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 http://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 http://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 http:// 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 http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. 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 http://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 
http://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 http://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 http://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