Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 56555 

control objectives. The Postal Service 

should have access to the sub-service 

organization’s SSAE 16 report. The 

control objectives to be covered by the 

SSAE 16 report are subject to Postal 

Service review and approval and are to 

be provided to the Postal Service 30 

days prior to the initiation of each 

examination period. As a result of the 

examination, the service auditor shall 

provide the RC and the Postal Service 

with an opinion on the design and 

operating effectiveness of the RC’s 

internal controls related to the CMRS 

system and any other applications and 

technology infrastructure considered 

material to the services provided to the 

Postal Service by the RC. Such 

examinations are to be conducted on no 

less than an annual basis, and are to be 

as of and for the 12 months ended June 

30 of each year (except for new 

contracts for which the examination 

period will be no less than the period 

from the contract date to the following 

June 30, unless otherwise agreed to by 

the Postal Service). The examination 

reports are to be provided to the Postal 

Service by August 15 of each year. To 

the extent that internal control 

weaknesses are identified in a Type II 

SSAE 16 report, the Postal Service may 

require the remediation of such 

weaknesses and review working papers 

and engage in discussions about the 

work performed with the service 

auditor. The Postal Service requires that 

all remediation efforts (if applicable) are 

completed and reported by the RC prior 

to the Postal Service’s fiscal year end 

(September 30). In addition, the RC will 

be responsible for performing an 

examination of their internal control 

environment related to the CMRS 

system and any other applications and 

technology infrastructure considered 

material to the services provided to the 

Postal Service by the RC, in particular 

disclosing changes to internal controls, 

for the period of July 1 to September 30. 

This examination should be 

documented and submitted to the Postal 

Service by October 14. The RC will be 

responsible for all costs related to the 

examinations conducted by the service 

auditor and the RC. 

* * * * * 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22510 Filed 9–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0466; FRL–9726–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri; Maximum Allowable 

Emission of Particulate Matter From 

Fuel Burning Equipment Used for 

Indirect Heating 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Missouri State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to incorporate a new Missouri 

regulation to restrict Particulate Matter 

(PM) emissions from fuel burning 

equipment used for indirect heating. 

The new regulation consolidates four 

existing area-specific regulations into 

one state-wide rule for clarity. The 

requirements prescribed in the new 

regulation are as stringent as the 

conditions specified in the currently 

approved SIP with the four existing 

area-specific regulations. EPA has 

determined that the SIP revision 

submitted by the State of Missouri 

satisfies the applicable requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective November 13, 2012, without 

further notice, unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by October 15, 2012. 

If EPA receives adverse comment, we 

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–R07– 

OAR–2012–0466, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: doolan.stephanie@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Stephanie 

Doolan, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2012– 

0466. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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 

electronic docket are listed in the 

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. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas. EPA 

requests that you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

office at least 24 hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Doolan, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, at 

(913) 551–7719, or by email at 

doolan.stephanie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for the Action 

II. EPA Review of the State Submittal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

56556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

A. Summary of the Emission Limits 

B. Enforceability 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for the Proposal 

The SIP revision which is the subject 

of this action was submitted by Missouri 

by letter dated October 11, 2011. The 

revision consists primarily of a 

consolidation of existing rules relating 

to PM emission from indirect heating 

sources. EPA most recently revised the 

NAAQS for PM on October 17, 2006. (71 

FR 61144). The PM standard regulates 

two types of particulates: fine 

particulates, or PM2.5, which generally 

refers to particles less than or equal to 

2.5 micrometers (mm) in diameter; and 

coarse particulates, or PM10, referring 

generally to particles less than or equal 

to 10 mm in diameter. Because the 

preexisting state rules were designed to 

address a prior NAAQS for total 

suspended particulates, the 

consolidated Missouri rule regulates 

total PM emissions, without reference to 

particle size. 

Today’s action does not change 

existing emissions limitations, but 

rather consolidates four previously 

existing Missouri area-specific rules into 

one state-wide standard for clarity. The 

consolidated rule provides an 

exemption for units that burn specific 

types of ‘‘clean burning’’ fuels and an 

alternative method of demonstrating 

compliance by averaging emissions for 

facilities with multiple units subject to 

this rule, as described in more detail 

below. These four rules were previously 

approved into the Missouri SIP. See 40 

CFR 52.1320(c). 

The four rules which are being 

consolidated into the new Missouri rule 

include: 

—10 CSR 10–2.040, Maximum 

Allowable Emission of Particulate 

Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment 

Used for Indirect Heating, for the 

Kansas City Metropolitan Area; 

—10 CSR 10–3.060, Maximum 

Allowable Emission of Particulate 

Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment 

Used for Indirect Heating, applicable 

to the ‘‘out state area’’ defined as areas 

in Missouri other than the City of St. 

Louis, and St. Charles, St. Louis, 

Jefferson, Franklin, Clay, Cass, 

Buchanan, Ray, Jackson, Platte and 

Greene Counties; 

—10 CSR 10–4–040, Maximum 

Allowable Emission of Particulate 

Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment 

Used for Indirect Heating, for 

Springfield-Greene County area; and 

—10 CSR 10–5.030, Maximum 

Allowable Emission of Particulate 

Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment 

Used for Indirect Heating, for the St. 

Louis Metropolitan Area. 

These standards have been consolidated 

into one state-wide rule, 10 CSR 10– 

6.405, Restriction of Particulate Matter 

Emissions from Fuel Burning 

Equipment Used for Indirect Heating. 

Missouri’s new rule restricts the 

emission of PM from fuel burning 

equipment used for indirect heating. As 

discussed above, the rule applies statewide, with additional conditions 

applicable to the Springfield, Kansas 

City and St. Louis Metropolitan Areas. 

The rule applies to facilities that burn 

fuel for the primary purpose of 

producing steam, hot water, or hot air or 

other indirect heating of liquids, gases 

or solids and, in the course of doing so, 

the products of combustion do not come 

into contact with process materials. The 

types of facilities affected by this rule 

include but are not limited to utility and 

industrial boilers, process heaters and 

smelters of all sizes. The types of fuel 

may include but are not limited to coal, 

tire-derived fuel, coke, lignite, coke 

breeze, gas, fuel oil, biomass and wood, 

but do not include refuse. 

An installation is excluded from this 

rule if all of the installation’s applicable 

units are fueled only by landfill gas, 

propane, natural gas, fuel oils #2 

through #6 (provided that the fuels are 

low in sulfur), or other gases with low 

hydrogen sulfide and/or mercury 

content, as discussed in greater detail 

below. 

EPA’s analysis of the State’s SIP 

submittal is presented below. As a result 

of EPA’s analysis, we are approving this 

request and are amending Missouri’s 

SIP to remove the four pre-existing rules 

and replace them with the new rule, 10 

CSR 10–6.405. This revision creates the 

new consolidated rule and rescinds the 

former area-specific rules. 

This rulemaking does not change the 

substantive PM emissions requirements. 

It merely clarifies the Missouri 

regulation, adds exemptions for 

individual emission units using cleanburning fuels and for entire facilities 

using only these specific clean fuels, 

and is expected to improve compliance. 

II. EPA Review of the State Submittal 

A. Summary of Revised Emission Limits 

The Missouri rule establishes 

emission rate limits for installations in 

which fuel is burned for the primary 

purpose of producing steam, hot water, 

or hot air or other indirect heating of 

liquids, gases, or solids and in the 

course of doing so, the products of 

combustion do not come into direct 

contact with process materials. As 

discussed above, fuels may include but 

are not limited to coal, tire-derived fuel, 

coke, lignite, coke breeze, gas, fuel oil, 

biomass and wood, but do not include 

refuse. 

An installation is excluded from this 

rule if all of the installation’s applicable 

units are fueled only by landfill gas, 

propane, natural gas, fuel oils #2 

through #6 (with less than 1.2 percent 

sulfur), or other gases (with hydrogen 

sulfide levels less than or equal to four 

parts-per-million by volume as 

measured by American Standard for 

Testing of Materials (ASTM) ASTM 

D4084, or equivalent method, and 

mercury concentrations less than 40 

micrograms per cubic meter as 

measured using ASTM D5954, or ASTM 

D6350, or equivalent), or any 

combination of these fuels. 

In a correspondence dated January 31, 

2012, the Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources (MDNR) provided 

supplemental information to EPA 

supporting the rule. In its analysis of the 

emissions impact of the clean fuels 

exclusion, MDNR relied on a technical 

analysis of emissions from units burning 

such fuels, performed for EPA in 

conjunction with the boiler MACT 

rulemaking (76 FR 80532). MDNR 

compared projected emissions from 

such units to the emission limitations 

under the state rule, and concluded that 

emissions would be lower with the use 

of clean fuels than emissions allowed 

under the state’s indirect heating rule. 

MDNR concluded, based on this 

analysis, that emissions would not 

increase as a result of the exclusion. 

EPA has reviewed MDNR’s analysis and 

agrees with this conclusion. 

The Missouri rule sets emission limits 

for Existing Indirect Heating Sources 

based on the area of the State (Kansas 

City and St. Louis Metropolitan areas, or 

Springfield—Greene County and 

Outstate Missouri areas) and the 

aggregate heat content of all fuels whose 

combustion products pass through a 

stack(s). These limits are the same as 

those already approved in the State SIP 

through the adoption of the pre-existing 

rules. 

Similarly, the Missouri rule sets 

emission limits for New Indirect 

Heating Sources. Again, these limits are 

the same as those already approved in 

the State SIP through the adoption of 

the pre-existing regulations. 

The Missouri rule also presents the 

option of demonstrating compliance if 

the weighted average emission rate 

(WAER) of two or more indirect heating 

sources is less than or equal to the 

maximum allowable particulate 

emission rate limits for PM emissions 

required by the regulation. EPA has 

reviewed this approach and determined 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 56557 

that it is a valid method for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

standard because it achieves the same 

overall level of emissions for the 

installation. 

The January 31, 2012, 

correspondence, referenced above, also 

included a technical analysis 

demonstrating that the averaging 

approach versus unit-specific PM limits 

for determining compliance with the 

rule had no effect on the emission 

limits. EPA agrees with this analysis. 

In summary, EPA has reviewed this 

consolidated regulation and determined 

that it achieves the same level of PM 

control as the pre-existing four 

regulations, and therefore is equally 

protective of human health and the 

environment. 

B. Enforceability 

The Missouri rule is state enforceable 

and has already been made effective by 

the state as of October 30, 2011. The 

Missouri rule specifies reporting and 

record keeping requirements for 

installations subject to the rule. The 

owner or operator of an installation 

subject to the rule shall maintain 

records annual emissions and testing 

records demonstrating compliance with 

the rule for a period of five years. These 

records must be available to MDNR 

upon request. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Missouri’s request 

to include the new State rule regulation 

into the Missouri SIP. This approval is 

based on EPA’s finding that the rule is 

as stringent as the four rules it replaces 

and fulfills the requirements of the 

CAA. EPA notes that although this SIP 

revision does not reduce state-wide PM 

from current levels, it consolidates and 

clarifies four existing rules to result in 

greater compliance toward attaining the 

2006 p.m. NAAQS. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that the Administrator determines to be 

in compliance with the provisions of the 

Act 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 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 action 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 in 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 March 16, 2009. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 29, 2012. 

Mark J. Hague, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

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. 

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. Section 52.1320(c) is amended by 

revising the entries for 10–2.040, 10– 

3.060, 10–4.040, and 10–5.030 and 

adding an entry for 10–6.405 to the table 

in numerical order to read as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of Plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

56558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

10–2.040 ........................ Maximum Allowable Emission of Particulate Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating.9/4/84 1/24/85, 50 FR 3337 ..... Rescinded. 

* * * * * * * 

10–3.060 ........................ Maximum Allowable Emission of Particulate Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating.11/30/02 3/18/03, 68 FR 12831 ... Rescinded. 

* * * * * * * 

10–4.040 ........................ Maximum Allowable Emission of Particulate Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating.11/30/02 3/18/03, 68 FR 12831 ... Rescinded. 

* * * * * * * 

10–5.030 ........................ Maximum Allowable Emission of Particulate Matter from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating.9/4/84 1/24/85, 50 FR 3337 ..... Rescinded. 

* * * * * * * 

10–6.405 ........................ Restriction of Particulate Matter Emissions From 

Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect 

Heating.

10/30/11 9/13/12 [insert Federal 

Register page number where the document begins].

Replaces 10–2.040, 10– 

3.060, 10–4.040, and 

10–5.030 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–22471 Filed 9–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R01–RCRA–2012–0447; FRL–9727–2] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Final Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is granting the petition 

submitted by International Business 

Machines Corporation (IBM) to exclude 

or ‘‘delist’’ a certain wastewater 

treatment sludge generated by its facility 

in Essex Junction, Vermont from the 

lists of hazardous wastes. This final rule 

responds to a petition submitted by IBM 

to delist F006 waste. The F006 waste is 

sludge generated from IBM’s Industrial 

Waste Treatment Plant (IWTP). 

After careful analysis and use of the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS), EPA has concluded the 

petitioned waste is not hazardous waste. 

The F006 exclusion is a conditional 

exclusion for 3,150 cubic yards per year 

of the F006 wastewater treatment 

sludge. 

Accordingly, this final rule excludes 

the petitioned waste from the 

requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on September 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R01–RCRA–2012–0447. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

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, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 1 Library, 5 Post Office 

Square, 1st floor, Boston, MA 02109– 

3912; by appointment only; tel: (617) 

918–1990. The public may copy 

material from any regulatory docket at 

no cost for the first 100 pages and at a 

cost of $0.15 per page for additional 

copies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Leitch, RCRA Waste 

Management and UST Section, Office of 

Site Remediation and Restoration, (Mail 

Code: OSRR07–01), EPA Region 1, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, 

MA 02109–3912; telephone number: 

(617) 918–1647; fax number (617) 918– 

0647; email address: 

leitch.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this section is organized 

as follows: 

I. Overview Information 

A. What action is EPA finalizing? 

B. Why is EPA approving this action? 

C. What are the limits of this exclusion? 

D. How will IBM manage the waste, when 

delisted? 

E. When is the final delisting exclusion 

effective? 

F. How does this final rule affect states? 

II. Background 

A. What is a delisting petition? 

B. What regulations allow facilities to 

delist a waste? 

C. What information must the generator 

supply? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste 

Information and Data 

A. What waste did IBM petition EPA to 

delist? 

B. How much waste did IBM propose to 

delist? 

C. How did IBM sample and analyze the 

waste data in this petition? 

IV. Public Comments Received on the 

Proposed Exclusions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES