Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27249 

works that were created on or after 

January 1, 1978. 

B. Interpretation. Are the grants of 

transfers or licenses discussed above 

terminable under Title 17 as currently 

codified? If so, under which provision? 

What is the basis for your 

determination? Are there state or federal 

laws other than copyright that are 

relevant? Is delivery of the work by the 

grantor to the grantee relevant to the 

question of termination? Is publication 

relevant? 

C. Recommendations. Do you have 

any recommendations with respect to 

the grants of transfers or licenses 

illustrated above? 

D. Other Issues. Are there other issues 

with respect to the application or 

exercise of termination provisions that 

you would like to bring to our attention 

for future consideration? 

Dated: May 11, 2010. 

Maria Pallante, 

Associate Register for Policy & International 

Affairs, U.S. Copyright Office. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11619 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0534; FRL–9151–4] 

RIN 2060–AQ24 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emissions 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste 

Incinerators 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. 

SUMMARY: On October 6, 2009, EPA 

promulgated its response to the remand 

of the new source performance 

standards and emissions guidelines for 

hospital/medical/infectious waste 

incinerators by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit and satisfied the Clean Air Act 

Section 129(a)(5) requirement to 

conduct a review of the standards every 

five years. This action proposes to 

amend the new source performance 

standards in order to correct inadvertent 

drafting errors in the emissions limits 

for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide 

promulgated for large hospital/medical/ 

infectious waste incinerators, which did 

not correspond to our description of our 

standard-setting process. This action 

will also correct erroneous crossreferences in the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before June 28, 2010. 

Because of the need to revise the new 

source performance standards (NSPS) 

emissions limits and reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements in a timely 

manner, EPA will not grant requests for 

extensions beyond this date. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA by May 24, 2010 requesting to 

speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold 

a public hearing on June 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2006–0534, by one of the 

following methods: 

http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

E-mail: Send your comments via 

electronic mail to a-and-rDocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0534. 

Facsimile: Fax your comments to 

(202) 566–9744, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0534. 

Mail: Send your comments to: EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006– 

0534. Please include a total of two 

copies. We request that a separate copy 

also be sent to the contact person 

identified below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Hand Delivery: Deliver your 

comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006– 

0534. Such deliveries are accepted only 

during the normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays), and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006– 

0534. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket and may be made 

available on-line at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Public Hearing: If a public hearing is 

held, it will be held at EPA’s Campus 

located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in 

Research Triangle Park, NC, or an 

alternate site nearby. Contact Ms. Joan 

Rogers at (919) 541–4487 to request a 

hearing, to request to speak at a public 

hearing, to determine if a hearing will 

be held, or to determine the hearing 

location. If no one contacts EPA 

requesting to speak at a public hearing 

concerning this proposed rule by May 

24, 2010, the hearing will be cancelled 

without further notice. 

Docket: EPA has established a docket 

for this action under Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0534 and Legacy 

Docket ID No. A–91–61. All documents 

in the docket are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room 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 Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ketan D. Patel, Natural Resources and 

Commerce Group, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–03), 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27250 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

9736; fax number: (919) 541–3470; email address: patel.ketan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does the proposed action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments? 

II. Background 

III. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

A. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Limit 

B. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Limit 

C. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

IV. Impacts of the Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

A redline version of the regulatory 

language that incorporates the changes 

in this action is available in the docket. 

I. General Information 

A. Does the proposed action apply to 

me? 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially affected by the 

proposed action are those which operate 

hospital/medical/infectious waste 

incinerators (HMIWI). The NSPS and 

emissions guidelines (EG) for HMIWI 

affect the following categories of 

sources: 

Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ..................................................... 622110 

622310 

325411 

325412 

562213 

611310 

Private hospitals, other health care facilities, commercial research laboratories, 

commercial waste disposal companies, private universities. 

Federal Government ................................. 622110 

541710 

928110 

Federal hospitals, other health care facilities, public health service, armed services. 

State/local/tribal Government ................... 622110 

562213 

611310 

State/local hospitals, other health care facilities, State/local waste disposal services, 

State universities. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by the proposed action. To 

determine whether your facility would 

be affected by the proposed action, you 

should examine the applicability 

criteria in 40 CFR 60.50c of subpart Ec. 

If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of the proposed action to a 

particular entity, contact the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments? 

1. Submitting CBI 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI electronically 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI to only the following 

address: Mr. Ketan D. Patel, c/o OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (Room C404– 

02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0534. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI on a 

disk or CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

as CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

If you have any questions about CBI 

or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions. EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified in the preceding 

section titled DATES. 

3. Docket 

The docket number for the proposed 

action regarding the HMIWI NSPS (40 

CFR part 60, subpart Ec) is Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0534. 

4. Worldwide Web (WWW) 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of the 

proposed action is available on the 

WWW through the Technology Transfer 

Network Web site (TTN Web). 

Following signature, EPA posted a copy 

of the proposed action on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27251 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

II. Background 

On September 15, 1997, EPA adopted 

NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec) and 

EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce) for 

HMIWI under the authority of Sections 

111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Emissions standards were adopted for 

the nine pollutants required to be 

regulated under CAA Section 129— 

particulate matter, lead, cadmium, 

mercury, chlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins/dibenzofurans, carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen 

chloride and sulfur dioxide. The EPA 

developed emissions limits for all nine 

pollutants for three HMIWI size 

subcategories (large, medium and small) 

for the NSPS and four HMIWI size 

subcategories (large, medium, small and 

small rural) for the EG. 

On November 14, 1997, the Sierra 

Club and the Natural Resources Defense 

Council (Sierra Club) filed suit in the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (the Court). The Sierra 

Club claimed that EPA violated CAA 

Section 129 by setting emissions 

standards for HMIWI that are less 

stringent than required by Section 

129(a)(2); that EPA violated Section 129 

by not including pollution prevention or 

waste minimization requirements; and 

that EPA had not adequately considered 

the non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts of the standards. 

On March 2, 1999, the Court issued its 

opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 

658 (D.C. Cir. 1999). While the Court 

rejected the Sierra Club’s statutory 

arguments under CAA Section 129, the 

Court remanded the rule to EPA for 

further explanation regarding how EPA 

derived the maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) floors for 

new and existing HMIWI. The Court did 

not vacate the regulations, and the 

regulations remained in effect during 

the remand. 

On October 6, 2009, EPA promulgated 

its response to the Court’s remand of the 

HMIWI regulations and also satisfied its 

requirement under CAA Section 

129(a)(5) to conduct a five-year review 

of the HMIWI standards. The 

promulgated rule revised the NSPS and 

EG emissions limits for all nine of the 

CAA Section 129 pollutants. 

Following promulgation of the revised 

emissions limits, an industry 

representative informed EPA of an error 

in the published NSPS emissions limit 

for nitrogen oxides (NOX) for large 

HMIWI, which did not appear to reflect 

EPA’s described analytical process for 

adopting the revised standards. On 

review, EPA staff determined that the 

published revised NOX NSPS for large 

HMIWI indeed did not reflect EPA’s 

intent in the final rule. EPA also 

reviewed the other published NSPS and 

EG emissions limits for similar errors, 

and determined that the published 

revised sulfur dioxide (SO2) NSPS for 

large HMIWI also did not reflect EPA’s 

intent in the final rule. To correct these 

errors, this action issues proposed 

amendments to the NSPS emissions 

limits for NOX and SO2 for large HMIWI. 

Also after promulgation, a State 

agency representative informed EPA of 

an error in the published NSPS 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, which incorrectly referred 

to § 60.56, instead of § 60.56c, in three 

separate paragraphs. To correct this 

error, this action issues proposed 

amendments to the NSPS reporting and 

recordkeeping provisions that have this 

incorrect cross-reference. 

III. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

The NSPS emissions limits for new 

and reconstructed HMIWI were 

developed in accordance with the 

criteria specified in CAA Section 

129(a)(2), which provides that the 

‘‘degree of reduction in emissions that is 

deemed achievable [* * *] shall not be 

less stringent than the emissions control 

that is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar unit, as determined 

by the Administrator.’’ 

In order to properly account for 

variability in the data, we calculated 

upper limits associated with the data for 

the best controlled similar unit (best 

performer), prior to setting the 

emissions limits. We would typically 

take into account the distribution of the 

emissions data (i.e., determine whether 

the data are distributed normally or 

lognormally) prior to calculating the 

upper limit value. Where there were a 

sufficient number of datapoints for the 

best performer, we used the skewness of 

the data to determine the distribution. 

Because normal distributions typically 

have a skewness of zero, we concluded 

that those datasets with a skewness less 

than 0.5 were normally distributed, 

while those with a skewness of 0.5 or 

greater were lognormally distributed. 

Where there were only a few datapoints 

for the best performer, we decided to 

assume a normal distribution in 

calculating the upper limit value, which 

provides a more stringent limit, rather 

than a lognormal distribution. (See 2009 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Revised MACT 

Floors, Data Variability Analysis, and 

Emission Limits for Existing and New 

HMIWI,’’ which is included in the 

docket.) (A lognormal distribution 

would tend to provide less stringent 

emissions limits than a normal 

distribution.) 

We used the 99th percentile to 

calculate the upper limits, because we 

found it provided a more reasonable 

compensation for variability than the 

other percentiles we considered (i.e., 90, 

95 and 99.9 percent). We determined 

the emissions limits by rounding up the 

upper limit values to two significant 

figures, in accordance with standard 

engineering practices. 

Note: In the preamble to the October 6, 

2009, final rule, we erroneously referred to 

these calculated values as ‘‘upper confidence 

limits’’ or ‘‘UCLs.’’ In today’s notice, we are 

using the more accurate term ‘‘upper limits.’’ 

The following two sections discuss 

the proposed amendments to the NOX

and SO2 NSPS emissions limits for new 

large HMIWI, which have been revised 

to correspond to the aforementioned 

standard-setting process. The third 

section discusses the proposed 

amendments to the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for new 

HMIWI, which have been revised to 

correct the cross-reference to § 60.56c. 

A. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Limit 

For the large HMIWI size subcategory, 

the NOX emissions estimate associated 

with the best controlled similar unit is 

66.9 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv). (See 2009 memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Revised MACT Floors, Data 

Variability Analysis and Emission 

Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,’’ 

which is included in the docket.) 

Because there were only a few 

datapoints for NOX for the best 

performer, we assumed a normal 

distribution in calculating the NOX

upper limit value. The 99 percent upper 

limit for NOX for new large HMIWI 

(assuming a normal distribution) is 144 

ppmv. (See 2009 memorandum entitled 

‘‘Revised MACT Floors, Data Variability 

Analysis, and Emission Limits for 

Existing and New HMIWI,’’ which is 

included in the docket.) Rounding up to 

two significant figures, we estimated the 

NOX emissions limit for new large 

HMIWI would be 150 ppmv, which 

would be less stringent than the 

corresponding NOX EG limit for existing 

HMIWI (140 ppmv). 

This unusual situation occurred due 

to a difference in the size of the datasets 

used to determine the NOX upper limit 

values for existing and new HMIWI. The 

NOX dataset for the best performer (used 

to determine the MACT floor for NOX

for new sources) was smaller than the 

NOX dataset for the best-performing 12 

percent of sources (used to determine 

the MACT floor for existing sources) 

and had a higher standard deviation. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27252 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Since the upper limit calculation 

depends on both the average and 

standard deviation, the higher standard 

deviation resulted in the NOX upper 

limit value for the best performer being 

less stringent. (See 2009 memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Revised MACT Floors, Data 

Variability Analysis, and Emission 

Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,’’ 

which is included in the docket.) 

In this and other similar cases, we 

decided to use existing source limits for 

new sources where they are more 

stringent than new source limits, in 

order to prevent a situation where a new 

source would have a less stringent 

emissions limit than an existing source. 

We estimated the NOX EG limit for 

existing large HMIWI to be 140 ppmv. 

(See 2009 memorandum entitled 

‘‘Revised MACT Floors, Data Variability 

Analysis, and Emission Limits for 

Existing and New HMIWI,’’ which is 

included in the docket.) Therefore, the 

NSPS NOX emissions limit for new large 

HMIWI should have also been 140 

ppmv. However, a NOX NSPS limit of 

130 ppmv was erroneously published, 

which does not correspond to our 

analytical process. 

The source of this error lies in the 

previous draft of the NOX EG limit for 

existing large HMIWI (130 ppmv), 

which was incorrectly determined 

assuming a normal distribution of the 

NOX emissions dataset for the bestperforming 12 percent of the large 

HMIWI size subcategory. The 

distribution of the NOX emissions 

dataset for the best-performing 12 

percent of large HMIWI was actually 

lognormal (based on a skewness of 

1.44). Assuming a normal distribution 

would result in a NOX upper limit value 

of 121 ppmv, which would be rounded 

up to 130 ppmv to establish the NOX EG 

limit. Assuming a lognormal 

distribution, the NOX upper limit would 

actually be 131 ppmv, which would be 

rounded up to 140 ppmv to establish the 

NOX EG limit. The correct NOX EG limit 

(140 ppmv) was included in the final 

rule for existing large HMIWI, but the 

incorrect, previous draft of the NOX

NSPS limit (130 ppmv) was erroneously 

included in the final rule for new large 

HMIWI. Today’s action proposes to 

correct this error and amend the HMIWI 

NSPS to include the correct NOX NSPS 

limit of 140 ppmv for new large HMIWI, 

which matches the final NOX EG limit 

and reflects EPA’s intent in the October 

6, 2009 final rule. 

B. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Limit 

For the large HMIWI size subcategory, 

the SO2 emissions estimate associated 

with the best controlled similar unit is 

0.462 ppmv. (See 2009 memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Revised MACT Floors, Data 

Variability Analysis, and Emission 

Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,’’ 

which is included in the docket.) In our 

analysis for the October 6, 2009, final 

rule, we indicated that the SO2 data for 

the best performer were normally 

distributed, but a closer examination of 

the skewness of the data (0.54) indicates 

that the SO2 data are actually 

lognormally distributed. For the October 

6, 2009, final rule, we erroneously 

estimated a 99 percent upper limit of 

1.59 ppmv and an emissions limit of 1.6 

ppmv for new large HMIWI, based on 

our incorrect estimation that the SO2

data were normally distributed. (See 

2009 memorandum entitled ‘‘Revised 

MACT Floors, Data Variability Analysis, 

and Emission Limits for Existing and 

New HMIWI,’’ which is included in the 

docket.) The 99 percent upper limit for 

SO2 for new large HMIWI based on a 

lognormal distribution is 8.04 ppmv. 

Rounding up to two significant figures, 

the SO2 NSPS emissions limit should be 

8.1 ppmv, if our standard-setting 

process is to be correctly followed. (See 

2009 memorandum entitled ‘‘Revised 

Sulfur Dioxide MACT Floor, Data 

Variability Analysis, and Emission 

Limit for New Large HMIWI,’’ which is 

included in the docket.) This action 

proposes to amend the HMIWI NSPS to 

include the correct SO2 limit of 8.1 

ppmv for new large HMIWI, which 

reflects EPA’s intent in the October 6, 

2009, final rule. 

C. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

The NSPS reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements of the 

October 6, 2009, final rule include three 

separate cross-references to ‘‘§ 60.56(d), 

(h), or (j).’’ The correct cross-reference in 

each case should have been ‘‘§ 60.56c(d), 

(h), or (j),’’ consistent with the section 

numbering format for NSPS subpart Ec. 

This action proposes to amend the 

HMIWI NSPS to correct this error. 

IV. Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Based on the stringency of the HMIWI 

standards promulgated on October 6, 

2009, sources would likely respond to 

the HMIWI rule by choosing not to 

construct new HMIWI and would use 

alternative waste disposal options rather 

than incur the costs of compliance. 

Considering this information, we do not 

anticipate any new HMIWI, and, 

therefore, no costs or impacts are 

associated with the proposed NSPS 

amendments for NOX and SO2 for new 

large units. 

However, in the unlikely event that a 

new unit is constructed, we estimated 

costs and impacts expected for each of 

three HMIWI model plants (large, 

medium and small), which we entered 

into the docket for the October 6, 2009, 

promulgation. (See 2009 memoranda 

entitled ‘‘Revised Compliance Costs and 

Economic Inputs for New HMIWI’’ and 

‘‘Revised Baseline Emissions and 

Emissions Reductions for Existing and 

New HMIWI,’’ which are included in the 

docket.) We estimated baseline NOX

emissions of 80 ppmv and baseline SO2

emissions of 0.84 ppmv for the large 

HMIWI model plant, based on the 

average NOX and SO2 emissions 

measured at the latest large HMIWI to be 

installed since the 1997 rule. 

Consequently, the NOX and SO2

emissions associated with the large 

HMIWI model plant are already below 

both the incorrect NOX and SO2

emissions limits of 130 ppmv and 1.6 

ppmv, respectively, promulgated in the 

October 6, 2009, Federal Register notice 

and the correct NOX and SO2 emissions 

limits of 140 ppmv and 8.1 ppmv, 

respectively, being proposed in today’s 

action. Therefore, even if a new large 

unit were constructed, we would 

estimate no cost savings or negative 

impacts associated with today’s 

proposed amendments to the NOX and 

SO2 emissions limits for new large 

HMIWI. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order (EO) 12866: 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the 

terms of EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not 

subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Today’s proposed rule only includes 

revised NOX and SO2 emissions limits 

for new large HMIWI, and, as noted 

previously, no new HMIWI are 

anticipated. Consequently, today’s 

proposed action will not impose any 

additional information collection 

burden for new sources. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedures Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27253 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed action on small 

entities, small entity is defined as 

follows: (1) A small business as defined 

by the Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; or (3) a 

small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this proposed 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This proposed 

rule will not impose any requirements 

on small entities. Today’s proposed 

action only includes revised NOX and 

SO2 emissions limits for new large 

HMIWI, and no new HMIWI are 

anticipated. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for 

State, local or tribal governments or the 

private sector. This proposed action 

imposes no enforceable duty on any 

State, local or tribal governments or the 

private sector. Therefore, this proposed 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This proposed action is also not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

EO 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 

1999) requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the EO to include regulations that 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.’’ 

This proposed rule 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, as specified in EO 

13132. This proposed action will not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on State or local governments, and 

will not preempt State law. Thus, EO 

13132 does not apply to this rule. 

In the spirit of EO 13132 and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in EO 13175 

(65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000). EPA 

is not aware of any HMIWI owned or 

operated by Indian tribal governments. 

Thus, EO 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885; April 23, 1997) as applying to 

those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the Order has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This proposed action is 

not subject to EO 13045 because it is 

based solely on technology 

performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in EO 13211 (66 FR 

28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution or use of 

energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629)(February 16, 

1994) establishes Federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its 

main provision directs Federal agencies, 

to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it affects only new large units 

and no new units are anticipated to be 

constructed. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 10, 2010. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart Ec—[Amended] 

2. Section 60.58c is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) to 

read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27254 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

§ 60.58c Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) The values for the site-specific 

operating parameters established 

pursuant to § 60.56c(d), (h), or (j), as 

applicable. 

(2) The highest maximum operating 

parameter and the lowest minimum 

operating parameter, as applicable, for 

each operating parameter recorded for 

the calendar year being reported, 

pursuant to § 60.56c(d), (h), or (j), as 

applicable. 

(3) The highest maximum operating 

parameter and the lowest minimum 

operating parameter, as applicable, for 

each operating parameter recorded 

pursuant to § 60.56c(d), (h), or (j) for the 

calendar year preceding the year being 

reported, in order to provide the 

Administrator with a summary of the 

performance of the affected facility over 

a 2-year period. 

* * * * * 

3. Table 1B to Subpart Ec is revised 

to read as follows: 

TABLE 1B TO SUBPART EC OF PART 60—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE HMIWI AT AFFECTED

FACILITIES AS DEFINED IN § 60.50C(A)(3) AND (4) 

Pollutant Units 

(7 percent oxygen, dry basis) 

Emissions limits 

Averaging 

time 1

Method for 

demonstrating 

compliance 2

HMIWI size 

Small Medium Large 

Particulate matter.Milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter (grains per dry 

standard cubic foot).

66 (0.029) ........ 22 (0.0095) ...... 18 (0.0080) ...... 3-run average 

(1-hour minimum sample 

time per run).

EPA Reference 

Method 5 of 

appendix A–3 

of part 60, or 

EPA Reference Method M 26A or 

29 of appendix A–8 of 

part 60. 

Carbon monoxide.Parts per million by volume ....... 20 ..................... 1.8 .................... 11 ..................... 3-run average 

(1-hour minimum sample 

time per run).

EPA Reference 

Method 10 or 

10B of appendix A–4 of 

part 60. 

Dioxins/furans .... Nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter total dioxins/ 

furans (grains per billion dry 

standard cubic feet) or 

nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter TEQ (grains per 

billion dry standard cubic feet).

16 (7.0) or 

0.013 

(0.0057).

0.47 (0.21) or 

0.014 

(0.0061).

9.3 (4.1) or 

0.035 (0.015).

3-run average 

(4-hour minimum sample 

time per run).

EPA Reference 

Method 23 of 

appendix A–7 

of part 60. 

Hydrogen chloride.Parts per million by volume ....... 15 ..................... 7.7 .................... 5.1 .................... 3-run average 

(1-hour minimum sample 

time per run).

EPA Reference 

Method 26 or 

26A of appendix A–8 of 

part 60. 

Sulfur dioxide ..... Parts per million by volume ....... 1.4 .................... 1.4 .................... 8.1 .................... 3-run average 

(1-hour minimum sample 

time per run).

EPA Reference 

Method 6 or 

6C of appendix A–4 of 

part 60. 

Nitrogen oxides Parts per million by volume ....... 67 ..................... 67 ..................... 140 ................... 3-run average 

(1-hour minimum sample 

time per run).

EPA Reference 

Method 7 or 

7E of appendix A–4 of 

part 60. 

Lead ................... Milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter (grains per thousand dry standard cubic feet.

0.31 (0.14) ....... 0.018 (0.0079) 0.00069 

(0.00030).

3-run average 

(1-hour minimum sample 

time per run).

EPA Reference 

Method 29 of 

appendix A–8 

of part 60. 

Cadmium ........... Milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter (grains per thousand dry standard cubic feet) 

or percent reduction.

0.017 (0.0074) 0.0098 (0.0043) 0.00013 

(0.000057).

3-run average 

(1-hour minimum sample 

time per run).

EPA Reference 

Method 29 of 

appendix A–8 

of part 60. 

Mercury .............. Milligrams per dry standard 

cubic meter (grains per thousand dry standard cubic feet) 

or percent reduction.

0.014 (0.0061) 0.0035 (0.0015) 0.0013 

(0.00057).

3-run average 

(1-hour minimum sample 

time per run).

EPA Reference 

Method 29 of 

appendix A–8 

of part 60. 

1Except as allowed under § 60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS. 

2 Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under § 60.56c(b). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27255 

[FR Doc. 2010–11585 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1999–0006; FRL–9150–2] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Intent to 

Delete the Ruston Foundry Superfund 

Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Ruston 

Foundry Superfund Site (Site), located 

in Alexandria, Rapides Parish, 

Louisiana, from the National Priorities 

List (NPL) and requests public comment 

on this proposed action. The NPL, 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and 

the State of Louisiana, through the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality (LDEQ), have determined that 

all appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

June 14, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1999–0006, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, 

Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA 

Region 6 coltrain.katrina@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, 

Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA 

Region 6 (6SF–RL) 214–665–6660. 

• Mail: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, 

Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA 

Region 6 (6SF–RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, TX 75202–2733. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1999– 

0006. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted 

material, will be publicly available only 

in the hard copy. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

U.S. EPA Region 6 Library, 7th Floor 

Reception area by Appointment, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733, (214) 665–6424; Rapides 

Parish Public Library, 411 Washington 

Street, Alexandria, Louisiana 71301, 

(318) 442–1840; Louisiana Department 

of Environmental Quality Public 

Records Center, Galvez Building Room 

127, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana 70802, (225) 219–3168, email: publicrecords@la.gov, Web page: 

http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/ 

pubrecords. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial 

Project Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA 

Region 6 (6SF–RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, TX 75202–2733, (214) 665–8143 

or 1–800–533–3508 

(coltrain.katrina@epa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ Section of 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

publishing a direct final Notice of 

Deletion of the Ruston Foundry 

Superfund Site without prior notice of 

intent to delete because we view this as 

a noncontroversial revision and 

anticipate no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

deletion in the preamble to the direct 

final Notice of Deletion, and those 

reasons are incorporated herein. If we 

receive no adverse comment(s) on this 

deletion action, we will not take further 

action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. 

If we receive adverse comment(s), we 

will withdraw the direct final Notice of 

Deletion, and it will not take effect. We 

will, as appropriate, address all public 

comments in a subsequent Final Notice 

of Deletion based on this Notice of 

Intent to Delete. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this Notice 

of Intent to Delete. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final Notice of Deletion which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Dated: April 29, 2010. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11305 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS