Response 4.3: The ERT website is kept up-to-date with the list of methods that are supported by the ERT. The ERT versions after September 17, 2012 automatically check for updated versions and notify the user of the need to replace the ERT application. Additionally, if the facilities wish, the EPA recommends joining the CHIEF listserv, which one can do by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to be notified of enhancements made to the ERT. Additionally, the test method dropdown box in the ERT contains a finite list of methods supported by the ERT. By using the latest version of the ERT, the facility will know from the dropdown box which methods are supported.Comment 4.4: Commenter 61 comments that under the proposed rule 40 CFR 63.697(a)(3)(i), all performance test reports must be submitted to the ERT within 60 days, but because the rule does not reference the general provisions 40 CFR 63.10(d)(2), there is no allowance for obtaining additional time to complete this due to unforeseen circumstances or for the difficulties involved with completing particularly complex reports.Response 4.4: The commenter is incorrect that 40 CFR 63.10(d)(2) is not currently applicable to Part 63 Subpart DD. Table 2 to Subpart DD clearly indicates that 63.10(d)(2) applies to Subpart DD. The Administrator may approve additional time for a facility to submit the results of its performance tests as allowed under 40 CFR 63.10(d)(2); however, the EPA does not anticipate that additional time will be needed for facilities to submit performance tests due to the requirement to use the ERT, as the ERT is fully functional and has been used successfully by industry for several years. 5.0	Equipment Leak Provisions5.1	Open Ended Line ProvisionsComment 5.1.1: Commenter 58 commented that although the proposed language requires "no instrument reading of 500 parts per million or greater," there is not a proposed requirement to monitor the cap, blind flange, plug or second valve. The commenter adds that these components are not usually in regulated material service if there is a closed valve upstream, and therefore regulated sources would not typically monitor these components. Response 5.1.1: Open-ended lines and valves are equipment which require the proper installation and use of caps, blind flanges, plugs and second valves to seal the OEL to prevent leaks. However, the EPA does agree with the commenter that monitoring of OELs is not currently required by the LDAR provisions of the OSWRO NESHAP.Comment 5.1.2:  Commenters (60 and 61) state that while there are no proposed monitoring requirements in the rule, facilities will need to establish their own monitoring program and schedule for OELs without any assurance that their individual program or schedule would be considered to be in compliance by an EPA inspector. Commenter 58 adds that if the intent is to require routine monitoring of these components, rule changes are needed to add time periods for completion of repairs. Commenters (58 and 61) contend that if the EPA does intend to require periodic monitoring, such monitoring rules must be clearly proposed in a second rulemaking with a public comment period.  Commenter 61 states that the EPA did not develop any cost estimates or impacts on the regulated community resulting from the proposed definition of "seal." However, the commenter states that facilities will need to develop monitoring plans and regularly monitor OEL seals to ensure they have instrument readings below 500 ppm, which will require capital costs including identifying, tagging and updating software systems for OEL seals. Response 5.1.2: The EPA is not imposing monitoring requirements for OELs. There are no additional costs associated with the clarification concerning "sealed" OEL. We also disagree with the commenters that the EPA is requiring facilities to regularly monitor their OELs, and thus incur capital and annual costs. The requirement that OELs be sealed is not a new standard and there is no requirement in any of the LDAR requirements for this source category that requires facilities to monitor their OELs on a regular basis. Comment 5.1.3: Commenter 61 notes that if the EPA revises the definition of "seal" for the OSWRO NESHAP, then it will also need to propose changes to subpart H at 40 CFR 63.167 to include the proposed emission limit of 500 ppm for OELs. The commenter adds that the EPA must update Method 21 to account for accurate OEL monitoring.Response 5.1.3: It was the EPA's intent that the clarification of the term "seal" would apply to all OELs in off-site material service, regardless of whether the facility complies with the LDAR requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V. As such, we have revised the equipment leak requirements in 40 CFR 63.691(b)(1)(iii) and (iv) to clarify that the term "seal" applies to OSWRO facilities complying with either subpart H or subpart V. With regard to the commenter's suggestion to update Method 21, we note that Method 21 states that it is "applicable for the determination of VOC leaks from process equipment" and lists several examples of equipment comparable to OELs, in terms of potential sources of equipment leaks, which can be monitored with the method. In fact, sections 8.3.1 and <IP_ADDRESS> of the method describe how to take a sample from an open-ended line or valve. The final OSWRO rule does not impose monitoring requirements for OELs; however, if a facility chooses to monitor OELs, Method 21 is an appropriate monitoring method for those devices, and there is no need to amend it for this purpose.  40 CFR 63.8(f) is also available for a facility owner or operator seeking approval of a modification to a monitoring method5.2	Pressure Relief Device ProvisionsComment 5.2.1: Commenter 58 states that the proposed monitoring requirements for PRDs should not be applied to containers because they would not be practical to implement, considering that containers are portable, are moved frequently, and are received from a number of off-site locations. Response 5.2.1: We believe the PRD monitoring requirements are necessary for all PRDs to enable operators to identify and minimize emissions from pressure release events. We note that many OSWRO containers do not have PRDs and that, by definition, devices that are actuated either by a pressure of less than or equal to 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) or by a vacuum are not PRDs.Comment 5.2.2: Commenter 58 states that the EPA should continue to include parameter monitoring systems as options for PRD monitoring systems, but should add specific examples of parameter monitoring systems in the rule language, such as a flow monitor or pressure monitor, to the examples of applicable PRD monitoring systems in 40 CFR 63.691(c)(3)(i). Response 5.2.2: We agree with the commenter that examples of parameter monitoring systems could be provided in addition to the direct monitoring device examples listed in the proposed language, and we have revised the final rule accordingly to improve the clarity of the PRD monitoring requirements.Comment 5.2.3: Commenters (61, 64, 67) dispute the EPA's analysis of the costs to comply with PRD monitoring requirements. Commenter 61 asserts that a legally required parametric monitoring system imposes burdens that the industry does not incur for a parametric monitoring system that is installed for process control, such as data quality evaluation and reporting efforts. Commenter 67 states that the EPA underestimated the costs of installing monitoring devices on PRDs. The commenter disagrees with the use of the "six-tenths rule" to account for economies of scale, and states that any actual economies of scale would depend on regional cost factors and overall demand for the product. The commenter states that the EPA justifies the use of the six-tenths rule based on a reference to the 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Final report; however, the SCAQMD does not mention the six-tenths rule and only makes a general reference to economies of scale. Commenter 64 states that the costs of implementing the proposed amendments are significantly greater than the EPA's estimate and that the EPA's cost analysis did not include costs for purchasing, installing, and maintaining PRD monitoring devices or the costs associated with designing, constructing and maintaining a closed vent system and control device..Further, the commenter states that based on a web search they have been unsuccessful in finding any currently available monitoring devices for PRDs that would satisfy the requirements of the proposed amendments, and expresses concern that there is an unknown cost for obtaining, operating, and maintaining PRD indicator devices. The commenter states that PRD monitoring devices are not currently used at OSWRO facilities and the availability, reliability and accuracy of these devices is unknown.Response 5.2.3: The EPA disagrees that PRD monitoring costs have been underestimated. The estimated costs to purchase and install PRD monitors were based on the best information available, which was data from the SCAQMD, and the costs considered included the cost to purchase the device, and installation and maintenance costs. We also accounted for the costs associated with recordkeeping and reporting of PRD data in the analyses for the information collection request for this rulemaking. As the rule does not require PRDs to be vented to a control device, no costs associated with doing so were included. In addition, we note that costs were adjusted to account for economies of scale using the six-tenths rule, which is a general cost estimating technique that has long been used by engineers in industries with processes similar to those regulated by the OSWRO NESHAP, such as the chemical and petroleum industries. More information about the six-tenths rule can be found in engineering and industrial cost estimation literature. Furthermore, as an owner or operator may be able to use parameter monitoring systems already in place, we believe our cost estimate, which assumed the installation of electronic indicators on each relief device that vents to the atmosphere, likely overstates actual costs to the industry. Several types of electronic monitoring devices that could be used for PRDs were discussed in the 2007 SCAQMD Final Report referenced and made available with the proposed rule in the memorandum entitled Cost Impacts of Pressure Relief Device Monitoring for the Off-site Waste and Recovery Operations Source Category, available in the docket for this action. Also, these devices have been required for refineries in the SCAQMD since 2009, and we are not aware of any issues with availability, reliability or accuracy of the devices used.  Comment 5.2.4: Commenter 61 cites the EPA's statements that PRD releases are caused by malfunctions and that the EPA is not required to establish separate standards for malfunctions and it is too difficult to do so. The commenter asserts that a PRD release is unique in that the "release" is an inherent function of the device, and therefore a work practice standard or a numerical emissions limit could be established. The commenter believes the EPA could have considered data submitted by the commenter along with available data to determine whether it may be feasible to group PRDs with process vents and propose a numerical emission standard under CAA section 112(d)(3). Alternatively, the commenter states the EPA could have established a work practice standard for PRD releases pursuant to its authority under CAA section 112(h). The commenter urges the EPA to consider either of these approaches. Similarly, commenter 69 advises the EPA to set work practice standards under the authority of CAA section 112(h), instead of establishing a numeric standard under CAA section 112(d).Response 5.2.4: We disagree with the commenters. The releases are related to process upsets or other malfunctions that require the release of pressure to avoid damage to equipment and to prevent harm to personnel at the facility. Such releases at OSWRO facilities are not routine, are unpredictable in nature, and are considered to be caused by malfunctions (e.g., poor design, improper maintenance, or operational error) or other occurrences that do not justify an exemption from standards that, under the CAA, apply continuously. The commenter has also failed to establish that the criteria for setting a work practice had been met, and as we explained in the preamble, it is impracticable to establish work practices or other alternative standards to manage these events in this source category, and CAA section 112 does not require that we do so. Comment 5.2.5: Commenter 58 suggests that the EPA clarify throughout the final rule that opening of a safety device is acceptable to prevent physical damage or permanent deformation of equipment. The commenter states that the EPA should not remove the option to comply with the provisions that allow for opening of a safety device to avoid an unsafe condition from the requirements for tanks, containers and transfer systems. The commenter suggests revisions to the requirements for tanks, containers, transfer systems, and PRD to clarify that a release from a safety device to prevent unsafe conditions is acceptable, and to record such releases and identify them as a deviation in the next Title V report. The commenter argues that ASME Section 8 Division 1 and 2 and API #620 and 650 vessel construction codes, DOT regulations such as in 49 CFR 178 and 179, and ASME/ANSI piping codes require that PRD operate when the maximum allowable working pressure is reached for tanks, containers and transfer systems, respectively. The commenter further states that the definition of "safety device" should not be deleted from 40 CFR 63.681. Response 5.2.5: We disagree with the commenter that the definition of "safety device" should not be deleted from the OSWRO NESHAP and that releases from such devices to the atmosphere should be allowed. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, "To our knowledge, pressure relief devices or valves are the only safety devices used in OSWRO processes." The commenter has not provided any information to suggest there are safety devices at OSWRO facilities that are not PRDs. Further, as explained in the preamble to the proposed and final rule, we are finalizing the proposed prohibition of HAP emission releases to the atmosphere from PRDs in off-site material gas or vapor service in order for our treatment of malfunction-caused pressure releases to the atmosphere to conform with the reasoning of the Court's 2008 Sierra Club v. EPA ruling.Comment 5.2.6: Commenter 64 states that the installation of monitoring devices on PRDs and the venting of PRDs to a control device would require a modification to their Hazardous Waste and Title V operating permits, and requests a transition period to allow a currently operating facility to obtain a permit modification prior to the effective date of the new standard.Response 5.2.6:  The final rule requires that PRDs be monitored, unless they are vented to a control device, within three years of the publication date of the rule. We believe this amount of time is adequate to allow facilities to research equipment and vendors, and to purchase, install, test and properly operate any necessary equipment. We also believe that three years is an ample amount of time to accomplish any necessary permit revisions. In addition, we note that facilities must be in compliance with the new requirements by the compliance date, regardless of whether the operating permit has been updated by that date. 5.3	Compliance with 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart H, Including Connector Monitoring ProvisionsComment 5.3.1: Commenter 61 notes that contrary to the preamble, which states that the EPA is proposing to eliminate the option of complying with 40 CFR part 61 subpart V and require facilities to comply with 40 CFR part 63 subpart H, the actual proposed revisions to the rule text in 40 CFR 63.691(b) continue to allow compliance with subpart V. Response 5.3.1: The EPA agrees with the commenter and we have corrected this inadvertent error by revising the regulatory text to eliminate the option to comply with 40 CFR part 61 subpart V. 6.0	Tank ProvisionsComment 6.1: Commenter 66 supports the EPA's conclusion that tank control requirements under Option 2 (98 percent control) are not cost effective and that the existing HAP control Option 1 (95 percent control) should remain in place for the tanks already subject to this control level.   Response 6.1: We acknowledge the commenter's support for the existing 95 percent control requirement for level 2 tanks, and agree that 98 percent control was not determined to be cost effective.   Comment 6.2: Commenter 66 states that the EPA underestimated the number of facilities that would be affected by the proposed amendments to the vapor pressure thresholds for tank control level. The commenter states that based on its member facilities, there are at least 34 tanks at six facilities that would be impacted by the proposed amendments, and a significant number of facilities that are not associated with the commenter that would also be affected. The commenter also believes there are a significant number of facilities that are near the major source threshold that may become subject to the OSWRO MACT if they expand or change the types of materials they manage, and the EPA should consider these facilities in its impacts analysis.Response 6.2: The commenter did not provide sufficient information to support the claim that we underestimated the number of tanks or facilities in our analysis. In addition, we note that CAA section 114 questionnaires were sent to several of the commenter's member companies in 2013, and the responses received from them documented each OSWRO tank at each facility, with its size and the average vapor pressure of the tank contents. These data showed that none of the commenter's member responding companies had uncontrolled tanks of the size and vapor pressure range that would be impacted by the tank standards. The commenter also did not provide documentation to support the claim that there are tanks at other facilities that would be affected by the tank standards nor the claim that there is a planned or impending change in status at any facility that would result in that facility becoming a major source subject to the OSWRO NESHAP. Therefore, we have not revised our analysis to include additional tanks or facilities. 7.0	Control Device, Performance Testing, and Monitoring ProvisionsComment 7.1: Commenter 63 states that the EPA has not adequately supported the conclusion that bypass of control devices during maintenance for up to 240 hours per year should be allowed. The commenter notes the EPA's statement that degassing the tank would release nearly all of the pollution coming from the tank. Response 7.1: As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule at 79 FR 37877, the existing OSWRO NESHAP at 63.693(b)(3)(i) allowed control devices to be bypassed for routine maintenance for up to 240 hours per year, under certain conditions.  This existing provision was not limited to control devices for tank emissions.  In this rulemaking, we proposed to limit the applicability of the provision to tanks routing emissions to a control device, consistent with the rationale provided in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON). We did not reopen the existing provision for comment, other than to propose limiting it to tanks. The commenter did not state any opposition to our limiting the provision to tanks, and we are finalizing it as proposed.  We note that without this provision, facilities would instead need to degas the tank to conduct routine maintenance. The HAP emissions that would result from degassing the tank would be greater than the emissions that would result from the tank with its emissions bypassing a control device for a short period of time during routine maintenance. Other than paraphrasing a statement from the preamble, the commenter did not make any objections to EPA's analysis.  Therefore, we are finalizing the limitation on the routine maintenance provision in the OSWRO NESHAP to apply only to tanks routing emissions to a control device, consistent with the rationale provided in the HON.Comment 7.2: Commenter 65 requests that EPA include container repackaging emissions in the 240 hour routine maintenance exemption to bypass a control device in 40 CFR 693(b)(3)(i). The commenter asserts that emissions from these operations are not significant (less than 200 pounds VOC per year at one member facility) and operational/revenue losses would be greater than any environmental benefit. Response 7.2: The EPA disagrees that container repackaging operations should be included in the 240 hour routine maintenance provision. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule in 79 FR 37811, we have not identified a basis for applying the routine maintenance provision in the OSWRO NESHAP to emission points other than tanks. We did not conclude that emissions during routine maintenance are "not significant." Rather, we stated that HAP emissions that would result from degassing the tank would be greater than the emissions that would result from the tank with its emissions bypassing a control device for a short period of time during routine maintenance. Note that for storage tanks, it is impossible to "not operate" (i.e., "shutdown" as provided in 63.693(b)(3)(i) so as not to have breathing losses) during a period of time in which a control device would be undergoing routine maintenance, unless the tank is emptied and degassed. In contrast, container repackaging operations can be scheduled or delayed until such time as the routine maintenance is completed and the control device is again operating.Comment 7.3: Commenter 64 requests clarification on the OSWRO applicability of hazardous waste incineration units that are already subject to the Hazardous Waste Combustor NESHAP (40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE). The commenter references the EPA's discussion in the preamble related to distinguishing OSWRO from other source categories (79 FR 37852), and suggests that the OSWRO NESHAP does not apply to hazardous waste incinerators as these units are already regulated by a separate NESHAP.Commenter 58 states that the EPA should add to the proposed OSWRO requirements in 40 CFR 63.684(b)(5)(v) and 40 CFR 63.693(g)(1)(v) the option to comply with 40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD (Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP) when burning natural gas and/or non-hazardous waste. Response 7.3: The EPA notes that the off-site material treatment standards for incinerators in 40 CFR 63.684(b)(5) do not include additional requirements pertaining to the operation of incinerators, but rather requires that if an incinerator will be used to comply with the OSWRO NESHAP, it must meet the requirements of one of the regulations listed in that paragraph. As part of this rulemaking, we have updated the list of regulations to include incinerators, boilers or industrial furnaces for which the owner or operator complies with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE.The EPA disagrees that the Subpart DDDDD Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP should be a compliance option in the control device provisions for boilers and process heaters or the offsite material treatment provisions for incinerators in the OSWRO NESHAP. These OSWRO provisions require compliance with the RCRA requirements for incinerators in 40 CFR part 264, part 265 or part 266 or with the option we are adding in this action to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. The subpart EEE and RCRA standards specify requirements for units that combust hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR 261.3, and are therefore appropriate for the OSWRO NESHAP, which regulates the management and treatment of certain types of waste that contain HAP, including many types of waste classified as hazardous. The Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP does not apply to a unit that burns hazardous waste (unless the unit is exempt from subpart EEE). We believe this standard would also be insufficient for units that burn non-hazardous off-site materials, as such materials are likely to be more toxic than the types of materials burned in incinerators regulated by the Boiler and Process Heaters NESHAP. In addition, a provision allowing for the use of separate requirements for units that only burn non-hazardous offsite materials or allowing for separate requirements only at times when the unit is burning non-off-site or non-hazardous materials (e.g., natural gas), would make the requirements of the OSWRO NESHAP difficult to implement and impractical to enforce, especially considering the myriad types of wastes regulated by the NESHAP. Comment 7.4: Commenters (58 and 61) state that the EPA should include "high point bleeds" in the list of equipment in 40 CFR 63.693(c)(2)(iii) that is exempt from the requirement to install flow indicators or seals or locking devices on control device bypass lines. The commenters assert that high point bleeds may be necessary on an intermittent basis to alleviate a potential flow restriction and safety concern. Further, both commenters state that open-ended valves and lines in emergency shutdown systems should be exempt from the flow indicator or seal or locking device requirements because the valve must quickly change position if an unexpected shutdown occurs, and a seal or locking device would prevent this movement. Response 7.4: As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule in 79 FR 37878, we are prohibiting bypasses that divert a process vent or closed vent system stream to the atmosphere to ensure the OSWRO NESHAP is consistent with the 2008 Sierra Club v. EPA ruling., A discharge of HAP to the atmosphere from a high point bleed is considered a bypass that is a deviation, as provided in 40 CFR 63.683(f)(4)(ii). Bypass devices are required to be equipped with either a flow indicator or a seal or locking device, and are subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.696(j)(2) and 40 CFR 63.697(b)(6). We are also requiring that open-ended valves and lines in emergency shutdown systems follow the requirements for bypass devices that could be used to divert a vent stream from the closed-vent system to the atmosphere. If a seal or locking device cannot be installed on such bypass devices, as suggested by the commenter, the owner or operator can alternatively install a flow indicator, which does not restrict the valve from quickly changing position, and must keep records of each release and report any deviations as specified in the proposed standard. Comment 7.5: Commenter 58 states that the proposed requirement for control device performance tests in 40 CFR 63.694(l) to "include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation" is redundant to the requirement that performance tests "shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the affected source for the period being tested" and will require additional agency action in approving a performance test plan. The commenter suggests that the EPA delete the phrase that states the Administrator will specify performance test conditions. Response 7.5: The EPA agrees with the commenter, and the final rule has been revised to more simply indicate that performance tests must be conducted under conditions of normal operation. Comment 7.6: Commenter 58 requests that the EPA allow for unusual circumstances during performance tests where limitations of the equipment or plant operation prevent the test from being completed. The commenter suggests adding the sentence "Exceptions to this may be approved on a case by case basis and should be approved during a pretest meeting or prior to the actual compliance testing" after each paragraph that specifies minimum testing requirements, including 40 CFR 63.694(f)(1), (i)(1), (l)(3)(i), (l)(4)(i) and (m)(4)(ii)(A). Response 7.6: The EPA disagrees that the language suggested by the commenter should be included in the OSWRO NESHAP test method requirements. The performance test notification requirements of 40 CFR 63.7 provide a notification and approval process for the instances mentioned by the commenter. In addition to the reference to 40 CFR 63.7 contained in 40 CFR 63.697(b)(1), we have corrected an error in the General Provisions applicability table, Table 2 to subpart DD, to indicate clearly that the provisions of 40 CFR 63.7(b) and (c) and 40 CFR 63.9(e), which are the performance test notification requirements, apply for subpart DD. The performance test notification requirements in 40 CFR 63.7, require that the source notify the Administrator 60 days before the date of the performance test to allow the Administrator, upon request, to review and approve a site-specific test plan, and the Administrator has 30 days to approve or deny this site-specific test plan. In the event that there are unusual circumstances that prevent the specified performance test methods and procedures required by the OSWRO NESHAP from being undertaken, as suggested by the commenter, any such differences should be submitted in the site specific test plan for approval by the Administrator. Comment 7.7: Commenter 57 states that in the semiannual reporting requirements for control device monitoring deviations in 40 CFR 63.697(b)(4), the EPA mistakenly omitted a reference to 40 CFR 63.683(f), which identifies additional proposed deviations.Response 7.7: The EPA has corrected the identified error in the final rule.8.0	Other CommentsComment 8.1: Commenters (59, 63) support the EPA's proposal of additional measures, including more stringent provisions for certain tanks and more stringent LDAR requirements. Commenter 59 encourages EPA to include these additional provisions in the final rule. Commenter 63 further supports the EPA's actions to collect additional emissions and pollution control data for the OSWRO source category, remove SSM emissions exemptions, prohibit releases of emissions from PRD, clarify the definition of seal, and add PRD monitoring requirements.Response 8.1:  We acknowledge the commenters' support for the EPA's proposed rule requirements. Comment 8.2: Commenter 58 requests that the EPA allow OSWRO facilities that in the past accepted but are not currently accepting off-site waste a one year period to implement the provisions of the final rule from the date that they again accept off-site waste. The commenter states that the one year extension should apply to facilities (the commenter has one such facility) that begin accepting off-site waste again after the compliance dates for the new requirements (i.e., 2016 for LDAR requirements, 2017 for tanks, and 2018 for PRD monitoring). The commenter argues that this provision would allow the facility to incorporate the new compliance requirements into their planning to again receive off-site waste and would align with the flexibility provided in the MACT rules that allow for a one year compliance extension. Response 8.2: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that a one year compliance extension should be provided in the rule for OSWRO facilities that currently are not but will begin receiving offsite waste again after the compliance dates for the new requirements. We are uncertain what the commenter means in alluding to unspecified MACT rules that supposedly provide for such flexibility.  The General Provisions, as referenced by the OSWRO NESHAP in Table 2 to subpart DD of part 63, allow a facility owner or operator to apply for a one year compliance extension for the installation of controls under 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(i)(A).  We note that the commenter's submission does not demonstrate that an additional year beyond the compliance dates provided in the rule is necessary for any OSWRO facility to comply with the revised standards in these situations. Comment 8.3: Commenter 58 recommends that the EPA clarify the applicability language in 40 CFR 63.680(g)(1) to exclude facilities from complying with OSWRO requirements when the facility is not in off-site material service. The commenter also requests that the EPA revise the applicability of the language that identifies control device deviations as a violation in §63.695(e)(5) to exclude facilities that are not in OSWRO off-site material service. The commenter states that it has a facility that receives off-site waste infrequently and is used as a backup facility in case the primary facilities that receive off-site waste experience an unplanned shutdown. The commenter states that the facility would be subject to RCRA Subpart BB and CC regulations and would continue to comply with RCRA air permit conditions during these operating scenarios. Response 8.3: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that affected sources or portions of sources should be excluded from OSWRO emission limitations during periods that they are not managing off-site waste. We believe that such a provision would make the requirements of the NESHAP difficult for facility personnel to implement and would limit the ability of enforcement and compliance personnel to ensure that the maximum achievable emission reductions required by the standards are achieved and maintained. Such a provision would make the standard especially difficult to implement and enforce in instances where the source receives and manages both on-site and off-site material. In such cases, compliance and facility personnel would have difficulty in the determination of when the OSWRO NESHAP would and would not apply and which equipment would be subject to its requirements. Comment 8.4: Commenter 58 states that there is an incorrect reference in 40 CFR 63.685(c)(2)(iii)(B); the reference to 40 CFR part 67 subpart OO should be 40 CFR part 63 subpart OO.  The commenter also states that in 40 CFR 63.683 (c)(1)(ii), the VOHAP concentration is missing and 500 ppmw should be inserted. Response 8.4: The EPA has corrected the identified errors in the final rule. Comment 8.5: Commenter 64 states that the wording in 40 CFR 63.685(g)(2) is confusing and should be revised for clarification.Response 8.5: The EPA agrees with the commenter, and the final rule has been revised to clarify the requirements of 40 CFR 63.685(g)(2).Comment 8.6: Commenter 63 asserts the EPA must prohibit routine flaring, set a cap to limit special flaring, ensure its efficiency and monitor flaring. The commenter states that the EPA must update the standards to assure that flares follow the practices recommended by EPA's 2012 peer-reviewed study  -  Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares  -  and which the EPA is proposing to do for other source categories, since such flares can be used and the EPA is aware of at least one such use. The commenter claims that the changes in flaring use and knowledge about flaring are developments that must be considered under CAA section 112(d)(6) and that flares without proper limits violates National Lime Association. The commenter argues that EPA must at least investigate whether there are uncontrolled HAP emissions from OSWRO flares and set limits for them. The commenter further states that the EPA has provided no valid basis to distinguish between flares at facilities like refineries and chemical plants and the sources under review here, and the EPA must take action to apply the new data on flaring in this rulemaking. Considering the new information the EPA now has that flares are less efficient than previously understood, the EPA should consider prohibiting the use of flaring, ensure less reliance on flaring, requiring flare gas recovery systems, requiring improved flare monitoring and ensuring the proper operating parameters are set. The commenter also notes that there is evidence that reduced flaring saves money by capturing and rerouting hydrocarbons for reprocessing and use. Response 8.6: Based on information currently available to the EPA, we do not agree with the commenter that flaring must be limited as a control option or that the EPA must update the OSWRO NESHAP to assure that flares follow the practices recommended by EPA's 2012 peer-reviewed study  -  Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares (the "Flare Study").  Responses to the CAA section 114 questionnaire from OSWRO sources indicate that flares are not commonly used as control devices for this source category, and we know of only one facility in this source category that uses a single flare as a primary control device in order to comply with the OSWRO NESHAP. This single flare is a non-assisted flare, and the combustion takes place in a partial enclosure at ground level. This is not typical of the elevated flare designs in the Flare Study. As indicated in the Flare Study, one of the primary factors that affects flare performance is over-assisting flares with too much steam or air, and while this can potentially occur in steam-assisted and air-assisted flare designs, non-assisted flare types do not have a potential to over-assist. We have no information to suggest that the non-assisted flares at OSWRO sources are achieving poor destruction efficiency. In addition, none of the flare performance data used in the study comes from OSWRO sources. While the commenter asserts that the EPA must apply the "new data" on flaring in this rulemaking, the commenter did not identify any specific new data that should be applied or demonstrate that any such data are relevant to the OSWRO source category. The EPA also requested information regarding flares in the preamble to the proposed rule including: "Frequency of flaring; number and types of flares used; waste gas characteristics such as flow rate, composition and heat content; assist gas characteristics such as target assist gas to waste gas ratios and minimum assist gas flow rates; use of flare gas recovery and other flare minimization practices; and existing flare monitoring systems." We did not receive any comments with additional information responsive to this request.Regarding the issue of banning routine flaring, we note that flare minimization has been required in NSPS Ja for Petroleum Refinery flares, but even in this standard, we did not find it practicable to ban routine flaring or to set a hard cap. Instead, we required owners and operators to assess measures to minimize waste gas flaring, monitor flare gas flows, and conduct root cause analyses for events exceeding baseline flows. We recognized that owners and operators must have the ability to account for site specific factors regarding the amount of waste gas flared, the ability to recover waste gas and offset natural gas purchases, and other considerations that precluded setting a hard one-size-fits-all limit for all refinery flares. We would similarly not consider setting a hard limit for OSWRO flares, and because of the very limited use of flaring in the OSWRO source category, we would not consider requiring similar flare gas minimization measures.We also disagree with the commenter's allegation that the OSWRO NESHAP fails to establish HAP limits for flares and that the EPA must investigate whether there are uncontrolled HAP emissions from OSWRO flares and set limits for them. We believe the commenter does not understand the emission sources for which we established MACT standards in the NESHAP. The HAP emission limits apply to the OSWRO emission points, such as tanks, process vents, etc., and the flare is one type of control technology that may be used to meet those limits. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the existing OSWRO MACT rule provides that OSWRO sources may choose from a variety of control techniques with a 95-percent HAP destruction efficiency or a flare to control emissions from this source category. Flares are expected to achieve 98 percent HAP destruction efficiency when designed and operated according to the requirements in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63. The OSWRO MACT at 40 CFR 63.693(h)(1) requires compliance with the General Provisions flare requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b) which provides that flares used for compliance be: (1) steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted; (2) operated at all times when emissions may be vented to them; (3) designed for and operated with no visible emissions (except for periods not to exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours); and (4) operated with the presence of a pilot flame at all times (using a thermocouple or other heat sensing device and record for each 1-hour period as required by the OSWRO MACT at 63.683(h) that the pilot flame is continuously present). The General Provisions also specify requirements for both the minimum heat content of gas combusted in the flare and maximum exit velocity at the flare tip. The OSWRO MACT then requires that a compliance demonstration be conducted by the owner/operator to demonstrate all flare requirements are met. The single flare at the one facility in the OSWRO source category is currently subject to the flare requirements in the General Provisions summarized above. The facility reported a 98 percent HAP destruction efficiency for the flare in its CAA section 114 response, which is included in the docket for this rulemaking. We also disagree with the statement that there is no valid basis to distinguish between flares at facilities like refineries and chemical plants and OSWRO sources. For flares in the OSWRO source category, the EPA has made no determination of insufficient regulatory requirements or poor operational performance. The EPA has proposed to update flare requirements for one source category, petroleum refineries, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), to ensure compliance with the 98 percent HAP reduction requirement in the refinery MACT standards. As discussed in the refineries proposal preamble, the potential for reduced flare performance is attributable to flare minimization efforts at refineries (79 FR 36905, June 30, 2014), which have led to an increasing number of flares operating at well below their design capacities. This minimization effort has resulted in reduced flaring of gases at refineries, and thus, has also resulted in over assisting the flare with steam or air at some refinery flares, leading to the degradation of flare combustion efficiency. As discussed in the refineries proposal preamble, for the 510 flares in the refinery source category, 90 percent are steam-assisted or air-assisted flares. We disagree with the commenter that we should amend the operating requirements for flares in the OSWRO source category, and we are not at this time promulgating any changes to the currently applicable regulations pertaining to the performance of flares for this source category. Comment 8.7: Commenter 63 states that the EPA should create a community complaint mechanism that ensures citizen complaints concerning air pollution receive an immediate response, in which the EPA commits to initiate an investigation and provide a publicly available report of the investigation results, including whether it leads to an enforcement action, within 7 days.Response 8.7: The EPA takes citizen pollution complaints seriously and is committed to responding to complaints. We invite the public to help us protect our nation's environment by identifying and reporting environmental violations. The EPA's Report an Environmental Violation website provides a way for the public to report suspected environmental violations. (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/complaints/moreinfor.html)
      Assuring compliance with our nation's environmental laws is one of EPA's primary commitments. In carrying out this responsibility, we use many different approaches. One approach is to seek help from the public by asking it to provide EPA with information about potentially harmful environmental activities in communities and workplaces. Reports from the public have led to state and federal enforcement cases and ultimately served environmental protection well.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 75 (Friday, April 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 21427]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08157]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-1537-000]

RE Mustang Two Barbaro LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced RE Mustang
Two Barbaro LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 4, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 13, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08157 Filed 4-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22116]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09202]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories

CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 63, Sec. Sec.
63.1 to 63.599, revised as of July 1, 2014, on page 478, in Sec.
63.343, paragraph (c)(5)(ii) is correctly revised to read as follows:

Sec.  63.343  Compliance provisions. [Corrected]

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
required to be completed under Sec.  63.7, the owner or operator of an
affected source shall monitor the surface tension of the electroplating
or anodizing bath. Operation of the affected source at a surface
tension greater than the value established during the performance test,
or greater than 40 dynes/cm, as measured by a stalagmometer, or 33
dynes/cm, as measured by a tensiometer, if the owner or operator is
using this value in accordance with paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this
section, shall constitute noncompliance with the standards. The surface
tension shall be monitored according to the following schedule:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-09202 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62594-62595]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24512]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Drone Advisory Committee: Notice of Solicitation of Nominations
for Appointment to the Newly Proposed Advanced Aviation Advisory
Committee (AAAC)--Previously Known as Drone Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Solicitation of nominations for appointment to the Advanced
Aviation Advisory Committee (AAAC).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces a solicitation for nominations for
membership on the Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee (AAAC)--
previously known as Drone Advisory Committee. This solicitation
supersedes the previous Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to
the Drone Advisory Committee published June 18, 2020.

DATES: Nominations must be received no later than 6:00 p.m. Eastern
Time on January 10, 2022. Nominations received after the above due date
may be retained for evaluation for future AAAC vacancies after all
other nominations received by the due date have been evaluated and
considered.

ADDRESSES: Nominations can be submitted electronically (by email) to
Kamisha Walker in the FAA's UAS Integration Office, at
[email protected]. The subject line should state ``2022 AAAC
Nomination.'' The body of the email must contain content or attachments
that address all requirements as specified in the below ``Materials to
Submit'' section. Incomplete/partial submittals as well as those that
exceed the specified document length may not be considered for
evaluation. An email confirmation from the FAA will be sent upon
receipt of all complete nominations that meet the criteria in the
``Materials to Submit'' section. Anyone wishing to submit an
application by paper may do so by contacting Kamisha Walker at
[email protected] or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. The FAA will notify
those appointed by the Secretary to serve on the AAAC in writing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kamisha Walker at
[email protected] or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Additional
information on the AAAC, including the current roster, charter, and
previous meeting minutes may be found at: https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/advanced_aviation_advisory_committee/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The AAAC is an advisory committee established under DOT's
authority, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) as amended, Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
The objective of the AAAC is to provide independent advice and
recommendations to the FAA and in response to specific taskings
received directly from the FAA. The advice, recommendations, and
taskings relate to improving the efficiency and safety of integrating
advanced aviation technologies--including unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS) and advanced air mobility (AAM), into the National Airspace
System (NAS)--while equipping and enabling communities to inform how
UAS, AAM and other technologies may operate in ways that are least
impactful to those communities. In response to FAA requests, the AAAC
may provide the FAA with information that may be used for tactical and
strategic planning purposes.
    This notice seeks to fill current and future vacancies on the AAAC
and does not affect the status of AAAC members whose terms have not
expired.

Description of Duties

    The AAAC acts solely in an advisory capacity and does not exercise
program management responsibilities. Decisions directly affecting
implementation of transportation policy will remain with the FAA
Administrator and the Secretary of Transportation. The AAAC duties
include:
    a. Undertaking tasks only assigned by the FAA.
    b. Deliberating on and approving recommendations for assigned tasks
in meetings that are open to the public.
    c. Responding to ad hoc informational requests from the FAA and/or
providing input to the FAA on the overall AAAC structure (including
structure of the subcommittees and or task groups).
    Membership: The FAA will submit recommendations for membership to
the Secretary of Transportation, who will appoint members to the AAAC.
The membership must be equitably balanced in terms of points of view
represented and the functions performed. The stakeholder groups
represented on the AAAC include the following:

a. Airports and Airport Communities
b. Labor (controllers, pilots)
c. Local, State, Tribal and/or Territorial Government or Appropriate
International Entity
d. Navigation, Communication, Surveillance, and Air Traffic Management
Capability Providers
e. Research, Development, and Academia
f. Traditional Manned Aviation Operators
g. UAS Hardware Component Manufacturers
h. UAS Manufacturers
i. Corporate UAS Operators
j. Citizen UAS Operators
k. UAS Software Application Manufacturers
l. Agricultural Interests
m. Advanced Air Mobility
n. Community Advocate
o. Industry Associations or other specific areas of interest

    All AAAC members serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of
Transportation. To the extent practicable, the membership of the AAAC
shall include persons of diverse backgrounds in race, ethnicity,
religion, sexual orientation, and gender. The AAAC will have no more
than 41 members. Other membership terms include:
    a. An appointment of up to two years.
    b. Service without charge and without government compensation.
Representation of a particular interest of employment, education,
experience, or affiliation with a specific aviation related
organization.
    c. Ability to attend all AAAC meetings (estimated three meetings
per year).
    Qualifications: Candidates must be in good public standing and
currently serve as a member of their organization's core senior
leadership team with the ability to make decisions on UAS or AAM
related matters. In rare circumstances, membership may be granted to
uniquely qualified individuals who do not meet the previous
requirement. Members appointed solely for their individual expertise
will serve as Special Government Employees.
    Materials to Submit: Candidates are required to submit, in full,
the following materials to be considered for AAAC membership. Failure
to submit the required information may disqualify a candidate from the
review process.
    a. A short biography of the nominee, including professional and
academic credentials.
    b. A r[eacute]sum[eacute] or curriculum vitae, which must include
relevant job experience, qualifications, as well as contact information
(email, telephone, and mailing address).
    c. A one-page statement describing how the candidate will benefit
the AAAC, considering current membership and the candidate's unique
perspective that will advance the conversation. This statement must
also identify a primary and secondary interest to which the candidate's
expertise best aligns. Finally, candidates should state their previous
experience on Federal Advisory Committees and/or Aviation Rulemaking
Committees (if any), their level of knowledge in their above
stakeholder groups, and the size of their constituency they represent
or are able to reach.
    Up to three letters of recommendation may be submitted but are not
required. Each letter may be no longer than one page. Evaluations will
be based on the materials submitted.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Erik W. Amend,
Manager, Executive Office, AUS-10, UAS Integration Office, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021-24512 Filed 11-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:11/21/2014
FROM: 		Laura Farris/EPA Region 8
TO:CLEAN Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602
SUBJECT:	SnowRiders International Meeting and Media Event on 11/20/2014

SUMMARY:
EPA Region 8 participated in a meeting and media event with SnowRiders International on 11/20/2014 to discuss their support of the proposed Clean Power Plan and accept the comments they have collected through their Powder Not Power Plants campaign. The meeting and media event were held in in Denver, Colorado, at EPA Region 8. The Clean Power Plan was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA
Shaun McGrath, EPA Region 8 Regional Administrator
Carl Daly, EPA Region 8 Air Division Director
Laura Farris, EPA Region 8 Climate Change Coordinator
Joan Card, EPA Region 8 Senior Policy Advisor

External Stakeholders
Representatives of Arapahoe Basin Ski Area
Philip Huffeldt, Coordinator of Snowriders International
Julien Carr, Professional Skier
Jon Kahn, owner of Confluence Kayak and Ski
Others

Media event: As ski season opens, mountain communities and enthusiasts nationwide call for bold climate action.

Denver, CO  -  11/18/14  -  As the ski season opens, over 100 snow and mountain supporters across the country including ski areas, local businesses, professional winter sports athletes, local governments, and organizations have signed letters in support of bold action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to curb power plant emissions.  Those letters, in support of the EPA's Clean Power Plan, will be delivered to the EPA at a media event featuring some of the letter signers.

What: News conference announcing the delivery of coalition letters to the Regional EPA administrator in support of EPA rules on power plants as part of the Powder, Not Power Plants campaign.

Who: ski areas, local businesses, professional winter sports athletes, local governments, and organizations from across the country .
Speakers:
Jon Kahn, owner of Confluence Kayak and Ski
Representatives of Arapahoe Basin Ski Area
Philip Huffeldt, Coordinator of Snowriders International
...possibly others such as an elected official

When: Thursday, November 20th at 11 AM

Where: Sidewalk in front of EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street, 8P-AR
Denver, CO 80202
The entrance to EPA building is on 16[th] St next door to Office Depot.

Why: Release the letters and get diverse perspectives on why limiting carbon pollution from power plants -- the single largest source of global warming pollution -- is vital to protect public health, our environment, and the mountain way of life.

                                      ###
Snowriders International is an organization of skiers, boarders, and mountain recreation enthusiasts.  We are dedicated to the promotion of winter sports and protection of the environment across the globe through service, education, research, and advocacy.
                        www.snowridersinternational.org