Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.

122 / Monday, June 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules 36907

normal hours of operation. The Regional ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of special arrangements should be made
Office’s official hours of business are reconsideration of final rule; request for for deliveries of boxed information.
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 public comment. Instructions. Direct your comments to
excluding Federal holidays. Docket ID No. OAR–2002–0058 (Legacy
SUMMARY: The EPA is requesting Docket ID No. A–96–47). The EPA’s
C. How Should I Submit CBI to the comment on certain aspects of our policy is that all comments received
Agency? national emission standards for will be included in the public docket
Do not submit information that you hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for without change and may be made
consider to be CBI electronically to EPA. industrial, commercial, and institutional available online at http://www.epa.gov/
You may claim information that you boilers and process heaters, which EPA edocket, including any personal
submit to EPA as CBI by marking any promulgated on September 13, 2004. information provided, unless the
part or all of that information as CBI (if After promulgation of the final comment includes information claimed
you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, regulations for boilers and process to be Confidential Business Information
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM heaters, the Administrator received (CBI) or other information whose
as CBI and then identify electronically petitions for reconsideration of certain disclosure is restricted by statute. Do
within the disk or CD ROM the specific provisions in the final rule. In this not submit information that you
information that is CBI). Information so document, the EPA is initiating the consider to be CBI or otherwise
marked will not be disclosed except in reconsideration of some of those protected through EDOCKET,
accordance with procedures set forth in provisions. We are requesting comment regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA
40 CFR part 2. on certain provisions of the approach EDOCKET and the Federal
In addition to one complete version of used to demonstrate eligibility for the regulations.gov Web sites are
the comment that includes any health-based compliance alternatives, as ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which
information claimed as CBI, a copy of outlined in appendix A of the final rule, means EPA will not know your identity
the comment that does not contain the and on the provisions establishing a or contact information unless you
information claimed as CBI must be health-based compliance alternative for provide it in the body of your comment.
submitted for inclusion in the official total selected metals. We are not If you send an e-mail comment directly
public regional rulemaking file. If you requesting comment on any other to EPA without going through
submit the copy that does not contain provisions of the final rule. We are not EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-
CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the granting petitioners’ request that we stay mail address will be automatically
outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly the effectiveness of the health-based captured and included as part of the
that it does not contain CBI. Information compliance provisions of the final rule, comment that is placed in the public
not marked as CBI will be included in pending this reconsideration action. docket and made available on the
the public file and available for public DATES: Comments. Comments must be Internet. If you submit an electronic
inspection without prior notice. If you received on or before August 11, 2005. comment, EPA recommends that you
have any questions about CBI or the Public Hearing. If anyone contacts include your name and other contact
procedures for claiming CBI, please EPA requesting to speak at a public information in the body of your
consult the person identified in the FOR hearing by July 7, 2005, a public hearing comment and with any disk or CD ROM
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. will be held on July 12, 2005. For you submit. If EPA cannot read your
further information on the public comment due to technical difficulties
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 and cannot contact you for clarification,
hearing and requests to speak, see the
Environmental protection, Air ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
EPA may not be able to consider your
pollution control, Incorporation by comment. Electronic files should avoid
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your the use of special characters, any form
reference, Intergovermental relations, comments, identified by Docket ID No. of encryption, and be free of any defects
Particulate Matter, Reporting and OAR–2002–0058 (Legacy Docket ID No. or viruses.
recordkeeping requirements. A–96–47) by one of the following Public Hearing. If a public hearing is
Dated: May 24, 2005. methods: held, it will be held on July 12, 2005 at
Bharat Mathur, • Federal eRulemaking Portal: the EPA facility, Research Triangle Park,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the N.C. or an alternative site nearby.
[FR Doc. 05–12659 Filed 6–24–05; 8:45 am] on-line instructions for submitting Persons interested in attending the
comments. hearing or wishing to present oral
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
• Agency Web site: http:// testimony should notify Ms. Pamela
www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s Garrett at least 2 days in advance of the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION electronic public docket and comment public hearing (see FOR FURTHER
AGENCY system, is EPA’s preferred method for INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
receiving comments. Follow the on-line preamble). The public hearing will
40 CFR Part 63 instructions for submitting comments. provide interested parties the
• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. opportunity to present data, views, or
[OAR–2002–0058; FRL–7928–7] • Fax: (202) 566–1741. arguments concerning this document.
• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket Docket. The EPA has established an
and Information Center, U.S. EPA, official public docket for today’s
RIN 2060–AM97
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania document, including both Docket ID No.
National Emission Standards for Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. OAR–2002–0058 and Legacy Docket ID
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, • Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation No. A–96–47. The official public docket
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers Docket and Information Center, U.S. consists of the documents specifically
and Process Heaters: Reconsideration EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution referenced in today’s document, any
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such public comments received, and other
AGENCY: Environmental Protection deliveries are only accepted during the information related to the document. All
Agency (EPA). Docket’s normal hours of operation, and items may not be listed under both

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:09 Jun 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM 27JNP1
36908 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules

docket numbers, so interested parties telephone number: (919) 541–5426; fax D. Site-Specific Risk Assessment
should inspect both docket numbers to number: (919) 541–5450; e-mail address: E. Background Concentrations and
ensure that they have received all eddinger.jim@epa.gov. For questions Emissions From Other Sources
materials relevant to today’s document. about the public hearing, contact Ms. F. Health-Based Compliance Alternative
for Metals
Although listed in the index, some Pamela Garrett, Combustion Group, G. Deadline for Submission of Health-
information is not publicly available, Emission Standards Division, Mailcode: Based Applicability Determinations
i.e., CBI or other information whose C439–01, Environmental Protection H. What Are the Proposed Corrections to
disclosure is restricted by statute. Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC the Health-Based Compliance
Certain other material, such as 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– Alternatives?
copyrighted material, is not placed on 7966; fax number: (919) 541–5450; e- V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
the Internet and will be publicly mail address: garrett.pamela@epa.gov. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
available only in hard copy form. Planning and Review
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Publicly available docket materials are
Outline. The information presented in C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
available either electronically in
this preamble is organized as follows: D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Air E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
and Radiation Docket and Information I. General Information
A. Does This Reconsideration Notice F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
Center, U.S. EPA, Room B102, 1301 and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, Apply to Me?
B. How Do I Submit CBI? Governments
DC. The Public Reading Room is open C. How Do I Obtain a Copy of This G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday Document and Other Related Children From Environmental Health
through Friday, excluding legal Information? and Safety Risks
holidays. The telephone number for the II. Background H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, III. Today’s Action Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
and the telephone number for the Air A. Grant of Reconsideration Distribution, or Use
B. Request for Stay of Health-Based I. National Technology Transfer and
and Radiation Docket and Information Advancement Act
Center is (202) 566–1742. Alternatives
IV. Discussion of Issues Subject to I. General Information
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
Reconsideration
general and technical information, A. Methodology and Criteria for A. Does This Reconsideration Notice
contact Mr. James Eddinger, Demonstrating Eligibility for the Health- Apply to Me?
Combustion Group, Emission Standards based Compliance Alternatives
Division, Mailcode: C439–01, U.S. EPA, B. Tiered Risk Assessment Methodology Categories and entities potentially
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; C. Look-Up Tables affected by today’s document include:

Category SIC code a NAICS code b Examples of potentially regulated entities

Any industry using a boiler or proc- 24 321 Manufacturers of lumber and wood products.
ess heater as defined in the final 26 322 Pulp and paper mills.
rule 28 325 Chemical manufacturers.
29 324 Petroleum refineries, and manufacturers of coal products.
30 316, 326, 339 Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastic products.
33 331 Steel works.
34 332 Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring.
37 336 Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and accessories.
49 221 Electric, gas, and sanitary services.
80 622 Health services.
82 611 Educational services.
a Standard Industrial Classification.
b North American Industrial Classification System.

This table is not intended to be you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the document also will be available on the
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide disk or CD ROM as CBI and then World Wide Web (WWW) through
for readers regarding entities likely to be identify electronically within the disk or EPA’s Technology Transfer Network
affected by today’s document. To CD ROM the specific information that is (TTN). Following the Administrator’s
determine whether your facility is claimed as CBI. In addition to one signature, a copy of this document will
affected by today’s document, you complete version of the comment that be posted on the TTN’s policy and
should examine the applicability includes information claimed as CBI, a guidance page for newly proposed rules
criteria in § 63.7485 of the final rule. If copy of the comment that does not at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The
you have questions regarding the contain the information claimed as CBI TTN provides information and
applicability of today’s document to a must be submitted for inclusion in the technology exchange in various areas of
particular entity, consult Mr. Jim public docket. Information so marked air pollution control.
Eddinger listed in the preceding FOR will not be disclosed except in
II. Background
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2. On September 13, 2004 (69 FR 55218),
B. How Do I Submit CBI? we promulgated NESHAP for sources in
Do not submit this information to EPA C. How Do I Obtain a Copy of This the industrial, commercial, and
through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or Document and Other Related institutional boilers and process heaters
e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of Information? category pursuant to section 112 of the
the information that you claim to be In addition to being available in the Clean Air Act (CAA). Under section
CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD ROM that docket, an electronic copy of today’s 112(d) of the CAA, the NESHAP must

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:09 Jun 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM 27JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules 36909

reflect the maximum degree of DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63). With respect this provision, the Administrator is to
reduction in emissions of HAP that is to manganese, affected sources that initiate reconsideration proceedings if
achievable, taking into consideration the demonstrate eligibility for the health- the petitioner can show that it was
cost of achieving the emissions based compliance alternative for total impracticable to raise an objection to a
reductions, any non-air quality health selected metals (TSM) are still subject to rule within the public comment period
and environmental impacts, and energy the MACT TSM emission limit and or that the grounds for the objection
requirements. This level of control is operating and monitoring requirements arose after the public comment period.
commonly referred to as maximum in the final rule (subpart DDDDD of 40 NRDC and EIP initially requested that
achievable control technology (MACT). CFR part 63) except that they may EPA reconsider seven issues reflected in
However, section 112(d)(4) of the CAA demonstrate compliance with the TSM the final rule that they believe could not
also states that ‘‘[w]ith respect to emission limit based on the sum of have been practicably addressed during
pollutants for which a health threshold emissions for seven metals, instead of the public comment period. EIP also
has been established, the Administrator the eight selected metals, by excluding
may consider such threshold level, with filed a supplement to this petition
manganese emissions. which raised additional issues for
an ample margin of safety, when The methodology and criteria for
establishing emissions standards under reconsideration. Together, NRDC and
affected sources to use in demonstrating
this subjection.’’ EIP have requested reconsideration of
eligibility for the health-based
We proposed standards for industrial, the following issues: (1) The adoption of
compliance alternatives were
commercial, and institutional boilers ‘‘no control’’ MACT floors for certain
promulgated in appendix A to subpart
and process heaters on January 13, 2003 subcategories and pollutants; (2)
DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63. (See 69 FR
(68 FR 16660). The preamble for the establishing risk-based alternatives on a
55282–55286.) Appendix A specifies the
proposed rule described the rationale process units and pollutants that must plant-by-plant basis; (3) the presence of
for the proposed rule and solicited be included in the eligibility health thresholds for HCl and
public comments. We requested demonstration, the emissions testing manganese; (4) consideration of
comment on incorporating various risk- methods, the criteria for determining if background pollution and co-located
based approaches (based on section an affected source is eligible, the risk emission sources; (5) establishing a
112(d)(4) and other provisions of the assessment methodology (look-up table health-based compliance alternative for
CAA) into the final rule to reduce the analysis or site-specific risk analysis), a pollutant (HCl) that serves as a
cost of regulatory controls on those the contents of the eligibility surrogate for other inorganic pollutants;
facilities that pose little risk to public demonstration, the schedule for (6) promulgating a health-based
health and the environment. (See 68 FR submission of the self-certified compliance alternative that allows low-
1688–1693.) Industry trade associations, eligibility demonstrations, and the risk sources of manganese emissions to
owners/operators of boilers and process methods for ensuring that an affected comply with the MACT limitations for
heaters, State regulatory agencies, local source remains eligible. metals without counting manganese; (7)
government agencies, and For an affected source to be eligible the procedures for demonstrating
environmental groups submitted for the health-based compliance compliance with the health-based
comments on the proposed risk-based alternatives, it must submit a signed alternatives; (8) consideration of
approaches. We received a total of 218 certification that the demonstration is emissions during periods of startup,
public comment letters on the proposed an accurate depiction of the affected shutdown, malfunction and (9) the cost-
rule during the comment period. We facility. Thereafter, it must have effectiveness of the health-based
summarized major public comments on federally enforceable conditions alternatives. The NRDC and EIP petition
the proposed risk-based approaches, reflecting the parameters used in the also requested that EPA stay the
along with our responses to those eligibility demonstration incorporated effectiveness of the health-based
comments, in the preamble to the final into its title V permit to ensure that it compliance alternatives pending
rule (see 69 FR 55239–55244) and in the remains eligible. reconsideration.
comment response memorandum, Following promulgation of the final
‘‘Response to Public Comments on By letters dated January 28, 2005, we
rule, the Administrator received informed NRDC and EIP that we
Proposed Industrial, Commercial, and petitions for reconsideration pursuant to
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters intended to grant their joint petition for
section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA from the reconsideration. We indicated in those
NESHAP (Revised) (RTC Memorandum) Natural Resources Defense Council
that was placed in the docket for the letters that we would respond to the
(NRDC), Environmental Integrity Project petitions by publishing this document.
final rule. (EIP), and General Electric (GE).1 Under
In the final rule, we adopted health- III. Today’s Action
based compliance alternatives for 1 In
addition to the petitions for reconsideration,
hydrogen chloride (HCl) and manganese two petitions for judicial review of the final rule A. Grant of Reconsideration
based on our authority under sections were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
112(d)(4) of the CAA. Affected sources District of Columbia by NRDC, Sierra Club, and EIP Today, we are granting
demonstrating that they are eligible for (No. 04–1385, D.C. Cir.) and American Municipal reconsideration of several of the issues
Power—Ohio and the Ohio cities of Dover, raised in the NRDC and EIP petition for
one or both of the health-based Hamilton, Orrville, Painesville, Shelby, and St.
compliance alternatives are not required Marys (No. 04–1386, D.C. Cir.). The two cases have
reconsideration. As a result, we are
to demonstrate compliance with specific been consolidated. Eleven additional parties have requesting comment on certain
emissions limits in table 1 to the final filed petitions to intervene: American Home provisions in appendix A of subpart
Furnishings Alliance, Council of Industrial Boiler DDDDD of 40 part 63 and the health-
rule. Affected sources that successfully Owners, American Forest and Paper Association,
demonstrate that they are eligible for the American Chemistry Council, National
based compliance alternative for total
HCl health-based compliance Petrochemical and Refiners Association, American selected metals reflected in § 63.7507(b)
alternatives are not subject to the MACT Petroleum Institute, National Oilseed Processors of the final rule. We are continuing to
Association, Coke Oven Environmental Task Force, review the issue raised by GE with
HCl emission limit but are still subject Utility Air Regulatory Group, and Alliance of
to operating and monitoring Automobile Manufacturers are intervening with
respect to the emissions averaging
requirements in the final rule (subpart regard to the health-based compliance alternatives. provision of the final rule and are not

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:09 Jun 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM 27JNP1
36910 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules

taking action on that petition at this The IRIS process is a rigorous scientific be created by our partial granting of
time.2 process which includes internal peer these petitions for reconsideration will
Nearly all of the issues on which review, external scientific peer review be short-lived.
NRDC and EIP request reconsideration combined with public notice, and often Thus, at this time we do not propose
relate to the health-based compliance includes outside peer consultation to to change the compliance date for the
alternatives adopted in the final rule. support the development of dose- final rule or the date for submittal of
Although we believe these aspects of the response knowledge. health-based eligibility demonstrations.
final rule are properly supported and Commenters also had an opportunity However, we request comment on
justified, we recognize that the public to address our treatment of emissions whether, in light of the time required to
may not have had the opportunity to during periods of startup, shutdown, complete this reconsideration action, we
comment on each of the implementation and malfunction and the cost- should adjust the timetable for
requirements for these alternatives that effectiveness of the proposed rule. We submission of these eligibility
are reflected in the final rule because received and responded to several determinations.
they were not completely developed by comments regarding startup, shutdown,
IV. Discussion of Issues Subject to
EPA at the time of the proposed rule. and malfunction plans. (See RTC at
Reconsideration
Section IV discusses the issues for 144–155 (section 12)). We assessed the
which we are soliciting comment, costs and benefits of the final rule in the Stakeholders who would like for us to
including the methodology and criteria preamble to the final rule (69 FR 55245– reconsider comments relevant to those
for demonstrating eligibility for the 55247) and the supporting issues that they submitted to us
health-based compliance alternatives, documentation ‘‘Regulatory Impact previously should identify the relevant
the tiered risk assessment approach, Analysis for the Final Industrial, docket entry numbers and page numbers
look-up tables, site-specific risk Commercial, and Institutional Boilers of their comments to facilitate
assessment, background concentrations and Process Heaters MACT’’ that was expeditious review during the
and emissions from other sources, included in the docket. reconsideration process. We plan to take
submission deadlines, and the health- final action on today’s reconsideration
B. Request for Stay of Health-Based as expeditiously as possible.
based compliance alternative for metals. Alternatives
We are not reconsidering the A. Methodology and Criteria for
remaining issues raised by NRDC and We are not granting the request by
Demonstrating Eligibility for the Health-
EIP because we believe we provided NRDC and EIP for a stay of the health-
Based Compliance Alternatives
clear notice and a full opportunity to based compliance alternatives. Under
section 307(b)(1) and 307(d)(7)(B) of the In the final rule, we established
comment on these aspects of the final emissions limitations for particulate
rule. We proposed ‘‘no emissions CAA, the effectiveness of our final rules
is not automatically postponed by our matter (PM), TSM, HCl, mercury, and
control’’ floors in our January 2003 carbon monoxide based on MACT.
action and received comments on this granting of a petition for reconsideration
on certain issues. However, the These limitations are set forth in table
issue. (See 68 FR 1672–1678; 69 FR 1 to subpart DDDDD. In addition, based
55233; RTC Memorandum at 78–79.) We Administrator has the discretion to stay
such rules pending reconsideration for a on section 112(d)(4) of the CAA, we also
also proposed to establish plant-by- established health-based compliance
plant health-based alternatives under period not to exceed 3 months.
We do not believe it is necessary in alternatives to the HCl and TSM
the authority of section 112(d)(4) of the emissions limitations, which are set
this instance to stay the health-based
CAA and thoroughly explained why this forth in § 63.7507 of subpart DDDDD.
compliance alternatives. Although we
action is legally permissible in response Under these alternatives, an affected
have decided to reconsider certain
to comments on this issue (69 FR source that qualifies may demonstrate
aspects concerning the implementation
55239–44). (See also RTC Memorandum compliance with a health-based HCl
of these alternatives, we do not have
at 185–269.) Likewise, we proposed equivalent allowable emission limit
reason to believe that approaches
health-based compliance alternatives for instead of the emissions limitation for
reflected in these provisions are
HCl and proposed using HCl as a HCl set forth in table 1. For TSM, an
erroneous. We regard these aspects of
surrogate to regulate other inorganic affected source that qualifies may
the final rule as a reasonable exercise of
pollutants. (See 68 FR 1671, 1692.) We demonstrate compliance with the
our discretion and authority under the
received and responded to comments emission standard for TSM in the final
CAA that will reduce compliance costs
raising concerns about combining these rule based on the sum of emissions for
for sources.
two concepts in the rule, as proposed, The public health is not endangered the seven selected metals, excluding
and addressed this issue when we by the continued effectiveness of the manganese emissions from the
developed appendix A to subpart health-based compliance alternatives summation of TSM emissions for the
DDDDD. (See 69 FR 55243–55244.) We during the reconsideration process. A affected source.
identified the Integrated Risk facility cannot invoke this alternative In our notice of proposed rulemaking,
Information System (IRIS) reference compliance option unless it we described approaches that we might
concentrations for HCl and manganese demonstrates to the appropriate use to implement an applicability cutoff
in the notice of proposed rulemaking permitting authority that its emissions for threshold pollutants based on
(68 FR 1690). These values were exhibit characteristics that EPA believes section 112(d)(4) of the CAA. (See 68 FR
established through a process conducted do not pose significant risk to the 1689–1692.) We discussed establishing
by EPA’s Office of Research and surrounding population. In addition, the the applicability cutoffs using a target
Development in which there was compliance date for existing sources is organ specific HI, which is the sum of
opportunity for public participation in 2007, so the health-based compliance the individual hazard quotients (HQ) for
(e.g., 58 FR 11490 (February 25, 1993). alternatives will not be applied to such pollutants that affect the same target
2 GE requested reconsideration of the emissions
sources immediately. organ or system. A HQ is the ratio of the
averaging provisions of the final rule to address
Finally, we intend to complete our level of exposure for a single substance
how this provision might apply in the context of reconsideration of the final rule over a specified time period to a
emissions units that vent to a single stack. expeditiously. Any uncertainty that may reference level (e.g., EPA’s reference

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:09 Jun 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM 27JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules 36911

concentration, or RfC) for that substance Appendix A describes a tiered source might cause a HI limit to be
derived for a similar exposure period. approach where sources can utilize the exceeded. (See 68 FR 1691.)
The RfC is an estimate of a continuous health-based alternative compliance In the final rule, we promulgated
inhalation exposure or a daily exposure options by performing either a look-up specific look-up tables for HC1 and
to the human population (including table analysis or a more detailed site- manganese that provide allowable
sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be specific analysis. Thus, a source would emissions rate values for several
without an appreciable risk of start with a modeling strategy that combinations of stack heights and
deleterious non-cancer effects during a requires very little site-specific data and distances to a property boundary. (See
lifetime. (See 69 FR 1689.) In addition, makes health-protective assumptions 69 FR 55286.) A source is eligible for the
we discussed the possibility of (e.g. look-up tables). At more refined compliance alternatives if its calculated
developing a series of simple look-up tiers, the assessment becomes more emission rate does not exceed the
tables that a facility could use to realistic (e.g. less likely to overestimate appropriate value in the look-up table.
determine whether emissions from a risks) but it requires more site-specific We developed the look-up tables for
source might cause a hazard index limit data and possibly more sophisticated hydrogen chloride and manganese in
to be exceeded. (See 69 FR 1691.) In models. Thus, higher tier assessments appendix A to subpart DDDDD using the
addition, we also discussed the result in a more realistic assessment of health-protective SCREEN3 air
possibility that a facility that did not risk but require more data and are more dispersion model. A description of the
pass the look-up table analysis might be labor intensive to conduct. method we used to develop the look-up
able to demonstrate that the facility does In the implementation of this tables is set forth in a memorandum in
not exceed the HI limit by conducting approach in the final rule, we did two the docket entitled ‘‘Development of
a more site-specific and resource- things: (1) We created look-up tables Central Nervous System and Respiratory
intensive analysis using EPA-approved System Look-up Tables for Industrial
specific to this source category,
modeling procedures. (See 69 FR 1691.) Boilers.’’ We ran dispersion models
eliminating the need to use the generic
In the final rule, we established using health-protective assumptions
look-up table in the proposed reference,
procedures for demonstrating eligibility that we believe are appropriate for a
and (2) we referred the user requiring
for the health-based compliance screening analysis such as the one set
more refined tiers of analysis to our
alternatives and codified them in forth in appendix A to subpart DDDDD.
recently published Air Toxics Risk
The look-up table for HCl was
appendix A of subpart DDDDD. These Assessment Reference Library, Volume
developed based on an evaluation of not
procedures are summarized in the 2, Facility-specific Assessment, a
just HCl, but all acid gas and respiratory
preamble to the final rule (69 FR 55227– document which builds off the earlier
HAP. Likewise, the look-up table for
55228). The preamble to the final rule EPA guidance document (the one
manganese was developed based on an
also contained a summary of our referenced in the proposal),
assessment of not just manganese
response to significant comments. (See implementing the tiered approach in the
emissions, but all central nervous
69 FR 55239–55244.) context of a facility-specific risk
system HAP emissions.
We are requesting comment on assessment for air toxics. Both of these We used average stack height because,
specific aspects of the methodology documents endorse the assessment of based on available stack height
reflected in appendix A, as discussed in air toxics risks using a tiered, iterative information for several facilities, we
more detail in the following sections. approach, and that has been the found that the stacks heights of multiple
preferred approach ever since it was solid fuel units at a given facility are
B. Tiered Risk Assessment Methodology endorsed by the National Academy of generally similar. In light of this finding
As noted above, appendix A to Sciences in their report, ‘‘Science and and health-protective assumptions built
subpart DDDDD employs a tiered Judgment in Risk Assessment,’’ NRC into the look-up tables, we believe that
analytical approach to determine press, 1994. using average stack height will not
whether a facility is eligible for the In response to the concerns expressed understate the risks posed by each
health-based compliance alternatives. by the petitioners, we have entered the source.
We explained in our notice of proposed document ‘‘A Tiered Modeling We request comment on the look-up
rulemaking that a tiered analysis Approach for Assessing the Risks Due to tables and the methodology used to
involves making successive refinements Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants’’ develop them. This includes our use of
in modeling methodologies and input into the docket for public review. We average stack heights, the derivation of
data such that increasing levels of request comment on the use of a tiered different look-up table values based on
refinement require more site-specific analysis in appendix A and the distance from the property line, and the
data and are, therefore, less likely to application in this case of the principles use of conservative assumptions to
overestimate risks. (See 68 FR 1691.) set forth in the aforementioned account for other variables such as
Additionally, in our notice of document. meteorology.
proposed rulemaking, we indicated that
C. Look-Up Tables D. Site-Specific Risk Assessment
EPA guidance could provide the basis
for conducting a tiered analysis. (See 68 In the notice of proposed rulemaking, If a facility cannot show eligibility for
FR 1691.) Such guidance may be found for the first tier of a risk assessment a compliance alternative based on the
in the document ‘‘A Tiered Modeling analysis for threshold pollutants, we look-up table, it may conduct a more
Approach for Assessing the Risks due to proposed to develop a series of simple refined site-specific risk assessment in
Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants,’’ look-up tables based on the results of air accordance with section 7 of appendix
EPA–450/4–92–001 that we referenced dispersion modeling using conservative A to subpart DDDDD. (See 69 FR 55283.)
in a footnote. Although it was clearly input assumptions. We proposed to Under this approach, a facility must use
referenced in the proposal, we create tables using a limited number of any scientifically-defensible,
inadvertently failed to place this parameters (such as stack height, transparent and peer-reviewed
document in the docket for the distance to property line, and emissions assessment methodology to determine
proposed rulemaking. It is now in the rate) that could be used to easily risk from the facility. The facility is
docket. determine whether emissions from a eligible for the alternative compliance

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:09 Jun 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM 27JNP1
36912 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules

option if the site-specific risk specific compliance demonstration limitations in table 1 to subpart DDDDD.
assessment shows that the maximum HI under section 7 of appendix A, a source Thus, under the health-based alternative
(or HQ) from the affected sources at the must demonstrate that the subpart for TSM, the source is in compliance
facility is less than or equal to 1.0. DDDDD, 40 CFR part 63, units at the with subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63
An example of site-specific modeling facility are not expected to cause an if the total emissions of seven metals
performed in accordance with the individual chronic inhalation exposure (rather than eight) meet the emissions
principles set forth in appendix A to from HCl and chlorine that exceeds an limitations for TSM in table 1 to subpart
subpart DDDDD is described in the EPA HI of 1.0 or an individual chronic DDDDD.
‘‘Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference inhalation exposure from manganese In the notice of proposed rulemaking
Library’’ which is referenced in section which could exceed an HQ of 1.0. (68 FR 1689), we proposed to establish
7 of appendix A. The library includes We concluded that an HI (or HQ) limit an applicability cutoff for threshold
examples of how to estimate inhalation of 1.0 was appropriate for the CAA pollutants under section 112(d)(4) of the
exposures and other parameters. section 112(d)(4) demonstration for the CAA. We listed dose-response
Our approach in appendix A to boiler and process heater source assessment values for the HAP emitted
subpart DDDDD is based on the general category because the RfCs that are used by the boiler and process heater source
air toxics risk assessment approach to calculate the HI and HQ are category. (See 68 FR 1690, table 4.) The
presented in EPA’s Residual Risk Report developed to protect sensitive table listing these values included the
to Congress (available at http:// subgroups and to account for scientific reference concentrations for several
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/risk_ uncertainties. We believe this ensures pollutants, including manganese.
rep.pdf). The Air Toxics Risk that a HI limit of 1.0 provides an ample Although we specifically proposed in
Assessment Reference Library has been margin of safety. (See RTC the preamble to the notice of proposed
peer-reviewed and was developed Memorandum at 253.) rulemaking to establish an applicability
according to the principles, tools and Additionally, we decided not to cutoff for HCl under section 112(d)(4) of
methods outline in the Residual Risk consider the impact of non-boiler- the CAA, we intended to request
Report to Congress. related background emissions in the comment on using this approach for all
For accuracy, a facility is required to implementation of the health-based threshold pollutants. Indeed, we
use site-specific and quality-assured compliance alternatives for HCl and received several comments that
data whenever possible. Selection of manganese, indicating instead our addressed additional pollutants besides
site-specific input parameters is the intent to assess facility-wide emissions HCl, including manganese. (See RTC
essence of this site-specific of HAP in future residual risk actions Memorandum and Docket ID No. OAR–
demonstration. As a result, section under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, to 2002–0058.) Based on these comments
7(c)(5) of appendix A to subpart DDDDD the extent it is appropriate and and our analysis, we concluded in the
requires adequate documentation for all reasonable to do so. (See RTC final rule that it was appropriate to
inputs and assumptions. Memorandum at 253.) include a health-based compliance
We request comment on the approach Although we indicated that one alternative for manganese as well.
for conducting a site-specific risk option for addressing background Because manganese is one of the HAP
assessment and the criteria set forth in emissions was to utilize an HI of 0.2, we metals emitted by sources in the boilers
section 7 of appendix A to subpart did not intend to suggest that this was and process heaters category, we
DDDDD. the only reasonable approach for promulgated a health-based alternative
addressing the potential risk from emissions limitations for TSM.
E. Background Concentrations and
background emissions. After evaluating To establish the health-based
Emissions From Other Sources
comments on this issue, we are satisfied alternative emissions limitations for
In our notice of proposed rulemaking, that an HI or HQ of 1.0 is appropriate. TSM, we performed the same MACT
we discussed using a HI to identify the To ensure that we receive input from floor analysis as was conducted, and
applicability cutoff for a standard for members of the public that wish to be described in the proposal preamble, for
threshold pollutants based on section heard, we are requesting comment on the proposed TSM emission limit. This
112(d)(4) of the CAA. (See 68 FR 1689– our approach. We also request comment approach is described in the
1691.) One option that we discussed on deferring any further consideration memorandum ‘‘Revised MACT Floor
was using a HI of 1.0. (See 68 FR 1691.) of background and co-located sources Analysis for the Industrial, Commercial,
A second option that we discussed was until we assess facility-wide emissions and Institutional Boilers and Process
using a HI of less than 1.0, such as 0.2, of HAP in future residual risk actions Heaters National Emission Standards for
which would reflect an assumption that under section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Hazardous Air Pollutants Based on
20 percent of individual’s total exposure Act. Public Comments’’ and appendix C–2 to
comes from a particular source, and that that memorandum, which is contained
80 percent of the exposure would result F. Health-Based Compliance Alternative
for Metals in the docket.
from background concentrations of We request comment on both the
pollutants resulting from other sources. The final regulations in subpart appropriateness of adopting a health-
We also discussed the option of using DDDDD include a health-based based compliance alternative for
available data from scientific literature compliance alternative for TSM in manganese and, under this alternative,
to determine a background § 63.7507(b). Applicability for this using the same TSM emission limit in
concentration. (See 68 FR 1691.) alternative is determined on the basis of table 1 to subpart DDDDD as a limitation
In the final rule, we decided to the levels of emissions of manganese for seven metals, while excluding
employ a HI or HQ of 1.0 as the from affected sources, in accordance manganese from the calculation.
applicability cutoff for the assessments with appendix A to subpart DDDDD. A
performed via appendix A to subpart source that demonstrates eligibility for G. Deadline for Submission of Health-
DDDDD. The look-up tables included in this health-based alternative is Based Applicability Determinations.
appendix A were developed based on an permitted to exclude manganese from Under section 9(a) of appendix A to
HI of 1.0 for HCl and chlorine, and an its calculation of TSM to show subpart DDDDD, existing sources must
HQ of 1.0 for manganese. For a site- compliance with the emissions submit their eligibility demonstration to

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:09 Jun 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM 27JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules 36913

a permitting authority no later than the submitting eligibility demonstrations. productivity, competition, jobs, the
date 1 year prior to the compliance date However, because of the concern over environment, public health or safety, or
of subpart DDDDD. Pursuant to this timing, we request comment on State, local, or tribal governments or
§ 63.7495(b) of the subpart DDDDD, the whether we should or should not extend communities;
compliance date for existing sources is the deadline for submission of eligibility (2) create a serious inconsistency or
September 13, 2007. Thus, existing demonstrations in light of this otherwise interfere with an action taken
sources must submit their compliance reconsideration action. or planned by another agency;
demonstrations under appendix A by (3) materially alter the budgetary
September 13, 2006. H. What Are the Proposed Corrections to impact of entitlement, grants, user fees,
Several representatives of the the Health-based Compliance or loan programs, or the rights and
regulated industry have expressed Alternatives? obligations of recipients thereof; or
concern that EPA’s reconsideration of We made an error in § 63.7507(a) and (4) raise novel legal or policy issues
certain aspects of appendix A to subpart the title of appendix A to subpart arising out of legal mandates, the
DDDDD will make it difficult to make DDDDD that has caused confusion President’s priorities, or the principles
the eligibility demonstration by regarding the intended applicability of set forth in the Executive Order.
September 13, 2006. These parties are the health-based compliance alternative. Pursuant to the terms of Executive
concerned that the uncertainty created As indicated in § 63.7507(b) and the text Order 12866, it has been determined
by this reconsideration action will make of appendix A, the health-based that today’s notice of reconsideration is
it difficult to complete an eligibility compliance alternatives, both for HCl a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because
demonstration by September 13, 2006. and TSM, were intended to be it raises novel legal or policy issues. As
EPA does not believe that this applicable to any affected source subject such, the action was submitted to OMB
reconsideration action makes it to the HCl and TSM emission limits in for review under Executive Order
necessary to provide regulated sources table 1 to subpart DDDDD. In 12866. Changes made in response to
with more time to prepare their § 63.7507(a) and in the title of appendix OMB suggestions or recommendations
eligibility demonstrations. Sources A, we erroneously stated that the health- are documented in the public record
should proceed to prepare their based compliance alternatives were only (see ADDRESSES section of this
eligibility demonstrations under the for the large solid fuel subcategory. preamble).
existing process promulgated in the Large solid fuel units are the main B. Paperwork Reduction Act
final rule. We believe that the existing subcategory potentially affected by the
process in appendix A is supported by health-based compliance alternatives The information collection
the record, and do not at this time have but they are not the only subcategory requirements in the final rule were
reason to believe changes will be having applicable HCl and TSM submitted for approval to OMB under
necessary. emission limits. We corrected that error the provisions of the Paperwork
To the extent we determine, based on by deleting the words ‘‘for large solid Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
comments submitted in response to this fuel boilers located at a single facility’’ (Information Collection Request No.
action, that changes are needed to from § 63.7507(a) and deleted the words 2028.01). The information collection
appendix A to subpart DDDDD, we will ‘‘Specified for the Large Solid Fuel requirements are not enforceable until
evaluate whether, based on the Subcategory’’ from the title of appendix OMB approves them.
significance of any change, additional Today’s notice of reconsideration
A.
time is needed. imposes no new information collection
These proposed corrections are
However, we will also need to requirements on the industry. Because
intended to clarify, but not change, the
consider the competing considerations there is no additional burden on the
coverage of the final rule. The
which lead us to establish this date 1 industry as a result of the notice of
corrections will not affect the estimated
year before the compliance date in the reconsideration, the information
emissions reductions or the control
first instance. We believe 1 year is collection request (ICR) has not been
costs for the final rule. The clarifications
necessary in order to provide permitting revised.
and corrections should make it easier Burden means the total time, effort, or
authorities with enough time to evaluate
for owners and operators and for local financial resources expended by persons
the eligibility demonstrations and
and State authorities to understand and to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
sources with enough time to comply
implement the requirements. or provide information to or for a
with the MACT emissions limitations, if
their eligibility demonstration is not VII. Statutory and Executive Order Federal agency. This includes the time
accepted. Reviews needed to review instructions; develop,
Based on section 112(i)(3)(A) of the acquire, install, and utilize technology
CAA, which states that EPA cannot A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory and systems for the purposes of
establish a compliance date later than 3 Planning and Review collecting, validating, and verifying
years after the effective date of the final Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR information, processing and
rule, we do not believe we are 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must maintaining information, and disclosing
authorized to extend the compliance determine whether the regulatory action and providing information; adjust the
date for existing sources beyond is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to existing ways to comply with any
September 13, 2007. However, under review by the Office of Management and previously applicable instructions and
section 112(i)(3)(B) of the CAA, Budget (OMB) and the requirements of requirements; train personnel to be able
permitting authorities may be the Executive Order. The Executive to respond to a collection of
authorized to grant up to 1 additional Order defines a ‘‘significant regulatory information; search data sources;
year to comply where a source can action’’ as one that is likely to result in complete and review the collection of
demonstrate that such time is necessary a rule that may: information; and transmit or otherwise
for the installation of controls. (1) Have an annual effect on the disclose the information.
Thus, we do not believe it is economy of $100 million or more or An agency may not conduct or
appropriate at this time to propose any adversely affect in a material way the sponsor, and a person is not required to
adjustment to the deadline for economy, a sector of the economy, respond to, a collection of information

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:09 Jun 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM 27JNP1
36914 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules

unless it displays a currently valid OMB alternative that achieves the objectives distribution of power and
control number. The OMB control of the rule. The provisions of section responsibilities among the various
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 205 do not apply when they are levels of government.’’
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. inconsistent with applicable law. Today’s notice of reconsideration
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to does not have federalism implications.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act It will not have substantial direct effects
adopt an alternative other than the least-
The Regulatory Flexibility Act costly, most cost-effective, or least- on the States, on the relationship
generally requires an agency to prepare burdensome alternative if the between the national government and
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any Administrator publishes with the final the States, or on the distribution of
rule subject to notice and comment rule an explanation why that alternative power and responsibilities among the
rulemaking requirements under the was not adopted. Before EPA establishes various levels of government, as
Administrative Procedure Act or any any regulatory requirements that may specified in Executive Order 13132.
other statute unless the agency certifies significantly or uniquely affect small None of the affected facilities are owned
that the rule will not have a significant governments, including tribal or operated by State governments, and
economic impact on a substantial governments, it must have developed, the requirements discussed in today’s
number of small entities. Small entities under section 203 of the UMRA, a small notice will not supersede State
include small businesses, small not-for- government agency plan. The plan must regulations that are more stringent.
profit enterprises, and small provide for notifying potentially Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
governmental jurisdictions. affected small governments, enabling apply to today’s notice of
For purposes of assessing the impacts officials of affected small governments reconsideration.
of today’s notice of reconsideration on to have meaningful and timely input in
small entities, a small entity is defined F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
the development of EPA’s regulatory and Coordination With Indian Tribal
as: (1) A small business having no more proposals with significant Federal
500 to 750 employees, depending on the Governments
intergovernmental mandates, and
business’ NAICS code; (2) a small informing, educating, and advising Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
governmental jurisdiction that is a small governments on compliance with November 6, 2000) requires EPA to
government of a city, county, town, the regulatory requirements. develop an accountable process to
school district or special district with a The EPA has determined that today’s ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
population of less than 50,000; and (3) notice of reconsideration does not tribal officials in the development of
a small organization that is any not-for- contain a Federal mandate that may regulatory policies that have tribal
profit enterprise which is independently result in expenditures of $100 million or implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
owned and operated and that is not more for State, local, and tribal implications’’ are defined in the
dominant in its field. governments, in the aggregate, or the Executive Order to include regulations
After considering the economic private sector in any 1 year. Although that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
impacts of today’s notice of the final rule had annualized costs one or more Indian tribes, on the
reconsideration on small entities, we estimated to range from $690 to $860 relationship between the Federal
certify that the notice will not have a million (depending on the number of government and Indian tribes, or on the
significant economic impact on a facilities eventually demonstrating distribution of power and
substantial number of small entities. eligibility for the health-based responsibilities between the Federal
The EPA has determined that none of compliance alternatives), today’s notice government and Indian tribes.’’
the small entities will experience a of reconsideration does not add new Today’s notice of reconsideration
significant impact because the notice of requirements that would increase this does not have tribal implications. It will
reconsideration imposes no additional cost. Thus, today’s notice of not have substantial direct effects on
regulatory requirements on owners or reconsideration is not subject to the tribal governments, on the relationship
operators of affected sources. requirements of sections 202 and 205 of between the Federal government and
the UMRA. In addition, EPA has Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
determined that today’s notice of power and responsibilities between the
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates reconsideration does not significantly or Federal government and Indian tribes,
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public uniquely affect small governments as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for because it contains no requirements that No affected facilities are owned or
Federal agencies to assess the effects of apply to such governments or impose operated by Indian tribal governments.
their regulatory actions on State, local, obligations upon them. Therefore, Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
and tribal governments and the private today’s notice of reconsideration is not apply to today’s notice of
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, subject to section 203 of the UMRA. reconsideration.
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
analysis, for proposed and final rules Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Children From Environmental Health
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may August 10, 1999) requires EPA to and Safety Risks
result in expenditures by State, local, develop an accountable process to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
or by the private sector, of $100 million State and local officials in the (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
or more in any 1 year. Before development of regulatory policies that significant,’’ as defined under Executive
promulgating an EPA rule for which a have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
written statement is needed, section 205 that have federalism implications’’ are environmental health or safety risk that
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to defined in the Executive Order to EPA has reason to believe may have a
identify and consider a reasonable include regulations that have disproportionate effect on children. If
number of regulatory alternatives and ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, the regulatory action meets both criteria,
adopt the least costly, most cost- on the relationship between the national EPA must evaluate the environmental
effective, or least-burdensome government and the States, or on the health or safety effects of the planned

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:09 Jun 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM 27JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2005 / Proposed Rules 36915

rule on children and explain why the Transfer and Advancement Act Dated: June 20, 2005.
planned regulation is preferable to other (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104– Stephen L. Johnson,
potentially effective and reasonably 113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to Administrator.
feasible alternatives considered by EPA. use voluntary consensus standards in
Today’s notice of reconsideration is their regulatory and procurement For the reasons stated in the
not subject to the Executive Order activities unless to do so would be preamble, title 40, chapter 1, of the code
because EPA does not have reason to inconsistent with applicable law or of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
believe that the environmental health or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary amended as follows:
safety risks associated with the consensus standards are technical
emissions addressed by this document PART 63—[AMENDED]
standards (e.g., material specifications,
present a disproportionate risk to test methods, sampling procedures,
children. This demonstration is based 1. The authority citation for part 63
business practices) developed or continues to read as follows:
on the fact that the noncancer human adopted by one or more voluntary
health values we used in our analysis at consensus bodies. The NTTAA requires Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
promulgation (e.g., reference EPA to provide Congress, through the
concentrations) are determined to be OMB, with explanations when EPA Subpart DDDDD—[Amended]
protective of sensitive subpopulations, decides not to use available and
including children. Also, while the 2. Section 63.7507 is amended by
applicable voluntary consensus
cancer human health values do not revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
standards.
always expressly account for cancer During the development of the final § 63.7507 What are the health-based
effects in children, the cancer risks rule, EPA searched for voluntary compliance alternatives for the hydrogen
posed by facilities that meet the consensus standards that might be chloride (HCl) and total selected metals
eligibility criteria for the health-based applicable. The search identified three (TSM) standards?
compliance alternatives will be voluntary consensus standards that
sufficiently low so as not to be a (a) As an alternative to the
were considered practical alternatives to requirement to demonstrate compliance
concern for anyone in the population, the specified EPA test methods. An
including children. with the HCl emission limit in table 1
assessment of these and other voluntary to this subpart, you may demonstrate
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That consensus standards is presented in the eligibility for the health-based
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, preamble to the final rule (69 FR 55251, compliance alternative for HCl
Distribution, or Use September 13, 2004). emissions under the procedures
Today’s notice of reconsideration is Today’s notice of reconsideration prescribed in appendix A to this
not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ as does not propose the use of any subpart.
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 additional technical standards beyond * * * * *
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is those cited in the final rule. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any 3. Appendix A to subpart DDDDD is
not likely to have a significant adverse
additional voluntary consensus amended by revising the heading to read
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
standards for this document. as follows:
of energy. Further, we conclude that
today’s notice of reconsideration is not List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Appendix A to Subpart DDDDD—
likely to have any adverse energy Methodology and Criteria for
effects. Environmental protection, Demonstrating Eligibility for the
Administrative practice and procedure, Health-Based Compliance Alternatives
I. National Technology Transfer and Air pollution control, Hazardous
Advancement Act substances, Intergovernmental relations, * * * * *
As noted in the final rule, section Reporting and recordkeeping [FR Doc. 05–12662 Filed 6–24–05; 8:45 am]
12(d) of the National Technology requirements. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:09 Jun 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JNP1.SGM 27JNP1

Anda mungkin juga menyukai