

section 112(c)(6) HAP have, in fact, 

become subject to standards under CAA 

sections 112(d)(2) or (4). While the 

proposed determination in some 

instances clarifies the surrogacy 

relationship between the established 

standards and the relevant CAA section 

112(c)(6) HAP, the proposal does not 

discuss or attest to the substance of the 

standards previously promulgated for 

each listed category and subcategory 

because those standards have been 

subject to their own notice and 

comment rulemaking processes, and, in 

several cases, to judicial review as 

provided by the strict statute of 

limitations imposed by CAA section 

307(b)(1). The proposed determination 

only provides the mathematical and 

technical basis for the EPA’s calculation 

that the sources in the categories and 

subcategories for which it has separately 

promulgated emission standards 

account for 90 percent of the baseline 

emissions of the CAA section 112(c)(6) 

HAP. 

The United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit 

specified in Oljato Chapter of Navajo 

Tribe v. Train, 515 F.2d 654, 666 (D.C. 

Cir. 1975), a procedure for pursuing 

claims that new information merits 

revision of a previous agency regulation: 

The prospective petitioner must first 

bring the new information to the 

Agency’s attention in an administrative 

petition seeking revision of the prior 

regulation. CAA Section 553(d) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

also explicitly allows parties to petition 

the Agency to amend a rule. A party that 

identifies new information that it 

believes undermines the legitimacy of 

an existing standard may, at any time, 

petition the Agency to review and revise 

that standard. Any party that believed 

an existing MACT standard was 

deficient because it failed to adequately 

address one or more HAP emitted by the 

source category could have submitted a 

petition asking the EPA to consider the 

new information and amend the existing 

rule to cure any alleged deficiency. 

In addition, as discussed above, the 

1998 listing notice provided sufficient 

notice that the EPA intended to rely on 

previously issued MACT standards to 

satisfy the CAA section 112(c)(6) 

requirement, to the extent that the 

public did not recognize that it was 

already on notice regarding the MACT 

standards’ applicability to all HAP 

emitted by the source categories at the 

time those standards were issued. If the 

commenter believed one or more of the 

standards listed in that 1998 notice did 

not adequately address the CAA section 

112(c)(6) HAP, it should have filed an 

administrative petition making the 

argument that the 1998 notice 

constituted new information concerning 

the substance of those previously issued 

standards and asked the EPA to amend 

the original rules that established the 

MACT standards. In fact, as stated 

above, the commenter filed an 

administrative petition on several of the 

rules addressed in its comments and did 

not challenge the EPA’s denial of that 

2001 petition. Assuming arguendo that 

the 1998 notice provided an opportunity 

to challenge the previously issued 

MACT standards, any such challenge is 

now time barred because the commenter 

should have brought the challenge to 

those rules within 6 years of the 1998 

notice, wherein the EPA included those 

source categories in the CAA section 

112(c)(6) inventory. See 28 U.S.C. 

2401(a) (requiring civil actions against 

the United States to be brought within 

6 years after the right of action first 

accrues). For source categories included 

in but regulated after the 1998 listing, 

the commenter was on notice and 

should have commented directly on 

surrogacy and other issues at the time 

the standards were promulgated, even if 

the EPA did not reiterate in the 

rulemaking record that the EPA was 

counting those sources’ standards 

toward the 90 percent requirement. 

The commenter’s main concern 

appears to be the EPA’s use of ‘‘total 

HAP’’ or ‘‘total organic HAP’’ as 

surrogates for certain CAA section 

112(c)(6) HAP. The commenter claims 

such approach is unlawful under the 

plain language of CAA section 112(c)(6) 

because according to the commenter 

that provision requires the EPA to set a 

MACT standard ‘‘for’’ ‘‘each section 

112(c)(6) HAP.’’ In support, the 

commenter cites a United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit opinion in a case reviewing the 

NESHAP for the Gold Mine Ore 

Processing and Production area source 

category (‘‘the Gold Mine area source 

rule’’). See Desert Citizens Against 

Pollution v. EPA, 699 F.3d 524 (D.C. Cir. 

2012). As explained above, the 

commenter’s interpretation of CAA 

section 112(c)(6) to require a specific 

MACT standard for ‘‘each section 

112(c)(6) HAP’’ is unsupported by the 

plain text of the statute. Unlike CAA 

section 129(a)(4), the terms of CAA 

section 112(c)(6) do not direct the EPA 

to set such standards ‘‘for’’ the section 

112(c)(6) HAP. Further, nothing in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit opinion or 

the Gold Mine area source rule 

referenced in the comment addresses 

the issue of surrogacy. This is not 

surprising considering that rule directly 

regulates mercury, the only CAA section 

112(c)(6) HAP emitted from the Gold 

Mine area sources. The relevant issue in 

that case was whether the EPA must 

also set CAA section 112(d)(2) standards 

for all of the non-CAA section 112(c)(6) 

HAP emitted by the Gold Mine area 

sources. The Court upheld the EPA’s 

interpretation that CAA section 

112(c)(6) does not impose such 

requirement on non-CAA section 

112(c)(6) HAP emitted from area sources 

just because they emit one or more CAA 

section 112(c)(6) HAP (in this case, just 

mercury). The commenter also suggests 

that its claim is supported by the EPA’s 

own interpretation, but does not cite or 

reference any specific EPA statement. In 

any event, interpretations and 

statements the EPA made in support of 

the Gold Mine area source rule were 

specific to those area sources and 

should not be taken out of context. 

To the extent the commenter is 

claiming that a surrogate cannot be a 

group of HAP (e.g., total organic HAP or 

total HAP), the commenter’s 

interpretation of CAA section 112(c)(6) 

contradicts the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit’s decision in National Lime, 233 

F.3d at 639. In that decision, the Court 

held that PM, which is itself comprised 

of a group of pollutants, is a reasonable 

surrogate for metallic HAP, see National 

Lime, 233 F.3d at 639. Neither PM nor 

metallic HAP is a single HAP; each has 

various pollutants as constituents. As 

the Court holds, the EPA may set 

surrogate standards for HAP where it is 

reasonable to do so, see National Lime, 

233 F.3d at 637. Therefore, a surrogate 

can be one or multiple pollutants as 

long as it is reasonable, and the 

reasonableness of the use of a surrogate 

can be properly challenged only at the 

time the standards are promulgated. 

For the reasons stated above, the EPA 

is not required in this action to reevaluate previously promulgated MACT 

standards and respond to the belated 

comments on the substance of these 

standards, as the commenter claims. 

Congress deliberately promoted the 

value of finality of the EPA’s standards 

in requiring parties to challenge rules 

within 60 days of promulgation under 

CAA section 307(b)(1), and in 

precluding opportunities to randomly 

challenge standards in postpromulgation fora such as civil or 

criminal enforcement proceedings. See 

CAA section 307(b)(2). Moreover, 

nothing in CAA section 112(c)(6) serves 

as an exception to this emphasis on 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 31481 

finality and regulatory repose, given that 

CAA section 112(c)(6) itself does not 

require the EPA to issue any final notice 

or take any other final action that 

functions to re-open previously 

promulgated standards that are credited 

to meeting the 90 percent requirement. 

If, in fact, additional control of HAP, 

including CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP, is 

appropriate because of remaining risk or 

newly available control technologies or 

practices, the CAA addresses that 

possibility by requiring review of CAA 

section 112(d)(2) standards pursuant to 

CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2). Thus, 

the commenter has had and will have 

additional opportunities to address 

whether additional control of the 

section 112(c)(6) HAP is warranted. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because it does not contain any 

information collection activities. 

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. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This action does not alter any 

of the standards discussed in this 

document. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

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. This action does not 

materially alter the stringency of any 

standards discussed in this document. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because the EPA does not 

believe the environmental health risks 

or safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. A health and risk assessment 

was not performed for this action 

because it does not alter any of the 

regulations discussed in this action. 

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 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low income or indigenous 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. An 

environmental justice evaluation was 

not performed for this action because it 

does not alter any of the regulations 

discussed in this action. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Dated: May 22, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13500 Filed 6–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0678; FRL–9927–19] 

Alkyl (C8–20) Polyglucoside Esters; 

Exemption From the Requirement of a 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of Dglucopyranose, oligomeric, 6- 

(dihydrogen citrates), C8–20 branched 

and linear alkyl glycosides, sodium 

salts; D-glucopyranose, oligomeric, 6- 

(hydrogen sulfosuccinates), C8–20

branched and linear alkyl glycosides, 

sodium salts; and D-glucopyranose, 

oligomeric, lactates, C8–20 branched and 

linear alkyl glycosides when used as an 

inert ingredients (surfactants) in 

pesticide formulations applied to 

growing crops and raw agricultural 

commodities after harvest. Lamberti 

USA, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting 

establishment of an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of D-glucopyranose, 

oligomeric, 6-(dihydrogen citrates), C8–20

branched and linear alkyl glycosides, 

sodium salts: D-glucopyranose, 

oligomeric, 6-(hydrogen 

sulfosuccinates), C8–20 branched and 

linear alkyl glycosides, sodium salts; 

and D-glucopyranose, oligomeric, 

lactates, C8–20 branched and linear alkyl 

glycosides. 

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

3, 2015. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

August 3, 2015, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0678, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES