83 FR 3986 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 19 (January 29, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 19 (January 29, 2018)
| Page Range | 3986-3992 | |
| FR Document | 2018-01512 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 2018)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 3986-3992] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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
![3986 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
• Is not a significant regulatory action submit a rule report, which includes a List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR copy of the rule, to each House of the
28355, May 22, 2001); Congress and to the Comptroller General Environmental protection, Air
• Is not subject to requirements of of the United States. EPA will submit a pollution control, Incorporation by
section 12(d) of the National report containing this action and other reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Technology Transfer and Advancement required information to the U.S. Senate, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because the U.S. House of Representatives, and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
application of those requirements would the Comptroller General of the United organic compounds.
be inconsistent with the CAA; and States prior to publication of the rule in Dated: January 11, 2018.
• Does not provide EPA with the the Federal Register. A major rule Cosmo Servidio,
discretionary authority to address, as cannot take effect until 60 days after it Regional Administrator, Region III.
appropriate, disproportionate human is published in the Federal Register.
health or environmental effects, using This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
practicable and legally permissible defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
methods, under Executive Order 12898 PART 52—APPROVAL AND
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). C. Petitions for Judicial Review PROMULGATION OF
In addition, this rule does not have Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
tribal implications as specified by petitions for judicial review of this
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, action must be filed in the United States ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is Court of Appeals for the appropriate continues to read as follows:
not approved to apply in Indian country circuit by March 30, 2018. Filing a Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
located in the state, and EPA notes that petition for reconsideration by the
it will not impose substantial direct Administrator of this final rule does not Subpart V—Maryland
costs on tribal governments or preempt affect the finality of this action for the
tribal law. purposes of judicial review nor does it ■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph
extend the time within which a petition (e) is amended by adding the entry
B. Submission to Congress and the for judicial review may be filed, and ‘‘2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
Comptroller General shall not postpone the effectiveness of Nonattainment New Source Review
The Congressional Review Act, 5 such rule or action. This action Requirements’’ at the end of the table to
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small approving Maryland’s 2008 8-hour read as follows:
Business Regulatory Enforcement ozone NAAQS Certification SIP revision
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides for NNSR may not be challenged later in § 52.1070 Identification of plan.
that before a rule may take effect, the proceedings to enforce its requirements. * * * * *
agency promulgating the rule must (See section 307(b)(2).) (e) * * *
State
Name of non-regulatory Additional
Applicable geographic area submittal EPA approval date
SIP revision explanation
date
* * * * * * *
2008 8-Hour Ozone The Baltimore Area (includes Anne Arundel, Balti- 5/8/2017 1/29/2018, [insert Federal
NAAQS Nonattainment more, Carroll, Harford, and Howard Counties and Register citation].
New Source Review the city of Baltimore), the Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Requirements. Atlantic City Area (includes Cecil County in Mary-
land), and the Washington, DC Area (includes
Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and
Prince Georges Counties in Maryland).
[FR Doc. 2018–01518 Filed 1–26–18; 8:45 am] ACTION: Final rule; notification of final requirements were in addition to the
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P action on reconsideration. inspection and monitoring requirements
for containers and their closure devices
SUMMARY: This action finalizes already required by the OSWRO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION amendments to the National Emission NESHAP. This final action removes the
AGENCY Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants additional monitoring requirements for
(NESHAP) for Off-Site Waste and PRDs on containers that resulted from
40 CFR Part 63 Recovery Operations (OSWRO). The the 2015 amendments because we have
final amendments address continuous determined that they are not necessary.
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360; FRL–9972–89– monitoring on pressure relief devices This action does not substantially
OAR] (PRDs) on containers. This issue was change the level of environmental
raised in a petition for reconsideration protection provided under the OSWRO
RIN 2060–AT48 of the 2015 amendments to the OSWRO NESHAP, but reduces burden to this
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
NESHAP, which were based on the industry compared to the current rule
National Emission Standards for residual risk and technology review by $28 million in capital costs related to
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-Site (RTR). Among other things, the 2015 compliance, and $4.2 million per year
Waste and Recovery Operations amendments established additional in total annualized costs under a 7
monitoring requirements for all PRDs, percent interest rate. Over 15 years at a
AGENCY: Environmental Protection including PRDs on containers. For PRDs 7-percent discount rate, this constitutes
Agency (EPA). on containers, these monitoring an estimated reduction of $39 million in
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:12 Jan 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JAR1.SGM 29JAR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_4005/page/1.svg)
![3988 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
reasonable specificity during the period petitioners dated February 8, 2016. In comments and EPA’s responses to those
for public comment can be raised during separate letters to the petitioners dated comments are included in the Summary
judicial review. Note, under CAA May 5, 2016, the Administrator denied of Public Comments and Responses on
section 307(b)(2), the requirements reconsideration of the equipment leak Proposed Rule, in the docket for this
established by this final rule may not be provisions for connectors and explained rulemaking (Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
challenged separately in any civil or the reasons for the denial in these 2012–0360).
criminal proceedings brought by the letters. These letters are available in the
III. Summary of Final Action on Issues
EPA to enforce these requirements. OSWRO NESHAP amendment
This section also provides a Reconsidered
rulemaking docket. The EPA also
mechanism for the EPA to reconsider published a Federal Register notice on This action finalizes the EPA’s
the rule ‘‘[i]f the person raising an May 16, 2016 (81 FR 30182), informing reconsideration and amendment of the
objection can demonstrate to the the public of these responses to the continuous monitoring requirements
Administrator that it was impracticable petition. that apply to PRDs on containers. This
to raise such objection within [the On May 18, 2015, ACC filed a petition issue is discussed in detail in the
period for public comment] or if the for judicial review of the OSWRO following sections of this preamble.
grounds for such objection arose after NESHAP RTR challenging numerous A. What is the history of OSWRO
the period for public comment (but provisions in the final rule, including monitoring requirements for PRDs on
within the time specified for judicial the issues identified in the petition for containers?
review) and if such objection is of administrative reconsideration.
central relevance to the outcome of the American Chemistry Council v. EPA, In the March 18, 2015, amendments to
rule.’’ Any person seeking to make such U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD, the EPA
a demonstration should submit a Case No. 15–1146. In 2016, the EPA and changed the compliance monitoring
Petition for Reconsideration to the ACC reached an agreement to resolve requirement for PRDs. Since the rule
Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, that case. Specifically, the parties agreed does not distinguish between PRDs on
Room 3000, EPA WJC West Building, to a settlement under which ACC agrees stationary process equipment and those
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, it will dismiss its petition for review of on containers, the monitoring
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to the 2015 final rule if the EPA requirements applied to all PRDs. These
both the person(s) listed in the reconsiders certain PRD provisions and revised compliance monitoring
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION signs a proposed and final rule in provisions included requirements to
CONTACT section, and the Associate accordance with an agreed-upon conduct additional PRD monitoring
General Counsel for the Air and schedule. The settlement agreement was continuously to identify a pressure
Radiation Law Office, Office of General finalized on June 15, 2017. release, to record the time and duration
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, As a result of our reconsideration, the of each pressure release and to notify
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Agency proposed and requested operators immediately when a pressure
Washington, DC 20460. comment on revised monitoring release occurs. The EPA received a
requirements for PRDs on containers in petition objecting to these additional
II. Background Information a notice of proposed rule continuous monitoring requirements for
On March 18, 2015, the EPA reconsideration published in the PRDs on containers and requesting
promulgated a final rule amending the Federal Register on August 7, 2017 (82 reconsideration. In 40 CFR part 63,
OSWRO NESHAP based on the RTR FR 36713). We received public subpart DD, containers are, by
conducted for the OSWRO source comments from seven parties. Copies of definition, portable units that hold
category (80 FR 14248). In that final all comments submitted are available at material. The petitioners’ concern was
rule, the EPA also amended the OSWRO the EPA Docket Center Public Reading that because containers are portable,
NESHAP to revise provisions related to Room. Comments are also available frequently moved around OSWRO
emissions during periods of startup, electronically through http:// facilities, and are received from many
shutdown, and malfunction; to add www.regulations.gov by searching different off-site locations, it would be
requirements for electronic reporting of Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– difficult, if not impossible, to design
performance testing; to add monitoring 0360. and implement a monitoring system for
requirements for PRDs; to revise routine In this document, the EPA is containers that would meet the 2015
maintenance provisions; to clarify finalizing the revised monitoring rule requirements. When the OSWRO
provisions for open-ended valves and requirements, as proposed in the August NESHAP were finalized in 2015, the
lines and for some performance test 7, 2017 (82 FR 36713), document. In EPA was not aware of equipment
methods and procedures; and to make addition, in this document we are meeting the definition of a PRD on
several minor clarifications and making one clerical correction and we containers in the OSWRO industry, and
corrections. After publication of the are clarifying the information needed to any potential issues associated with the
final rule, the EPA received a petition meet the reporting requirements in the PRD monitoring requirements were not
for reconsideration submitted jointly by event a PRD on a container releases considered for this equipment.
Eastman Chemical Company and the hazardous air pollutants (HAP) to the In response to the petition, the EPA
American Chemical Council (ACC) atmosphere. Section III of this preamble reevaluated the PRD monitoring
(dated May 18, 2015). This petition summarizes the history of OSWRO requirements in the 2015 rule as they
sought reconsideration of two of the monitoring requirements for PRDs on pertain to containers, considering the
amended provisions of the OSWRO containers, explains how the proposed other requirements that apply to
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
NESHAP: (1) The equipment leak and final regulatory language differs, containers and their PRDs, and the PRD
provisions for connectors, and (2) the summarizes key public comments data submitted to the EPA by ACC and
requirement to continuously monitor received on the proposed notice of the Environmental Technology Council
PRDs on containers. reconsideration, presents the EPA’s (ETC). Following this evaluation, on
The EPA considered the petition and responses to these comments, and August 7, 2017, we proposed to revise
granted reconsideration of the PRD explains our rationale for the rule the monitoring requirements to exclude
monitoring requirement in letters to the revisions published here. Additional PRDs on OSWRO containers from the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:12 Jan 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JAR1.SGM 29JAR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_4005/page/3.svg)
![3992 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
action present a disproportionate risk to action (Docket Document ID No. EPA– are not subject to the obligations in
children. The EPA’s risk assessments for HQ–OAR–2012–0360–0109). This final paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
the 2015 final rule (Docket ID No. EPA– action does not alter the conclusions * * * * *
HQ–OAR–2012–0360) demonstrate that made in the 2015 final rule regarding (ii) If any pressure relief device in off-
the current regulations are associated this analysis. site material service releases directly to
with an acceptable level of risk and the atmosphere as a result of a pressure
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
provide an ample margin of safety to release event, the owner or operator
protect public health and prevent This action is subject to the CRA, and must calculate the quantity of HAP
adverse environmental effects. This the EPA will submit a rule report to listed in Table 1 of this subpart released
final action does not alter those each House of the Congress and to the during each pressure release event and
conclusions. Comptroller General of the United report this quantity as required in
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ § 63.697(b)(5). Calculations may be
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Concerning Regulations That based on data from the pressure relief
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 device monitoring alone or in
Distribution, or Use Environmental protection, combination with process parameter
Administrative practice and procedures, monitoring data and process knowledge.
This action is not subject to Executive
Air pollution control, Hazardous For containers, the calculations may be
Order 13211 because it is not a
substances, Intergovernmental relations, based on process knowledge and
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Reporting and recordkeeping information alone.
requirements. * * * * *
J. National Technology Transfer and [FR Doc. 2018–01512 Filed 1–26–18; 8:45 am]
Advancement Act (NTTAA) Dated: January 18, 2018.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E. Scott Pruitt,
This rulemaking does not involve
Administrator.
technical standards.
For the reasons stated in the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal preamble, the Environmental Protection
Actions To Address Environmental Agency (EPA) is amending title 40, Bureau of Land Management
Justice in Minority Populations and chapter I, of the Code of Federal
Low-Income Populations Regulations (CFR) as follows: 43 CFR Part 3160
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION [LLWO310000 L13100000 PP0000 18X]
adverse human health or environmental STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR RIN 1004–AE51
effects on minority populations, low- POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
income populations, and/or indigenous CATEGORIES Onshore Oil and Gas Operations—
peoples, as specified in Executive Order Annual Civil Penalties Inflation
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). ■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 Adjustments
In the 2015 final rule, the EPA continues to read as follows:
determined that the current health risks Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,
posed by emissions from this source Interior.
category are acceptable and provide an Subpart DD—National Emission ACTION: Final rule.
ample margin of safety to protect public Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
health and prevent adverse from Off-Site Waste and Recovery SUMMARY: This final rule adjusts the
environmental effects. To gain a better Operations level of civil monetary penalties
understanding of the source category contained in the Bureau of Land
■ 2. Section 63.691 is amended by Management’s (BLM) regulations
and near source populations, the EPA revising paragraph (c)(3) introductory
conducted a proximity analysis for governing onshore oil and gas
text and paragraph (c)(3)(ii) to read as operations as required by the Federal
OSWRO facilities prior to proposal in follows:
2014 to identify any overrepresentation Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act
of minority, low income, or indigenous § 63.691 Standards: Equipment leaks. Improvements Act of 2015 and
populations. This analysis gave an consistent with applicable Office of
* * * * * Management and Budget (OMB)
indication of the prevalence of (c) * * *
subpopulations that might be exposed to (3) Pressure release management. guidance. The adjustments made by this
air pollution from the sources. We Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) final rule constitute the 2018 annual
revised this analysis to include four of this section, emissions of HAP listed inflation adjustments, accounting for
additional OSWRO facilities that the in Table 1 of this subpart may not be one year of inflation spanning the
EPA learned about after proposal for the discharged directly to the atmosphere period from October 2016 through
2015 rule. The EPA determined that the from pressure relief devices in off-site October 2017.
final rule would not have material service, and according to the DATES: This rule is effective on January
disproportionately high and adverse date an affected source commenced 29, 2018.
human health or environmental effects construction or reconstruction and the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
on minority, low income, or indigenous date an affected source receives off-site Steven Wells, Division Chief, Fluid
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
populations. The revised proximity material for the first time, as established Minerals Division, 202–912–7143, for
analysis results and the details in § 63.680(e)(1)(i) through (iii), the information regarding the BLM’s Fluid
concerning its development are owner or operator must comply with the Minerals Program. For questions
presented in the memorandum titled, requirements specified in paragraphs relating to regulatory process issues,
Updated Environmental Justice Review: (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section for all please contact Jennifer Noe, Division of
Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations pressure relief devices in off-site Regulatory Affairs, at 202–912–7442.
RTR, available in the docket for this material service, except that containers Persons who use a telecommunications
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:12 Jan 26, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JAR1.SGM 29JAR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_4005/page/7.svg)
Document Created: 2018-01-27 00:57:38
Document Modified: 2018-01-27 00:57:38
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule; notification of final action on reconsideration. | |
| Dates | This final action is effective on January 29, 2018. | |
| 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; | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 3986 | |
| RIN Number | 2060-AT48 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Administrative Practice and Procedures; Air Pollution Control; Hazardous Substances; Intergovernmental Relations and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR