350 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

7See, e.g., ERISA section 104(a)(2), which permits 

the Secretary of Labor to prescribe simplified 

annual reports for pension plans that cover fewer 

than 100 participants. 

8See, e.g., Code section 430(g)(2)(B), which 

permits plans with 100 or fewer participants to use 

valuation dates other than the first day of the plan 

year. 

9See, e.g., DOL’s final rule on Prohibited 

Transaction Exemption Procedures, 76 FR 66637, 

66644 (Oct. 27, 2011). 

10See PBGC 2011 pension insurance data table S– 

31, http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/pensioninsurance-data-tables-2011.pdf. 

11The more comprehensive changes to PBGC’s 

premium information collection arising from the 

separate final rule that PBGC anticipates issuing— 

dealing with aspects of the July 23 proposal other 

than the large-plan flat-rate premium due date— 

will be addressed in that separate final rule. 

12This burden estimate reflects both a decrease in 

burden attributable to the change in the large-plan 

flat-rate premium due date under this final rule and 

an increase in burden attributable to a re-estimate 

of the existing premium filing burden. The increase 

in burden due to re-estimation is about 31,300 

hours, and the decrease due to the due date change 

is about 17,000 hours, a net increase of about 14,300 

hours from the currently approved burden (about 

163,600). PBGC assumes that about 95 percent of 

the work is contracted out at $350 per hour, so the 

17,000-hour decrease attributable to the final rule 

is equivalent to about 850 hours of in-house labor 

and about $5,650,000 of contractor costs. 

analysis at the time of the publication of 

the final rule describing the impact of 

the rule on small entities and steps 

taken to minimize the impact. Small 

entities include small businesses, 

organizations and governmental 

jurisdictions. 

Small Entities 

For purposes of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act requirements with 

respect to this final rule, PBGC 

considers a small entity to be a plan 

with fewer than 100 participants. This 

is consistent with certain requirements 

in title I of ERISA 7 and the Internal 

Revenue Code,8 as well as the definition 

of a small entity that the Department of 

Labor (DOL) has used for purposes of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act.9 Using 

this proposed definition, about 64 

percent (16,500 of 25,600) of plans 

covered by title IV of ERISA in 2011 

were small plans.10

Further, while some large employers 

may have small plans, in general most 

small plans are maintained by small 

employers. Thus, PBGC believes that 

assessing the impact of the rule on small 

plans is an appropriate substitute for 

evaluating the effect on small entities. 

The definition of small entity 

considered appropriate for this purpose 

differs, however, from a definition of 

small business based on size standards 

promulgated by the Small Business 

Administration (13 CFR 121.201) 

pursuant to the Small Business Act. In 

its proposed rule, therefore, PBGC 

requested comments on the 

appropriateness of the size standard 

used in evaluating the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. No 

comments were received on this issue. 

Certification 

On the basis of its definition of small 

entity, PBGC certifies under section 

605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

that the amendments in this final rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, as provided in 

section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, sections 603 and 604 do not apply. 

This certification is based on the fact 

that the change in the large-plan flat-rate 

premium due date will have no impact 

on any small plans. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information requirements under 

this final rule have been approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (OMB control 

number 1212–0009; expires October 31, 

2015). 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 only changes PBGC is making in 

its premium information collection in 

connection with this final rule are that 

PBGC will give notice that estimated 

flat-rate filings are discontinued for plan 

years starting in 2014. (PBGC will also 

notify private-sector premium filing 

software developers of the change so 

that it can be reflected in their 

products.) 11

PBGC needs the information in a 

premium filing to identify the plan for 

which the premium is paid to PBGC, to 

verify the amount of the premium, to 

help PBGC determine the magnitude of 

its exposure in the event of plan 

termination, to help PBGC track the 

creation of new plans and the transfer 

of plan assets and liabilities among 

plans, and to keep PBGC’s inventory of 

insured plans up to date. PBGC receives 

premium filings from about 25,700 

respondents each year and estimates 

that the total annual burden of the 

collection of information will be about 

8,900 hours and $59,250,000.12

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4007 

Employee benefit plans, Penalties, 

Pension insurance, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

PBGC amends 29 CFR part 4007 as 

follows: 

PART 4007—PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 4007 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1303(A), 

1306, 1307. 

§ 4007.8 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 4007.8, paragraphs (f), (g), (h), 

and (i) are removed and reserved. 

§ 4007.11 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 4007.11: 

■ a. Paragraph (a) introductory text is 

amended by removing the words ‘‘due 

dates for large plans are prescribed’’ and 

adding in their place the words ‘‘due 

date for large plans is prescribed’’. 

■ b. Paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (iii) are 

removed and reserved. 

■ c. Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘for the variablerate premium required by § 4006.3(b) of 

this chapter for single-employer plans’’. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 20 day of 

December 2013. 

Joshua Gotbaum, 

Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31109 Filed 1–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 9, 260 and 261 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2010–0695; FRL–9904– 

84–OSWER] 

RIN 2050–AG60 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System: Conditional Exclusion for 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Streams in 

Geologic Sequestration Activities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) 

is revising the regulations for hazardous 

waste management under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

to conditionally exclude carbon dioxide 

(CO2) streams that are hazardous from 

the definition of hazardous waste, 

provided these hazardous CO2 streams 

are captured from emission sources, are 

injected into Underground Injection 

Control (UIC) Class VI wells for 

purposes of geologic sequestration (GS), 

and meet certain other conditions. EPA 

is taking this action because the Agency 

believes that the management of these 

CO2 streams, when meeting certain 

conditions, does not present a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 351 

substantial risk to human health or the 

environment, and therefore additional 

regulation pursuant to RCRA’s 

hazardous waste regulations is 

unnecessary. EPA expects that this 

amendment will substantially reduce 

the uncertainty associated with 

identifying these CO2 streams under 

RCRA subtitle C, and will also facilitate 

the deployment of GS by providing 

additional regulatory certainty. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 4, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2010–0695. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

such as 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 form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically at 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the OSWER Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744 and the telephone 

number for the OSWER Docket is (202) 

566–0270. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Kaps, Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery (5304P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 703–308– 

6787; fax number: 703–308–0514; email 

address: kaps.melissa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This final rule applies to generators, 

transporters, and owners or operators of 

treatment, storage, and disposal 

facilities engaged in the management of 

carbon dioxide streams that would 

otherwise be regulated as hazardous 

wastes under the RCRA subtitle C 

hazardous waste regulations as part of 

geologic sequestration activities. This 

includes entities in the following 

industries: operators of carbon dioxide 

injection wells used for geologic 

sequestration; and certain industries 

identified by their North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code: oil and gas extraction facilities 

(NAICS 211111); utilities (NAICS 22); 

transportation (NAICS 48–49); and 

manufacturing (NAICS 31–33). More 

detailed information on the potentially 

affected entities is presented in Section 

VI of this preamble. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Preamble Outline 

I. Statutory Authority 

II. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definitions 

A. Abbreviations and Acronyms 

B. Definitions Used in This Preamble 

III. Proposed Rule 

A. Summary of Proposed Rule 

B. Authority for Conditional Exclusion 

From RCRA Subtitle C Requirements 

IV. Changes to the Proposed Rule 

V. Summary of Comments and Responses to 

Major Comments 

A. Definition of Solid Waste 

B. Definition of Hazardous Waste 

C. Justification for Conditional Exclusion 

D. Certification Statement 

E. On-Site Pipelines 

F. Definition of Carbon Dioxide Stream 

G. Adaptive Approach 

VI. State Authorization 

A. Applicability of the Rule in Authorized 

States 

B. Effect on State Authorization 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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 

I. Statutory Authority 

These regulations are promulgated 

under the authority of sections 2002, 

3001–3009 and 3013 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1970, as 

amended by the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, and 

the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 

U.S.C. 6912, 6921–6929, 6934. 

II. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and 

Definitions 

A. Abbreviations and Acronyms 

AoR Area of Review 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CCS Carbon Capture and Storage 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

EOR/EGR Enhanced Oil or Gas Recovery 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

GHG Greenhouse Gas 

GS Geologic Sequestration 

HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

TC Toxicity Characteristic 

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure 

UIC Underground Injection Control 

USDW Underground Source of Drinking 

Water 

B. Definitions Used in This Preamble 

Authorized representative: The person 

responsible for the overall operation of a 

facility or an operational unit (i.e., part of a 

facility), e.g., the plant manager, 

superintendent or person of equivalent 

responsibility. 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) stream: Carbon 

dioxide that has been captured from an 

emission source (e.g., power plant), plus 

incidental associated substances derived 

from the source materials and the capture 

process, and any substances added to the 

stream to enable or improve the injection 

process. 

Enhanced Oil or Gas Recovery (EOR/EGR): 

Typically, the process of injecting a fluid 

(e.g., water, brine, or CO2) into an oil or gas 

bearing formation to recover residual oil or 

natural gas. The injected fluid thins 

(decreases the viscosity) or displaces small 

amounts of extractable oil and gas, which is 

then available for recovery. This is also 

known as secondary or tertiary recovery. 

Supercritical CO2: Carbon dioxide that is 

above its critical temperature (31.1 °C, or 88 

°F) and pressure (73.8 bar, or 1070 psi). 

Supercritical substances have physical 

properties intermediate to those of gases and 

liquids. 

III. Proposed Rule 

A. Summary of Proposed Rule 

On August 8, 2011, EPA published a 

proposed rule that would conditionally 

exclude from the definition of 

hazardous waste certain carbon dioxide 

(CO2) streams that are to be injected into 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Class VI wells for purposes of geologic 

sequestration (GS). 76 FR 48073. The 

proposed rule was based upon EPA’s 

determination that the management of 

these CO2 streams in accordance with 

the proposed conditions would provide 

no reduced protection to human health 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
352 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon 

Capture and Storage, August 2010, p. 12. 2 Ibid., p. 61. 

3Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. 

Intergovenrmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 

2005, p. 3. 

4 ‘‘Substantive’’ was used to describe 

requirements directly related to storage, 

transportation, treatment, or disposal and not 

notification or biennial reporting. 

and the environment, and, therefore, 

additional regulation pursuant to the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act’s (RCRA) hazardous waste 

regulations would be unnecessary. 

Specifically, EPA proposed to amend 

40 CFR 261.4 by adding an exclusion 

from the definition of hazardous waste 

for CO2 streams that would otherwise be 

regulated as hazardous waste under 

RCRA subtitle C that met all of the 

following conditions: (1) Transportation 

of the CO2 stream must be in 

compliance with applicable Department 

of Transportation (DOT) requirements; 

(2) injection of the CO2 stream must be 

in compliance with the applicable 

requirements for UIC Class VI wells; (3) 

no other hazardous wastes may be 

mixed with, or otherwise co-injected 

with, the CO2 stream; and (4) generators 

and UIC Class VI well owners or 

operators claiming the exclusion must 

sign a certification statement that the 

conditions of the exclusion were met. 

The proposed rule also would have 

required retention of the signed 

certification on-site for no less than 

three years, and required the 

certification be made available within 

72 hours of request by the Regional 

Administrator (or state Director, if 

located in an authorized state). 

EPA proposed this rule because the 

Agency expected that this amendment 

to the RCRA hazardous waste rules 

would substantially reduce the 

uncertainty associated with defining 

and managing these CO2 streams under 

RCRA subtitle C and also would 

facilitate the deployment of GS by 

providing additional regulatory 

certainty. 

Several other Agency activities are 

related to carbon capture and storage 

(CCS), including an EPA final rule that 

created a new class of injection wells 

(Class VI) for GS of CO2 under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) UIC 

Program. December 10, 2010 (75 FR 

77230). During the development of that 

UIC Class VI final rule, EPA was made 

aware that the participants in the CCS 

industry were asking for clarification on 

how the RCRA hazardous waste 

requirements apply to CO2 streams that 

are geologically sequestered. 

In addition, in February 2010, 

President Obama created the 

Interagency Task Force on Carbon 

Capture and Storage to develop a 

comprehensive and coordinated federal 

strategy to speed the commercial 

development and deployment of clean 

coal technologies. The task force 

consisted of 14 executive departments 

and federal agencies, and it was cochaired by EPA and the U.S. 

Department of Energy. On August 12, 

2010, the task force delivered a series of 

recommendations to the President on 

overcoming the barriers to the 

widespread, cost-effective deployment 

of CCS within 10 years. One of those 

recommendations was that EPA address 

RCRA applicability to CO2 that is 

captured from an emission source for 

purposes of sequestration.1

GS is the process of injecting CO2

captured from an emission source (e.g., 

a power plant or industrial facility) into 

deep subsurface rock formations in 

order to isolate the CO2 permanently. 

GS is a key component of CCS, which 

is a set of climate change mitigation 

technologies. CCS can be described as a 

three-step process, beginning with the 

capture and compression of the CO2

stream from fossil-fuel power plants or 

other industrial sources, after which the 

CO2 stream is transported (usually in 

pipelines as a supercritical fluid 2) to an 

on-site or off-site location, where it is 

then injected underground for purposes 

of sequestration.3 Additional 

background information on the GS of 

CO2 streams can be found in the August 

8, 2011 proposed rule, as well as in the 

UIC Class VI final rule and record for 

that rule published on December 10, 

2010 (75 FR 77230). 

In developing the August 8, 2011 

proposed rule, EPA looked at how CO2

is captured, transported, and injected in 

CCS activities. For CO2 capture, 

transport, and injection, EPA reviewed 

and compared regulations and 

requirements from other statutes and 

programs (e.g., DOT, SDWA) which 

might apply to each of these activities 

if the CO2 stream is also regulated as 

hazardous waste. The Agency 

considered how these existing 

regulations and requirements control 

releases of hazardous constituents that 

might be present in the CO2 streams. 

First, regarding the generator 

requirements, EPA reviewed the subtitle 

C regulatory requirements applicable to 

RCRA generators, including 

requirements for tanks and containers 

and recordkeeping and reporting, among 

others. EPA also reviewed the available 

information on CO2 capture processes 

and estimates of CO2 capture rates. EPA 

concluded that, because of the large 

volumes of CO2 projected to be 

captured, on-site storage of CO2 in 

pressure vessels was unlikely. Rather, 

EPA stated its expectation that the 

process of capturing and compressing 

CO2 prior to delivery to a UIC Class VI 

facility, which would likely occur via a 

pipeline will not involve storage at the 

generator facility (i.e., at the CO2

source), but rather will occur in a 

continuous fashion (capture process → 

compression/dehydration → pipeline 

insertion). Because there would not be 

any substantive 4 RCRA subtitle C 

generator requirements applicable to 

such a continuous delivery scenario, the 

regulation of the movement of captured 

CO2 streams from the point of capture 

to either an on-site UIC Class VI well or 

to an off-site DOT-regulated pipeline, 

would not be significantly different 

under the presence or absence of the 

conditional exclusion. EPA also stated 

its view that other programs provided 

equivalent notice and reporting 

requirements to the RCRA requirements. 

Thus, EPA concluded that additional 

regulation pursuant to RCRA subtitle C 

would not provide additional 

protections over existing regulatory 

requirements for generators of CO2

streams. 

Second, with respect to 

transportation, EPA examined existing 

requirements for pipeline and nonpipeline transportation. In the preamble 

to the proposed rule, EPA specifically 

discussed the DOT’s Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA) requirements 

in 49 CFR Part 195, which apply to 

pipeline facilities used for transporting 

hazardous liquids or supercritical CO2. 

EPA’s review indicated that DOT’s 

regulations addressed risks posed by 

pipelines in a way that is consistent 

with RCRA’s goal of preventing releases 

in order to protect human health and 

the environment. EPA concluded that 

applicable DOT requirements (which 

apply to supercritical CO2 streams 

regardless of whether or not these 

materials meet the definition of 

hazardous waste) will ensure that CO2

streams are managed in a manner that 

addresses the potential risks to human 

health and the environment that these 

materials may pose, prior to arrival at a 

Class VI injection well facility. 

Therefore, EPA concluded that RCRA 

offers no additional protection, and did 

not propose any specific conditions 

beyond that of compliance with 

applicable DOT regulations. EPA 

assessed the DOT hazardous materials 

regulations applicable to non-pipeline 

transportation and reached similar 

conclusions. EPA also addressed issues 

surrounding on-site pipelines that may 

not be regulated by DOT pipelines and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 353 

the lack of a manifest under the 

proposed conditional exclusion. See 76 

FR 48083, August 8, 2011. 

Third, EPA discussed the UIC Class 

VI injection well requirements, which 

are specifically designed to ensure that 

the CO2 (and any incidental associated 

substances derived from the source 

materials and the capture process) will 

be isolated within the injection zone. 

EPA concluded that the elimination of 

exposure routes through these 

requirements, which are implemented 

through a SDWA UIC permit, will 

ensure protection of human health and 

the environment such that RCRA 

subtitle C regulation would be 

duplicative and unnecessary. 

In addition, to further ensure 

protection of human health and the 

environment, EPA proposed to limit the 

scope of the exclusion by including a 

condition that no other hazardous waste 

can be mixed with, or otherwise coinjected with, the CO2 streams. Thus, if 

hazardous waste is mixed with the CO2

stream, that stream would not be 

eligible for the conditional exclusion 

under the proposed rule. Rather, that 

stream would need to be managed as a 

RCRA hazardous waste, and, if well 

injection is selected as the means of 

disposal, injected into a UIC Class I 

hazardous well. 

B. Authority for Conditional Exclusion 

From RCRA Subtitle C Requirements 

As explained in the proposed rule, 

RCRA provides EPA with authority to 

issue conditional exclusions from the 

hazardous waste regulations. EPA has 

previously interpreted RCRA section 

3001(a) to authorize the issuance of 

‘‘conditional exemptions’’ from the 

requirements of subtitle C, where it 

determines that ‘‘a waste might pose a 

hazard only under limited management 

scenarios, and other regulatory 

programs already address such 

scenarios.’’ 62 FR at 6636 (February 12, 

1997); 66 FR at 27222–27223 (May 16, 

2001). The final rule takes a similar 

approach to those earlier rules. 

Section 3001(a) provides the Agency 

with flexibility to consider the need for 

regulation in deciding whether to list or 

identify a waste as hazardous. 

Specifically, RCRA section 3001(a) 

requires that EPA, in determining 

whether to list a waste as a hazardous 

waste, or to otherwise identify a waste 

as a hazardous waste, decide whether a 

waste ‘‘should be subject to’’ the 

requirements of subtitle C. Hence, RCRA 

section 3001 authorizes EPA to 

determine when subtitle C regulation is 

appropriate. EPA has consistently 

interpreted section 3001 of RCRA to 

give it broad flexibility in fashioning 

criteria for hazardous wastes to enter or 

exit the subtitle C regulatory system. 

EPA’s longstanding regulatory criteria 

for determining whether wastes pose 

hazards that require regulatory control 

incorporate the idea that a waste that is 

otherwise hazardous may not present a 

hazard if already subject to adequate 

regulation. (See, e.g., 40 CFR 

261.11(a)(3)(x), which requires EPA to 

consider action taken by other 

governmental agencies or regulatory 

programs based on the health or 

environmental hazard posed by the 

waste.) 

EPA’s interpretation is further 

supported by the text of RCRA sections 

1004(5), and 3002–3004, and RCRA’s 

legislative history. This interpretation 

has also been upheld upon judicial 

review. See, e.g., Military Toxics Project 

v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 

(upholding conditional exemption for 

storage of military munitions, based on 

EPA determination that such wastes are 

subject to binding standards that meet 

or exceed RCRA standards, in addition 

to an institutional oversight process). 

The statutory definition of hazardous 

waste, section 1004(5)(B), informs EPA’s 

interpretation that EPA may consider 

good management practices in 

determining the need to regulate waste 

as hazardous under RCRA. That section 

defines a ‘‘hazardous waste’’ as ‘‘a solid 

waste, or combination of solid wastes, 

which because of its quantity, 

concentration, or physical, chemical or 

infectious characteristics may * * * (B) 

pose a substantial present or potential 

hazard to human health or the 

environment when improperly treated, 

stored, transported, or disposed of, or 

otherwise managed.’’ (Emphasis added.) 

EPA has interpreted the statutory 

definition as incorporating the idea that 

a waste that is otherwise hazardous does 

not require regulation under RCRA so 

long as it is properly managed. For 

example, EPA’s standards for listing 

hazardous wastes require consideration 

of a waste’s potential for 

mismanagement. See 40 CFR 

261.11(a)(3)(vii) (incorporating the 

language of RCRA section 1004(5)(B) 

and requiring EPA to consider 

‘‘plausible types of improper 

management’’). 

The statute also directs EPA to 

regulate hazardous waste generators 

(RCRA § 3002(a)), transporters (RCRA 

§ 3003(a)) and treatment, storage and 

disposal facilities (RCRA § 3004(a)) ‘‘as 

may be necessary to protect human 

health and the environment.’’ By 

extension, the decision of when a waste 

should be subject to the regulatory 

requirements of subtitle C is a question 

of whether such regulatory controls are 

necessary to protect human health and 

the environment. 

Thus, where a waste might pose a 

hazard only under limited management 

scenarios, and other regulatory 

programs already address such 

scenarios, EPA is not required to 

classify a waste as hazardous waste 

subject to regulation under subtitle C. At 

least three decisions by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit provide 

support for this approach to regulating 

wastes as hazardous waste only where 

necessary to protect human health and 

the environment. In Military Toxics 

Project v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948 (D.C. Cir. 

1998), the court upheld a conditional 

exemption whereby the storage and 

transportation of certain military 

munitions are not considered hazardous 

waste subject to regulation under RCRA 

subtitle C, provided the munitions are 

stored and transported in compliance 

with regulations issued by the 

Department of Defense and the 

Department of Transportation, 

respectively. See 40 CFR 266.203, 

266.205. The court ruled that EPA’s 

interpretation of RCRA as authorizing a 

conditional exemption is ‘‘a permissible 

construction of the statute.’’ 146 F.3d at 

958. The court cited its own precedent 

as recognizing ‘‘ ‘that Congress intended 

the agency to have substantial room to 

exercise its expertise in determining the 

appropriate grounds for listing,’ ’’ id. 

(citing NRDC v. EPA, 25 F.3d 1063, 

1070 (D.C. Cir. 1994)), and concluded 

that, although the military munitions 

rule ‘‘does not involve the listing 

regulations at issue in NRDC v. EPA, we 

think the principle at work there also 

supports the conditional exemption at 

issue here.’’ Id. 

In NRDC v. EPA, the court held that 

EPA appropriately used its discretion in 

relying on several existing regulatory 

frameworks governing used oil in 

determining not to list certain used oils 

as a hazardous waste. NRDC, 25 F.3d at 

1071. Similarly, in Edison Electric 

Institute v. EPA, 2 F.3d 438 (D.C. Cir. 

1993), the court upheld a temporary 

exemption from subtitle C for 

petroleum-contaminated media based 

on the fact that the potential hazards of 

such materials are already controlled 

under the underground storage tank 

regulations under RCRA subtitle I. In 

reaching its decision, the court 

considered the fact that the subtitle I 

standards could prevent threats to 

human health and the environment to 

be an important factor supporting the 

exemption. Id. at 453. 

The legislative history of RCRA 

subtitle C also supports this 

interpretation, stating that ‘‘the basic 

thrust of this hazardous waste title is to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
354 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

identify what wastes are hazardous in 

what quantities, qualities, and 

concentrations, and the methods of 

disposal which may make such wastes 

hazardous.’’ H. Rep. No. 94–1491, 94th 

Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1976), reprinted in A 

Legislative History of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act, as Amended, 

Congressional Research Service, Vol.1, 

567 (1991) (emphasis added). Finally, as 

discussed above, in finalizing this 

conditional exemption from RCRA, EPA 

is in part relying on the regulatory 

controls for Class VI wells, under the 

UIC program of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 

300f et seq. EPA notes that such reliance 

is also consistent with the direction 

provided in section 1006(b) of RCRA, 

which directs EPA to integrate the 

provisions of RCRA, for purposes of 

administration and enforcement and to 

avoid duplication, to the maximum 

extent practicable, with those of certain 

other statutes, including the SDWA, to 

the extent that it can be done in a 

manner that is consistent with the goals 

and policies of both RCRA and the other 

relevant statute(s). 

IV. Changes to the Proposed Rule 

EPA is finalizing the conditional 

exclusion largely as proposed on August 

8, 2011, with some revisions. The 

following is a summary of the changes 

to the proposed rule. 

EPA slightly modified the regulatory 

language for the condition that the CO2

stream be transported in compliance 

with applicable DOT requirements (see 

§ 261.4(h)(1) in today’s final rule), by 

adding reference to state pipeline 

regulations that may be applicable (in 

lieu of the DOT regulations) in certain 

situations. Several commenters had 

noted that in cases where CO2 pipelines 

start and stop within the same state (i.e., 

intrastate pipelines), these pipelines 

would be regulated by the state rather 

than by DOT. EPA consulted with DOT 

and confirmed that with respect to the 

DOT regulations in 49 CFR part 195 

(which apply to pipeline facilities used 

in the transportation of hazardous 

liquids or supercritical CO2), while 

some states have adopted regulations 

that apply to the transportation of 

supercritical CO2 and are certified by 

DOT to directly regulate these intrastate 

pipelines, many states do not have such 

a certification, and DOT remains the 

direct regulator of both interstate and 

intrastate pipelines in those states. EPA 

notes that state pipeline regulations are 

required to be at least as stringent as the 

federal DOT requirements; therefore, 

compliance with either the applicable 

DOT regulations or the applicable 

certified state regulations has the same 

effect under the proposed conditional 

exclusion. Because the proposed 

condition at § 261.4(h)(1) only referred 

to compliance with applicable DOT 

regulations, EPA decided to modify the 

wording of the condition to add 

language that also refers to compliance 

with ‘‘pipeline safety regulations 

adopted and administered by a state 

authority pursuant to a certification 

under 49 U.S.C. § 60105’’ to reflect 

situations where a pipeline facility must 

comply with state, rather than federal, 

regulation. Again, EPA is making this 

change in order to more accurately 

describe how pipeline facilities are 

already regulated under applicable 

pipeline regulations (be they State or 

Federal). EPA also made a conforming 

change to the related certification 

language so as to mirror the revised 

condition in § 261.4(h)(1). 

The proposed exclusion required 

generators and UIC Class VI well owners 

or operators who claim the conditional 

exclusion to sign a certification 

statement that the conditions of the 

exclusion were met. EPA had proposed 

specific language for the certification 

statement. In today’s final rule, the 

certification statement has been revised 

so that there are now two separate 

certification statements—one for CO2

stream generators and another for UIC 

Class VI well owners or operators. This 

change was in response to commenters 

who were concerned about persons 

certifying to circumstances outside of 

their control. Under the final rule, the 

certification statement that the generator 

would sign is specific to the activities 

within the generator’s control; likewise, 

the certification statement that the UIC 

Class VI well owner or operator would 

sign is specific to the activities within 

the owner or operator’s control. 

These revisions do not change how 

the conditional exclusion is 

implemented under today’s final rule. A 

CO2 stream must meet all the conditions 

to qualify for and maintain the 

exclusion from the hazardous waste 

regulations, and a violation of a 

condition at any point in the 

management of a CO2 stream (that is 

otherwise hazardous) would result in 

that CO2 stream being subject to all 

applicable subtitle C regulatory 

requirements, from the point of 

generation. 

Furthermore, the final rule now 

requires that the signed certification 

statement must be readily accessible on 

the facility’s publicly-available Web 

site, if such Web site exists, to serve as 

a public notification, in addition to 

being kept on-site for no less than three 

years. For further discussion on the 

changes to the certification statement, 

see section V.D. of this preamble. 

V. Summary of Comments and 

Responses to Major Comments 

In response to the proposed rule, EPA 

received 29 distinct comments. The 

commenters represented a variety of 

organizations, including electric 

utilities, energy companies, the oil and 

gas industry, environmental groups, two 

states, and the public. 

Nearly all commenters supported 

EPA’s decision to clarify the regulatory 

scheme applicable to CO2 management 

for CCS. Many commenters generally 

supported EPA’s proposed conditional 

exclusion. Other commenters stated that 

a conditional exclusion is not necessary 

because the CO2 streams are not subject 

to RCRA regulation, but suggested 

certain changes be made should EPA 

proceed with a conditional exclusion. 

Below is a detailed discussion of the 

major comments received, as well as 

EPA’s response to those comments. EPA 

also notes that a more comprehensive 

response to comment document was 

prepared and placed in the docket 

associated with today’s final rule. 

A. Definition of Solid Waste 

In the proposed rule, EPA stated that 

a supercritical CO2 stream injected into 

a permitted UIC Class VI well for 

purposes of GS is a RCRA solid waste, 

because it is a ‘‘discarded material’’ 

within the plain meaning of the term in 

RCRA § 1004(27). That is, a supercritical 

CO2 stream is a solid waste when it is 

to be discarded through abandonment 

by disposing of the material in a UIC 

Class VI well (see 40 CFR 261.2(a)(2)(i) 

and (b)(1)). While some commenters 

agreed that EPA correctly identified 

supercritical CO2 injected into a Class 

VI well for GS as a solid waste, a 

number of commenters disagreed, 

stating that supercritical CO2 streams 

that are to be injected into a UIC Class 

VI well are not a solid waste, and 

therefore cannot be a hazardous waste. 

These commenters generally supported 

excluding supercritical CO2 streams 

from RCRA regulation, but stated that 

these streams were already excluded. 

Commenters presented several reasons 

for this. 

Some commenters argued that CO2 is 

not a contained gas and, therefore, does 

not meet the RCRA statutory definition 

of solid waste. Some commenters also 

noted that CO2 is a commodity that has 

commercial/beneficial uses, including 

use in enhanced oil or gas recovery 

(EOR/EGR) and manufacturing 

operations and, therefore, argued that it 

should not be classified as a waste. In 

fact, one commenter noted that storage 

(as in Carbon Capture and Storage) 

implies possible future use. Still other 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 355 

5For example, urea yield boosting, enhanced oil 

recovery, food processing and packaging, beverage 

carbonation, wine making. 

6 ‘‘The term ‘‘solid waste’’ means any garbage, 

refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water 

supply treatment plant, or air pollution control 

facility and other discarded material, including 

solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous 

material resulting from industrial, commercial, 

mining, and agricultural operations, and from 

community activities, but does not include solid or 

dissolved material in domestic sewage, or solid or 

dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or 

industrial discharges which are point sources 

subject to permits under section 402 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 

880), or source, special nuclear, or byproduct 

material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923).’’ [emphasis 

added]. RCRA § 1004(27). 

7See, for example, the definition of supercritical 

fluid in Kirk-Othmer Concise Encylopedia of 

Chemical Technology, 5th edition. 

8Carbon dioxide becomes a supercritical fluid at 

a temperature of approximately 31.3 degrees C, and 

a pressure of 1,070 pounds per square inch (psi). 

commenters cited dictionary definitions 

of the terms used in EPA regulations, 

concluding that CO2 sent to Class VI 

facilities is not discarded, abandoned, 

or recycled. 

EPA disagrees that CO2 streams sent 

to UIC Class VI wells for purposes of GS 

are not solid waste. As was stated in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, GS is an 

option to reduce CO2 emissions to the 

atmosphere by injecting the CO2 streams 

into deep subsurface geologic 

formations, with the express purpose of 

isolating the CO2 so that it does not 

return to the atmosphere. August 8, 

2011 (76 FR at 48075). Therefore, EPA 

views these CO2 streams as ‘‘discarded 

material’’ within the plain meaning of 

the term in RCRA § 1004(27). The fact 

that the sequestration of CO2 streams 

into deep geologic formations is at times 

labeled as ‘‘long-term containment’’ or 

‘‘long-term storage’’ does not change 

this view. 

In addition, several commenters 

pointed out that with the exception of 

demonstration and related projects, 

most if not all of the CO2 that is 

geologically injected today is used for 

EOR/EGR, and in that application, it is 

purchased and transacted as a valuable 

commodity. EPA acknowledges that the 

underground injection of CO2 has 

largely been (and continues to be) for 

the purpose of EOR/EGR, and does not 

disagree that CO2 can and does have a 

variety of commercial and 

manufacturing uses,5 but this does not 

affect the regulatory status of CO2

streams when they are to be injected 

into UIC Class VI wells for the purpose 

of GS. As EPA noted in the preamble to 

the proposed rule, this conditional 

exclusion is not intended to affect the 

regulatory status of CO2 streams that are 

injected into wells other than UIC Class 

VI wells. EPA reiterates that these issues 

are beyond the scope of this final rule, 

and EPA did not develop information 

for inclusion in the proposal on well 

classes other than UIC Class VI wells. 

However, in the interest of public 

transparency and in light of the several 

public comments on this issue, EPA 

does note that (based on the limited 

information provided in the public 

comments) should CO2 be used for its 

intended purpose as it is injected into 

UIC Class II wells for the purpose of 

EOR/EGR, it is EPA’s expectation that 

such an injection process would not 

generally be a waste management 

activity. EPA would encourage persons 

to consult with the appropriate 

regulatory authority to address any factspecific questions they may have 

regarding the status of CO2 in situations 

that are beyond the scope of this final 

rule. 

As stated above, some commenters 

said that these CO2 streams are not 

‘‘contained gases’’ and therefore are not 

solid wastes under the RCRA statutory 

definition of solid waste.6 More 

specifically, these commenters argued 

that these carbon dioxide streams are 

‘‘uncontained gases’’ and as such were 

statutorily excluded from RCRA by 

Congress, while others said that 

Congress ‘‘never envisioned regulation’’ 

of a gas such as CO2 under RCRA. As 

EPA noted in the proposed rule, the CO2

streams are delivered by pipeline and 

injected into UIC Class VI wells for GS 

in a supercritical state, which EPA 

stated at proposal was ‘‘. . . rather 

unique in that it has properties 

intermediate between a liquid and a 

gas.’’ 76 FR at 48078. The scientific term 

used to describe or define this 

supercritical state (i.e., when a 

substance is at or above its critical 

temperature and critical pressure) is as 

a ‘‘supercritical fluid.’’ 7 8 The RCRA 

statutory definition of solid waste 

specifically refers to ‘‘other discarded 

material, including solid, liquid, 

semisolid, or contained gaseous material 

resulting from industrial, commercial, 

mining, and agricultural operations, and 

from community activities . . .’’ While 

EPA has indeed interpreted the meaning 

of specific terms listed, including 

‘‘contained gaseous material,’’ the RCRA 

definition of solid waste encompasses 

‘‘other discarded material’’ and does not 

speak to materials such as supercritical 

fluids. Like the listed ‘‘solid, liquid, 

semisolid, or contained gaseous 

material’’ specifically referenced, CO2

streams sequestered for purposes of GS 

are ‘‘other discarded material’’ from 

industrial and commercial operations 

and, therefore, are of a similar kind to 

the other types of wastes specifically 

referenced by the definition. They are, 

therefore, RCRA statutory solid wastes. 

B. Definition of Hazardous Waste 

Under EPA’s existing RCRA subtitle C 

regulations, generators are required to 

determine whether a solid waste 

exhibits a RCRA characteristic by testing 

the waste or applying their knowledge 

of the hazard characteristic of a waste, 

in light of the materials or processes 

used. In the proposed rule, EPA 

discussed the applicability of the RCRA 

hazardous waste regulations to 

supercritical CO2 streams. 76 FR at 

48077–78. Specifically, EPA stated that 

because there are no hazardous waste 

listings that apply to the supercritical 

CO2 streams being considered here, a 

CO2 stream could only be defined as a 

hazardous waste if it exhibits one or 

more of the hazardous waste 

characteristics as defined in 40 CFR part 

261, subpart C. EPA also discussed 

issues specifically related to applying 

the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) to 

supercritical CO2 streams and requested 

comment on the RCRA characterization 

issue. 

Some commenters responded and 

said that even if these supercritical CO2

streams were RCRA solid wastes, it 

should not be assumed that they are a 

hazardous waste, and that the very 

consideration of a conditional exclusion 

unnecessarily suggests that these 

streams could be hazardous. Many 

commenters argued that EPA has not 

demonstrated that the supercritical CO2

streams would exhibit any of the RCRA 

characteristics, and asserted that the 

supercritical CO2 streams would not 

exhibit any of the RCRA hazardous 

waste characteristics, or that the RCRA 

characteristic regulations do not 

otherwise apply to supercritical CO2

streams. With respect to the TC 

specifically, commenters said that there 

is no record evidence that sequestered 

CO2 streams are managed in municipal 

solid waste landfills (the waste 

management scenario EPA originally 

considered when establishing the TC) 

and in fact the conditional exclusion is 

premised on the material being managed 

only in a UIC Class VI well. Therefore, 

these commenters argued there is no 

basis for applying the TC to sequestered 

CO2 streams. 

EPA appreciates these commenters’ 

concerns regarding the application of 

the hazardous waste regulations to 

supercritical CO2 streams being 

sequestered. EPA believes these 

concerns exist as a result of the unique 

circumstances associated with 

addressing the applicability of RCRA to 

CCS at such an early stage in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
356 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

development of CCS. However, it is 

important to note that EPA did not set 

out in this rulemaking to conclude that 

those supercritical CO2 streams that are 

solid wastes would, as a class, exhibit 

a RCRA characteristic. Indeed, EPA 

indicated in the proposed rule that it 

could not unequivocally conclude that 

supercritical CO2 streams will never 

exhibit any RCRA hazardous waste 

characteristic and commenters provided 

no information to the contrary. 

Alternatively, EPA acknowledges that 

some RCRA hazardous characteristics 

are unlikely to apply to a waste 

composed of >90% CO2, such as 

ignitability (i.e., RCRA Waste Code 

D001). Thus, in light of the early state 

of data development in this area, EPA 

intends to bring additional clarity to the 

regulatory regime through this rule, by 

establishing a conditional exclusion 

from the definition of hazardous waste 

that would apply in the event a 

generator determines that its CO2

streams exhibit a RCRA hazardous 

characteristic. 

EPA notes that it is not required to 

affirmatively demonstrate, as part of this 

rulemaking, that a particular CO2

stream, or a portion of all CO2 streams, 

necessarily qualifies as RCRA hazardous 

waste. Rather, under the conditional 

exclusion concept, EPA considers 

whether RCRA subtitle C regulation is 

necessary to protect human health and 

the environment. As explained in 

today’s rule, after consideration of 

public comment, EPA has reached the 

conclusion that management of CO2

streams under existing standards, 

including the UIC requirements for 

Class VI wells, as well as DOT 

standards, will protect human health 

and the environment from potential 

risks associated with CO2 streams 

(including associated constituents that 

might be present). This conclusion is 

based on EPA’s analysis of those other 

regulatory programs directly. EPA’s 

analysis and conclusions are 

independent of, and thus unaffected by, 

the question of whether a stream is 

classified as a hazardous waste under 

EPA’s RCRA regulations. 

Finally, EPA notes that the 

conditional exclusion has a limited 

effect on the regulated community 

directly and the exclusion imposes no 

affirmative obligations upon them. 

Generators of non-hazardous waste CO2

streams are not subject to the RCRA 

subtitle C regulations, and they are not 

obligated to make use of this conditional 

exclusion (although they still may 

choose to do so in situations where, for 

example, the generator may be uncertain 

regarding the hazardous waste status of 

the CO2 stream). Moreover, because use 

of the conditional exclusion is 

voluntary, even those generators who 

characterize their streams as RCRA 

hazardous waste may continue to 

manage their streams as RCRA 

hazardous wastes from the point of 

generation. The only effect is upon 

those persons who choose to comply 

with the terms of the conditional 

exclusion. 

C. Justification for Conditional 

Exclusion 

In the proposed rule, EPA discussed 

at length the protections provided by 

the UIC Class VI well program and 

EPA’s conclusion that regulation under 

RCRA would not provide additional 

protections to human health and the 

environment for CO2 streams injected 

for purposes of GS. See 76 FR 48083– 

86. Two commenters claimed that EPA’s 

conclusions in this respect were not 

adequately supported. The commenters 

stated that, by including a condition 

prohibiting the mixing or co-injection of 

hazardous waste into the CO2 stream, 

EPA was implying that UIC Class I 

hazardous waste wells are more 

appropriate for hazardous wastes and 

therefore offer greater safeguards than 

UIC Class VI wells for hazardous CO2

streams. These commenters also stated 

that EPA should offer an analysis on a 

point-by-point basis showing that the 

requirements for UIC Class VI wells are 

at least as protective as UIC Class I 

hazardous waste wells. Finally, the 

commenters said that EPA should not 

conditionally exclude CO2 streams from 

subtitle C regulation without a better 

understanding of their composition, 

their potentially hazardous 

characteristics in all plausible 

environments, and without identifying 

allowable contaminants and setting 

limits for their concentration in these 

streams. 

EPA does not agree that the hazardous 

waste mixing prohibition implies that 

UIC Class VI wells offer lesser 

safeguards than UIC Class I hazardous 

waste wells, for CO2 streams that are the 

subject of this conditional exclusion. 

This conditional exclusion is limited to 

a specific, unique waste—CO2 streams 

that are hazardous waste themselves 

(i.e., that exhibit a characteristic of 

hazardous waste due to the presence of 

impurities)—therefore, EPA needed to 

make clear that any other type of 

hazardous waste injection must 

continue to occur in UIC Class I 

hazardous waste wells. 

EPA also disagrees that it needs to 

compare the UIC Class I hazardous 

waste and Class VI requirements pointby-point in order to demonstrate that 

the requirements for UIC Class VI wells 

are at least as protective as UIC Class I 

hazardous waste wells for CO2 streams. 

As discussed in Section III.B in this 

preamble, determining whether a 

conditional exclusion is appropriate 

includes consideration of whether a 

waste may not present a hazard because 

it is already subject to adequate 

regulation. In determining whether 

existing regulation is adequate, EPA 

does not necessarily need to show that 

each existing requirement has a 

corresponding analogue in the RCRA 

subtitle C regulations. The UIC Class VI 

requirements are designed to ensure that 

the CO2 streams (which may include 

low concentrations of hazardous 

constituents) remain isolated in the 

injection zone and confined by 

confining zones in an appropriate, wellcharacterized geologic setting that is 

continuously monitored to ensure that 

the CO2 streams remain in the injection 

zone. EPA views the elimination of 

exposure routes through these 

requirements as determinative in its 

evaluation of whether the RCRA subtitle 

C regulatory requirements for hazardous 

waste disposal provide any substantial, 

additional protection for CO2 streams 

which exhibit a characteristic of 

hazardous waste and are disposed in 

UIC Class VI wells. Moreover, in some 

instances, a point-by-point comparison 

may not even be appropriate. For 

example, the UIC Class VI requirements 

are designed for the unique 

characteristics of CO2, including its 

large volume and its buoyancy relative 

to other fluids in the subsurface, unlike 

the typical fluids injected into UIC Class 

I hazardous waste wells. Finally, EPA 

also notes that the commenters, despite 

their general criticism that EPA did not 

undertake a particular enough analysis 

of the respective regulatory regimes, did 

not actually reject EPA’s ultimate 

conclusion that the UIC Class VI 

requirements are sufficiently protective, 

nor did they provide any evidence of 

gaps in protection or other deficiencies 

in the analysis that only a more 

particularized analysis would reveal. 

Regarding the comment that EPA did 

not evaluate the ‘‘potentially hazardous 

characteristics’’ of CO2 streams ‘‘in all 

plausible environments,’’ EPA notes 

that the commenters did not identify the 

plausible environments to which they 

were referring. EPA’s response is that 

the scope of its evaluation of the 

adequacy of existing regulatory 

requirements (and therefore the scope of 

the conditional exclusion) is limited to 

the management of supercritical CO2

streams from capture at a CO2 source to 

injection into a UIC Class VI well. 

EPA agrees with the commenter that 

obtaining more data on the composition 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 357 

9EPA reiterates that CO2 streams by definition 

may contain ‘‘incidental associated substances 

derived from the source materials and the capture 

process.’’ 

of CO2 streams that will be injected into 

UIC Class VI wells is important, but 

disagrees that the conditional exclusion 

should not be promulgated unless EPA 

identifies specific contaminants that 

may be injected and at what 

concentrations. As explained above, 

EPA has concluded that the injection of 

CO2 streams, including incidental 

associated substances derived from the 

source materials and the capture 

process,9 can be performed in a 

protective manner at a permitted UIC 

Class VI well. This is the case regardless 

of the precise contaminants, and their 

concentrations, because the UIC Class 

VI permitting requirements will take 

into account the physical and chemical 

characteristics of the CO2 streams before 

any injection may occur, as part of 

establishing the appropriate conditions 

for the successful confinement of CO2 in 

a manner that is protective of USDWs. 

EPA therefore has not altered its 

conclusion that the conditional 

exclusion is appropriate, and sees no 

need to delay further action on the 

conditional exemption to gather 

additional data. 

Nevertheless, EPA emphasizes that 

the UIC Class VI regulations themselves 

require that the chemical composition 

and physical characteristics of the CO2

streams be known as part of the initial 

permitting process, as well as during 

operation of the well, in order to ensure 

that these CO2 streams can be injected 

in a manner that is protective of human 

health and the environment. EPA 

expects that this will provide a full 

understanding of the properties of the 

CO2 streams being injected, including 

specific contaminants and their 

concentrations. As discussed in more 

detail below in Section V.G. of this 

preamble EPA intends to monitor any 

data on the chemical composition and 

physical characteristics of the CO2

streams being injected by the UIC Class 

VI permitting program, and to use that 

information to determine whether 

changes to the conditional exclusion 

may be appropriate. 

D. Certification Statement 

One of the conditions for the 

proposed exclusion was that generators 

and UIC Class VI well owners or 

operators who claim the exclusion must 

sign a certification statement that all of 

the conditions of the exclusion were 

met. EPA had proposed specific 

language for a certification statement, 

where the same language would be used 

for the generator and the UIC Class VI 

well owner or operator. EPA requested 

comment on the certification statement 

and, particularly, on whether it would 

appropriately ensure compliance with 

the conditional exclusion. 

While the commenters did not 

generally have concerns with signing a 

certification statement, some 

commenters were concerned that the 

certification as proposed would require 

signatories to attest to certain activities 

that were outside of their control. For 

example, several commenters thought it 

inappropriate for the CO2 generator to 

have to certify to the injection well’s 

owner or operator’s compliance with the 

UIC Class VI rules. EPA agrees, and, in 

today’s final rule, the certification 

statement has been revised so that there 

are now two separate certification 

statements worded slightly differently— 

one for generators and another for UIC 

Class VI well owners or operators 

claiming this exclusion. As revised, the 

generator certification statement reads 

as set forth in 40 CFR 261.4(h)(4)(i), and 

the UIC Class VI well owner or operator 

certification reads as set forth in 40 CFR 

261.4(h)(4)(ii). 

EPA is making these revisions to 

better reflect actions over which each 

party has control. EPA emphasizes that 

these revisions do not change how the 

conditional exclusion is implemented— 

that a CO2 stream that is hazardous must 

meet all the conditions in § 261.4(h)(1)– 

(4) to qualify for and maintain the 

exclusion from the hazardous waste 

regulations. Thus, as discussed in the 

proposed rule, a violation of a condition 

at any point in the management of a CO2

stream (that is otherwise hazardous) 

would result in that CO2 stream being 

subject to all applicable subtitle C 

regulatory requirements from the point 

of generation. See 76 FR at 48087. 

One additional note regarding 

situations where both the capture and 

the injection of CO2 streams is occurring 

at the same site, such that the CO2

streams are not being sent off-site either 

in a pipeline or via transportation such 

as by truck. EPA clarifies that 

§ 261.4(h)(1) requires compliance with 

DOT (and state analogue) requirements 

only as these requirements 

independently apply (i.e., ‘‘as 

applicable’’). Thus, EPA would not 

consider this condition to have been 

violated merely because no pipeline or 

other transportation were used. 

Similarly, EPA does not intend for a 

generator in this situation to be 

prevented from signing the certification 

statement as drafted, because of the 

references to applicable DOT and state 

regulations. 

As proposed, the certification 

statements would only be required of 

generators and UIC Class VI well owners 

or operators. EPA had requested 

comment on whether or not transporters 

or pipeline owners and operators also 

should sign a certification statement. 

One commenter stated that this 

certification would help ensure that 

pipeline owners and operators or other 

transporters do not purposefully mix 

hazardous wastes into the CO2 stream. 

Several other commenters, however, 

asserted that this certification was 

unnecessary because transport through 

pipelines or by other means must meet 

applicable transport requirements for all 

materials moved, and therefore, 

certification that they meet these 

requirements only for a specific material 

(i.e., CO2 to be sequestered) provides no 

additional protection and is 

unnecessary. 

EPA agrees with those commenters 

who said that a certification by the 

transporter is not necessary. If EPA were 

to require such a certification, 

consistent with the approach described 

above, it would be limited to the 

conditions within the control of 

pipeline owners and operators or other 

transporters, which is compliance with 

applicable DOT requirements and to not 

mix hazardous waste into the CO2

streams. Regarding compliance with 

DOT requirements, EPA agrees that if 

persons transporting supercritical CO2

must comply with the applicable 

transportation requirements for all 

supercritical CO2 being moved, it seems 

unnecessary to require that they certify 

compliance with DOT for a specific 

material (i.e., supercritical CO2 streams 

to be sequestered). In addition, EPA 

does not have information, nor did 

commenters provide any new 

information, indicating that CO2

pipeline owners and operators or other 

transporters would mix hazardous waste 

into CO2 streams being delivered to UIC 

Class VI facilities. 

One commenter pointed out that it is 

unlikely that these CO2 streams will be 

transported other than by pipelines 

(except where small quantities are 

involved in some experimental wells, 

which are likely to be food grade CO2

according to this commenter). As EPA 

discussed at proposal, PHMSA requires 

that pipeline owners and operators 

ensure that supercritical CO2 streams be 

chemically compatible with the pipeline 

and any commodities in the pipeline 

and will not corrode the pipeline and 

pipeline system. 76 FR at 48087. EPA 

expects that pipeline owners and 

operators engaged in delivering 

supercritical CO2 have strong 

disincentives to mix any hazardous 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
358 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

10The commenter is referring to regulations 

promulgated on December 11, 1995, that improve 

the process for permitting RCRA hazardous waste 

treatment, storage, or disposal facilities by 

providing earlier opportunities for public 

involvement in the process and expanding public 

access to information throughout the permitting 

process and the operational lives of facilities. 60 FR 

63417. 

11Cass R. Sunstein, Informational Regulation and 

Informational Standing: Akins and Beyond, 147 U. 

Pa. L. Rev. 613, 613 (1999). 

12Memorandum for the Heads of Executive 

Departments and Agencies—Disclosure and 

Simplification as Regulatory Tools (Cass R. 

Sunstein, OMB; June 18, 2010). http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

inforeg/disclosure_principles.pdf 

13The UIC Program Director may also request 

certain information prior to the issuance of a permit 

for the construction of a new Class VI well (or the 

conversion of an existing Class I, Class II, or Class 

V well to a Class VI well). 40 CFR 146.82(a)(21). 

Additionally, an owner or operator may choose to 

submit a signed certification statement in 

conjunction with other Class VI permit application 

information on the chemical and physical 

characteristics of the CO2 stream required under 40 

CFR 146.82(a)(7), to inform Class VI permit 

decisions. 

14The B31 Code for pressure piping, developed 

by American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) covers Power Piping, Fuel Gas Piping, 

Process Piping, Pipeline Transportation Systems for 

Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids, 

Refrigeration Piping and Heat Transfer Components 

and Building Services Piping. 

15According to ASME, standards are considered 

voluntary and serve as guidelines. ASME publishes 

its standards, accredits users of standards to ensure 

that they are capable of manufacturing products 

that meet those standards, and provides stamps that 

accredited manufacturers place on their products, 

indicating that a product was manufactured 

according to a standard. 

waste into their pipeline system, both in 

order to honor their contractual 

arrangement with customers, and also to 

maintain their equipment. For these 

reasons, EPA does not see the need for 

a transporter certification, and is not 

changing its proposed approach and 

transporters and pipeline owners and 

operators will not be required to sign a 

certification statement as a condition of 

the exclusion. However, EPA will 

continue to monitor compliance issues 

going forward and may revisit this 

condition as appropriate as part of its 

adaptive approach (discussed in Section 

V.G. in this preamble). 

Finally, EPA proposed that the signed 

certification statement must be kept onsite for no less than three years and be 

made available upon request within 72 

hours of a written request from either 

EPA or the state. In the proposed rule, 

EPA discussed how the certification 

plays an important role in ensuring that 

the conditions in the exclusion are met 

and its desire to safeguard the efforts of 

facilities to comply with the rule by 

designing a regulatory scheme both 

enforceable and structured to ensure 

compliance. EPA specifically requested 

comment on whether any new 

monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting 

requirements were necessary to ensure 

compliance with the proposed 

conditional exclusion. 

EPA received a few diverse comments 

on this provision. One commenter 

stated that requiring the certification to 

be kept on-site is not sufficient, citing 

the fact that the RCRA Enhanced Public 

Participation Rule would not apply.10

Instead, this commenter suggested that 

EPA require the certification to be 

submitted to the UIC Program Director 

and be made publicly available on the 

regulator’s Web site. Another 

commenter stated that requiring 

production within 72 hours was too 

short and that the certification 

requirement should reflect ‘‘modern 

electronic filing systems where a paper 

copy may not be held in a file drawer. 

Making an electronic document 

available and submitting it 

electronically should both be allowed.’’ 

In the final rule, EPA has kept the 

original proposed on-site retention time 

of no less than three years for the signed 

certification statement, but has added a 

provision for the statement to be posted 

prominently on the signatory’s 

corporate Web site, if such Web site 

exists. As EPA made clear in the 

proposed rule, one of its key concerns 

with the certification statement was to 

ensure compliance with the terms of the 

conditional exclusion. Posting the 

signed certification statements on-line 

will promote compliance and 

accountability by providing efficient 

access by regulatory authorities and 

interested members of the public 

(consistent with the intent of the RCRA 

Enhanced Public Participation Rule 

cited by one commenter) to the 

exclusion certifications and the 

identities of the responsible officials. 

Moreover, EPA expects that posting the 

certifications on-line will simplify the 

reporting obligation for the regulated 

community because accessible internet 

posting obviates the need for a 

regulatory agency to request a hard 

copy. 

EPA notes that it is not requiring the 

creation of any new corporate or other 

Web site. Entities without a Web site 

thus would not be required to post their 

certifications on-line. EPA expects, 

however, that most, if not all, affected 

entities already operate external Web 

sites to communicate to the public and, 

therefore, the posting requirement will 

be useful to regulators, the public, and 

the regulated community. The public 

disclosure of information is an 

increasingly common and important 

regulatory tool.11 In 2010, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

guidance with principles to assist 

agencies in using information disclosure 

to achieve regulatory objectives,12 and 

EPA believes that regulatory 

information disclosure can costeffectively improve compliance and 

accountability. 

Finally, in today’s final rule EPA is 

not requiring that the signed 

certification statement be submitted to 

the UIC Program Director as suggested 

by one commenter. EPA does not 

believe that an additional submission 

requirement will be necessary because 

the signed certification statement will in 

most circumstances be directly 

accessible on the injection facility’s Web 

site. EPA also notes that as part of the 

process of obtaining a UIC Class VI 

permit, owners and operators who plan 

to claim the conditional exclusion may 

choose to submit the certification to the 

UIC Program Director to provide the 

necessary clarity on the status of the 

CO2 streams under RCRA.13

E. On-Site Pipelines 

In the proposed rule, EPA stated that 

some pipelines used to transport CO2

might not be subject to the DOT 

requirements and requested information 

on how these pipelines are currently 

regulated, including any design and 

operating standards that apply to such 

pipelines. EPA also assumed that, in the 

typical case, captured CO2 will not be 

stored at the generator facility but 

would be transferred in a continuous 

manner either to an on-site or off-site 

UIC Class VI well. While EPA did not 

propose to apply RCRA subtitle C 

requirements to these pipelines as a 

condition of the proposed exclusion, it 

did request comment on the 

appropriateness of applying the RCRA 

subtitle C standards to these non-DOT 

regulated pipelines. Several commenters 

responded and said that EPA should not 

apply the subtitle C requirements to 

non-DOT regulated pipelines as a 

condition of this rule. These 

commenters referenced the Pressure 

Piping standards set by the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) 14 and noted that non-DOT 

regulated CO2 pipelines on-site are 

designed, constructed and maintained 

in accordance with these standards. 

According to ASME, such standards 

promote safety, reliability, productivity, 

and efficiency in industries that rely on 

engineering components or equipment. 

While EPA acknowledges that ASME 

standards are not by themselves 

regulatory requirements,15 these 

standards (e.g., ASME B31) are designed 

to ensure that the piping and associated 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 359 

16See 76 FR at 48079. 

equipment meet certain quality and 

safety criteria. In addition, that these 

ASME B31 standards have been 

incorporated by reference in various 

federal and state regulatory programs 

illustrates the high degree of confidence 

and acceptance placed on these 

standards. Ultimately, EPA did not find 

a compelling reason to require RCRA 

subtitle C standards to on-site piping 

associated with supercritical CO2

streams. 

F. Definition of Carbon Dioxide Stream 

EPA proposed adding a definition for 

the term carbon dioxide stream to the 

hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR 

260.10. EPA is finalizing that definition 

without change: Carbon dioxide stream 

is defined as ‘‘carbon dioxide that has 

been captured from an emission source 

(e.g., a power plant), plus incidental 

associated substances derived from the 

source materials and the capture 

process, and any substances added to 

the stream to enable or improve the 

injection process.’’ EPA explained that 

the proposed definition was intended to 

work in concert with the definition of 

‘‘carbon dioxide stream’’ in the UIC 

Class VI regulations at 40 CFR 

146.81(d). EPA also requested comment 

on the types and characteristics of 

substances that are added to CO2

streams to enable or improve the 

injection process. 

Most commenters agreed with the 

proposed definition. One commenter 

stated the definition as written is critical 

to ensure that the conditional exclusion 

is practicable, as any captured CO2

stream will contain some substances 

from the source materials and the 

capture process. One commenter asked 

EPA to confirm that ‘‘incidental 

associated substances’’ means other 

substances captured together with the 

CO2 from a gas stream and that the 

numerical values provided in the 

proposed rule preamble (as estimates of 

possible hazardous constituent 

concentrations in CO2 streams) were not 

intended to establish any numerical 

threshold of ‘‘incidental associated 

substances.’’ EPA confirms that 

‘‘incidental associated substances 

derived from the source materials and 

the capture process’’ is intended to refer 

to those substances that are captured 

together with the CO2. EPA also 

confirms that it did not intend that the 

numerical concentrations of hazardous 

constituents described in the proposal’s 

discussion of RCRA characterization 

issues16 define what constitutes 

‘‘incidental associated substances’’ in 

the proposed rule or in today’s final 

conditional exclusion. 

One commenter requested that EPA 

revise the term ‘‘emission source’’ to 

make it plural (‘‘sources’’) in order to 

recognize that CO2 streams can come 

from more than one source, otherwise 

the definition ‘‘. . . could be interpreted 

as requiring the CO2 stream to come 

from a single source to qualify for the 

exemption.’’ EPA never intended to 

limit the conditional exclusion to CO2

streams from a single source but rather 

believes the existing language also 

would include CO2 streams generated 

from two or more independentlyproduced CO2 streams, provided that 

the conditions of the exclusion are met 

for all streams for which it is being 

claimed. Thus, we are not making this 

change. 

This same commenter also requested 

that EPA delete the term ‘‘incidental’’ 

from the proposed definition, arguing 

that if a substance qualifies as an 

‘‘associated substance derived from the 

source materials and the capture 

process,’’ then it should be eligible for 

the exclusion regardless of the quantity 

in which it exists in the stream. The 

commenter stated that the word 

‘‘incidental’’ connotes a volume 

limitation, and its use in the definition 

suggests that if such ‘‘associated 

substances’’ are present at sufficient 

volume, then they will no longer qualify 

as being ‘‘incidental,’’ resulting in 

elimination of the exclusion. 

EPA disagrees with the suggestion 

that ‘‘incidental’’ be deleted. In order to 

provide the regulatory clarity sought 

through this rule, it is critical that there 

be a consistent definition of carbon 

dioxide stream in both today’s final rule 

and the UIC Class VI final rule. This 

consistent definition is important 

because the applicability of the UIC 

Class VI requirements and the 

applicability of the conditional 

exclusion are linked in instances where 

the exclusion is being claimed. EPA is 

concerned that employing different 

definitions will result in confusion as to 

which streams are subject to both rules. 

In any event, EPA finds it unlikely that 

the applicability of the conditional 

exclusion will turn on how ‘incidental’ 

is interpreted; that is, in any instance 

where it has been determined that a 

‘‘carbon dioxide stream’’ (as defined in 

either rule) can be safely and legally 

injected into a UIC Class VI well, the 

conditional exclusion is applicable, 

provided the other specified conditions 

are met. 

EPA also requested comment on the 

types and characteristics of substances 

that are added to CO2 streams to enable 

or improve the injection process. One 

commenter stated that, at their GS 

injection site, they do not add any 

substances to improve the injectivity of 

the CO2 stream. Another commenter 

said that it may be necessary to add 

substances to the CO2 streams to 

improve injectivity, including 

substances to reduce viscosity, inhibit 

reactions with brine or formation rocks, 

or otherwise improve permeability. 

While this commenter did not provide 

information on what these substances 

might include, EPA emphasizes that any 

addition of substances to CO2 streams to 

enable or improve the injection process 

would be occurring as part of the UIC 

Class VI permitted activity (subject to 

that program’s oversight) and thus 

ultimately implemented in a manner to 

prevent the endangerment of 

Underground Sources of Drinking 

Water. 

G. Adaptive Approach 

EPA did not receive any significant 

comments on the adaptive approach, 

and no commenters disagreed with this 

approach; however, we believe it is 

important to reiterate what was 

presented in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, which was that after the 

conditional exclusion is promulgated 

any new information would be reviewed 

and used to inform whether changes 

should be made to the conditional 

exclusion, which could require 

additional rulemaking. August 8, 2011 

(76 FR at 48088). This approach is 

consistent with the approach EPA 

described for considering changes to the 

UIC Class VI final rule, in order to 

incorporate new research, data, and 

information about GS and associated 

technologies. See December 10, 2010 

Federal Register (75 FR at 77240–41, 

77243, and 77257). 

One example of where EPA has 

acknowledged it plans to consider new 

information that may have relevance to 

the overall protectiveness and/or 

implementation of this conditional 

exclusion is related to the composition 

of CO2 streams. As described in Section 

V.C. of this preamble, one commenter 

cited EPA’s lack of information on the 

nature of CO2 streams as a concern, and 

EPA has stated that it intends to look at 

data generated on the chemical and 

physical characteristics of the CO2

streams that are to be injected into UIC 

Class VI wells, to inform its 

consideration of whether changes 

should be made to the conditional 

exclusion. 

Another commenter expressed 

concern that the conditional exclusion 

may actually create uncertainty, rather 

than reduce it, and that any exclusion 

‘‘. . . needs to address carbon dioxide 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
360 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

17EPA also notes that this conditional exclusion 

is voluntary, and regulated parties are not obligated 

to make use of this conditional exclusion. For 

example, generators of non-hazardous waste CO2

streams are not subject to the RCRA subtitle C 

regulations, and they are not obligated to make use 

of this conditional exclusion. 

18See Executive Summary, Report of the 

Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and 

Storage, August 2010. 

19Some states incorporate the federal regulations 

by reference, or have specific state statutory 

requirements that their state program can be no 

more stringent than the federal regulations. In those 

cases, the conditional exclusion would be adopted 

by these states, consistent with state laws and 

administrative procedures (unless explicit action is 

taken by such a state to decline the revisions, as 

specified under that state’s laws). 

20As discussed in the proposed rule (see 76 FR 

at 48083), the off-site movement of hazardous waste 

through pipelines does not require the use of a 

hazardous waste manifest under the federal subtitle 

C hazardous waste regulations. 

streams for the full range of scenarios 

under which the uses of captured 

anthropogenic carbon dioxide streams 

are likely to occur.’’ This commenter 

stated that EPA should not assume that 

the producer of CO2 streams will always 

send their CO2 streams through a 

dedicated pipeline to a single UIC Class 

VI well for geologic sequestration, and 

requested that EPA explain how the 

conditional exclusion would be 

implemented under a variety of 

hypothetical situations, involving CO2

streams from anthropogenic and natural 

sources that may be co-mingled in the 

same CO2 pipeline, for delivery either to 

one or more UIC Class II wells (for 

EOR), UIC Class VI wells (for GS), or to 

both types of wells. 

EPA appreciates the commenter’s 

request, and notes that currently there is 

a lack of sufficient information to 

inform the agency on how to best 

address the ‘‘full range of scenarios’’ 

presented by the commenter because 

many of such scenarios are still under 

development. EPA notes that the 

purpose of developing this final rule 

was to provide for the option of a 

conditional hazardous waste exclusion 

that could be used, where necessary,17

to provide clarity as to the applicability 

of RCRA subtitle C, and in particular 

with respect to removing barriers to 

initiating near-term CCS projects.18

These examples illustrate why EPA is 

committed to an adaptive approach on 

CCS generally, so that the Agency may 

identify and address additional 

information and respond, including via 

rulemaking, should that be necessary. 

EPA emphasizes that the adaptive 

approach is not limited to the examples 

cited above, and where additional 

information may increase 

protectiveness, streamline 

implementation, or otherwise inform 

the requirements for GS injection of 

CO2, EPA may need to evaluate whether 

changes are necessary. Thus, the Agency 

commits to reviewing, in a manner 

similar to the adaptive approach 

planned for the UIC Class VI rule, new 

research, data, and information related 

to today’s conditional exclusion. 

VI. State Authorization 

A. Applicability of the Rule in 

Authorized States 

Under Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA 

may authorize qualified states to 

administer their own hazardous waste 

programs in lieu of the federal program 

within the state. Following 

authorization, EPA retains enforcement 

authority under Sections 3008, 3013, 

and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized 

states have primary enforcement 

responsibility. The standards and 

requirements for state authorization are 

found at 40 CFR Part 271. 

Prior to enactment of the Hazardous 

and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 

(HSWA), a state with final RCRA 

authorization administered its 

hazardous waste program entirely in 

lieu of EPA administering the federal 

program in that state. The federal 

requirements no longer applied in the 

authorized state, and EPA could not 

issue permits for any facilities in that 

state, since only the state was 

authorized to issue RCRA permits. 

When new, more stringent federal 

requirements were promulgated, the 

state was obligated to enact equivalent 

authorities within specified time frames. 

However, the new federal requirements 

did not take effect in an authorized state 

until the state adopted the federal 

requirements as state law. 

In contrast, under RCRA Section 

3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which was 

added by HSWA, new requirements and 

prohibitions imposed under HSWA 

authority take effect in authorized states 

at the same time that they take effect in 

unauthorized states. EPA is directed by 

the statute to implement these 

requirements and prohibitions in 

authorized states, including the 

issuance of permits, until the state is 

granted authorization to do so. While 

states must still adopt HSWA related 

provisions as state law to retain final 

authorization, EPA implements the 

HSWA provisions in authorized states 

until the states do so. 

Authorized states are required to 

modify their programs only when EPA 

enacts federal requirements that are 

more stringent or broader in scope than 

existing federal requirements. RCRA 

Section 3009 allows states to impose 

standards more stringent than those in 

the federal program (see also 40 CFR 

271.1). Therefore, authorized states may, 

but are not required to, adopt federal 

regulations that are considered less 

stringent than previous federal 

regulations. 

B. Effect on State Authorization 

The provisions in today’s notice are 

promulgated pursuant to non-HSWA 

authority, and would eliminate the 

hazardous waste requirements for those 

CO2 streams that would otherwise meet 

the RCRA definition of hazardous waste, 

when these streams are managed in 

accordance with certain conditions. 

Therefore, this exclusion is less 

stringent than the federal program, and 

states are not required to adopt this 

provision.19 Nevertheless, while states 

do not have to adopt this provision, EPA 

strongly encourages them to do so, 

because this amendment will 

substantially reduce the uncertainty 

associated with defining and managing 

these CO2 streams under RCRA subtitle 

C, which will remove the uncertainty 

regarding the type of permit needed for 

the GS of CO2 streams. 

EPA notes that in situations involving 

the interstate transportation of 

conditionally-excluded waste, the 

exclusion must be authorized in the 

state where the waste is generated, any 

states through which the waste passes, 

and the state where the UIC Class VI 

injection well is located, in order for 

that conditionally-excluded waste to be 

managed as excluded from subtitle C 

from point of generation to injection in 

a UIC Class VI well. A state that has not 

adopted the conditional exclusion may 

impose state requirements, including 

the uniform hazardous waste manifest 

requirement (where applicable) 20 if 

characteristically-hazardous CO2

streams are being transported through 

that state. EPA recommends in 

situations where the conditional 

exclusion is being asserted, involving 

one or more states that have not yet 

adopted this rule, that persons engaged 

in the transaction consult with these 

states to ensure no additional 

requirements apply. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 361 

21For a complete discussion of these changes see: 

‘‘Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and 

Other Impacts—Hazardous Waste Management 

System: Conditional Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide 

(CO2) Streams in Geologic Sequestration Activities: 

Final Rule.’’ 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it raises novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011) and any changes made 

in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

In addition, EPA prepared a revised 

analysis of the potential cost impacts 

associated with the final rule. This 

revised analysis is presented in the 

following support document: 

Assessment of the Potential Costs, 

Benefits, and Other Impacts— 

Hazardous Waste Management System: 

Conditional Exclusion for Carbon 

Dioxide (CO2) Streams in Geologic 

Sequestration Activities: Final Rule 

(Assessment document). A copy of this 

document is available in the docket for 

today’s action. The findings from this 

analysis are briefly summarized below. 

Entities that may be directly affected 

by the final rule include CO2 generators 

and sequestration facilities that have 

UIC Class VI wells. These entities are 

likely to experience net cost savings as 

a result of the rule. Entities transporting 

the CO2 stream that would otherwise be 

hazardous under subtitle C of RCRA 

must continue to meet the baseline DOT 

requirements and are expected to 

experience no increased costs, or cost 

savings. Increased costs associated with 

the review of selected CO2 exclusion 

certification statements are expected for 

EPA and state governments. 

Our revised analysis for the final rule 

incorporates modified estimates 

regarding the high-end number of 

potentially affected facilities and the 

percent of CO2 streams that may be 

RCRA hazardous.21 Market dynamics 

affecting the capture, compression, and 

sequestration of CO2 streams have 

changed since the Agency prepared the 

Assessment document for the proposed 

action. The total number of CO2 capture 

facilities potentially affected by the final 

rule remains uncertain. However, based 

upon current market conditions and the 

existing regulatory framework (i.e., lack 

of Federal legislation), it appears 

unlikely that there would be any 

significant expansion in CCS 

management for CO2 over the next 

several years. As a result, we have made 

a downward revision to our high-end 

estimate of the number of facilities 

potentially affected by the final rule. 

The preamble to the proposed rule 

discussed the Agency’s high level of 

uncertainty regarding the percent of CO2

streams that may be characterized as 

RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste. 

Available information at the time 

indicated that it was possible that some 

CO2 streams might meet the definition 

of hazardous waste, but the Agency 

considered this information to be 

insufficient to make a justifiable point 

estimate or reasonable range. Reflecting 

this uncertainty, we applied a broad 

range of 10 percent to 90 percent for 

CO2 streams that may be RCRA 

hazardous waste. The proposed rule 

requested that commenters provide 

characterization data relevant to 

whether CO2 streams meet the 

definition of RCRA hazardous waste and 

indicated that the Agency would 

continue to research and assess this 

issue. In response to our request, EPA 

received no new information or data 

that would indicate what percentage of 

captured CO2 streams would be defined 

as a RCRA hazardous waste. Therefore, 

there remains a degree of uncertainty as 

to what percentage of CO2 streams might 

be defined as a RCRA hazardous waste. 

However, within this uncertainty, EPA 

has considered all available information 

and now believes that the high-end 

estimate of 90 percent is likely to be a 

significant overestimate. Therefore, in 

an effort to present a more realistic and 

conservative estimate of cost savings, 

we are dropping the high-end 90 

percent hazardous waste scenario for 

our final rule Assessment. 

Based on these considerations, the 

final rule is estimated to result in 

undiscounted total net cost savings 

ranging from $4.96 million/year to $7.23 

million/year. Applying a 3 percent 

discount rate, total net savings were 

found to range from $4.68 million/year 

to $6.83 million/year. Application of a 

7 percent discount rate resulted in total 

net savings ranging from $4.24 million/ 

year to $6.19 million/year. These figures 

represent more than an eighty percent 

reduction from estimates presented for 

the proposal. Similar to the proposal, 

impacts to sequestration facilities that 

have UIC Class VI wells represented less 

than one half of one percent of the total 

annualized net cost savings, in all cases 

examined. The revised estimates for 

EPA and state government annualized 

costs associated with the review of 

selected CO2 exclusion certification 

statements are negligible (i.e., < $1,000/ 

year). 

These cost savings are expected to 

occur without any discernible increase 

in negative impacts to human health 

and the environment, as discussed 

above. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has preapproved the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this rule under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2050–0207. The EPA 

ICR number is 2421.04. 

This final rule is an important part of 

the Agency’s efforts to establish a 

regulatory framework for GS. The 

certifications included in the rule (as 

well as the requirement for posting such 

certification on the signatories corporate 

Web site, if such Web site exists) are 

required for entities wishing to take 

advantage of the flexibility provided by 

the conditional exclusion. The 

certification statements would be used 

to hold generators and UIC Class VI well 

owner/operators accountable for 

knowing the conditions applicable to 

them (e.g., during an on-site inspection). 

The certification statements also would 

be used by generators and owner/

operators to demonstrate that they are 

aware of, and complying with, the 

conditions. 

We believe that the certifications are 

a practical way to assure compliance 

because they hold a single person at 

each facility accountable for compliance 

(i.e., the authorized representative). 

Because of this, the representative has a 

personal incentive to make sure that the 

facility complies with the conditions. 

The final rule requires that the 

certification be renewed every year, and 

be posted on the signatories corporate 

Web site, if such Web site exists, that 

the generator or UIC Class VI well 

owner/operator claims the RCRA 

conditional exclusion, in order to 

ensure that the certification remains 

current. EPA estimates the total annual 

burden to respondents (i.e., the private 

sector and state governments) under the 

new paperwork requirements to be 38 

hours and $3,765. There are no capital 

costs. The annual public reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

of information is estimated to average 

4.8 hours per respondent. EPA estimates 

there to be 7 private entity respondents 

and 1 state government respondent that 

will respond once per year. In addition, 

EPA estimates an annual burden savings 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
362 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

22 211111 (500 persons), 221112 (500 persons), 

322121 (750 persons), 324110 (1,500 persons), 

324199 (500 persons), 325120 (1,000 persons), 

325193 (1,000 persons), 325311 (1,000 persons), 

and 327310 (750 persons). 

23As noted earlier in the preamble, where CO2

streams are beneficially used for EOR/EGR in other 

than UIC Class VI wells—even where some 

sequestration may occur in the process of 

recovering oil or gas—these activities are beyond 

the scope of this final rule. 

under the existing paperwork 

requirements of 103 hours and $8,497. 

This results in a net annual savings of 

65 hours and $4,733. The bottom-line 

burden savings to respondents over 

three years is estimated to be 195 hours 

and $14,199. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. In 

addition, EPA is amending the table in 

40 CFR part 9 of currently approved 

OMB control numbers for various 

regulations to list the regulatory 

citations for the information 

requirements contained in this final 

rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business, based on the size standards of 

the Small Business Administration 

(SBA), that is primarily engaged in the 

generation, capture, storage, 

transportation, and GS of excluded 

hazardous CO2 streams, as defined by 

NAICS codes 211111, 221112, 322121, 

324110, 324199, 325120, 325193, 

325311, and 327310, with total 

corporate employment ranging from 500 

to 1,500 persons 22; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In determining whether a rule has a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities’’ 5 

U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency 

may certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if it 

relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise 

has a positive economic effect on all of 

the small entities subject to the rule. 

This rule is projected to reduce the 

burden on regulated entities by 

conditionally excluding, from the RCRA 

subtitle C hazardous waste management 

requirements, hazardous CO2 streams 

that are captured, transported, and 

injected into UIC Class VI wells and 

meet certain other conditions. We, 

therefore, have concluded that today’s 

rule will relieve regulatory burden for 

all affected small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. As 

explained above, this exclusion is less 

stringent than the current RCRA federal 

program, and states are not required to 

adopt it. Thus, the action imposes no 

enforceable duties on State, local or 

tribal governments. Moreover, private 

sector regulated entities are not required 

to use the conditional exclusion, and 

may continue to manage their hazardous 

CO2 streams in accordance with the full 

RCRA hazardous waste regulations. 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of the UMRA. This action is also not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This rule will 

not impose any requirements on States, 

or any other level of government. As 

explained above, today’s final rule 

conditionally excludes CO2 streams that 

would otherwise be RCRA hazardous 

from the definition of hazardous waste, 

where such streams, in accordance with 

the rule, are captured from emission 

sources and injected into UIC Class VI 

wells for purposes of GS. However, 

States would not be required to adopt 

this rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). No tribal governments are known 

to generate CO2 streams, or own or 

operate UIC Class VI wells subject to the 

final rule. Furthermore, we have 

identified no existing CO2 pipelines that 

cross tribal lands. 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 EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. The only 

effect of this action will be to 

conditionally exclude CO2 streams that 

otherwise would be RCRA hazardous 

from the definition of hazardous waste, 

where such streams are captured from 

emission sources and injected into UIC 

Class VI wells for purposes of GS. This 

conditional exclusion would allow for 

the GS of CO2, while maintaining 

protection of human health and the 

environment, and would not 

significantly disrupt the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy.23


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 363 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994)) establishes 

federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. The only effect of this 

action will be to conditionally exclude 

CO2 streams that would otherwise be 

RCRA hazardous from the definition of 

hazardous waste, where such streams 

are captured from emission sources and 

injected into UIC Class VI wells and 

meet other specified conditions. 

Existing regulations governing the 

generation, transportation, and injection 

of CO2 streams in UIC Class VI wells are 

expected to protect human health and 

the environment, making additional 

regulation under RCRA subtitle C 

unnecessary. (See Section V.C. in this 

preamble for further discussion.) 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective March 4, 2014. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 9 

Environmental protection, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 260 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous waste, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 17, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, Parts 9, 260 and 261 of title 

40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are amended as follows: 

PART 9—OMB APPROVALS UNDER 

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y; 

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671; 

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 

1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345(d) and 

(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 

1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, 

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, 

300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq., 

6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, 

11023, 11048. 

■ 2. In § 9.1, add the following section 

in numerical order under the 

undesignated center heading 

‘‘Identification and Listing of Hazardous 

Waste’’ to read as follows: 

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

40 CFR citation OMB control No. 

*******

Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste 

*******

261.4(h)(4) ................................................................................................................................................................. 2050–0207 

*******

* * * * * 

PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL 

■ 3. The authority citation for Part 260 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921– 

6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, 

and 6974. 

Subpart B—Definitions 

■ 4. Section 260.10 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order the 

definition of ‘‘Carbon dioxide stream’’ to 

read as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
364 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 260.10 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Carbon dioxide stream means carbon 

dioxide that has been captured from an 

emission source (e.g., power plant), plus 

incidental associated substances derived 

from the source materials and the 

capture process, and any substances 

added to the stream to enable or 

improve the injection process. 

* * * * * 

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

■ 5. The authority citation for Part 261 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 

6922, 6924(y), and 6938 

■ 6. Section 261.4 is amended by adding 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 261.4 Exclusions. 

* * * * * 

(h) Carbon dioxide stream injected for 

geologic sequestration. Carbon dioxide 

streams that are captured and 

transported for purposes of injection 

into an underground injection well 

subject to the requirements for Class VI 

Underground Injection Control wells, 

including the requirements in 40 CFR 

Parts 144 and 146 of the Underground 

Injection Control Program of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, are not a hazardous 

waste, provided the following 

conditions are met: 

(1) Transportation of the carbon 

dioxide stream must be in compliance 

with U.S. Department of Transportation 

requirements, including the pipeline 

safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) and 

regulations (49 CFR Parts 190–199) of 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

and pipeline safety regulations adopted 

and administered by a state authority 

pursuant to a certification under 49 

U.S.C. 60105, as applicable. 

(2) Injection of the carbon dioxide 

stream must be in compliance with the 

applicable requirements for Class VI 

Underground Injection Control wells, 

including the applicable requirements 

in 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146; 

(3) No hazardous wastes shall be 

mixed with, or otherwise co-injected 

with, the carbon dioxide stream; and 

(4)(i) Any generator of a carbon 

dioxide stream, who claims that a 

carbon dioxide stream is excluded 

under this paragraph (h), must have an 

authorized representative (as defined in 

40 CFR 260.10) sign a certification 

statement worded as follows: 

I certify under penalty of law that the 

carbon dioxide stream that I am claiming to 

be excluded under 40 CFR 261.4(h) has not 

been mixed with hazardous wastes, and I 

have transported the carbon dioxide stream 

in compliance with (or have contracted with 

a pipeline operator or transporter to transport 

the carbon dioxide stream in compliance 

with) Department of Transportation 

requirements, including the pipeline safety 

laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) and regulations 

(49 CFR Parts 190–199) of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, and the 

pipeline safety regulations adopted and 

administered by a state authority pursuant to 

a certification under 49 U.S.C. 60105, as 

applicable, for injection into a well subject to 

the requirements for the Class VI 

Underground Injection Control Program of 

the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

(ii) Any Class VI Underground Injection 

Control well owner or operator, who 

claims that a carbon dioxide stream is 

excluded under paragraph (h) of this 

section, must have an authorized 

representative (as defined in 40 CFR 

260.10) sign a certification statement 

worded as follows: 

I certify under penalty of law that the 

carbon dioxide stream that I am claiming to 

be excluded under 40 CFR 261.4(h) has not 

been mixed with, or otherwise co-injected 

with, hazardous waste at the Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) Class VI permitted 

facility, and that injection of the carbon 

dioxide stream is in compliance with the 

applicable requirements for UIC Class VI 

wells, including the applicable requirements 

in 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146. 

(iii) The signed certification statement 

must be kept on-site for no less than 

three years, and must be made available 

within 72 hours of a written request 

from the Administrator, Regional 

Administrator, or state Director (if 

located in an authorized state), or their 

designee. The signed certification 

statement must be renewed every year 

that the exclusion is claimed, by having 

an authorized representative (as defined 

in 40 CFR 260.10) annually prepare and 

sign a new copy of the certification 

statement within one year of the date of 

the previous statement. The signed 

certification statement must also be 

readily accessible on the facility’s 

publicly-available Web site (if such Web 

site exists) as a public notification with 

the title of ‘‘Carbon Dioxide Stream 

Certification’’ at the time the exclusion 

is claimed. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31246 Filed 1–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0668; FRL–9902–71– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley 

Air Quality Management District, 

Mojave Desert Air Quality Management 

District, Monterey Bay Unified Air 

Pollution Control District, and South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Antelope Valley Air Quality 

Management District (AVAQMD), 

Mojave Desert Air Quality Management 

District (MDAQMD), Monterey Bay 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(MBUAPCD), and South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

architectural coatings, liquefied 

petroleum gas transfer, and ignition of 

barbecue charcoal. We are approving 

three local rules and rescinding one 

local rule that regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 4, 

2014 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by February 

3, 2014. If we receive such comments, 

we will publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register to notify the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0668, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES