82 FR 16146 - Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Further Delay of Effective Date
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 62 (April 3, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 62 (April 3, 2017)
| Page Range | 16146-16149 | |
| FR Document | 2017-06526 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 62 (Monday, April 3, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 16146-16149] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-06526] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 68 [EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725; FRL-9960-44-OLEM] RIN 2050-AG91 Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Further Delay of Effective Date AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to delay the effective date of the final rule that amends the Risk Management Program regulations under the Clean Air Act published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2017. On March 16, 2017, the EPA published in the Federal Register a stay and delay of the effective date pending reconsideration to June 19, 2017. The EPA is proposing to further delay the effective date to February 19, 2019. This action would allow the Agency time to consider petitions for reconsideration of this final rule and take further regulatory action, which could include proposing and finalizing a rule to revise the Risk Management Program amendments. DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received by May 19, 2017. Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposed rule on April 19, 2017 in Washington, DC. ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OEM-2015-0725, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full [[Page 16147]] EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held in Washington, DC on April 19, 2017 at William J. Clinton East Building, Room 1153 (Map Room), 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. The hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. (all times are Eastern Standard Time). The sessions will run from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon, with a break between 12:00 Noon and 1:00 p.m., continuing from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Persons wishing to preregister may be assigned a time according to this schedule. The afternoon session beginning at 1:00 p.m. will be extended one hour after all scheduled comments have been heard to accommodate those wishing to make a comment as a walk-in registrant. Please register at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/rmp-proposed-rule-effective-date-public-hearing-tickets-32733701382 to speak at the hearing. The last day to preregister in advance to speak at the hearing is April 11, 2017. Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the hearing registration desk, although preferences on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. If you require the service of a translator or special accommodations such as audio description, we ask that you identify such needs during preregistration for the hearing, on or before April 11, 2017, to allow sufficient time to arrange such accommodations. The hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because this hearing is being held at U.S. government facilities, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal facilities. If your driver's license is issued by Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma or the state of Washington, you must present an additional form of identification to enter the federal building. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses and military identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons. The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Verbatim transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Belke, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. (Mail Code 5104A), Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8023; email address: [email protected], or: Kathy Franklin, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. (Mail Code 5104A), Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7987; email address: [email protected]. Electronic copies of this document and related news releases are available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/rmp. Copies of this proposed rule are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Does this action apply to me? This rule applies to those facilities, referred to as ``stationary sources'' under the Clean Air Act (CAA), that are subject to the chemical accident prevention requirements at 40 CFR part 68. This includes stationary sources holding more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance in a process. Table 5 provides industrial sectors and the associated NAICS codes for entities potentially affected by this action. The Agency's goal is to provide a guide for readers to consider regarding entities that potentially could be affected by this action. However, this action may affect other entities not listed in this table. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person(s) listed in the introductory section of this action under the heading entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Table 5--Industrial Sectors and Associated NAICS Codes for Entities Potentially Affected by This Action ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sector NAICS code ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Administration of Environmental Quality 924. Programs. Agricultural Chemical Distributors: ........................... Crop Production........................ 111. Animal Production and Aquaculture...... 112. Support Activities for Agriculture and 115. Forestry Farm. Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.......... 42491. Chemical Manufacturing................. 325. Chemical and Allied Products Merchant 4246. Wholesalers. Food Manufacturing..................... 311. Beverage Manufacturing................. 3121. Oil and Gas Extraction................. 211. Other.................................. 44, 45, 48, 54, 56, 61, 72. Other manufacturing.................... 313, 326, 327, 33. Other Wholesale: ........................... Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods.... 423. Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods. 424. [[Page 16148]] Paper Manufacturing.................... 322. Petroleum and Coal Products 324. Manufacturing. Petroleum and Petroleum Products 4247. Merchant Wholesalers. Utilities.............................. 221. Warehousing and Storage................ 493. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ II. Background On January 13, 2017, the EPA issued a final rule amending 40 CFR part 68, the chemical accident prevention provisions under section 112(r)(7) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). The amendments addressed various aspects of risk management programs, including prevention programs at stationary sources, emergency response preparedness requirements, information availability, and various other changes to streamline, clarify, and otherwise technically correct the underlying rules. Collectively, this rulemaking is known as the ``Risk Management Program Amendments.'' For further information on the Risk Management Program Amendments, see 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017). On January 26, 2017, the EPA published a final rule delaying the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments from March 14, 2017, to March 21, 2017, see 82 FR 8499. This revision to the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments was part of an EPA final rule implementing a memorandum dated January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.'' This memorandum directed the heads of agencies to postpone until 60 days after the date of its issuance the effective date of rules that were published prior to January 20, 2017 but which had not yet become effective. In a letter dated February 28, 2017, a group known as the ``RMP Coalition,'' \1\ submitted a petition for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments (``RMP Coalition Petition'') as provided for in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)).\2\ Under that provision, the Administrator is to commence a reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgement, the petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the grounds for the objection arose after the comment period but within the period for judicial review. In either case, the Administrator must also conclude that the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. The Administrator may stay the effective date of the rule for up to three months during such reconsideration. On March 13, 2017, the Chemical Safety Advocacy Group (``CSAG'') also submitted a petition for reconsideration and stay.\3\ On March 14, 2017, the EPA received a third petition for reconsideration and stay from the States of Louisiana, joined by Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. The petitions from CSAG and the eleven states also requested that EPA delay the various compliance dates of the Risk Management Program Amendments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The RMP Coalition is comprised of the American Chemistry Council, the American Forest & Paper Association, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Utility Air Regulatory Group. \2\ A copy of the RMP Coalition petition is included in the docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725. \3\ A copy of the CSAG petition is included in the docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725. CSAG members include companies in the refining, oil and gas, chemicals, and general manufacturing sectors with operations throughout the United States that are subject to the RMP Rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a letter dated March 13, 2017, the Administrator announced the convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments (a copy of this letter is included in the docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725). As explained in that letter, having considered the objections raised in the RMP Coalition Petition, the Administrator determined that the criteria for reconsideration have been met for at least one of the objections. EPA issued a three-month (90-day) administrative stay of the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments until June 19, 2017 (82 FR 13968, March 16, 2017). EPA will prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking in the near future that will provide the RMP Coalition, CSAG, the states, and the public an opportunity to comment on the issues raised in the petitions that meet the standard of CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) as well as any other matter we believe will benefit from additional comment. III. Proposal To Delay the Effective Date As noted above, the Administrator's authority to administratively stay the effectiveness of a Clean Air Act rule pending reconsideration is limited to three months. On occasion, however, we have found three months to be insufficient to complete the necessary steps in the reconsideration process. Therefore, when we have issued similar administrative stays in the past, it has often been our practice to also propose an additional extension of the stay of effectiveness through a rulemaking process. We believe this practice is consistent with our rulemaking authority under CAA 307(d), which generally allows the EPA to set effective dates as appropriate unless other provisions of the CAA control. An additional extension enables us to take comment on issues that are in question and complete any revisions of the rule that become necessary as a result of the reconsideration process. As with some of our past reconsiderations, we expect to take comment on a broad range of legal and policy issues as part of the Risk Management Program Amendments reconsideration, and we are in the process of preparing the necessary comment solicitation to help focus commenters on issues of central relevance to our decision-making. Recognizing that these issues may be difficult and time consuming to evaluate, and given the expected high level of interest from stakeholders in commenting on these issues, we are proposing a further delay of the effective date to allow additional time to open these issues for review and comment. This proposed rule would delay the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments to February 19, 2019. This timeframe would allow the EPA time to evaluate the objections raised by the various petitions for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program Amendments, consider other issues that may benefit from additional [[Page 16149]] comment, and take further regulatory action. This schedule allows time for developing and publishing any notices that focus comment on specific issues to be reconsidered as well as other issues for which additional comment may be appropriate. A delay of the effective date to February 19, 2019, provides a sufficient opportunity for public comment on the reconsideration in accordance with the requirements of CAA section 307(d), gives us an opportunity to evaluate and respond to such comments, and take any possible regulatory actions, which could include proposing and finalizing a rule to revise the Risk Management Program amendments, as appropriate. While it is possible that we may require less time to complete the reconsideration and any possible regulatory actions, we believe extending the effective date to February 19, 2019 is reasonable and prudent. The EPA recognizes that compliance dates for some provisions in the Risk Management Program Amendments coincided with the rule's effective date, while compliance dates for other provisions would occur in later years, i.e., 2018, 2021, or 2022, depending on the provision. Compliance with all of the rule provisions is not required as long as the rule does not become effective. The EPA is not proposing any action on any compliance dates at this time, as EPA plans to amend the compliance dates as necessary when considering future regulatory action. The Agency is seeking comment on this proposal to delay the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments. Any alternative approaches or timeframes presented must include appropriate rationale and supporting data in order for the Agency to be able to consider them for final action. Because this proposal is solely focused on the issue of whether to further extend the effective date and for how long, comments should be limited to these issues. A separate Federal Register notice published in the near future will specifically solicit comment on the range of issues under reconsideration. IV. Statutory and Executive Orders A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This proposed rule would only delay the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments finalized on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 4594) and does not propose information collection activities. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule would not impose a regulatory burden for small entities because it only proposes to delay the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments finalized on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 4594). We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule would only delay the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments finalized on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 4594) and does not propose new regulatory requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This proposed rule would only delay the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments finalized on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 4594) and does not propose any regulatory requirements. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 29, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2017-06526 Filed 3-31-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![16146 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules
dates must be reviewed. Indeed, the first evaluate the proposals in light of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
state plan submission date has already policies set forth in the Executive Order AGENCY
passed, and other compliance dates are and ensure that what the Agency
likely to pass while the Supreme Court proposes and seeks public comment on 40 CFR Part 68
stay is pending. Further, under the has been developed or reviewed in light [EPA–HQ–OEM–2015–0725; FRL–9960–44–
Supreme Court’s stay of the CPP, States of those policies. OLEM]
and other interested parties have not
As a final point, we want to be clear RIN 2050–AG91
been required nor expected to work
towards meeting the compliance dates that our withdrawal of these proposals
is not based on any final substantive Accidental Release Prevention
set in the CPP. Thus, as the EPA
decision that we have made with Requirements: Risk Management
conducts its review of the CPP and
respect to these proposals. We are Programs Under the Clean Air Act;
decides what further action to take on
withdrawing these proposals for the Further Delay of Effective Date
the EGU emission guidelines, EPA will
ensure that any and all remaining procedural reasons that we have AGENCY: Environmental Protection
compliance dates will be reasonable and discussed above to promote the EPA’s Agency (EPA).
appropriate in light of the Supreme review of the CPP and future ACTION: Proposed rule.
Court stay of the CPP and other factors. rulemaking process, and ensure that
Further state action will not be required interested parties have a full SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
unless and until there is resolution of opportunity to comment on proposals Agency (EPA) is proposing to delay the
the pending litigation or the EPA issues that reflect the Agency’s most up-to-date effective date of the final rule that
new EGU emission guidelines. This and relevant thinking. Thus, for the amends the Risk Management Program
gives the EPA time to re-evaluate these reasons stated above, EPA concludes regulations under the Clean Air Act
CPP-related proposals. that, at this time, it is appropriate to published in the Federal Register on
The EPA believes it should use this withdraw the October 2015 Proposed January 13, 2017. On March 16, 2017,
time to re-evaluate these CPP-related Rule and the CEIP Proposed Rule. The the EPA published in the Federal
proposals and, if appropriate, put out re- Register a stay and delay of the effective
EPA intends to review these proposals date pending reconsideration to June 19,
proposals or new proposals to ensure in conjunction with its comprehensive
that the public is commenting on EPA’s 2017. The EPA is proposing to further
review of the CPP. Based on that review, delay the effective date to February 19,
most up-to-date thinking on these the Agency will determine how best to
issues. There are a number of reasons 2019. This action would allow the
proceed, which may include the Agency time to consider petitions for
why these proposals may ultimately not
development of new proposals reconsideration of this final rule and
reflect the Agency’s reasoned policy
decisions reflecting both the current consistent with the requirements of take further regulatory action, which
state of the energy market and the CAA Section 307(d). could include proposing and finalizing
agency’s operative understanding of its a rule to revise the Risk Management
4. Statutory Authority
statutory authority. First, the Agency Program amendments.
has announced that it is reviewing and, Pursuant to CAA Section 307(d)(1)(V), DATES:
as appropriate, may suspend, revise or the Administrator is determining that Comments. Written comments must
rescind the CPP. Though our review of this withdrawal is subject to the be received by May 19, 2017.
the CPP is ongoing and any final provisions of CAA Section 307(d). The Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a
decision to suspend, revise or rescind it statutory authority for this notice is public hearing on this proposed rule on
will be made only after EPA has provided by Sections 111, 301 and April 19, 2017 in Washington, DC.
provided notice and an opportunity for 307(d) of the CAA as amended (42 ADDRESSES:
public comment, it is possible that the U.S.C. 7411, 7601 and 7607(d)). Comments. Submit your comments,
CPP as promulgated in 2015 will be identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
rescinded and that new emission 5. Impact Analysis OEM–2015–0725, at http://
guidelines, if any, for existing EGUs will www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
Because the EPA is not promulgating
be different from the CPP. Because the instructions for submitting comments.
any regulatory requirements, there are
CPP-related Proposed Rules are Once submitted, comments cannot be
designed to provide implementation no compliance costs or impacts edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
details related to the specific associated with today’s final action. The EPA may publish any comment
requirements of the CPP, any changes to 6. Statutory and Executive Order received to its public docket. Do not
the CPP or new emission guidelines Reviews submit electronically any information
would most likely require changes to you consider to be Confidential
these CPP-related proposals. Thus, this Today’s action does not establish new Business Information (CBI) or other
preliminary action to withdraw these regulatory requirements. Hence, the information whose disclosure is
CPP-related proposals will allow EPA to requirements of other regulatory statutes restricted by statute. Multimedia
review them in light of its review of the and Executive Orders that generally submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
CPP and, if they are still needed, to apply to rulemakings (e.g., the accompanied by a written comment.
determine the appropriate next steps for Unfunded Mandate Reform Act) do not The written comment is considered the
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
these proposals, which may be to apply to this action. official comment and should include
develop new proposals with revisions to discussion of all points you wish to
Dated: March 28, 2017.
ensure they are consistent with and make. The EPA will generally not
appropriately implement revised E. Scott Pruitt, consider comments or comment
emission guidelines, if any. Second, Administrator. contents located outside of the primary
whether or not the EPA makes any [FR Doc. 2017–06518 Filed 3–31–17; 8:45 am] submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
changes as a result of its review of the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P other file sharing system). For
CPP, it is appropriate for the EPA to re- additional submission methods, the full
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:05 Mar 31, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM 03APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_16208/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules 16149
comment, and take further regulatory B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
action. This schedule allows time for This action does not impose an Children From Environmental Health
developing and publishing any notices information collection burden under the Risks and Safety Risks
that focus comment on specific issues to PRA. This proposed rule would only
be reconsidered as well as other issues The EPA interprets Executive Order
delay the effective date of the Risk 13045 as applying only to those
for which additional comment may be Management Program Amendments
appropriate. A delay of the effective regulatory actions that concern
finalized on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR
date to February 19, 2019, provides a environmental health or safety risks that
4594) and does not propose information
sufficient opportunity for public the EPA has reason to believe may
collection activities.
comment on the reconsideration in disproportionately affect children, per
accordance with the requirements of C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
CAA section 307(d), gives us an I certify that this action will not have action’’ in section 2–202 of the
opportunity to evaluate and respond to a significant economic impact on a Executive Order. This action is not
such comments, and take any possible substantial number of small entities subject to Executive Order 13045
regulatory actions, which could include under the RFA. In making this because it does not concern an
proposing and finalizing a rule to revise determination, the impact of concern is environmental health risk or safety risk.
the Risk Management Program any significant adverse economic H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
amendments, as appropriate. While it is impact on small entities. An agency may
Concerning Regulations That
possible that we may require less time certify that a rule will not have a
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
to complete the reconsideration and any significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if Distribution or Use
possible regulatory actions, we believe
extending the effective date to February the rule relieves regulatory burden, has This action is not subject to Executive
19, 2019 is reasonable and prudent. no net burden or otherwise has a Order 13211, because it is not a
positive economic effect on the small significant regulatory action under
The EPA recognizes that compliance entities subject to the rule. This
dates for some provisions in the Risk Executive Order 12866.
proposed rule would not impose a
Management Program Amendments regulatory burden for small entities I. National Technology Transfer and
coincided with the rule’s effective date, because it only proposes to delay the Advancement Act (NTTAA)
while compliance dates for other effective date of the Risk Management
provisions would occur in later years, Program Amendments finalized on This rulemaking does not involve
i.e., 2018, 2021, or 2022, depending on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 4594). We technical standards.
the provision. Compliance with all of have therefore concluded that this J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
the rule provisions is not required as action will have no net regulatory Actions To Address Environmental
long as the rule does not become burden for all directly regulated small Justice in Minority Populations and
effective. The EPA is not proposing any entities.
Low-Income Populations
action on any compliance dates at this
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
time, as EPA plans to amend the The EPA believes that this action is
compliance dates as necessary when This action does not contain any not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59
considering future regulatory action. unfunded mandate as described in FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it
The Agency is seeking comment on UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does does not establish an environmental
this proposal to delay the effective date not significantly or uniquely affect small health or safety standard. This proposed
governments. The action imposes no
of the Risk Management Program rule would only delay the effective date
enforceable duty on any state, local or
Amendments. Any alternative of the Risk Management Program
tribal governments or the private sector.
approaches or timeframes presented Amendments finalized on January 13,
must include appropriate rationale and E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 2017 (see 82 FR 4594) and does not
supporting data in order for the Agency This action does not have federalism propose any regulatory requirements.
to be able to consider them for final implications. It will not have substantial
action. Because this proposal is solely List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68
direct effects on the states, on the
focused on the issue of whether to relationship between the national Environmental protection,
further extend the effective date and for government and the states, or on the Administrative practice and procedure,
how long, comments should be limited distribution of power and Air pollution control, Chemicals,
to these issues. A separate Federal responsibilities among the various Hazardous substances,
Register notice published in the near levels of government. Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
future will specifically solicit comment and recordkeeping requirements.
on the range of issues under F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
reconsideration. and Coordination With Indian Tribal Dated: March 29, 2017.
Governments E. Scott Pruitt,
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders This action does not have tribal Administrator.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory implications as specified in Executive
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
[FR Doc. 2017–06526 Filed 3–31–17; 8:45 am]
Planning and Review and Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule would BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and only delay the effective date of the Risk
Regulatory Review Management Program Amendments
finalized on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR
This action is not a significant 4594) and does not propose new
regulatory action and was therefore not regulatory requirements. Thus,
submitted to the Office of Management Executive Order 13175 does not apply
and Budget (OMB) for review. to this action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:05 Mar 31, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM 03APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_16208/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2017-04-01 09:36:06
Document Modified: 2017-04-01 09:36:06
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments. Written comments must be received by May 19, 2017. | |
| Contact | James Belke, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. (Mail Code 5104A), Washington, | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 16146 | |
| RIN Number | 2050-AG91 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Administrative Practice and Procedure; Air Pollution Control; Chemicals; Hazardous Substances; Intergovernmental Relations and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR