Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/03/15/2012-6276/revision-to-the-export-provisions-of-the-cathode-ray-tube-crt-rule
Timestamp: 2018-07-20 13:15:12
Document Index: 364576837

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 262', 'art 262', 'art 273', 'art 262', '§\u2009263', '§\u2009264', 'art 266', 'arts 260', '§\u2009261', '§\u2009261']

Federal Register :: Revision to the Export Provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Rule
A Proposed Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency on 03/15/2012
77 FR 15336
15336-15343 (8 pages)
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-1014, FRL-9646-4
2050-AG68
2012-6276
Revisions to the Export Provisions of the CRT Rule Final Rule:...
Economic Impacts Assessment for Revisions to the Export...
Summary of Regulatory Flexibility Analyses
Economic Impacts Assessment for Proposed Revisions to the...
What To Consider When Preparing Comments for EPA
A. Definition of “CRT Exporter”
B. Proposed Changes to the Notification Required for Used CRTs Sent for Recycling
C. Proposed Changes to the Notification Required for Used, Intact CRTs Exported for Reuse
1. “Bare” CRTs
VIII. Administrative Requirements for This Rulemaking
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (Information Collection Request)
J. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-6276 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-6276
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is proposing to revise certain export provisions of the cathode ray tube (CRT) final rule published on July 28, 2006 (71 FR 42928). The proposed revisions will allow the Agency to better track exports of CRTs for reuse and recycling. Additionally, EPA would gather more information on shipments of CRTs that are sent for reuse.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-1014 by one of the following methods:
For more detailed information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Marilyn Goode, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, MC 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8800, (goode.marilyn@epa.gov).
Entities potentially affected by today's action include all persons who export used cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and CRT glass for reuse or recycling. This action does not affect households or conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs). Annual costs to CRT exporters and EPA for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements range from $7,300 to $11,500 per year.
More detailed information on the potentially affected entities, industries, and industrial materials, as well as the economic impacts of this proposed rule, is presented in Section VIII of this preamble and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for this proposal.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark all information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed, except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
Make sure to submit comments by the comment period deadline identified above.
These regulations are proposed under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3001, 3002, 3004, and 3006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 3007, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924, 6926, 6927, and 6938.
RIA—Regulatory Impact Analysis
Today's proposal would revise the conditional exclusions from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations that apply to persons who export cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for reuse or recycling. The existing requirements were first promulgated on July 28, 2006 (71 FR 42928). Since promulgation of these requirements, the Agency has realized the necessity of obtaining additional information on the export of this class of used electronics to better ensure their proper management. This notice is intended to propose changes to accomplish that goal.
Today's proposal would affect only the export provisions of the CRT rule, and would not affect any requirements applicable to the domestic management of used CRTs. In this notice, EPA is proposing to add a definition of “CRT exporter” to the CRT rule. This proposed definition is consistent with the intent of the original CRT rule, which was to ensure that EPA received proper notification of all shipments of CRTs exported for reuse or recycling. We are also proposing to revise the notifications that must be submitted to EPA when CRTs are exported for reuse or recycling, and to require annual reports from exporters of CRTs for recycling. These proposed changes are described in section VI of this preamble. EPA is seeking comment only on the changes proposed today, and is not reopening any other part of the rule for comment.
The Agency promulgated the CRT rule on July 28, 2006 (71 FR 42928). In that rule, EPA amended its regulations under RCRA to streamline the management requirements for used CRTs in an effort to encourage recycling and reuse of these materials rather than landfilling or possible incineration. The scope of the rule encompassed both used, intact CRTs and used, broken CRTs (i.e., glass that has been removed from its housing or casing with its vacuum released). Specifically, under 40 CFR 261.39, these materials are excluded from the definition of solid waste if certain conditions are met, including: (1) Used CRTs (intact or broken) sent for reuse and recycling are subject to the speculative accumulation requirements of 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8); (2) used, broken CRTs and CRT glass processors are subject to packaging and labeling requirements; and (3) CRT glass processors may not use temperatures high enough to volatilize lead. Persons who send CRTs for disposal are not eligible for the exclusion at 40 CFR 261.39, and may be required to handle their CRTs as hazardous waste from the point of generation, including the requirement to file a hazardous waste export notice under 40 CFR part 262 and the requirement to send the CRTs to a Subtitle C landfill.
Since promulgation of the CRT rule in 2006, exports of CRTs, whether for reuse or recycling, have continued. As EPA implemented the rule, it became apparent that additional information is needed from the CRT exporter to better understand the flow of exported CRTs in order to ensure better management of these materials. To address this issue, EPA is today proposing certain changes to the CRT rule, which are explained in section VI below.
In the preamble to the final CRT rule, the Agency stated that “persons taking advantage of the exclusion that fail to meet one or more of its conditions may be subject to enforcement action and the CRTs may be considered to be hazardous waste from the point of their generation. EPA could choose to bring an enforcement action under RCRA Section 3008(a) for all violations of the hazardous waste requirements occurring from the time a decision was made to recycle or dispose of the CRTs, through the time they are finally disposed of or reclaimed. EPA believes that this approach, which treats CRTs exhibiting a hazardous waste characteristic that do not conform to the conditions of the exclusion as hazardous waste from their point of generation, provides all handlers with an incentive to handle the CRTs consistent with the conditions. It also encourages each person to take appropriate steps to ensure that CRTs are safely handled and legitimately reused or recycled by others in the management chain” (71 FR 42928 at 42943).
EPA emphasizes that this proposed definition is consistent with the intent of the CRT rule. The Agency requests comment on any alternative regulatory changes which might better accomplish that intent.
The conditional exclusion in 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5) require exporters to submit a notice to EPA when exporting used CRTs for recycling. EPA then forwards the notice to the receiving country to obtain the consent of that country. The notice submitted to EPA must contain, among other items of information, the estimated frequency or rate at which the CRTs are to be exported and the period of time over which they are to be exported. The notice must also contain the estimated total quantity of CRTs (specified in kilograms) that the exporter expects to ship during the following 12 months or lesser period. However, there is currently no requirement to subsequently report the quantity of CRTs that were actually exported during the time period specified in the notice. Without this information, the Agency is unable to determine the actual quantity of CRTs that are exported in a given year, either by a particular exporter or in total. The notification requirements for exporters of hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 262 subparts E and H, for exporters of spent lead-acid batteries under 40 CFR 266.80(a)(6), and for exporters of universal waste under 40 CFR 273.20 or 273.40 all include a requirement to submit annual reports documenting the actual quantities of such materials that were exported. By reviewing annual reports, EPA can compare the amount of material that was actually exported to the estimates that were submitted earlier by these exporters when they provided the initial notification sent to the receiving country.
Today the Agency is proposing to add a requirement (40 CFR 261.39(a)(5)(x)) to require annual reports from exporters of used CRTs sent for recycling. In general, these reports would provide EPA with more accurate information on the total quantity of CRTs exported for recycling during the calendar year, and would also help determine whether CRTs exported for recycling are handled as commodities and not discarded. Additionally, EPA would be able to analyze shipments from specific exporters by comparing actual shipments in the annual report against proposed shipments in the export notice to ensure that the shipments occurred under the terms approved by the receiving country. Finally, these reports would enable EPA to provide receiving countries with information that may assist them in determining the quantity of CRTs that were received in a particular country for recycling.
EPA is today proposing one other change to the notice required for CRTs exported for recycling. The current notice (40 CFR 261.39(a)(5)(i)(F)) requires the exporter to state the name and address of the recycler and any alternate recycler. Because CRTs are sometimes exported to more than one recycler in the receiving country, we are proposing to replace this language with a requirement that the exporter state the name and address of the recycler or recyclers and the estimated quantity of CRTs to be sent to each facility, as well as the names of any alternate recyclers. In this way, EPA will be able to provide the receiving country with the most accurate information available about the ultimate fate of the CRTs when they reach that country.
Currently, exporters who send used CRTs for reuse must submit a one-time notice with certain information under 40 CFR 261.41. The notice must be sent to the Regional Administrator. (The regulatory language does not specify which Regional Administrator, but it was the Agency's intent that the notice be sent to the Region from which the export takes place.) The notice must include a statement that the notifier plans to export used, intact CRTs for reuse. The notice must also include the notifier's name, address, and EPA ID number (if applicable), and the name and phone number of a contact person. Persons who export used, intact CRTs for reuse must keep copies of normal business records, such as contracts, demonstrating that each shipment of exported CRTs will be reused. This documentation must be retained for a period of at least three years from the date the CRTs were exported.
Thus, under today's proposal, CRT exporters who export used, intact CRTs for reuse would be required to send a notification to EPA that would cover export activities extending over a twelve (12) month or lesser period. This notice would be sent to the same EPA office that receives notices for CRTs exported for recycling (the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance). The notification would be in writing, signed by the exporter, and would have to contain:
The name, mailing address, telephone number and EPA ID number (if applicable) of the exporter of the CRTs;
A certification signed by the exporter which states: “I certify under penalty of law that the CRTs described in this notice are fully functioning or capable of being functional after refurbishment. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this and all attached documents, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.
Because of the additional items proposed for the reuse notice, the Agency believes it is appropriate to extend the coverage of this notice to a specified period of time, i.e., a twelve-month or lesser period. This time period is preferable to the one-time notice previously required because it ensures that the necessary information in the notice is more accurate and current.
The Agency solicits comment on whether the proposed notice could effectively contain fewer items of information, or whether the goal could be accomplished in some other manner. In addition, the Agency requests comment on whether the proposed notice should be sent to the Regional Administrator (as is the case with 40 CFR 261.41) or to EPA Headquarters, where notices for CRTs exported for recycling are currently sent. The Agency believes that sending both types of notices to EPA Headquarters would facilitate retention and effective tracking of such notices, and will also be easier for those exporters who are required to submit notices for both reuse and recycling. However, we solicit comment on whether there are benefits in sending these notices to the EPA Regions.
Finally, the Agency also solicits comment on whether to add a requirement to submit annual reports for exporters of used, intact CRTs for reuse. These reports could be identical to the reports proposed for CRTs exported for recycling. They would enable EPA to learn the actual number of CRTs exported for reuse, which may be different from the number estimated in the original notice required under 40 CFR 261.41. EPA requests comment on whether this information would provide benefits which might outweigh the costs of submitting the report.
The current definition of “used, intact CRT” in 40 CFR 260.10 means a CRT whose vacuum has not been released. As we stated in the preamble to the 2006 final rule (71 FR 42942), this definition would encompass intact CRTs that are removed from the monitor with the vacuum still intact, even though the plastic housing or casing has been broken and removed. In that preamble, EPA stated that these materials resembled products more than wastes, and therefore should not be considered solid wastes unless disposed. If such “bare” CRTs are exported for reuse (i.e., placement into CRT monitors), they would not be subject to the export requirements of 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5), but would instead be subject to the reuse requirements of proposed 40 CFR 261.41. However, if exported for recycling, (presumably for glass or lead recovery), they would not be eligible for the exclusion in 40 CFR 261.39(c) for processed glass sent to a lead smelter or glass manufacturer because the CRTs have not been processed pursuant to the definition of “CRT processing” in 40 CFR 260.10. EPA solicits comment on whether “bare” CRTs removed from the monitor whose vacuum has not been released are likely to be exported for recycling rather than reuse and whether the regulation needs to be modified to reflect this situation.
Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA enacts Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than the existing Federal requirements.[1] RCRA section 3009 allows the states to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal program (see also 40 FR 271.1(i)). Therefore, authorized states are not required to adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, that are considered less stringent than previous Federal regulations or that narrow the scope of the RCRA program.
Because of the Federal Government's special role in matters of foreign policy, EPA does not authorize States to administer Federal import/export functions in any section of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. This promotes national coordination, uniformity and the expeditious transmission of information between the United States and foreign countries. Although States would not receive authorization to administer the Federal Government's export functions in this proposal, State programs would still be required to adopt those provisions in today's rule that are more stringent than existing Federal requirements to maintain their equivalency with the Federal program. Today's proposal contains amendments to 40 CFR 261.39 and 40 CFR 261.41 which would be more stringent if finalized. Therefore, states that have adopted these provisions, as well as states that have added CRTs to their universal waste programs under 40 CFR part 273, would be required to adopt these amendments. In addition, EPA strongly encourages States to incorporate all the import and export related requirements into their regulations for the convenience of the regulated community and for completeness, particularly where a State has already incorporated 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and H, the import/export manifest and OECD movement document related requirements in § 263.10(d), the import manifest and OECD movement document submittal requirements in §§ 264.12(a)(2), 264.71, 265.12(a)(2), and 265.71, or the management provisions for spent lead-acid batteries (SLABs) in 40 CFR part 266, subpart G. When a State adopts the export provisions in this rule, care should be taken not to replace Federal or international references with State terms.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the Economic Impacts Assessment for Proposed Revisions to the Export Provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Rule. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action. Annual costs to CRT exporters and EPA for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements range from $7,300 to $11,500 per year.
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2455.01.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-1014. Submit any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after March 15, 2012, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by April 16, 2012. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
This action does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Because these direct costs are well below the $100 million annual direct cost threshold, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). This proposed rule 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. EPA does not authorize States to administer Federal import/export functions in any section of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations because of the Federal government's special role in matters of foreign policy.
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. Specifically, this proposed rule does not have Federalism implications because the State and local governments do not administer the export and import requirements under RCRA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No Tribal governments are known to own or operate businesses that may be affected by this rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children residing in the United States. This proposed rule is intended to improve regulatory efficiency and increase accountability among all parties associated with the export of used CRTs whether sent for recycling and reuse, and does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment in the United States.
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. As defined in Executive Order 13211, a “significant energy action” is any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is designated by OMB as a significant energy action. This proposed rule does not involve the supply, distribution, or use of energy and is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Thus, Executive Order 13211 does not apply to this action.
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 proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and/or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment in the United States. Rather, this proposed rule is intended to improve regulatory efficiency and increase accountability among all parties associated with the export of used CRTs, whether for recycling or reuse.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Parts 260 and 261 of title 40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974.
2. Section 260.10 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the definition of “CRT exporter” to read as follows:
4. Section 261.39 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(5)(i)(F) to read as follows:
§ 261.39
§ 261.41
1. EPA notes that decisions regarding whether a state rule is more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal program are made when the Agency authorizes state programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-6276 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]