Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534-0409
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators
Posted Date: 2010-05-14T04:00Z

[Federal Register: May 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 93)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27249-27255]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14my10-24]

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

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-and-r-
Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534.
    Facsimile: Fax your comments to (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534.
    Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0534. Please include a total of two copies. We request that a
separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified below (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534.
Such deliveries are accepted only during the normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0534. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle
Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. Contact Ms. Joan Rogers at (919)
541-4487 to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public hearing,
to determine if a hearing will be held, or to determine the hearing
location. If no one contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing concerning this proposed rule by May 24, 2010, the hearing will
be cancelled without further notice.
    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534 and Legacy Docket ID No. A-91-61. All
documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ketan D. Patel, Natural Resources
and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03),

[[Page 27250]]

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-9736; fax number: (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: patel.ketan@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
II. Background
III. Summary of Proposed Amendments
    A. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Limit
    B. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Limit
    C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
IV. Impacts of the Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
changes in this action is available in the docket.

I. General Information

A. Does the proposed action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by
the proposed action are those which operate hospital/medical/infectious
waste incinerators (HMIWI). The NSPS and emissions guidelines (EG) for
HMIWI affect the following categories of sources:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 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 (NOX) for large HMIWI, which did
not appear to reflect EPA's described analytical process for adopting
the revised standards. On review, EPA staff determined that the
published revised NOX NSPS for large HMIWI indeed did not
reflect EPA's intent in the final rule. EPA also reviewed the other
published NSPS and EG emissions limits for similar errors, and
determined that the published revised sulfur dioxide (SO2)
NSPS for large HMIWI also did not reflect EPA's intent in the final
rule. To correct these errors, this action issues proposed amendments
to the NSPS emissions limits for NOX and SO2 for
large HMIWI.
    Also after promulgation, a State agency representative informed EPA
of an error in the published NSPS reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, which incorrectly referred to 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
NOX and SO2 NSPS emissions limits for new large
HMIWI, which have been revised to correspond to the aforementioned
standard-setting process. The third section discusses the proposed
amendments to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for new
HMIWI, which have been revised to correct the cross-reference to Sec.
60.56c.

A. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Limit

    For the large HMIWI size subcategory, the NOX emissions
estimate associated with the best controlled similar unit is 66.9 parts
per million by volume (ppmv). (See 2009 memorandum entitled ``Revised
MACT Floors, Data Variability Analysis and Emission Limits for Existing
and New HMIWI,'' which is included in the docket.) Because there were
only a few datapoints for NOX for the best performer, we
assumed a normal distribution in calculating the NOX upper
limit value. The 99 percent upper limit for NOX for new
large HMIWI (assuming a normal distribution) is 144 ppmv. (See 2009
memorandum entitled ``Revised MACT Floors, Data Variability Analysis,
and Emission Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,'' which is included in
the docket.) Rounding up to two significant figures, we estimated the
NOX emissions limit for new large HMIWI would be 150 ppmv,
which would be less stringent than the corresponding NOX EG
limit for existing HMIWI (140 ppmv).
    This unusual situation occurred due to a difference in the size of
the datasets used to determine the NOX upper limit values
for existing and new HMIWI. The NOX dataset for the best
performer (used to determine the MACT floor for NOX for new
sources) was smaller than the NOX dataset for the best-
performing 12 percent of sources (used to determine the MACT floor for
existing sources) and had a higher standard deviation.

[[Page 27252]]

Since the upper limit calculation depends on both the average and
standard deviation, the higher standard deviation resulted in the
NOX upper limit value for the best performer being less
stringent. (See 2009 memorandum entitled ``Revised MACT Floors, Data
Variability Analysis, and Emission Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,''
which is included in the docket.)
    In this and other similar cases, we decided to use existing source
limits for new sources where they are more stringent than new source
limits, in order to prevent a situation where a new source would have a
less stringent emissions limit than an existing source. We estimated
the NOX EG limit for existing large HMIWI to be 140 ppmv.
(See 2009 memorandum entitled ``Revised MACT Floors, Data Variability
Analysis, and Emission Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,'' which is
included in the docket.) Therefore, the NSPS NOX emissions
limit for new large HMIWI should have also been 140 ppmv. However, a
NOX NSPS limit of 130 ppmv was erroneously published, which
does not correspond to our analytical process.
    The source of this error lies in the previous draft of the
NOX EG limit for existing large HMIWI (130 ppmv), which was
incorrectly determined assuming a normal distribution of the
NOX emissions dataset for the best-performing 12 percent of
the large HMIWI size subcategory. The distribution of the
NOX emissions dataset for the best-performing 12 percent of
large HMIWI was actually lognormal (based on a skewness of 1.44).
Assuming a normal distribution would result in a NOX upper
limit value of 121 ppmv, which would be rounded up to 130 ppmv to
establish the NOX EG limit. Assuming a lognormal
distribution, the NOX upper limit would actually be 131
ppmv, which would be rounded up to 140 ppmv to establish the
NOX EG limit. The correct NOX EG limit (140 ppmv)
was included in the final rule for existing large HMIWI, but the
incorrect, previous draft of the NOX NSPS limit (130 ppmv)
was erroneously included in the final rule for new large HMIWI. Today's
action proposes to correct this error and amend the HMIWI NSPS to
include the correct NOX NSPS limit of 140 ppmv for new large
HMIWI, which matches the final NOX EG limit and reflects
EPA's intent in the October 6, 2009 final rule.

B. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Limit

    For the large HMIWI size subcategory, the SO2 emissions
estimate associated with the best controlled similar unit is 0.462
ppmv. (See 2009 memorandum entitled ``Revised MACT Floors, Data
Variability Analysis, and Emission Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,''
which is included in the docket.) In our analysis for the October 6,
2009, final rule, we indicated that the SO2 data for the
best performer were normally distributed, but a closer examination of
the skewness of the data (0.54) indicates that the SO2 data
are actually lognormally distributed. For the October 6, 2009, final
rule, we erroneously estimated a 99 percent upper limit of 1.59 ppmv
and an emissions limit of 1.6 ppmv for new large HMIWI, based on our
incorrect estimation that the SO2 data were normally
distributed. (See 2009 memorandum entitled ``Revised MACT Floors, Data
Variability Analysis, and Emission Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,''
which is included in the docket.) The 99 percent upper limit for
SO2 for new large HMIWI based on a lognormal distribution is
8.04 ppmv. Rounding up to two significant figures, the SO2
NSPS emissions limit should be 8.1 ppmv, if our standard-setting
process is to be correctly followed. (See 2009 memorandum entitled
``Revised Sulfur Dioxide MACT Floor, Data Variability Analysis, and
Emission Limit for New Large HMIWI,'' which is included in the docket.)
This action proposes to amend the HMIWI NSPS to include the correct
SO2 limit of 8.1 ppmv for new large HMIWI, which reflects
EPA's intent in the October 6, 2009, final rule.

C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The NSPS reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the October 6,
2009, final rule include three separate cross-references to ``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 NOX and SO2 for new large units.
    However, in the unlikely event that a new unit is constructed, we
estimated costs and impacts expected for each of three HMIWI model
plants (large, medium and small), which we entered into the docket for
the October 6, 2009, promulgation. (See 2009 memoranda entitled
``Revised Compliance Costs and Economic Inputs for New HMIWI'' and
``Revised Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Existing and
New HMIWI,'' which are included in the docket.) We estimated baseline
NOX emissions of 80 ppmv and baseline SO2
emissions of 0.84 ppmv for the large HMIWI model plant, based on the
average NOX and SO2 emissions measured at the
latest large HMIWI to be installed since the 1997 rule. Consequently,
the NOX and SO2 emissions associated with the
large HMIWI model plant are already below both the incorrect
NOX and SO2 emissions limits of 130 ppmv and 1.6
ppmv, respectively, promulgated in the October 6, 2009, Federal
Register notice and the correct NOX and SO2
emissions limits of 140 ppmv and 8.1 ppmv, respectively, being proposed
in today's action. Therefore, even if a new large unit were
constructed, we would estimate no cost savings or negative impacts
associated with today's proposed amendments to the NOX and
SO2 emissions limits for new large HMIWI.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order (EO) 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is,
therefore, not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Today's proposed
rule only includes revised NOX and SO2 emissions
limits for new large HMIWI, and, as noted previously, no new HMIWI are
anticipated. Consequently, today's proposed action will not impose any
additional information collection burden for new sources.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant

[[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 NOX and
SO2 emissions limits for new large HMIWI, and no new HMIWI
are anticipated.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538
for State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This
proposed action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this proposed
action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the
UMRA.
    This proposed action is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EO 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' are defined in the EO to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in EO 13132. This proposed action will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments, and
will not preempt State law. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of EO 13132 and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO
13175 (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000). EPA is not aware of any HMIWI
owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, EO 13175 does not
apply to this action.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) as applying
to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology
performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in EO
13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of
energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EO 12898 (59 FR 7629)(February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it affects only
new large units and no new units are anticipated to be constructed.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 10, 2010.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
60 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart Ec--[Amended]

    2. Section 60.58c is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1) through
(3) to read as follows:

[[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