Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65567 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[TD 9340] 

RIN 1545–BB64 

Revised Regulations Concerning 

Section 403(b) Tax-Sheltered Annuity 

Contracts; Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Correction to final regulations. 

SUMMARY: This document contains a 

correction to final regulations (TD 9340) 

thatwere published in the Federal 

Register on Thursday, July 26, 2007 (72 

FR41128) providing updated guidance 

on section 403(b) contracts of public 

schools and tax-exemptorganizations 

described in section 501(c)(3). These 

regulations will affect sponsors of 

section403(b) contracts, administrators, 

participants, and beneficiaries. 

DATES: The correction is effective 

October 26, 2010, and is applicable on 

July 26, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the regulations, John 

Tolleris at(202) 622–6060; concerning 

the regulations as applied to churchrelated entities, Sherri Edelmanor Jason 

Levine at (202) 283–9634 (not toll-free 

numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The final regulations that are the 

subject of this correction are under 

section 403(b)of the Internal Revenue 

Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, final regulations (TD 

9340) contain an error that may prove to 

bemisleading and is in need of 

clarification. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication of the 

final regulations (TD 9340), which was 

thesubject of FR Doc. 07–3649, is 

corrected as follows: 

On page 41138, column 2, in the 

preamble, under footnote number 11, 

line 26,the language ‘‘Rev. Rul. 66–254 

(1966–2 CB. 125)’’ is removed. 

LaNita Van Dyke, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations 

Branch,Legal Processing Division,Associate 

Chief Counsel(Procedure and 

Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2010–26980 Filed 10–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0924] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Mystic River, Charlestown, MA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast 

Guard District, has issued a temporary 

deviation from the regulation governing 

the operation of the S99 Alford Street 

Bridge across the Mystic River, mile 1.4, 

at Charlestown, Massachusetts. The 

deviation allows the bridge to remain in 

the closed position three days in 

November to facilitate scheduled bridge 

maintenance. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

8 p.m. on November 12, 2010 through 

4 a.m. on November 15, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2010– 

0924 and are available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2010–0924 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ and 

then clicking ‘‘Search’’. They are also 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Mr. John McDonald, Project 

Officer, First Coast Guard District, 

john.w.mcdonald@uscg.mil, or 

telephone (617) 223–8364. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The S99 Alford Street Bridge, across 

the Mystic River at mile 1.4, at 

Charlestown, Massachusetts, has a 

vertical clearance in the closed position 

of 7 feet at mean high water and 16 feet 

at mean low water. The drawbridge 

operation regulations are listed at 33 

CFR 117.609. 

The owner of the bridge, the City of 

Boston, requested a temporary deviation 

from the regulations to facilitate 

scheduled bridge maintenance, 

replacing steel members and steel deck 

grid at the bridge. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

S99 Alford Street Bridge may remain in 

the closed position from 8 p.m. on 

November 12, 2010 through 4 a.m. on 

November 15, 2010. 

Vessels that can pass under the bridge 

in the closed position may do so at any 

time. A work barge will be located in 

the main navigation channel during the 

structural repairs to the bridge. The 

work barge will move out of the channel 

upon request by calling William 

Schurman, of SPS New England at 978– 

265–7263. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the bridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: October 14, 2010. 

Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26984 Filed 10–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2008–0684; FRL–9215–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Particulate Matter Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request 

submitted by the Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) on 

August 22, 2008, to revise the Ohio 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). The State has 

submitted revisions to twelve rules and 

rescinded one rule in Ohio 

Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 

3745–17, ‘‘Particulate Matter Standards.’’ 

The revisions were submitted by Ohio 

EPA to satisfy the State’s 5-year review 

requirements. The particulate matter 

(PM) standards contain the particulate 

emission control requirements that have 

been necessary to attain and maintain 

the 2006 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for PM in the State. 

EPA is approving the revisions to nine 

of the OAC 3745–17 rules. EPA is 

approving only a portion of Rule 7, 

while not acting on the portion 

providing a partial exemption from 

opacity limits for a lime kiln in 

Woodville, Ohio. We are conditionally 

approving Rule 11 based on a 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
65568 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

commitment by Ohio to address EPA’s 

concerns with the large item size 

exemptions. EPA is not acting on Rule 

3, regarding opacity measurement 

methods. Lastly, EPA is approving the 

rescission of Rule 5 from the Ohio SIP. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective December 27, 2010, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

November 26, 2010. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2008–0684, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2054. 

4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief, 

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2008– 

0684. 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 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. 

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 the disclosure of which is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886–6524 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the revision? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

Ohio requested a revision to its SIP on 

August 22, 2008. Ohio seeks approval of 

its revision of OAC Chapter 3745–17 to 

clarify and amend its existing PM rules, 

in accordance with Chapter 119.032 of 

the Ohio Revised Code, which requires 

Ohio EPA to review and revise its rules 

every five years. The revisions include 

updating the limits for sources that have 

changed PM limits or have permanently 

shut down. 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

revision? 

Ohio submitted revisions to twelve 

rules and one rescinded rule within its 

PM rules, OAC 3745–17. EPA agrees 

with the revisions Ohio made to nine of 

its PM rules. EPA is approving the 

changes because the rules are not 

weakened by the revisions Ohio made. 

EPA is also taking no action on OAC 

3745–17–03, which will be addressed 

later in separate rulemaking. For OAC 

3745–17–07, EPA is taking no action on 

a portion and approving the rest of the 

rule. EPA is conditionally approving 

OAC 3745–17–11 on the condition that 

Ohio submits revised rule language 

within one year that resolves EPA 

concerns. EPA is approving the 

rescission of OAC 3745–17–05. 

A. OAC 3745–17–01—Definitions 

Ohio revised some of the definitions 

in Rule 1 along with the addition of new 

definitions. The new definitions are for 

‘‘OEPA,’’ ‘‘Ohio EPA,’’ ‘‘PM2.5,’’ and 

‘‘PM10.’’ Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

has an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 

micrometers (μm) or smaller, while 

larger particulate matter with a diameter 

up to 10 μm is known as coarse 

particulate matter (PM10). The State has 

replaced references to total suspended 

particulates with PM10 and deleted the 

definition for ‘‘total suspended 

particulates’’ from Rule 1. The definition 

of ‘‘total suspended particulates’’ is no 

longer needed because the term no 

longer appears in OAC Chapter 3745– 

17. Ohio also added incorporation by 

reference information in Rule 1 that 

references a variety of test methods, the 

Code of Federal Regulations, and other 

information. The additional definitions, 

addition of incorporations by reference, 

and deletion of a now unused definition 

clarify OAC Chapter 3745–17. EPA is 

approving the revisions to Rule 1. 

B. OAC 3745–17–02—Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

The ambient air quality standards for 

PM in Rule 2 have been updated to 

reflect the current Federal standards for 

particulate matter as promulgated in 

October 2006. EPA considers the 

revisions to be approvable since the 

state standards are as stringent as the 

Federal standards. A comment was 

added to Rule 2 that refers readers to the 

‘‘Incorporation by Reference’’ section in 

Rule 1 (OAC 3745—17–01(C)). Readers 

seeking test methods, engineering 

guides, Code of Federal Regulations, or 

other incorporated material are 

referenced to where the material is 

found. This comment that was also 

added to Rules 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13, will 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65569 

assist people in finding the 

supplementary publications referenced 

in OAC Chapter 3745–17. EPA is 

approving the Rule 2 revisions because 

the air quality standards were made as 

strict as Federal standards and the 

incorporation by reference comments 

adds clarity. 

C. OAC 3745–17–03—Measurement 

Methods and Procedures 

In a separate submission, Ohio 

submitted revisions to OAC 3745–17–03 

to allow large boiler sources a new 

compliance option using continuous 

emission monitoring data even if 1.1 

percent of readings exceed current 

allowable levels. Those revisions are 

being evaluated in separate rulemaking; 

see the June 27, 2005 proposed rule at 

70 FR 36901. Ohio’s August 22, 2008, 

submission makes only relatively minor 

revisions to this rule. Therefore, EPA is 

not acting on these minor revisions in 

this rulemaking and instead will 

continue to address revisions to OAC 

3745–17–03 in separate rulemaking. 

D. OAC 3745–17–04—Compliance Time 

Schedules 

Rule 4 was modified to reflect the 

altered compliance schedules for 

significantly modified sources and to 

remove references to permanently 

shutdown sources. The closed facilities 

are units at: The Ford Motor Company, 

Cleveland Castings Plant (Ford); 

International Mill Service, Incorporated; 

Standard Slag Company; and the Mingo 

Junction and Steubenville WheelingPittsburg Steel Corporation facilities. 

The removal of references to 

permanently shutdown facilities allows 

readers to more easily determine the 

correct compliance schedule. The 

addition of specified compliance 

deadlines allows particulate matter 

limits compliance to proceed. The Rule 

4 revisions are being approved by EPA. 

E. OAC 3745–17–05—Non-Degradation 

Policy 

Rule 5 prohibits significant and 

avoidable deterioration of air quality in 

area attaining the NAAQS. Ohio has 

found that Rule 5 is too vague to be 

enforceable, so that the rule did not 

protect air quality. Subsequent to the 

adoption of Rule 5, Ohio adopted and is 

implementing rules that impose new 

source review requirements for major 

sources, found at OAC 3745–31 

(approved by EPA on January 10, 2003, 

68 FR 1366), to prevent deterioration of 

the ambient air quality. Ohio has rules 

that provide specific emission limits for 

a variety of sources, including rules that 

restrict the emissions from new sources, 

such that the NAAQS will not be 

threatened. The specific emission limits 

in or resulting from Ohio’s rules can be 

enforced. As Rule 5 has been 

superseded by more effective rules, EPA 

agrees that Rule 5 can be removed from 

the SIP and thus is approving the 

rescission. 

F. OAC 3745–17–07—Control of Visible 

Particulate Emissions From Stationary 

Sources 

EPA is taking no action on OAC 

3745–17–07 (A)(3)(j). Section (A)(3)(j) 

provides startup and shutdown 

exemptions from opacity limits for the 

Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties, 

Inc. facility in Woodville, Ohio. EPA is 

working with Ohio to resolve concerns 

on the exemption conditions in section 

(A)(3)(j). EPA will act on the startup and 

shutdown exemptions after the issues 

are resolved, so EPA is taking no action 

now on this section of Rule 7. 

EPA is approving the minor wording 

changes in the rest of Rule 7 along with 

the previously mentioned incorporation 

by reference comment. The minor 

wording revisions may ease the 

readability and do not weaken the rule, 

so EPA is proceeding with approving 

those portions of Rule 7. 

G. OAC 3745–17–08—Restriction of 

Emission of Fugitive Dust 

Ohio removed the exemption of the 

AK Steel Corporation’s Middletown 

Works from Rule 8. Consent decree 

conditions require upgraded pollution 

controls on the Middletown Works 

facility. The consent decree also caused 

the fugitive dust rule exemption to 

expire on May 22, 2006. Ohio removed 

the expired fugitive dust exemptions for 

three units at the Middletown Works 

facility from Rule 8. The number 3 blast 

furnace along with the number 15 and 

number 16 basic oxygen furnaces are no 

longer exempt from the fugitive dust 

emission control requirements in OAC 

3745–17–07 and –08. As a result, the 

Middletown Works units are now 

subject to the requirement in OAC 

3745–17–07(B)(1) to limit opacity to 

twenty percent as a three-minute 

average. The units are also subject to 

requirements in OAC 3745–17–08 for 

reasonably available control technology, 

most notably an outlet emissions limit 

in OAC 3745–17–08 (B)(3) of 0.030 

grains of particulate per dry standard 

cubic foot of exhaust. The comment on 

incorporation by reference was added to 

Rule 8, too. The revisions clarify the 

rule as outdated limits are removed and 

the revised rule provides current 

incorporation by reference information. 

The removal of the exemption from 

fugitive dust emission limits for three 

Middletown Works units makes the 

units subject to emission limits, 

effectively strengthening the particulate 

emission limits for the three units. EPA 

is approving the revisions to Rule 8. 

H. OAC 3745–17–09—Restrictions on 

Particulate Emissions and Odors From 

Incinerators 

No changes were made to Rule 9 since 

it was approved by EPA on May 27, 

1994, 59 FR 27464. Ohio requested 

approval of Rule 9, so EPA is approving 

the unrevised rule again. This is known 

as re-codifying the rule. 

I. OAC 3745–17–10—Restrictions on 

Particulate Emissions From Fuel 

Burning Equipment 

Minor wording changes were made to 

Rule 10. The wording changes help 

clarify the rule and therefore are being 

approved by EPA. 

J. OAC 3745–17–11—Restrictions on 

Particulate Emissions From Industrial 

Processes 

The most significant revision to OAC 

3745–17–11 pertains to surface coating. 

Although the primary emissions of 

concern from surface coating are the 

volatile organic compound emissions 

that arise from solvent evaporation, 

OAC 3745–17–11 establishes a 

particulate emission limit for coating 

operations simply because OAC 3745– 

17–11 establishes generic emission 

limits for any process handling material 

such as coatings and objects being 

coated. However, testing of particulate 

emissions from coating operations is 

difficult, making it difficult to 

determine whether particular control 

measures provide for compliance. 

Therefore, Ohio exempted surface 

coating operations from the generic 

emission limits in OAC 3745–17–11 and 

subjected these sources instead to a set 

of rules requiring a specific set of work 

practices that will control these 

emissions. EPA agrees with the State 

that these work practice requirements 

provide a more effective means to 

requiring control of these operations 

than the generic emission limits in 

3745–17–11. 

EPA has concerns about one aspect of 

Ohio’s revisions to OAC 3745–17–11, in 

which Ohio authorizes itself to exempt 

sources that are too large to meet the 

new work practice requirements. EPA is 

concerned that this provision grants 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ for the State to 

authorize exemptions that EPA might 

find problematic without providing any 

opportunity for EPA to object. However, 

on July 2, 2010, Bob Hodanbosi, Ohio 

EPA Air Pollution Control Division 

Chief, submitted a commitment by 

e-mail to Cheryl Newton, EPA Region 5 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
65570 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Air and Radiation Division Director, to 

amend the pertinent rule within one 

year of an EPA conditional approval of 

the rule. The amendment would provide 

that any exemption granted by the State 

must be submitted for EPA approval as 

a State Implementation Plan revision. 

This revision would address EPA’s 

concern. Therefore, EPA is 

conditionally approving this rule, on the 

condition that Ohio makes the revision 

that they committed to make. 

The revisions to OAC 3745–17–11 

also grant an exemption from the rule’s 

limits for jet engine testing. PM 

emissions resulting from this exemption 

are expected to be small given that a 

small number of engines will be tested 

at once and only for a limited time. 

Ohio stated that the maximum PM 

emissions rate resulting from this 

exemption will be 10 pounds per hour. 

EPA finds that this exemption will have 

de minimis impact, and finds this 

revision approvable. In summary, EPA 

is conditionally approving revisions to 

OAC 3745–17–11, conditioned on Ohio 

revising the rule further to provide that 

exemptions granted by the State shall be 

submitted to EPA for review. 

K. OAC 3745–17–12—Additional 

Restrictions on Particulate Emissions 

From Specific Air Contaminant Sources 

in Cuyahoga County 

The changes to Rule 12 are all for the 

Ford Motor Company, Cleveland 

Castings Plant facility, with one 

exception, the ‘‘Incorporation by 

Reference’’ comment mentioned earlier. 

Several emission units at the Ford 

facility have been permanently 

shutdown. Thus, most of the revisions 

to Rule 12 involve removing references 

to the permanently shutdown units. 

Ohio revised control requirements and 

added alternative control requirements 

for some of the units that will ensure the 

operating Ford units remain controlled 

following the unit shutdowns and 

replacements. 

The removed limits are not expected 

to harm air quality because the units 

have permanently shutdown. The other 

Rule 12 revisions accommodate the 

closed units. The updated control 

requirements reflect necessary changes 

to keep the operating units well 

controlled. Some control devices have 

been shutdown as portions of the Ford 

plant closed. In cases where a control 

device serves multiple units, exhaust 

from units remaining operational need 

to be rerouted to operating control 

devices. The Ohio revisions to Rule 12 

keep the operating Ford units controlled 

while removing the permanently 

shutdown units and controls from the 

rule. EPA believes that the revisions 

will clarify the rule without harming air 

quality and therefore is approving the 

Rule 12 changes. 

L. OAC 3745–17–13—Additional 

Restrictions on Particulate Emissions 

From Specific Air Contaminant Sources 

in Jefferson County 

Ohio revised OAC 3745–17–13 to 

reflect numerous emission decreases 

and increases in Jefferson County. Most 

notably, Ohio removed the requirements 

for permanently shutdown facilities and 

units from Rule 13, thereby providing 

that these facilities must have zero 

emissions. One exception to this general 

characterization of Ohio’s rule changes 

is that Wheeling-Pittsburg Steel must 

continue to control emissions from 

fugitive dust sources (roadways and 

storage piles) at its Steubenville facility 

despite this facility’s shutdown status. 

The revised rule allows slightly more 

emissions from fugitive dust sources at 

Wheeling-Pittsburg Steel’s Steubenville 

and Mingo Junction facilities. In 

addition, the revised rules provide 

slightly higher emission limits at some 

sources and slightly lower emission 

limits at other sources at the Mingo 

Junction facility. 

Under section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA 

may not approve these rule revisions if 

the revisions would interfere with 

attainment of pertinent air quality 

standards. Ohio’s submission provides 

detailed information on changes in the 

area’s allowable emission since 1991, 

when Ohio submitted its attainment 

plan for PM10 for this area. However, 

some of the listed changes in allowable 

emissions are not attributable to rule 

changes in Ohio’s 2008 submittal and 

instead are attributable to construction 

permits, most notably three permits: 

(1) A permit to consolidate boiler 

operations; (2) a permit to construct an 

electric arc furnace in Mingo Junction in 

conjunction with shutdown of three 

units in Steubenville (Blast Furnace #1 

and boilers number 1 and 10) and three 

coke plants and a sinter plant in 

neighboring Follansbee, West Virginia; 

and (3) a permit to rebuild and expand 

the capacity of Blast Furnace number 5 

in conjunction with the shutdown of 

Blast Furnace number 3. Ohio did not 

specify which increases and reductions 

should be considered to be associated 

with the rule revisions and which are 

associated with construction permits. 

Nevertheless, to evaluate the 

approvability of Ohio’s revisions, EPA 

used allowable emission levels provided 

in Ohio’s submission to examine the 

expected emission changes that 

appeared to be mandated by these rule 

changes for Jefferson County. 

Clearly the most significant emission 

changes pursuant to Ohio’s revised rules 

result from the shutdown of Jefferson 

County facilities, in particular the 

shutdown of the International Mill 

Service and Standard Slag facilities and 

most of the Wheeling-Pittsburgh SteelSteubenville Works. Other changes 

allowed a relatively modest increase in 

allowable emissions from fugitive dust 

sources and a modest net increase in 

process emission limits. At the 

Steubenville Works, allowable 

emissions of fugitive dust (e.g., roadway 

dust) increased from 1.35 to 1.72 

pounds per hour, but the shutdown of 

the remainder of the facility resulted in 

a net allowable emission decrease of 

21.80 pounds per hour. At the 

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel-Mingo 

Junction Works, the fugitive dust limit 

increased from 4.91 to 7.67 pounds per 

hour, and other limits were increased or 

decreased slightly, resulting in a net 

reduction at the facility of 14.32 pounds 

per hour. The net effect of the increases 

and decreases in emission limits at the 

Mingo Junction facility was a 5.25 

pounds per hour reduction. Since the 

emission decreases in these revisions 

are substantially greater than the 

emission increases, and every facility is 

decreasing emissions as a result of this 

rule change, EPA is satisfied that these 

revisions will yield lower PM10

concentrations throughout Jefferson 

County, so that these revisions will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the PM10 standards. 

EPA must also examine whether the 

revisions might interfere with 

attainment of the PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

particularly because Jefferson County 

has been designated as not attaining the 

PM2.5 standards. The emission limits in 

Rule 13 are PM10 limits, but fine 

particulate matter, PM2.5, is a subset of 

PM10. The particulate matter formerly 

emitted by units being shutdown 

contain as high or higher fractions of 

fine particulate matter than the units 

being allowed higher emissions. 

Therefore, the conclusion found for 

PM10 also applies for PM2.5. EPA is 

satisfied that the revisions will yield 

lower PM2.5 concentrations throughout 

Jefferson County, so that these revisions 

will not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the PM2.5 standards. 

Ohio’s submission includes 

dispersion modeling indicating that the 

revised limits at each facility including 

the higher fugitive dust limits will not 

threaten the PM10 NAAQS. The 

modeling method used by the facility 

and State differs from the modeling 

method EPA recommends for this 

scenario. Nevertheless, the modeling 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 65571 

provides supportive evidence that the 

revisions to Ohio’s rules will not 

interfere with attainment of applicable 

air quality standards or with any other 

requirement. 

EPA agrees with the State’s 

conclusion that the revisions to Rule 13 

will not interfere with attainment of PM 

NAAQS. EPA is therefore approving the 

Rule 13 revisions. 

M. OAC 3745–17–14—Contingency Plan 

Requirements for Cuyahoga and 

Jefferson Counties 

Minor wording changes were made to 

Rule 14. This included replacing total 

suspended particulates with PM10. 

Reference to the annual PM10 standard 

was removed as the EPA has revoked 

that standard. EPA is approving the 

Rule 14 changes because the remaining 

particulate standards will adequately 

protect human health. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving revisions to the 

Ohio SIP. Ohio submitted revisions to 

OAC 3745–17. EPA is approving all of 

the submitted revisions to OAC 3745– 

17–01, –02, –04, –08, –09, –10, –12, –13, 

and –14. EPA is approving the 

rescission of OAC 3745–17–05 from the 

Ohio SIP. EPA is approving OAC 3745– 

17–07, except for OAC 3745–17–07 

(A)(3)(j) that EPA is not taking action 

on. EPA is conditionally approving OAC 

3745–17–11, based on commitment by 

Ohio to revise OAC 3745–17–11(A)(1)(l) 

to require all large item size exemptions 

to be approved by EPA as a SIP revision 

for the exemption to be valid. Ohio has 

committed to providing the revised rule 

language by November 25, 2011. 

A. What does conditional approval 

mean? 

Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the 

CAA, EPA may conditionally approve a 

portion of a SIP revision based on a 

commitment from a state to adopt 

specific, enforceable measures no later 

than twelve months from the date of 

final conditional approval. If it fails to 

commit to undertake the necessary 

changes, or fails to actually make the 

changes within the twelve month 

period, the conditional approval 

automatically converts to disapproval. 

EPA would subsequently publish a 

notice in the Federal Register providing 

notice and details of the disapproval. 

EPA is not required to separately 

propose a finding of disapproval. If a 

state submits final and effective rule 

revisions correcting the deficiencies 

within one year from this conditional 

approval becoming final and effective, 

EPA will publish a subsequent notice in 

the Federal Register to acknowledge 

conversion of the conditional approval 

to a full approval. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 27, 2010. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Particulate matter. 

Dated: October 4, 2010. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
65572 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart KK—Ohio 

■ 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(150) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(150) On August 22, 2008, Ohio 

submitted revisions to 

Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 

3745–17, Rules 3745–17–01 through 

3745–112–14. The revisions contain 

particulate matter standards in the State 

of Ohio necessary to attain and maintain 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5, annual PM2.5

and 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 

3745–17–01 Definitions: (A) and (B), 

Rule 3745–17–02 Ambient air quality 

standards, Rule 3745–17–04 

Compliance time schedules, Rule 3745– 

17–07 Control of visible particulate 

emissions from stationary sources, Rule 

3745–17–08 Restriction of emission of 

fugitive dust, Rule 3745–17–09 

Restrictions on particulate emissions 

and odors from incinerators, Rule 3745– 

17–10 Restrictions on particulate 

emissions from fuel burning equipment, 

Rule 3745–17–12 Additional restrictions 

on particulate emissions from specific 

air contaminant sources in Cuyahoga 

county, Rule 3745–17–13 Additional 

restrictions on particulate emissions 

from specific air contaminant sources in 

Jefferson county, and Rule 3745–17–14 

Contingency plan requirements for 

Cuyahoga and Jefferson counties. The 

rules became effective on February 1, 

2008. 

(B) January 22, 2008, ‘‘Director’s Final 

Findings and Orders’’, signed by Chris 

Korleski, Director, Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(ii) Additional Information. 

(A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 

3745–17–01 Definitions: (C), effective 

on February 1, 2008. 

■ 3. Section 52.1890 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1890 Removed control measures. 

* * * * * 

(d) On August 22, 2008, Ohio 

requested that Ohio Administrative 

Code 3745–17–05 ‘‘Non-degradation 

Policy.’’ be removed from the Ohio SIP. 

The rule was rescinded statewide on 

February 1, 2008. 

■ 4. Section 52.1919 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1919 Identification of plan— 

conditional approval. 

* * * * * 

(c) On August 22, 2008, the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 

submitted a revision to Ohio 

Administrative Code (OAC) 3745–17– 

11. The rule establishes a particulate 

emission limit for coating operations in 

lieu of generic emission limits based on 

the weight of processed materials. On 

July 2, 2010, Ohio submitted a 

commitment to amend OAC 3745–17– 

11 by November 25, 2011. The 

amendment would provide that any 

exemption granted by the state for 

sources too large to meet the coating 

work practice requirement must be 

submitted for EPA approval as a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. 

When EPA determines the state has met 

its commitment, OAC 3745–17–11 will 

be incorporated by reference into the 

SIP. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26880 Filed 10–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0807; FRL–9209–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Ohio Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving 

amendments to the Ohio Administrative 

Code (OAC) relating to the 

consolidation of Ohio’s Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (AAQS) into Ohio’s 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) under 

the Clean Air Act. On April 8, 2009, and 

August 11, 2009, Ohio EPA adopted 

amendments to various rules in the 

OAC to consolidate the state’s AAQS. 

On September 10, 2009, Ohio EPA 

requested from EPA approval of 

amendments to the OAC with the intent 

to consolidate Ohio’s AAQS into a 

single rule to provide greater 

accessibility for the regulated 

community and to the citizens of Ohio. 

EPA is approving the request because 

the revisions clarify the state’s rules and 

thus better serve the purpose of 

providing for meeting these standards. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective December 27, 2010, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

November 26, 2010. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0807, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2054. 

4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief, 

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009– 

0807. 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 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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES