National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations, 3986-3992 [2018-01512]
Download as PDF
3986
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
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
Name of non-regulatory
SIP revision
*
2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS Nonattainment
New Source Review
Requirements.
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 action 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).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by March 30, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action
approving Maryland’s 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS Certification SIP revision
for NNSR may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)
*
*
*
The Baltimore Area (includes Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard Counties and
the city of Baltimore), the Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City Area (includes Cecil County in Maryland), and the Washington, DC Area (includes
Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and
Prince Georges Counties in Maryland).
Final rule; notification of final
action on reconsideration.
This action finalizes
amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations (OSWRO). The
final amendments address continuous
monitoring on pressure relief devices
(PRDs) on containers. This issue was
raised in a petition for reconsideration
of the 2015 amendments to the OSWRO
NESHAP, which were based on the
residual risk and technology review
(RTR). Among other things, the 2015
amendments established additional
monitoring requirements for all PRDs,
including PRDs on containers. For PRDs
on containers, these monitoring
SUMMARY:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360; FRL–9972–89–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AT48
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Dated: January 11, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart V—Maryland
2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding the entry
‘‘2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
Nonattainment New Source Review
Requirements’’ at the end of the table to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.1070
*
Sfmt 4700
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA approval date
*
5/8/2017
ACTION:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
State
submittal
date
Applicable geographic area
[FR Doc. 2018–01518 Filed 1–26–18; 8:45 am]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
*
1/29/2018, [insert Federal
Register citation].
Additional
explanation
*
requirements were in addition to the
inspection and monitoring requirements
for containers and their closure devices
already required by the OSWRO
NESHAP. This final action removes the
additional monitoring requirements for
PRDs on containers that resulted from
the 2015 amendments because we have
determined that they are not necessary.
This action does not substantially
change the level of environmental
protection provided under the OSWRO
NESHAP, but reduces burden to this
industry compared to the current rule
by $28 million in capital costs related to
compliance, and $4.2 million per year
in total annualized costs under a 7
percent interest rate. Over 15 years at a
7-percent discount rate, this constitutes
an estimated reduction of $39 million in
E:\FR\FM\29JAR1.SGM
29JAR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
the present value, or $4.3 million per
year in equivalent annualized cost
savings.
DATES: This final action is effective on
January 29, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established
a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet, and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/
DC), EPA WJC West Building, Room
Number 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 EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this final action, please
contact Ms. Angie Carey, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (E143–01), Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
2187; fax number: (919) 541–0246;
email address: carey.angela@epa.gov.
For information about the applicability
of the NESHAP to a particular entity,
contact Ms. Marcia Mia, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA WJC South
Building, Mail Code 2227A, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460; telephone number: (202) 564–
7042; fax number: (202) 564–0050; and
email address: mia.marcia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations. A
number of acronyms and abbreviations
are used in this preamble. While this list
may not be exhaustive, to ease the
reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the following terms
and acronyms are defined:
ACC
CAA
CBI
CFR
DOT
EPA
ETC
American Chemistry Council
Clean Air Act
Confidential Business Information
Code of Federal Regulations
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Council
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
FR Federal Register
HAP Hazardous air pollutants
NESHAP National emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSWRO Off-site waste and recovery
operations
PRD Pressure relief device
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
RTR Residual risk and technology review
TSDF Treatment, storage and disposal
facilities
Organization of this Document. The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. What is the source of authority for the
reconsideration action?
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
D. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
II. Background Information
III. Summary of Final Action on Issues
Reconsidered
A. What is the history of OSWRO
monitoring requirements for PRDs on
containers?
B. How does this final rule differ from the
August 7, 2017, proposal?
C. What comments were received on the
August 7, 2017, proposed revised
container PRD monitoring requirements?
D. What is the rationale for our final
decisions regarding the container PRD
monitoring requirements?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental and
Economic Impacts, and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3987
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. What is the source of authority for
the reconsideration action?
The statutory authority for this action
is provided by sections 112, 301 and
307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
(42 U.S.C. 7412, 7601 and
7607(d)(7)(B)).
B. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially
regulated by this action include, but are
not limited to, businesses or government
agencies that operate any of the
following: Hazardous waste treatment,
treatment storage and disposal facilities
(TSDF); Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) exempt hazardous
wastewater treatment facilities;
nonhazardous wastewater treatment
facilities other than publicly-owned
treatment works; used solvent recovery
plants; RCRA exempt hazardous waste
recycling operations; and used oil rerefineries.
To determine whether your facility is
affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 63.680 of
subpart DD. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of any aspect
of these NESHAP, please contact the
appropriate person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble.
C. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
The docket number for this final
action regarding the NESHAP for the
OSWRO source category is Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360.
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this
document will also be available on the
internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a
copy of this final action at https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/site-waste-and-recoveryoperations-oswro-national-emission.
Following publication in the Federal
Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version and key technical
documents on this same website.
D. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial
review of this final action is available
only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by
March 30, 2018. Under CAA section
307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this
final rule that was raised with
E:\FR\FM\29JAR1.SGM
29JAR1
3988
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
reasonable specificity during the period
for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Note, under CAA
section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be
challenged separately in any civil or
criminal proceedings brought by the
EPA to enforce these requirements.
This section also provides a
mechanism for the EPA to reconsider
the rule ‘‘[i]f the person raising an
objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable
to raise such objection within [the
period for public comment] or if the
grounds for such objection arose after
the period for public comment (but
within the time specified for judicial
review) and if such objection is of
central relevance to the outcome of the
rule.’’ Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the
Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA,
Room 3000, EPA WJC West Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to
both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background Information
On March 18, 2015, the EPA
promulgated a final rule amending the
OSWRO NESHAP based on the RTR
conducted for the OSWRO source
category (80 FR 14248). In that final
rule, the EPA also amended the OSWRO
NESHAP to revise provisions related to
emissions during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction; to add
requirements for electronic reporting of
performance testing; to add monitoring
requirements for PRDs; to revise routine
maintenance provisions; to clarify
provisions for open-ended valves and
lines and for some performance test
methods and procedures; and to make
several minor clarifications and
corrections. After publication of the
final rule, the EPA received a petition
for reconsideration submitted jointly by
Eastman Chemical Company and the
American Chemical Council (ACC)
(dated May 18, 2015). This petition
sought reconsideration of two of the
amended provisions of the OSWRO
NESHAP: (1) The equipment leak
provisions for connectors, and (2) the
requirement to continuously monitor
PRDs on containers.
The EPA considered the petition and
granted reconsideration of the PRD
monitoring requirement in letters to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
petitioners dated February 8, 2016. In
separate letters to the petitioners dated
May 5, 2016, the Administrator denied
reconsideration of the equipment leak
provisions for connectors and explained
the reasons for the denial in these
letters. These letters are available in the
OSWRO NESHAP amendment
rulemaking docket. The EPA also
published a Federal Register notice on
May 16, 2016 (81 FR 30182), informing
the public of these responses to the
petition.
On May 18, 2015, ACC filed a petition
for judicial review of the OSWRO
NESHAP RTR challenging numerous
provisions in the final rule, including
the issues identified in the petition for
administrative reconsideration.
American Chemistry Council v. EPA,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit,
Case No. 15–1146. In 2016, the EPA and
ACC reached an agreement to resolve
that case. Specifically, the parties agreed
to a settlement under which ACC agrees
it will dismiss its petition for review of
the 2015 final rule if the EPA
reconsiders certain PRD provisions and
signs a proposed and final rule in
accordance with an agreed-upon
schedule. The settlement agreement was
finalized on June 15, 2017.
As a result of our reconsideration, the
Agency proposed and requested
comment on revised monitoring
requirements for PRDs on containers in
a notice of proposed rule
reconsideration published in the
Federal Register on August 7, 2017 (82
FR 36713). We received public
comments from seven parties. Copies of
all comments submitted are available at
the EPA Docket Center Public Reading
Room. Comments are also available
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov by searching
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–
0360.
In this document, the EPA is
finalizing the revised monitoring
requirements, as proposed in the August
7, 2017 (82 FR 36713), document. In
addition, in this document we are
making one clerical correction and we
are clarifying the information needed to
meet the reporting requirements in the
event a PRD on a container releases
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) to the
atmosphere. Section III of this preamble
summarizes the history of OSWRO
monitoring requirements for PRDs on
containers, explains how the proposed
and final regulatory language differs,
summarizes key public comments
received on the proposed notice of
reconsideration, presents the EPA’s
responses to these comments, and
explains our rationale for the rule
revisions published here. Additional
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
comments and EPA’s responses to those
comments are included in the Summary
of Public Comments and Responses on
Proposed Rule, in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2012–0360).
III. Summary of Final Action on Issues
Reconsidered
This action finalizes the EPA’s
reconsideration and amendment of the
continuous monitoring requirements
that apply to PRDs on containers. This
issue is discussed in detail in the
following sections of this preamble.
A. What is the history of OSWRO
monitoring requirements for PRDs on
containers?
In the March 18, 2015, amendments to
40 CFR part 63, subpart DD, the EPA
changed the compliance monitoring
requirement for PRDs. Since the rule
does not distinguish between PRDs on
stationary process equipment and those
on containers, the monitoring
requirements applied to all PRDs. These
revised compliance monitoring
provisions included requirements to
conduct additional PRD monitoring
continuously to identify a pressure
release, to record the time and duration
of each pressure release and to notify
operators immediately when a pressure
release occurs. The EPA received a
petition objecting to these additional
continuous monitoring requirements for
PRDs on containers and requesting
reconsideration. In 40 CFR part 63,
subpart DD, containers are, by
definition, portable units that hold
material. The petitioners’ concern was
that because containers are portable,
frequently moved around OSWRO
facilities, and are received from many
different off-site locations, it would be
difficult, if not impossible, to design
and implement a monitoring system for
containers that would meet the 2015
rule requirements. When the OSWRO
NESHAP were finalized in 2015, the
EPA was not aware of equipment
meeting the definition of a PRD on
containers in the OSWRO industry, and
any potential issues associated with the
PRD monitoring requirements were not
considered for this equipment.
In response to the petition, the EPA
reevaluated the PRD monitoring
requirements in the 2015 rule as they
pertain to containers, considering the
other requirements that apply to
containers and their PRDs, and the PRD
data submitted to the EPA by ACC and
the Environmental Technology Council
(ETC). Following this evaluation, on
August 7, 2017, we proposed to revise
the monitoring requirements to exclude
PRDs on OSWRO containers from the
E:\FR\FM\29JAR1.SGM
29JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
continuous monitoring and related
requirements of 40 CFR 63.691(c)(3)(i).
This proposed revision was based on
our determination that the PRD
inspection and monitoring requirements
already included in the OSWRO
NESHAP are effective and sufficient.
Our review of information provided by
ACC and ETC showed that the
emissions potential from PRDs on
containers at OSWRO facilities is low.
Additionally, continuous monitoring of
these PRDs, as contemplated by 40 CFR
63.691(c)(3)(i), would be both costly and
difficult.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
B. How does this final rule differ from
the August 7, 2017, proposal?
In this action, the EPA is finalizing
the revised container PRD monitoring
requirements as proposed on August 7,
2017. We are also correcting a clerical
error in the proposed regulatory text of
40 CFR 63.691(c)(3) to refer to
§ 63.680(e)(1)(i) through (iii). In
addition, we are revising the regulatory
text in CFR 63.691(c)(3)(ii) to clarify that
monitoring data are not required to be
used in the calculation of HAP emitted
during a pressure release event for
containers.
The proposed language of 40 CFR
63.691(c)(3)(ii) states that if there is a
PRD release to the atmosphere, the
owner or operator must calculate and
report the HAP emitted, and the
calculation may be based on ‘‘data from
the pressure relief device monitoring
alone or in combination with process
parameter monitoring data and process
knowledge.’’ We acknowledged at
proposal that it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to design and implement a
monitoring system for containers that
would meet the 2015 rule requirements
(82 FR at 36715). In recognition of this,
we examined whether it would be
appropriate to require calculating and
reporting of HAP emitted during a PRD
pressure release event, and we
determined that facility owners/
operators would still be able to provide
this information through knowledge of
the container contents and the weight or
volume of the contents before and after
the event. It was not our intention to
require monitoring data in addition to
such process knowledge. Therefore, we
have revised the regulatory language of
40 CFR 63.691(c)(3)(ii) accordingly to
clarify that monitoring data are not
required to be used in the calculation of
HAP emitted during a pressure release
event for containers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
C. What comments were received on the
August 7, 2017, proposed revised
container PRD monitoring
requirements?
The following is a summary of the key
comments received in response to our
August 2017 proposal and our responses
to these comments. Additional
comments and our responses can be
found in the comment summary and
response document available in the
docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2012–0360).
Comment: Three commenters
expressed support for the proposed
removal of the continuous monitoring
requirements added to the OSWRO
NESHAP in 2015 for PRDs on
containers. These commenters noted
that data in the record indicate
container releases are extremely rare
and do not justify imposing additional
regulatory burdens. Two of these
commenters also stated that with the
additional container data gathered by
the Agency, the EPA has correctly
concluded that it would be ‘‘difficult if
not impossible, to design and
implement a monitoring system for
containers that would meet the 2015
rule requirements.’’ One of the
commenters added that the significant
cost burdens associated with the
monitoring requirements to address the
small likelihood of a container PRD
release is unsupportable.
In contrast, one commenter stated that
the EPA cannot remove monitoring
requirements (i.e., the continuous
monitoring requirements of the 2015
rule) that are needed to assure
compliance with the prohibition on
releases from container PRDs. The
commenter stated that the proposed
monitoring exemption is equivalent to
an unlawful malfunction exemption
from the standards. The commenter also
stated that the EPA has not shown, or
supported with evidence, that visual
inspections will catch problems with
PRDs on containers. The commenter
further stated that the EPA did not
provide evidence that it is not possible
to design a monitoring system for
container PRDs and suggests that some
other continuous monitoring, such as
fenceline monitoring, could be done if
monitoring is not possible for individual
PRDs.
Response: We are finalizing, as
proposed, provisions providing that
PRDs on containers are not subject to
the continuous monitoring requirements
at 40 CFR 63.691(c)(3)(i), and we have
not added any other container
inspection or monitoring requirements.
We have determined that the PRD
inspection and monitoring requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3989
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP that apply
to containers at OSWRO facilities and
are already incorporated into the
requirements of the OSWRO NESHAP
are effective and sufficient. Depending
on the size of the container, the vapor
pressure of the container contents, and
how the container is used (i.e.,
temporary storage and/or transport of
the material versus waste stabilization),
the rule requires the OSWRO owners or
operators to follow the requirements for
either Container Level 1, 2, or 3 control
requirements, as specified in the
Container NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart pp. Each control level specifies
requirements to ensure the integrity of
the container and its ability to contain
its contents (e.g., requirements, to meet
U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) regulations on packaging
hazardous materials for transportation,
or vapor tightness as determined by EPA
Method 21, or no detectable leaks as
determined by EPA Method 27);
requirements for covers and closure
devices (which include pressure relief
valves as that term is defined in the
Container NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.921);
and inspection and monitoring
requirements for containers and their
covers and closure devices pursuant to
the Container NESHAP at 40 CFR
63.926. The inspection and monitoring
requirements for containers at 40 CFR
63.926, which are already incorporated
into the OSWRO NESHAP by 40 CFR
63.688, require that unless the container
is emptied within 24 hours of its receipt
at the OSWRO facility, the OSWRO
owner/operator is required on or before
they sign the shipping manifest
accepting a container to visually inspect
the container and its cover and closure
devices (which include PRDs). If a
defect of the container, cover, or closure
device is identified, the Container
NESHAP specify the time period within
which the container must be either
emptied or repaired. The Container
NESHAP require subsequent annual
inspections of the container, its cover,
and closure devices in the case where a
container remains at the facility and has
been unopened for a period of 1 year or
more. Therefore, the PRD continuous
monitoring requirements in the 2015
OSWRO NESHAP at 40 CFR
63.691(c)(3)(i) are in addition to the
requirements to inspect and monitor
container PRDs (as closure devices)
already in the OSWRO NESHAP per the
requirements of the subpart PP
Container NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.688.
In addition to the NESHAP
requirements, nearly all OSWRO
containers are subject to DOT regulatory
requirements to ensure their safe design,
E:\FR\FM\29JAR1.SGM
29JAR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
3990
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
construction, and operation while in
transport, and which also limit the
potential for air emissions due to leaks,
spills, explosions, etc. The DOT
regulations at 49 CFR part 178,
Specifications for Packagings or 49 CFR
part 179, Specifications for Tank Cars,
prescribe specific design,
manufacturing, and testing requirements
for containers that will be transported
by motor vehicles. Additionally, 49 CFR
part 180, Continuing Qualification and
Maintenance of Packagings, includes
requirements for periodic inspections,
testing, and repair of containers, which
would minimize the chance of an
atmospheric release from a PRD. All
containers that bring RCRA hazardous
waste on-site are subject to these DOT
requirements, and any PRDs on those
containers would similarly be subject to
these requirements. Most OSWRO
facilities are also subject to weekly
RCRA inspection requirements in
§ 264.15(b)(4) and § 265.15(b)(4), as well
as daily RCRA inspection requirements
in § 264.174 and § 265.174. These RCRA
inspection requirements apply to
owners or operators of all hazardous
waste facilities. Therefore, including
comparable requirements in the
OSWRO NESHAP would substantially
overlap with existing requirements.
The data provided by ACC and ETC
indicated that almost every facility
reported that they unload their
containers daily, so if a release from
such a PRD on a container were to
occur, the facility would likely detect it
during the unloading that happens on a
daily basis. We understand, based on
our review of PRD data provided by
ACC and ETC, that PRD releases from
containers are rare, the emissions
potential from these container PRDs is
low, and the additional monitoring
requirements for PRDs on the containers
that would be required under the 2015
OSWRO NESHAP would be difficult
and costly relative to the low emissions
potential. In addition, alternative forms
of continuous monitoring for container
PRDs, such as fenceline monitoring or
similar static systems, would not be
appropriate for measuring emissions
specifically from PRDs on containers,
because the inventory of container units
at the facilities is dynamic and the units
are moved around the facilities’
property.
Removing the continuous monitoring
requirements from PRDs on containers
is not equivalent to an unlawful
malfunction exemption. This action
does not alter the OSWRO NESHAP’s
prohibition on releases to the
atmosphere from all PRDs at 40 CFR
63.691(c)(3). Therefore, malfunctions
that cause PRD releases are not exempt
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
from regulation. Additionally, the EPA
determined that the monitoring is
sufficient after considering the
monitoring and inspection requirements
already applicable to these containers,
including the inspection requirements
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP, as
described above, while also evaluating
other monitoring options and the low
risk of release from these units.
Comment: Several commenters
provided responses to the EPA’s
requests for comments related to
imposing additional inspection
requirements for containers. These
requests included whether the EPA
should impose more frequent
inspections for any filled or partiallyfilled OSWRO container that remains
on-site longer than 60 days; whether any
additional inspection requirements
should apply to all containers or only
apply to larger containers; and whether
to also incorporate into the OSWRO
NESHAP the inspection requirements of
Air Emission Standards for Equipment
Leaks in 40 CFR part 264, subpart BB,
and 40 CFR part 265, subpart BB, and
RCRA and Air Emission Standards for
Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and
Containers in 40 CFR part 264, subpart
CC, and 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC.
Three commenters stated that they do
not believe additional inspections of
container PRDs are necessary for any
containers. The commenters noted that
facilities are already required to meet
the inspection and monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
PP, and most are also subject to the
inspection requirements of 40 CFR parts
264 and 265, subparts BB and CC. For
larger containers, such as tank cars and
rail cars, one of these commenters
pointed out that DOT or Federal
Railroad Administration inspection,
testing and repair requirements would
apply. These commenters also noted
that most facilities subject to the
OSWRO NESHAP are already subject to
the RCRA subparts BB and CC
inspections requirements. The
commenters stated that any of the
additional inspection requirements
contemplated by the EPA would only
overlap with the requirements of
existing rules and would not provide
any additional benefits.
Response: Considering the responses
to our requests for comment regarding
including additional inspection
requirements for containers, we are not
adding any other container inspection
or monitoring requirements to the
OSWRO NESHAP. As noted above, in
the proposal we explained the basis for
our proposed conclusion that the
container PRD inspection and
monitoring requirements already
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
incorporated into the OSWRO NESHAP
would be effective and sufficient to
ensure compliance with the proposed
container PRD requirements. No new
information has been provided to
suggest that additional inspection or
monitoring requirements are needed.
D. What is the rationale for our final
decisions regarding the container PRD
monitoring requirements?
For the reasons provided above, as
well as in the preamble for the proposed
rule and in the comment summary and
response document available in the
docket, we are finalizing our proposal
that PRDs on OSWRO containers will
not be subject to the continuous
monitoring requirements at 40 CFR
63.691(c)(3)(i). For the reasons provided
above, we are making the correction and
clarification noted in section III.B in the
final rule.
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental
and Economic Impacts, and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected sources?
We estimate that 49 existing sources
will be affected by the revised
monitoring requirements being finalized
in this action.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
We are finalizing revised
requirements for PRD monitoring on
containers on the basis that the
inspection and monitoring requirements
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP
incorporated into the OSWRO NESHAP
are effective and sufficient. We project
that the final standard will not result in
any change in emissions compared to
the 2015 OSWRO NESHAP.
C. What are the cost impacts?
When the OSWRO NESHAP were
finalized in 2015, the EPA was not
aware of equipment meeting the
definition of a PRD on containers in the
OSWRO industry, and costs associated
with the PRD release event prohibition
and continuous monitoring
requirements were not estimated for this
equipment. Therefore, the capital and
annualized costs in the 2015 final rule
were underestimated, as these costs
were not included. To determine the
impacts of the 2015 final rule,
considering the continuous monitoring
requirements for PRDs on containers
based on the data now available to the
EPA from ACC and ETC, we estimated
costs and potential emission reductions
associated with wireless PRD monitors
for containers. Using vendor estimates
for wireless PRD monitor costs, we
estimate the average per facility capital
costs of continuous wireless container
E:\FR\FM\29JAR1.SGM
29JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
PRDs monitoring to be approximately
$570,000, and the estimated industry
(49 facilities) capital costs of continuous
wireless container PRD monitoring
would be approximately $28 million.
The total annualized costs of continuous
wireless container PRD monitoring per
facility (assuming a 15-year equipment
life and a 7-percent interest rate) are
estimated to be approximately $85,000
and approximately $4.2 million for the
industry. Therefore, by removing the
requirement to monitor PRDs on
containers continuously, we estimate
the impact of this final rule to be an
annual reduction of $4.2 million. Cost
information, including wireless PRD
monitor costs, is available in the docket
for this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
We performed a national economic
impact analysis for the 49 OSWRO
facilities affected by this revised rule.
The national costs under this final rule,
accounting for the data provided by
ACC and the ETC, are $1.3 million in
capital costs in 2018, or $200,000 in
total annualized costs.1 Over 15 years,
this is an estimated present value of
total costs of $1.9 million, or equivalent
annualized costs of $200,000 per year.2
These costs constitute a $28 million
reduction in the capital cost or a $4.2
million reduction in total annualized
costs compared to the revised baseline
costs of the requirements as written in
the 2015 rule, which include costs of
continuous PRD monitoring.3 Over 15
years, the present value of cost savings
are estimated at $39 million, or $4.3
million per year in equivalent
annualized cost savings, compared to
the revised baseline.4 More information
and details of this analysis are provided
in the technical document, ‘‘Final
Economic Impact Analysis for the
Reconsideration of the 2015 NESHAP:
Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations,’’ which is available in the
docket for this action.
1 We assume affected facilities will start incurring
costs in 2018. This total annualized cost assumes
an interest rate of 7-percent. Total annualized costs
under a 3-percent interest rate are $170,000 per
year.
2 These costs assume a 7-percent discount rate.
Under a 3-percent discount rate, the present value
of costs is estimated to be $2.0 million, and the
equivalent annualized costs are estimated to be
$170,000 per year.
3 This reduction in total annualized costs assumes
a 7-percent interest rate. Annualized cost
reductions are $3.4 million assuming a 3-percent
interest rate.
4 These cost savings assume a 7-percent discount
rate. Under a 3-percent discount rate, the present
value of cost savings is $42 million, and the
equivalent annualized value of cost savings is $3.5
million per year.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
E. What are the benefits?
We project that this final standard
will not result in any change in
emissions compared to the existing
OSWRO NESHAP.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is considered an
Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost
savings of this final rule can be found
in the EPA’s analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this
action.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
PRA. OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities
contained in the existing regulations at
40 CFR part 63, subpart DD, under the
provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. and has assigned OMB control
number 1717.11. The final amendments
removed continuous monitoring
requirements for PRDs on containers,
and these final amendments do not
affect the estimated information
collection burden of the existing rule.
You can find a copy of the Information
Collection Request in the docket at
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–
0360 for this rule.
D. 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 rule
relieves regulatory burden by reducing
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3991
compliance costs associated with
monitoring PRDs on containers. The
Agency has determined that of the 28
firms that own the 49 facilities in the
OSWRO source category, two firms, or
7 percent, can be classified as small
firms. The cost to sales ratio of the
reconsidered cost of the monitoring
requirements for these two firms is
significantly less than 1 percent. In
addition, this action constitutes a
burden reduction compared to the reestimated costs of the 2015 rule as
promulgated. We have, therefore,
concluded that this action does not have
a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. For more
information, see the ‘‘Final Economic
Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration
of the 2015 NESHAP: Off-Site Waste
and Recovery Operations’’ which is
available in the rulemaking docket.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments,
or on the private sector.
F. 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.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. This action will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship
between the federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
federal government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
E:\FR\FM\29JAR1.SGM
29JAR1
3992
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The EPA’s risk assessments for
the 2015 final rule (Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2012–0360) demonstrate that
the current regulations are associated
with an acceptable level of risk and
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent
adverse environmental effects. This
final action does not alter those
conclusions.
I. 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.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
16:12 Jan 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: January 18, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In the 2015 final rule, the EPA
determined that the current health risks
posed by emissions from this source
category are acceptable and provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent adverse
environmental effects. To gain a better
understanding of the source category
and near source populations, the EPA
conducted a proximity analysis for
OSWRO facilities prior to proposal in
2014 to identify any overrepresentation
of minority, low income, or indigenous
populations. This analysis gave an
indication of the prevalence of
subpopulations that might be exposed to
air pollution from the sources. We
revised this analysis to include four
additional OSWRO facilities that the
EPA learned about after proposal for the
2015 rule. The EPA determined that the
final rule would not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low income, or indigenous
populations. The revised proximity
analysis results and the details
concerning its development are
presented in the memorandum titled,
Updated Environmental Justice Review:
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
RTR, available in the docket for this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
action (Docket Document ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2012–0360–0109). This final
action does not alter the conclusions
made in the 2015 final rule regarding
this analysis.
are not subject to the obligations in
paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) If any pressure relief device in offsite material service releases directly to
the atmosphere as a result of a pressure
release event, the owner or operator
must calculate the quantity of HAP
listed in Table 1 of this subpart released
during each pressure release event and
report this quantity as required in
§ 63.697(b)(5). Calculations may be
based on data from the pressure relief
device monitoring alone or in
combination with process parameter
monitoring data and process knowledge.
For containers, the calculations may be
based on process knowledge and
information alone.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–01512 Filed 1–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is amending title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
[LLWO310000 L13100000 PP0000 18X]
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart DD—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations
2. Section 63.691 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(3) introductory
text and paragraph (c)(3)(ii) to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.691
Standards: Equipment leaks.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3) Pressure release management.
Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4)
of this section, emissions of HAP listed
in Table 1 of this subpart may not be
discharged directly to the atmosphere
from pressure relief devices in off-site
material service, and according to the
date an affected source commenced
construction or reconstruction and the
date an affected source receives off-site
material for the first time, as established
in § 63.680(e)(1)(i) through (iii), the
owner or operator must comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs
(c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section for all
pressure relief devices in off-site
material service, except that containers
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 3160
RIN 1004–AE51
Onshore Oil and Gas Operations—
Annual Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustments
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule adjusts the
level of civil monetary penalties
contained in the Bureau of Land
Management’s (BLM) regulations
governing onshore oil and gas
operations as required by the Federal
Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act
Improvements Act of 2015 and
consistent with applicable Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
guidance. The adjustments made by this
final rule constitute the 2018 annual
inflation adjustments, accounting for
one year of inflation spanning the
period from October 2016 through
October 2017.
DATES: This rule is effective on January
29, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Wells, Division Chief, Fluid
Minerals Division, 202–912–7143, for
information regarding the BLM’s Fluid
Minerals Program. For questions
relating to regulatory process issues,
please contact Jennifer Noe, Division of
Regulatory Affairs, at 202–912–7442.
Persons who use a telecommunications
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29JAR1.SGM
29JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3986-3992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01512]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360; FRL-9972-89-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT48
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-
Site Waste and Recovery Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; notification of final action on reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations (OSWRO). The final amendments address continuous
monitoring on pressure relief devices (PRDs) on containers. This issue
was raised in a petition for reconsideration of the 2015 amendments to
the OSWRO NESHAP, which were based on the residual risk and technology
review (RTR). Among other things, the 2015 amendments established
additional monitoring requirements for all PRDs, including PRDs on
containers. For PRDs on containers, these monitoring requirements were
in addition to the inspection and monitoring requirements for
containers and their closure devices already required by the OSWRO
NESHAP. This final action removes the additional monitoring
requirements for PRDs on containers that resulted from the 2015
amendments because we have determined that they are not necessary. This
action does not substantially change the level of environmental
protection provided under the OSWRO NESHAP, but reduces burden to this
industry compared to the current rule by $28 million in capital costs
related to compliance, and $4.2 million per year in total annualized
costs under a 7 percent interest rate. Over 15 years at a 7-percent
discount rate, this constitutes an estimated reduction of $39 million
in
[[Page 3987]]
the present value, or $4.3 million per year in equivalent annualized
cost savings.
DATES: This final action is effective on January 29, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360. All
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet,
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
(EPA/DC), EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
please contact Ms. Angie Carey, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2187; fax number: (919) 541-0246;
email address: [email protected]. For information about the
applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Marcia
Mia, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA WJC South Building, Mail Code 2227A, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-7042; fax number: (202) 564-0050; and email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations. A number of acronyms and abbreviations
are used in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to
ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the
following terms and acronyms are defined:
ACC American Chemistry Council
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DOT Department of Transportation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ETC Environmental Technology Council
FR Federal Register
HAP Hazardous air pollutants
NESHAP National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSWRO Off-site waste and recovery operations
PRD Pressure relief device
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RTR Residual risk and technology review
TSDF Treatment, storage and disposal facilities
Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration
action?
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background Information
III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered
A. What is the history of OSWRO monitoring requirements for PRDs
on containers?
B. How does this final rule differ from the August 7, 2017,
proposal?
C. What comments were received on the August 7, 2017, proposed
revised container PRD monitoring requirements?
D. What is the rationale for our final decisions regarding the
container PRD monitoring requirements?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts, and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. What is the source of authority for the reconsideration action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
112, 301 and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7412,
7601 and 7607(d)(7)(B)).
B. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action
include, but are not limited to, businesses or government agencies that
operate any of the following: Hazardous waste treatment, treatment
storage and disposal facilities (TSDF); Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) exempt hazardous wastewater treatment facilities;
nonhazardous wastewater treatment facilities other than publicly-owned
treatment works; used solvent recovery plants; RCRA exempt hazardous
waste recycling operations; and used oil re-refineries.
To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine
the applicability criteria in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
63.680 of subpart DD. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of any aspect of these NESHAP, please contact the
appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
The docket number for this final action regarding the NESHAP for
the OSWRO source category is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this document will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/site-waste-and-recovery-operations-oswro-national-emission. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version and key technical documents on this same website.
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by March 30,
2018. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final
rule that was raised with
[[Page 3988]]
reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be
raised during judicial review. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.
This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider
the rule ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the
Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC West
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy
to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S.
EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background Information
On March 18, 2015, the EPA promulgated a final rule amending the
OSWRO NESHAP based on the RTR conducted for the OSWRO source category
(80 FR 14248). In that final rule, the EPA also amended the OSWRO
NESHAP to revise provisions related to emissions during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction; to add requirements for electronic
reporting of performance testing; to add monitoring requirements for
PRDs; to revise routine maintenance provisions; to clarify provisions
for open-ended valves and lines and for some performance test methods
and procedures; and to make several minor clarifications and
corrections. After publication of the final rule, the EPA received a
petition for reconsideration submitted jointly by Eastman Chemical
Company and the American Chemical Council (ACC) (dated May 18, 2015).
This petition sought reconsideration of two of the amended provisions
of the OSWRO NESHAP: (1) The equipment leak provisions for connectors,
and (2) the requirement to continuously monitor PRDs on containers.
The EPA considered the petition and granted reconsideration of the
PRD monitoring requirement in letters to the petitioners dated February
8, 2016. In separate letters to the petitioners dated May 5, 2016, the
Administrator denied reconsideration of the equipment leak provisions
for connectors and explained the reasons for the denial in these
letters. These letters are available in the OSWRO NESHAP amendment
rulemaking docket. The EPA also published a Federal Register notice on
May 16, 2016 (81 FR 30182), informing the public of these responses to
the petition.
On May 18, 2015, ACC filed a petition for judicial review of the
OSWRO NESHAP RTR challenging numerous provisions in the final rule,
including the issues identified in the petition for administrative
reconsideration. American Chemistry Council v. EPA, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the DC Circuit, Case No. 15-1146. In 2016, the EPA and ACC
reached an agreement to resolve that case. Specifically, the parties
agreed to a settlement under which ACC agrees it will dismiss its
petition for review of the 2015 final rule if the EPA reconsiders
certain PRD provisions and signs a proposed and final rule in
accordance with an agreed-upon schedule. The settlement agreement was
finalized on June 15, 2017.
As a result of our reconsideration, the Agency proposed and
requested comment on revised monitoring requirements for PRDs on
containers in a notice of proposed rule reconsideration published in
the Federal Register on August 7, 2017 (82 FR 36713). We received
public comments from seven parties. Copies of all comments submitted
are available at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. Comments
are also available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov by
searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360.
In this document, the EPA is finalizing the revised monitoring
requirements, as proposed in the August 7, 2017 (82 FR 36713),
document. In addition, in this document we are making one clerical
correction and we are clarifying the information needed to meet the
reporting requirements in the event a PRD on a container releases
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) to the atmosphere. Section III of this
preamble summarizes the history of OSWRO monitoring requirements for
PRDs on containers, explains how the proposed and final regulatory
language differs, summarizes key public comments received on the
proposed notice of reconsideration, presents the EPA's responses to
these comments, and explains our rationale for the rule revisions
published here. Additional comments and EPA's responses to those
comments are included in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses
on Proposed Rule, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0360).
III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered
This action finalizes the EPA's reconsideration and amendment of
the continuous monitoring requirements that apply to PRDs on
containers. This issue is discussed in detail in the following sections
of this preamble.
A. What is the history of OSWRO monitoring requirements for PRDs on
containers?
In the March 18, 2015, amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD,
the EPA changed the compliance monitoring requirement for PRDs. Since
the rule does not distinguish between PRDs on stationary process
equipment and those on containers, the monitoring requirements applied
to all PRDs. These revised compliance monitoring provisions included
requirements to conduct additional PRD monitoring continuously to
identify a pressure release, to record the time and duration of each
pressure release and to notify operators immediately when a pressure
release occurs. The EPA received a petition objecting to these
additional continuous monitoring requirements for PRDs on containers
and requesting reconsideration. In 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD,
containers are, by definition, portable units that hold material. The
petitioners' concern was that because containers are portable,
frequently moved around OSWRO facilities, and are received from many
different off-site locations, it would be difficult, if not impossible,
to design and implement a monitoring system for containers that would
meet the 2015 rule requirements. When the OSWRO NESHAP were finalized
in 2015, the EPA was not aware of equipment meeting the definition of a
PRD on containers in the OSWRO industry, and any potential issues
associated with the PRD monitoring requirements were not considered for
this equipment.
In response to the petition, the EPA reevaluated the PRD monitoring
requirements in the 2015 rule as they pertain to containers,
considering the other requirements that apply to containers and their
PRDs, and the PRD data submitted to the EPA by ACC and the
Environmental Technology Council (ETC). Following this evaluation, on
August 7, 2017, we proposed to revise the monitoring requirements to
exclude PRDs on OSWRO containers from the
[[Page 3989]]
continuous monitoring and related requirements of 40 CFR
63.691(c)(3)(i). This proposed revision was based on our determination
that the PRD inspection and monitoring requirements already included in
the OSWRO NESHAP are effective and sufficient. Our review of
information provided by ACC and ETC showed that the emissions potential
from PRDs on containers at OSWRO facilities is low. Additionally,
continuous monitoring of these PRDs, as contemplated by 40 CFR
63.691(c)(3)(i), would be both costly and difficult.
B. How does this final rule differ from the August 7, 2017, proposal?
In this action, the EPA is finalizing the revised container PRD
monitoring requirements as proposed on August 7, 2017. We are also
correcting a clerical error in the proposed regulatory text of 40 CFR
63.691(c)(3) to refer to Sec. 63.680(e)(1)(i) through (iii). In
addition, we are revising the regulatory text in CFR 63.691(c)(3)(ii)
to clarify that monitoring data are not required to be used in the
calculation of HAP emitted during a pressure release event for
containers.
The proposed language of 40 CFR 63.691(c)(3)(ii) states that if
there is a PRD release to the atmosphere, the owner or operator must
calculate and report the HAP emitted, and the calculation may be based
on ``data from the pressure relief device monitoring alone or in
combination with process parameter monitoring data and process
knowledge.'' We acknowledged at proposal that it would be difficult, if
not impossible, to design and implement a monitoring system for
containers that would meet the 2015 rule requirements (82 FR at 36715).
In recognition of this, we examined whether it would be appropriate to
require calculating and reporting of HAP emitted during a PRD pressure
release event, and we determined that facility owners/operators would
still be able to provide this information through knowledge of the
container contents and the weight or volume of the contents before and
after the event. It was not our intention to require monitoring data in
addition to such process knowledge. Therefore, we have revised the
regulatory language of 40 CFR 63.691(c)(3)(ii) accordingly to clarify
that monitoring data are not required to be used in the calculation of
HAP emitted during a pressure release event for containers.
C. What comments were received on the August 7, 2017, proposed revised
container PRD monitoring requirements?
The following is a summary of the key comments received in response
to our August 2017 proposal and our responses to these comments.
Additional comments and our responses can be found in the comment
summary and response document available in the docket for this action
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360).
Comment: Three commenters expressed support for the proposed
removal of the continuous monitoring requirements added to the OSWRO
NESHAP in 2015 for PRDs on containers. These commenters noted that data
in the record indicate container releases are extremely rare and do not
justify imposing additional regulatory burdens. Two of these commenters
also stated that with the additional container data gathered by the
Agency, the EPA has correctly concluded that it would be ``difficult if
not impossible, to design and implement a monitoring system for
containers that would meet the 2015 rule requirements.'' One of the
commenters added that the significant cost burdens associated with the
monitoring requirements to address the small likelihood of a container
PRD release is unsupportable.
In contrast, one commenter stated that the EPA cannot remove
monitoring requirements (i.e., the continuous monitoring requirements
of the 2015 rule) that are needed to assure compliance with the
prohibition on releases from container PRDs. The commenter stated that
the proposed monitoring exemption is equivalent to an unlawful
malfunction exemption from the standards. The commenter also stated
that the EPA has not shown, or supported with evidence, that visual
inspections will catch problems with PRDs on containers. The commenter
further stated that the EPA did not provide evidence that it is not
possible to design a monitoring system for container PRDs and suggests
that some other continuous monitoring, such as fenceline monitoring,
could be done if monitoring is not possible for individual PRDs.
Response: We are finalizing, as proposed, provisions providing that
PRDs on containers are not subject to the continuous monitoring
requirements at 40 CFR 63.691(c)(3)(i), and we have not added any other
container inspection or monitoring requirements. We have determined
that the PRD inspection and monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PP that apply to containers at OSWRO facilities and are already
incorporated into the requirements of the OSWRO NESHAP are effective
and sufficient. Depending on the size of the container, the vapor
pressure of the container contents, and how the container is used
(i.e., temporary storage and/or transport of the material versus waste
stabilization), the rule requires the OSWRO owners or operators to
follow the requirements for either Container Level 1, 2, or 3 control
requirements, as specified in the Container NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart pp. Each control level specifies requirements to ensure the
integrity of the container and its ability to contain its contents
(e.g., requirements, to meet U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
regulations on packaging hazardous materials for transportation, or
vapor tightness as determined by EPA Method 21, or no detectable leaks
as determined by EPA Method 27); requirements for covers and closure
devices (which include pressure relief valves as that term is defined
in the Container NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.921); and inspection and
monitoring requirements for containers and their covers and closure
devices pursuant to the Container NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.926. The
inspection and monitoring requirements for containers at 40 CFR 63.926,
which are already incorporated into the OSWRO NESHAP by 40 CFR 63.688,
require that unless the container is emptied within 24 hours of its
receipt at the OSWRO facility, the OSWRO owner/operator is required on
or before they sign the shipping manifest accepting a container to
visually inspect the container and its cover and closure devices (which
include PRDs). If a defect of the container, cover, or closure device
is identified, the Container NESHAP specify the time period within
which the container must be either emptied or repaired. The Container
NESHAP require subsequent annual inspections of the container, its
cover, and closure devices in the case where a container remains at the
facility and has been unopened for a period of 1 year or more.
Therefore, the PRD continuous monitoring requirements in the 2015 OSWRO
NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.691(c)(3)(i) are in addition to the requirements to
inspect and monitor container PRDs (as closure devices) already in the
OSWRO NESHAP per the requirements of the subpart PP Container NESHAP at
40 CFR 63.688.
In addition to the NESHAP requirements, nearly all OSWRO containers
are subject to DOT regulatory requirements to ensure their safe design,
[[Page 3990]]
construction, and operation while in transport, and which also limit
the potential for air emissions due to leaks, spills, explosions, etc.
The DOT regulations at 49 CFR part 178, Specifications for Packagings
or 49 CFR part 179, Specifications for Tank Cars, prescribe specific
design, manufacturing, and testing requirements for containers that
will be transported by motor vehicles. Additionally, 49 CFR part 180,
Continuing Qualification and Maintenance of Packagings, includes
requirements for periodic inspections, testing, and repair of
containers, which would minimize the chance of an atmospheric release
from a PRD. All containers that bring RCRA hazardous waste on-site are
subject to these DOT requirements, and any PRDs on those containers
would similarly be subject to these requirements. Most OSWRO facilities
are also subject to weekly RCRA inspection requirements in Sec.
264.15(b)(4) and Sec. 265.15(b)(4), as well as daily RCRA inspection
requirements in Sec. 264.174 and Sec. 265.174. These RCRA inspection
requirements apply to owners or operators of all hazardous waste
facilities. Therefore, including comparable requirements in the OSWRO
NESHAP would substantially overlap with existing requirements.
The data provided by ACC and ETC indicated that almost every
facility reported that they unload their containers daily, so if a
release from such a PRD on a container were to occur, the facility
would likely detect it during the unloading that happens on a daily
basis. We understand, based on our review of PRD data provided by ACC
and ETC, that PRD releases from containers are rare, the emissions
potential from these container PRDs is low, and the additional
monitoring requirements for PRDs on the containers that would be
required under the 2015 OSWRO NESHAP would be difficult and costly
relative to the low emissions potential. In addition, alternative forms
of continuous monitoring for container PRDs, such as fenceline
monitoring or similar static systems, would not be appropriate for
measuring emissions specifically from PRDs on containers, because the
inventory of container units at the facilities is dynamic and the units
are moved around the facilities' property.
Removing the continuous monitoring requirements from PRDs on
containers is not equivalent to an unlawful malfunction exemption. This
action does not alter the OSWRO NESHAP's prohibition on releases to the
atmosphere from all PRDs at 40 CFR 63.691(c)(3). Therefore,
malfunctions that cause PRD releases are not exempt from regulation.
Additionally, the EPA determined that the monitoring is sufficient
after considering the monitoring and inspection requirements already
applicable to these containers, including the inspection requirements
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP, as described above, while also
evaluating other monitoring options and the low risk of release from
these units.
Comment: Several commenters provided responses to the EPA's
requests for comments related to imposing additional inspection
requirements for containers. These requests included whether the EPA
should impose more frequent inspections for any filled or partially-
filled OSWRO container that remains on-site longer than 60 days;
whether any additional inspection requirements should apply to all
containers or only apply to larger containers; and whether to also
incorporate into the OSWRO NESHAP the inspection requirements of Air
Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks in 40 CFR part 264, subpart BB,
and 40 CFR part 265, subpart BB, and RCRA and Air Emission Standards
for Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers in 40 CFR part 264,
subpart CC, and 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC. Three commenters stated
that they do not believe additional inspections of container PRDs are
necessary for any containers. The commenters noted that facilities are
already required to meet the inspection and monitoring requirements of
40 CFR part 63, subpart PP, and most are also subject to the inspection
requirements of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts BB and CC. For
larger containers, such as tank cars and rail cars, one of these
commenters pointed out that DOT or Federal Railroad Administration
inspection, testing and repair requirements would apply. These
commenters also noted that most facilities subject to the OSWRO NESHAP
are already subject to the RCRA subparts BB and CC inspections
requirements. The commenters stated that any of the additional
inspection requirements contemplated by the EPA would only overlap with
the requirements of existing rules and would not provide any additional
benefits.
Response: Considering the responses to our requests for comment
regarding including additional inspection requirements for containers,
we are not adding any other container inspection or monitoring
requirements to the OSWRO NESHAP. As noted above, in the proposal we
explained the basis for our proposed conclusion that the container PRD
inspection and monitoring requirements already incorporated into the
OSWRO NESHAP would be effective and sufficient to ensure compliance
with the proposed container PRD requirements. No new information has
been provided to suggest that additional inspection or monitoring
requirements are needed.
D. What is the rationale for our final decisions regarding the
container PRD monitoring requirements?
For the reasons provided above, as well as in the preamble for the
proposed rule and in the comment summary and response document
available in the docket, we are finalizing our proposal that PRDs on
OSWRO containers will not be subject to the continuous monitoring
requirements at 40 CFR 63.691(c)(3)(i). For the reasons provided above,
we are making the correction and clarification noted in section III.B
in the final rule.
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts, and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected sources?
We estimate that 49 existing sources will be affected by the
revised monitoring requirements being finalized in this action.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
We are finalizing revised requirements for PRD monitoring on
containers on the basis that the inspection and monitoring requirements
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP incorporated into the OSWRO NESHAP are
effective and sufficient. We project that the final standard will not
result in any change in emissions compared to the 2015 OSWRO NESHAP.
C. What are the cost impacts?
When the OSWRO NESHAP were finalized in 2015, the EPA was not aware
of equipment meeting the definition of a PRD on containers in the OSWRO
industry, and costs associated with the PRD release event prohibition
and continuous monitoring requirements were not estimated for this
equipment. Therefore, the capital and annualized costs in the 2015
final rule were underestimated, as these costs were not included. To
determine the impacts of the 2015 final rule, considering the
continuous monitoring requirements for PRDs on containers based on the
data now available to the EPA from ACC and ETC, we estimated costs and
potential emission reductions associated with wireless PRD monitors for
containers. Using vendor estimates for wireless PRD monitor costs, we
estimate the average per facility capital costs of continuous wireless
container
[[Page 3991]]
PRDs monitoring to be approximately $570,000, and the estimated
industry (49 facilities) capital costs of continuous wireless container
PRD monitoring would be approximately $28 million. The total annualized
costs of continuous wireless container PRD monitoring per facility
(assuming a 15-year equipment life and a 7-percent interest rate) are
estimated to be approximately $85,000 and approximately $4.2 million
for the industry. Therefore, by removing the requirement to monitor
PRDs on containers continuously, we estimate the impact of this final
rule to be an annual reduction of $4.2 million. Cost information,
including wireless PRD monitor costs, is available in the docket for
this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
We performed a national economic impact analysis for the 49 OSWRO
facilities affected by this revised rule. The national costs under this
final rule, accounting for the data provided by ACC and the ETC, are
$1.3 million in capital costs in 2018, or $200,000 in total annualized
costs.\1\ Over 15 years, this is an estimated present value of total
costs of $1.9 million, or equivalent annualized costs of $200,000 per
year.\2\ These costs constitute a $28 million reduction in the capital
cost or a $4.2 million reduction in total annualized costs compared to
the revised baseline costs of the requirements as written in the 2015
rule, which include costs of continuous PRD monitoring.\3\ Over 15
years, the present value of cost savings are estimated at $39 million,
or $4.3 million per year in equivalent annualized cost savings,
compared to the revised baseline.\4\ More information and details of
this analysis are provided in the technical document, ``Final Economic
Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration of the 2015 NESHAP: Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations,'' which is available in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We assume affected facilities will start incurring costs in
2018. This total annualized cost assumes an interest rate of 7-
percent. Total annualized costs under a 3-percent interest rate are
$170,000 per year.
\2\ These costs assume a 7-percent discount rate. Under a 3-
percent discount rate, the present value of costs is estimated to be
$2.0 million, and the equivalent annualized costs are estimated to
be $170,000 per year.
\3\ This reduction in total annualized costs assumes a 7-percent
interest rate. Annualized cost reductions are $3.4 million assuming
a 3-percent interest rate.
\4\ These cost savings assume a 7-percent discount rate. Under a
3-percent discount rate, the present value of cost savings is $42
million, and the equivalent annualized value of cost savings is $3.5
million per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. What are the benefits?
We project that this final standard will not result in any change
in emissions compared to the existing OSWRO NESHAP.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart DD, under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 1717.11. The final amendments removed
continuous monitoring requirements for PRDs on containers, and these
final amendments do not affect the estimated information collection
burden of the existing rule. You can find a copy of the Information
Collection Request in the docket at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360
for this rule.
D. 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 rule relieves regulatory burden by
reducing compliance costs associated with monitoring PRDs on
containers. The Agency has determined that of the 28 firms that own the
49 facilities in the OSWRO source category, two firms, or 7 percent,
can be classified as small firms. The cost to sales ratio of the
reconsidered cost of the monitoring requirements for these two firms is
significantly less than 1 percent. In addition, this action constitutes
a burden reduction compared to the re-estimated costs of the 2015 rule
as promulgated. We have, therefore, concluded that this action does not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For more information, see the ``Final Economic Impact Analysis for the
Reconsideration of the 2015 NESHAP: Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations'' which is available in the rulemaking docket.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on
the private sector.
F. 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.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action will not have substantial direct
effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this
[[Page 3992]]
action present a disproportionate risk to children. The EPA's risk
assessments for the 2015 final rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0360) demonstrate that the current regulations are associated with an
acceptable level of risk and provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects. This
final action does not alter those conclusions.
I. 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.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In
the 2015 final rule, the EPA determined that the current health risks
posed by emissions from this source category are acceptable and provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse
environmental effects. To gain a better understanding of the source
category and near source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity
analysis for OSWRO facilities prior to proposal in 2014 to identify any
overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations.
This analysis gave an indication of the prevalence of subpopulations
that might be exposed to air pollution from the sources. We revised
this analysis to include four additional OSWRO facilities that the EPA
learned about after proposal for the 2015 rule. The EPA determined that
the final rule would not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous
populations. The revised proximity analysis results and the details
concerning its development are presented in the memorandum titled,
Updated Environmental Justice Review: Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations RTR, available in the docket for this action (Docket
Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0360-0109). This final action does not
alter the conclusions made in the 2015 final rule regarding this
analysis.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 18, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is amending title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart DD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
0
2. Section 63.691 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3) introductory
text and paragraph (c)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.691 Standards: Equipment leaks.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Pressure release management. Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(4) of this section, emissions of HAP listed in Table 1 of this
subpart may not be discharged directly to the atmosphere from pressure
relief devices in off-site material service, and according to the date
an affected source commenced construction or reconstruction and the
date an affected source receives off-site material for the first time,
as established in Sec. 63.680(e)(1)(i) through (iii), the owner or
operator must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs
(c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section for all pressure relief devices in
off-site material service, except that containers are not subject to
the obligations in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
(ii) If any pressure relief device in off-site material service
releases directly to the atmosphere as a result of a pressure release
event, the owner or operator must calculate the quantity of HAP listed
in Table 1 of this subpart released during each pressure release event
and report this quantity as required in Sec. 63.697(b)(5).
Calculations may be based on data from the pressure relief device
monitoring alone or in combination with process parameter monitoring
data and process knowledge. For containers, the calculations may be
based on process knowledge and information alone.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-01512 Filed 1-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P