[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27249-27255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11585]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 cross-references 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 href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b0a460a050f4619462f0408000e1f2b0e1b0a450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="caabe7aba4aee7b8e78ea5a9a1afbe8aafbaabe4ada5bc">[email protected]</span></a>, 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),

[[Page 27250]]

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-9736; fax number: (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94e4f5e0f1f8bafff1e0f5fad4f1e4f5baf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0575647160692b6e6071646b456075642b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>.

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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of potentially
            Category               NAICS code       regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          622110  Private hospitals,
                                         622310   other health care
                                         325411   facilities, commercial
                                         325412   research laboratories,
                                         562213   commercial waste
                                         611310   disposal companies,
                                                  private universities.
Federal Government.............          622110  Federal hospitals,
                                         541710   other health care
                                         928110   facilities, public
                                                  health service, armed
                                                  services.
State/local/tribal Government..          622110  State/local hospitals,
                                         562213   other health care
                                         611310   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

[[Page 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-p-dioxins/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 (NO<INF>X</INF>) 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 (SO<INF>2</INF>) 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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 Sec.  60.56, instead of 
Sec.  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 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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 Sec.  
60.56c.

A. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Limit

    For the large HMIWI size subcategory, the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> for the best performer, we 
assumed a normal distribution in calculating the NO<INF>X</INF> upper 
limit value. The 99 percent upper limit for NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limit for new large HMIWI would be 150 ppmv, 
which would be less stringent than the corresponding NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> upper limit values 
for existing and new HMIWI. The NO<INF>X</INF> dataset for the best 
performer (used to determine the MACT floor for NO<INF>X</INF> for new 
sources) was smaller than the NO<INF>X</INF> dataset for the best-
performing 12 percent of sources (used to determine the MACT floor for 
existing sources) and had a higher standard deviation.

[[Page 27252]]

Since the upper limit calculation depends on both the average and 
standard deviation, the higher standard deviation resulted in the 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
limit for new large HMIWI should have also been 140 ppmv. However, a 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> EG limit for existing large HMIWI (130 ppmv), which was 
incorrectly determined assuming a normal distribution of the 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions dataset for the best-performing 12 percent of 
the large HMIWI size subcategory. The distribution of the 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> upper 
limit value of 121 ppmv, which would be rounded up to 130 ppmv to 
establish the NO<INF>X</INF> EG limit. Assuming a lognormal 
distribution, the NO<INF>X</INF> upper limit would actually be 131 
ppmv, which would be rounded up to 140 ppmv to establish the 
NO<INF>X</INF> EG limit. The correct NO<INF>X</INF> EG limit (140 ppmv) 
was included in the final rule for existing large HMIWI, but the 
incorrect, previous draft of the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> NSPS limit of 140 ppmv for new large 
HMIWI, which matches the final NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> data for the 
best performer were normally distributed, but a closer examination of 
the skewness of the data (0.54) indicates that the SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> for new large HMIWI based on a lognormal distribution is 
8.04 ppmv. Rounding up to two significant figures, the SO<INF>2</INF> 
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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 ``Sec.  
60.56(d), (h), or (j).'' The correct cross-reference in each case 
should have been ``Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions of 80 ppmv and baseline SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions of 0.84 ppmv for the large HMIWI model plant, based on the 
average NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions measured at the 
latest large HMIWI to be installed since the 1997 rule. Consequently, 
the NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions associated with the 
large HMIWI model plant are already below both the incorrect 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions limits of 130 ppmv and 1.6 
ppmv, respectively, promulgated in the October 6, 2009, Federal 
Register notice and the correct NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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

[[Page 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-for-profit 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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:

[[Page 27254]]

Sec.  60.58c  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) The values for the site-specific operating parameters 
established pursuant to Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.   60.50c(a)(3) and (4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Emissions limits
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------                        Method for
           Pollutant                 Units (7 percent                            HMIWI size                           Averaging time     demonstrating
                                    oxygen, dry basis)   ----------------------------------------------------------        \1\           compliance \2\
                                                                 Small              Medium             Large
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter.............  Milligrams per dry       66 (0.029)........  22 (0.0095)......  18 (0.0080)......  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  standard cubic meter                                                               hour minimum       Method 5 of
                                  (grains per dry                                                                    sample time per    appendix A-3 of
                                  standard cubic foot).                                                              run).              part 60, or EPA
                                                                                                                                        Reference Method
                                                                                                                                        M 26A or 29 of
                                                                                                                                        appendix A-8 of
                                                                                                                                        part 60.
Carbon monoxide................  Parts per million by     20................  1.8..............  11...............  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  volume.                                                                            hour minimum       Method 10 or 10B
                                                                                                                     sample time per    of appendix A-4
                                                                                                                     run).              of part 60.
Dioxins/furans.................  Nanograms per dry        16 (7.0) or 0.013   0.47 (0.21) or     9.3 (4.1) or       3-run average (4-  EPA Reference
                                  standard cubic meter     (0.0057).           0.014 (0.0061).    0.035 (0.015).     hour minimum       Method 23 of
                                  total dioxins/furans                                                               sample time per    appendix A-7 of
                                  (grains per billion                                                                run).              part 60.
                                  dry standard cubic
                                  feet) or nanograms per
                                  dry standard cubic
                                  meter TEQ (grains per
                                  billion dry standard
                                  cubic feet).
Hydrogen chloride..............  Parts per million by     15................  7.7..............  5.1..............  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  volume.                                                                            hour minimum       Method 26 or 26A
                                                                                                                     sample time per    of appendix A-8
                                                                                                                     run).              of part 60.
Sulfur dioxide.................  Parts per million by     1.4...............  1.4..............  8.1..............  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  volume.                                                                            hour minimum       Method 6 or 6C
                                                                                                                     sample time per    of appendix A-4
                                                                                                                     run).              of part 60.
Nitrogen oxides................  Parts per million by     67................  67...............  140..............  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  volume.                                                                            hour minimum       Method 7 or 7E
                                                                                                                     sample time per    of appendix A-4
                                                                                                                     run).              of part 60.
Lead...........................  Milligrams per dry       0.31 (0.14).......  0.018 (0.0079)...  0.00069 (0.00030)  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  standard cubic meter                                                               hour minimum       Method 29 of
                                  (grains per thousand                                                               sample time per    appendix A-8 of
                                  dry standard cubic                                                                 run).              part 60.
                                  feet.
Cadmium........................  Milligrams per dry       0.017 (0.0074)....  0.0098 (0.0043)..  0.00013            3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  standard cubic meter                                            (0.000057).        hour minimum       Method 29 of
                                  (grains per thousand                                                               sample time per    appendix A-8 of
                                  dry standard cubic                                                                 run).              part 60.
                                  feet) or percent
                                  reduction.
Mercury........................  Milligrams per dry       0.014 (0.0061)....  0.0035 (0.0015)..  0.0013 (0.00057).  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  standard cubic meter                                                               hour minimum       Method 29 of
                                  (grains per thousand                                                               sample time per    appendix A-8 of
                                  dry standard cubic                                                                 run).              part 60.
                                  feet) or percent
                                  reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except as allowed under Sec.   60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
\2\ Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under Sec.   60.56c(b).


[[Page 27255]]

[FR Doc. 2010-11585 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>