Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Amendments to Lead Rules, Quemetco, 2428-2431 [E8-440]
Download as PDF
2428
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3676, 3680A)
[FR Doc. E8–330 Filed 1–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0276; FRL–8508–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana;
Amendments to Lead Rules, Quemetco
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
On February 7, 2002, Indiana
submitted revisions to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for lead (Pb)
as part of the State’s incorporation of a
Federal standard for secondary lead
smelters. On October 3, 2006, and
November 27, 2007, Indiana
supplemented its request as it pertained
to Quemetco, Incorporated (Quemetco),
in Marion County. The requested SIP
revision replaces the Pb emission limits
for Quemetco with new, stringent limits.
EPA has determined that the new limits
will be protective of the Pb air quality
standards, and is therefore approving
them.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective March 17, 2008, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by February
14, 2008. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2006–0276, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312)886–5824.
4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney,
Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
yshivers on PROD1PC71 with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:07 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2006–
0276. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This Facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. We recommend that you
telephone Mary Portanova,
Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353–
5954 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5954,
portanova.mary@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background: Pb SIP and NESHAP Rules
II. What are the new limits for secondary lead
smelters?
III. How does removing Quemetco from
Article 15 affect the Pb SIP?
IV. Demonstration of Pb NAAQS Attainment
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background: Pb SIP and NESHAP
Rules
Indiana’s SIP rules for Pb are
currently codified at 326 Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) 15, which is
also referred to as Article 15. Article 15
covers lead-bearing emissions and
fugitive dust from several facilities in
Indiana, including secondary lead
smelters. The SIP rules applicable to
sources in Marion County, Indiana,
were developed to ensure that Marion
County would attain and maintain the
Pb National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
EPA promulgated the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary lead
smelting on June 23, 1995 (60 FR
32587); amended on June 13, 1997 (62
FR 32209). Codified at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart X, this NESHAP is a technologybased regulation intended to bring
certain sources at secondary lead
smelters to a specified level of air
pollution control. Indiana incorporated
the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standard of the
secondary lead smelter NESHAP, with
certain adjustments, in 326 IAC 20–13.
On August 22, 2006 (71 FR 48923), EPA
approved Indiana’s request for
delegation of authority to implement
and enforce the NESHAP for secondary
lead smelting through 326 IAC 20–13.
The Federal NESHAP in Subpart X is
expected to result in air quality benefits
where it affects secondary lead smelters
which were previously unregulated or
which were previously subject to less
stringent controls. In Indiana, however,
the existing Marion County Pb SIP
limits were already more stringent than
the NESHAP’s limits. Indiana believed
that the Federal secondary lead smelter
NESHAP would not fully protect the Pb
NAAQS in Marion County. Therefore,
when Indiana adopted the NESHAP into
326 IAC 20–13, the State adjusted it to
make the rule’s emission limits at least
E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM
15JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
yshivers on PROD1PC71 with RULES
as stringent as the Marion County Pb
SIP limits had been.
There are two secondary lead smelters
in Marion County, Indiana, Quemetco
and Refined Metals of Indianapolis
(Refined Metals). Quemetco, located in
Indianapolis, recycles lead-acid
batteries and other lead-bearing
materials. It is currently operating and
is affected by both the Marion County
Pb SIP and the NESHAP rules for
secondary lead smelters. Indiana chose
to remove the paragraph that addressed
Quemetco from the Pb SIP at Article 15,
so that the facility’s Pb emission
regulations would all reside in one State
rule, 326 IAC 20–13. The Refined Metals
facility has closed.
II. What are the new limits for
secondary lead smelters?
The emission limits for Quemetco in
326 IAC 20–13 differ from the last
Federally approved Pb SIP limits in
Article 15. The SIP previously approved
by EPA contained Pb emission limits for
specific processes and process fugitive
emissions. Later, the Quemetco facility
enclosed its Pb emission sources.
Indiana subsequently revised
Quemetco’s Pb rules to apply Pb
emission limits on individual numbered
vent stacks under the facility’s new
configuration. The Pb limits in 326 IAC
20–13, which were submitted to EPA on
February 7, 2002, correspond to
Quemetco’s current stack configuration.
In addition, the limits in 326 IAC 15–
1–2(a)(8) were given in units of pounds
per hour, but the numerical Pb emission
limits for Quemetco in 326 IAC 20–13–
2(a) are given in units of milligrams per
dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) to
match the Federal NESHAP’s emission
limit units.
The process source limits in 326 IAC
20–13–2(a) are 1.0 mg/dscm, compared
to the corresponding NESHAP limits of
2.0 mg/dscm. This limit applies to
Quemetco’s Stacks 100 and 111. The
process fugitive source limits are 0.5
mg/dscm, compared to the NESHAP
limits of 2.0 mg/dscm, and the emission
limits for stacks venting fugitive dust
sources are also 0.5 mg/dscm, compared
to the NESHAP limits of 2.0 mg/dscm.
These limits apply to Quemetco’s Stacks
101–109. Quemetco has already shown
that it can meet these limits.
The regulation at 326 IAC 20–13–2(a)
also requires the use of High Efficiency
Particulate Air (HEPA) filters, as defined
in 40 CFR 63.542, on process fugitive
emissions and stacks venting fugitive
dust sources. The Quemetco facility
already uses HEPA filters on its
baghouses.
Indiana’s secondary lead smelter rules
include a partial incorporation by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:07 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart X,
at 326 IAC 20–13–1(c). This specifies
standards for process and fugitive
sources at secondary lead smelters, test
methods, fugitive dust control, standard
operating procedures for baghouses, and
monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements. The regulation at 326 IAC
20–13–1(c) does not include certain
portions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart X,
which are already covered by other
portions of 326 IAC 20–13. The
numerical emission limits for process,
fugitive, and process fugitive sources
found in 40 CFR part 63, subpart X are
not included in the incorporation
because Indiana’s rule replaces them
with more stringent limits, as in 326
IAC 20–13–2(a), for Quemetco. Certain
requirements for baghouse bag leak
detection systems are also not included
in 326 IAC 20–13–1(c). These
requirements do not apply to Quemetco,
which has HEPA filters and is therefore
not required to have a bag leak detection
system.
III. How does removing Quemetco from
Article 15 affect the Pb SIP?
Because 326 IAC 20–13 now contains
Pb emission limits for Quemetco,
Indiana chose to delete the portion of
Article 15 that contains Pb emission
limits for Quemetco under the Marion
County SIP, rather than retain duplicate
or conflicting emission limits. The final
State rule removing 326 IAC 15–1–
2(a)(8) was published in the Indiana
Register on January 1, 2001 (24 Ind. Reg.
954).
Simply deleting Quemetco’s limits
from Article 15 would be an
unacceptable relaxation of the Marion
County Pb SIP, even though Quemetco’s
Pb air emissions are still regulated by
the NESHAP at 326 IAC 20–13. State Pb
SIP limits must be directly linked to
local air quality effects. The levels of the
Pb SIP limits in Article 15 have been
shown, through dispersion modeling, to
assure attainment and maintenance of
the Pb NAAQS in Marion County. The
SIP may not be subsequently relaxed
without review and rulemaking action
by EPA, to assure continued
maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA can
bring enforcement action against a
facility based on noncompliance with
the Federally approved SIP limits. The
NESHAP sets emission control
requirements for secondary lead
smelters as a group. Its emission limits
are based on nationally available
emission control technology. The
NESHAP can be changed as a broad
national measure, without requiring an
analysis of the effects on local air
quality.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2429
Therefore, in an October 3, 2006
letter, Indiana requested that portions of
326 IAC 20–13 be approved into the
Marion County Pb SIP in place of 326
IAC 15–1–2(a)(8). This request was
clarified in a second letter from Indiana
to EPA dated November 27, 2007.
Incorporating those provisions of 326
IAC 20–13 into the Marion County Pb
SIP ensures that the Pb emission limits
for Quemetco cannot be changed
without proper State rulemaking
procedures, a demonstration of
attainment of the Pb NAAQS, and
review and rulemaking action by EPA.
The portions of Article 15 which
Indiana requested as SIP revisions are
326 IAC 20–13–2(a) (Quemetco’s
emission limits and filter requirements);
326 IAC 20–13–1(c) (incorporation of 40
CFR part 63, subpart X); and 326 IAC
20–13–6 (compliance testing).
IV. Demonstration of Pb NAAQS
Attainment
The State performed dispersion
modeling in 2005 using the ISCST3
model to demonstrate that the new
limits would protect the Pb NAAQS in
Marion County. ISCST3 was the
appropriate regulatory dispersion model
at the time. The modeling used the
regulatory default options and five years
of surface meteorological data from the
Indianapolis, Indiana airport, with
upper-air meteorological data from
Dayton, Ohio. Building dimensions
were included to account for downwash
effects. The State included both
Quemetco’s Pb emissions and the
allowable Pb emissions for the Refined
Metals secondary smelter under Article
15. The Refined Metals facility is
currently not operating; but because
Indiana has maintained the SIP rule
addressing Refined Metals in Article 15,
its allowable emissions must be
included in the Marion County
attainment demonstration. The model
showed that the limits in 326 IAC 20–
13 will maintain the Pb NAAQS of 1.5
micrograms per cubic meter, quarterly.
The maximum modeled quarterly
impact of the Marion County Pb sources
was 0.16 micrograms per cubic meter.
This value includes a background Pb
concentration taken from locally
monitored air quality data.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving Indiana’s February
7, 2002, SIP revision request, as
supplemented in a letter dated October
3, 2006, and another letter dated
November 27, 2007. EPA is approving
the removal of 326 IAC 15–1–2(a)(8)
from the Indiana Pb SIP. EPA is also
approving as part of the SIP: (1)
Corresponding minor editorial changes
E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM
15JAR1
2430
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
in two sections of 326 IAC 15–1 that
refer to Quemetco; (2) the addition of
326 IAC 20–13–2(a); (3) the addition of
326 IAC 20–13–1(c); and (4) the
addition of 326 IAC 20–13–6. This SIP
revision retains emission limits
adequate to protect the Pb NAAQS in
Marion County, Indiana, and places the
regulations affecting Indiana’s active
secondary lead smelters in one section
of Indiana’s pollution control
regulations. It should be noted that this
action in no way affects the continued
enforceability of the Federal NESHAP at
40 CFR Part 63, Subpart X.
We are publishing this action without
prior proposal because we view this as
a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipate no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the
state plan if relevant adverse written
comments are filed. The proposed rule
will be effective March 17, 2008 without
further notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by February
14, 2008. If we receive such comments,
we will withdraw this action before the
effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. The EPA
will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so
at this time. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective
March 17, 2008.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
and, therefore, is not subject to review
by the Office of Management and
Budget.
yshivers on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
action,’’ this action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:07 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it does not contain any
unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
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
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it approves a
state rule implementing a Federal
Standard.
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not
apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by March 17, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM
15JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: December 7, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
part 52, chapter I, of title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Parts 410, 414, 424, and 484
[CMS–1385–F3]
PART 52—[AMENDED]
RIN 0938–AO65
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Medicare Program; Revisions to
Payment Policies Under the Physician
Fee Schedule, and Other Part B
Payment Policies for CY 2008;
Revisions to the Payment Policies of
Ambulance Services Under the
Ambulance Fee Schedule for CY 2008;
and the Amendment of the EPrescribing Exemption for ComputerGenerated Facsimile Transmissions;
Correcting Amendment
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart P—Indiana
2. Section 52.770 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(183) to read as
follows:
I
§ 52.770
Identification of plan.
yshivers on PROD1PC71 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(183) On February 7, 2002, Indiana
submitted revisions to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for lead (Pb)
as part of the State’s incorporation of a
Federal standard for secondary lead
smelters. On October 3, 2006, and
November 27, 2007, Indiana
supplemented its request as it pertained
to Quemetco, Incorporated, in Marion
County. This revision removes from the
Indiana SIP the source-specific
provisions for Quemetco found in
article 326 IAC 15, previously approved
in paragraph (c)(95) of this section, and
replaces them with the corresponding
provisions of article 326 IAC 20–13.
(i) Incorporation by reference. The
following sections of Title 326 of the
Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) are
incorporated by reference:
(A) 326 IAC 15–1–2(c) ‘‘Sourcespecific provisions’’ and 326 IAC 15–1–
3 ‘‘Control of fugitive lead dust’’. Filed
with the Secretary of State on December
1, 2000, effective December 30, 2000.
Published in the Indiana Register on
January 1, 2001 (24 IR 954).
(B) 326 IAC 20–13–1(c)
‘‘Applicability; incorporation by
reference of federal standards’’, 326 IAC
20–13–2(a) ‘‘Emission limitations lead
standards for Quemetco, Incorporated’’,
and 326 IAC 20–13–6 ‘‘Compliance
testing’’. Filed with the Secretary of
State on December 1, 2000, effective
December 30, 2000. Published in the
Indiana Register on January 1, 2001 (24
IR 958).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–440 Filed 1–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:07 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Correcting amendment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This correcting amendment
corrects several technical and
typographical errors in the regulations
text of the final rule with comment
period that appeared in the November
27, 2007 Federal Register (72 FR
66222). The final rule with comment
period addressed performance standards
for diagnostic testing facilities and
standards and requirements related to
therapy services under Medicare Parts A
and B.
DATES: Effective Date: This correcting
amendment is effective January 15,
2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diane Milstead, (410) 786–3355.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In FR Doc. 07–5506 of November 27,
2007 (72 FR 66222) (hereinafter referred
to as the CY 2008 PFS final rule with
comment period), there were a number
of technical and typographical errors
that are identified and corrected in
regulation text of this correcting
amendment. The provisions of this
correcting amendment are effective
January 15, 2008.
II. Summary of Errors in the Regulation
Text
1. On page 66398, 3rd column, 8th
full paragraph, line 3, the phrase ‘‘IDTF
does not include the following’’ is
corrected to read ‘‘IDTF is prohibited
from the following.’’
2. On page 66401,
a. First column, 1st full paragraph,
line 1, the phrase ‘‘(1) The services’’ is
corrected to read ‘‘(1) For services.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2431
b. Third column, last partial
paragraph, line 4, the phrase ‘‘members
of public may comment’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘members of the public may
comment.’’
3. On page 66402, 1st column, 5th full
paragraph, line 4, the phrase ‘‘members
of public may comment’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘members of the public may
comment.’’
4. On page 66406, 2nd column, 1st
full paragraph, line 1, the phrase ‘‘(2)
The requested information’’ is corrected
to read ‘‘(2) The required information’’.
5. On page 66407,
a. First column,
(1) The 8th paragraph ‘‘(e) If educated
outside the United States—’’ is
corrected to read ‘‘(e) If educated
outside the United States, must meet all
of the following:’’
(2) The 9th paragraph ‘‘(1) Must meet
both of the following:’’ is deleted.
(3) Tenth paragraph,
(a) Line 1, the phrase ‘‘(i) Graduated’’
is corrected to read ‘‘(1) Graduated’’.
(b) Lines 4 and 5, the phrase
‘‘occupational therapy assistant entry
level education’’ is corrected to read
‘‘occupational therapy entry-level
education’’.
(4) Eleventh paragraph, line 1, the
phrase ‘‘(A) The Accreditation’’ is
corrected to read ‘‘(i) The
Accreditation’’.
(5) Twelfth paragraph, line 1, the
phrase ‘‘(B) Successor’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘(ii) Successor’’.
(6) Thirteenth paragraph, line 1, the
phrase ‘‘(C) The World’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘(iii) The World’’.
(7) Fourteenth paragraph, line 1, the
phrase ‘‘(D) A credentialing body’’ is
corrected to read ‘‘(iv) A credentialing
body’’.
(8) Fifteenth paragraph, line 1, the
phrase ‘‘(ii) Successfully completed’’ is
corrected to read ‘‘(2) Successfully
completed’’.
(9) Sixteenth paragraph, line 1, the
phrase ‘‘(2) On or before December 31,
2009’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(3) Effective
January 1, 2010’’.
(10) The last full paragraph, ‘‘(1) Is
licensed or otherwise regulated, if
applicable, as an occupational therapy
assistant by the State in which
practicing, unless licensure does not
apply.’’ is corrected to read ‘‘(1) Is
licensed, unless licensure does not
apply, or otherwise regulated, if
applicable, as an occupational therapy
assistant by the State in which
practicing.’’
b. Third column,
(1) The 2nd full paragraph, ‘‘(a)(1)
Graduated after successful completion
of one of a physical therapist education
program approved by one of the
E:\FR\FM\15JAR1.SGM
15JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2428-2431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-440]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0276; FRL-8508-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Amendments to Lead Rules, Quemetco
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 7, 2002, Indiana submitted revisions to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for lead (Pb) as part of the State's
incorporation of a Federal standard for secondary lead smelters. On
October 3, 2006, and November 27, 2007, Indiana supplemented its
request as it pertained to Quemetco, Incorporated (Quemetco), in Marion
County. The requested SIP revision replaces the Pb emission limits for
Quemetco with new, stringent limits. EPA has determined that the new
limits will be protective of the Pb air quality standards, and is
therefore approving them.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective March 17, 2008, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by February 14, 2008. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0276, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312)886-5824.
4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0276. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Mary Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 353-5954 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5954, portanova.mary@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background: Pb SIP and NESHAP Rules
II. What are the new limits for secondary lead smelters?
III. How does removing Quemetco from Article 15 affect the Pb SIP?
IV. Demonstration of Pb NAAQS Attainment
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background: Pb SIP and NESHAP Rules
Indiana's SIP rules for Pb are currently codified at 326 Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) 15, which is also referred to as Article 15.
Article 15 covers lead-bearing emissions and fugitive dust from several
facilities in Indiana, including secondary lead smelters. The SIP rules
applicable to sources in Marion County, Indiana, were developed to
ensure that Marion County would attain and maintain the Pb National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary lead smelting on June 23, 1995 (60 FR
32587); amended on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32209). Codified at 40 CFR part
63, subpart X, this NESHAP is a technology-based regulation intended to
bring certain sources at secondary lead smelters to a specified level
of air pollution control. Indiana incorporated the Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standard of the secondary lead smelter
NESHAP, with certain adjustments, in 326 IAC 20-13. On August 22, 2006
(71 FR 48923), EPA approved Indiana's request for delegation of
authority to implement and enforce the NESHAP for secondary lead
smelting through 326 IAC 20-13.
The Federal NESHAP in Subpart X is expected to result in air
quality benefits where it affects secondary lead smelters which were
previously unregulated or which were previously subject to less
stringent controls. In Indiana, however, the existing Marion County Pb
SIP limits were already more stringent than the NESHAP's limits.
Indiana believed that the Federal secondary lead smelter NESHAP would
not fully protect the Pb NAAQS in Marion County. Therefore, when
Indiana adopted the NESHAP into 326 IAC 20-13, the State adjusted it to
make the rule's emission limits at least
[[Page 2429]]
as stringent as the Marion County Pb SIP limits had been.
There are two secondary lead smelters in Marion County, Indiana,
Quemetco and Refined Metals of Indianapolis (Refined Metals). Quemetco,
located in Indianapolis, recycles lead-acid batteries and other lead-
bearing materials. It is currently operating and is affected by both
the Marion County Pb SIP and the NESHAP rules for secondary lead
smelters. Indiana chose to remove the paragraph that addressed Quemetco
from the Pb SIP at Article 15, so that the facility's Pb emission
regulations would all reside in one State rule, 326 IAC 20-13. The
Refined Metals facility has closed.
II. What are the new limits for secondary lead smelters?
The emission limits for Quemetco in 326 IAC 20-13 differ from the
last Federally approved Pb SIP limits in Article 15. The SIP previously
approved by EPA contained Pb emission limits for specific processes and
process fugitive emissions. Later, the Quemetco facility enclosed its
Pb emission sources. Indiana subsequently revised Quemetco's Pb rules
to apply Pb emission limits on individual numbered vent stacks under
the facility's new configuration. The Pb limits in 326 IAC 20-13, which
were submitted to EPA on February 7, 2002, correspond to Quemetco's
current stack configuration. In addition, the limits in 326 IAC 15-1-
2(a)(8) were given in units of pounds per hour, but the numerical Pb
emission limits for Quemetco in 326 IAC 20-13-2(a) are given in units
of milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) to match the
Federal NESHAP's emission limit units.
The process source limits in 326 IAC 20-13-2(a) are 1.0 mg/dscm,
compared to the corresponding NESHAP limits of 2.0 mg/dscm. This limit
applies to Quemetco's Stacks 100 and 111. The process fugitive source
limits are 0.5 mg/dscm, compared to the NESHAP limits of 2.0 mg/dscm,
and the emission limits for stacks venting fugitive dust sources are
also 0.5 mg/dscm, compared to the NESHAP limits of 2.0 mg/dscm. These
limits apply to Quemetco's Stacks 101-109. Quemetco has already shown
that it can meet these limits.
The regulation at 326 IAC 20-13-2(a) also requires the use of High
Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters, as defined in 40 CFR 63.542,
on process fugitive emissions and stacks venting fugitive dust sources.
The Quemetco facility already uses HEPA filters on its baghouses.
Indiana's secondary lead smelter rules include a partial
incorporation by reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart X, at 326 IAC 20-
13-1(c). This specifies standards for process and fugitive sources at
secondary lead smelters, test methods, fugitive dust control, standard
operating procedures for baghouses, and monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements. The regulation at 326 IAC 20-13-1(c) does not include
certain portions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart X, which are already
covered by other portions of 326 IAC 20-13. The numerical emission
limits for process, fugitive, and process fugitive sources found in 40
CFR part 63, subpart X are not included in the incorporation because
Indiana's rule replaces them with more stringent limits, as in 326 IAC
20-13-2(a), for Quemetco. Certain requirements for baghouse bag leak
detection systems are also not included in 326 IAC 20-13-1(c). These
requirements do not apply to Quemetco, which has HEPA filters and is
therefore not required to have a bag leak detection system.
III. How does removing Quemetco from Article 15 affect the Pb SIP?
Because 326 IAC 20-13 now contains Pb emission limits for Quemetco,
Indiana chose to delete the portion of Article 15 that contains Pb
emission limits for Quemetco under the Marion County SIP, rather than
retain duplicate or conflicting emission limits. The final State rule
removing 326 IAC 15-1-2(a)(8) was published in the Indiana Register on
January 1, 2001 (24 Ind. Reg. 954).
Simply deleting Quemetco's limits from Article 15 would be an
unacceptable relaxation of the Marion County Pb SIP, even though
Quemetco's Pb air emissions are still regulated by the NESHAP at 326
IAC 20-13. State Pb SIP limits must be directly linked to local air
quality effects. The levels of the Pb SIP limits in Article 15 have
been shown, through dispersion modeling, to assure attainment and
maintenance of the Pb NAAQS in Marion County. The SIP may not be
subsequently relaxed without review and rulemaking action by EPA, to
assure continued maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA can bring enforcement
action against a facility based on noncompliance with the Federally
approved SIP limits. The NESHAP sets emission control requirements for
secondary lead smelters as a group. Its emission limits are based on
nationally available emission control technology. The NESHAP can be
changed as a broad national measure, without requiring an analysis of
the effects on local air quality.
Therefore, in an October 3, 2006 letter, Indiana requested that
portions of 326 IAC 20-13 be approved into the Marion County Pb SIP in
place of 326 IAC 15-1-2(a)(8). This request was clarified in a second
letter from Indiana to EPA dated November 27, 2007. Incorporating those
provisions of 326 IAC 20-13 into the Marion County Pb SIP ensures that
the Pb emission limits for Quemetco cannot be changed without proper
State rulemaking procedures, a demonstration of attainment of the Pb
NAAQS, and review and rulemaking action by EPA. The portions of Article
15 which Indiana requested as SIP revisions are 326 IAC 20-13-2(a)
(Quemetco's emission limits and filter requirements); 326 IAC 20-13-
1(c) (incorporation of 40 CFR part 63, subpart X); and 326 IAC 20-13-6
(compliance testing).
IV. Demonstration of Pb NAAQS Attainment
The State performed dispersion modeling in 2005 using the ISCST3
model to demonstrate that the new limits would protect the Pb NAAQS in
Marion County. ISCST3 was the appropriate regulatory dispersion model
at the time. The modeling used the regulatory default options and five
years of surface meteorological data from the Indianapolis, Indiana
airport, with upper-air meteorological data from Dayton, Ohio. Building
dimensions were included to account for downwash effects. The State
included both Quemetco's Pb emissions and the allowable Pb emissions
for the Refined Metals secondary smelter under Article 15. The Refined
Metals facility is currently not operating; but because Indiana has
maintained the SIP rule addressing Refined Metals in Article 15, its
allowable emissions must be included in the Marion County attainment
demonstration. The model showed that the limits in 326 IAC 20-13 will
maintain the Pb NAAQS of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter, quarterly. The
maximum modeled quarterly impact of the Marion County Pb sources was
0.16 micrograms per cubic meter. This value includes a background Pb
concentration taken from locally monitored air quality data.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving Indiana's February 7, 2002, SIP revision request,
as supplemented in a letter dated October 3, 2006, and another letter
dated November 27, 2007. EPA is approving the removal of 326 IAC 15-1-
2(a)(8) from the Indiana Pb SIP. EPA is also approving as part of the
SIP: (1) Corresponding minor editorial changes
[[Page 2430]]
in two sections of 326 IAC 15-1 that refer to Quemetco; (2) the
addition of 326 IAC 20-13-2(a); (3) the addition of 326 IAC 20-13-1(c);
and (4) the addition of 326 IAC 20-13-6. This SIP revision retains
emission limits adequate to protect the Pb NAAQS in Marion County,
Indiana, and places the regulations affecting Indiana's active
secondary lead smelters in one section of Indiana's pollution control
regulations. It should be noted that this action in no way affects the
continued enforceability of the Federal NESHAP at 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart X.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. The proposed rule will be effective March
17, 2008 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse
written comments by February 14, 2008. If we receive such comments, we
will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this
action will be effective March 17, 2008.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601, et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does 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 Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal Standard.
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 17, 2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 2431]]
Dated: December 7, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart P--Indiana
0
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(183) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(183) On February 7, 2002, Indiana submitted revisions to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for lead (Pb) as part of the State's
incorporation of a Federal standard for secondary lead smelters. On
October 3, 2006, and November 27, 2007, Indiana supplemented its
request as it pertained to Quemetco, Incorporated, in Marion County.
This revision removes from the Indiana SIP the source-specific
provisions for Quemetco found in article 326 IAC 15, previously
approved in paragraph (c)(95) of this section, and replaces them with
the corresponding provisions of article 326 IAC 20-13.
(i) Incorporation by reference. The following sections of Title 326
of the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) are incorporated by reference:
(A) 326 IAC 15-1-2(c) ``Source-specific provisions'' and 326 IAC
15-1-3 ``Control of fugitive lead dust''. Filed with the Secretary of
State on December 1, 2000, effective December 30, 2000. Published in
the Indiana Register on January 1, 2001 (24 IR 954).
(B) 326 IAC 20-13-1(c) ``Applicability; incorporation by reference
of federal standards'', 326 IAC 20-13-2(a) ``Emission limitations lead
standards for Quemetco, Incorporated'', and 326 IAC 20-13-6
``Compliance testing''. Filed with the Secretary of State on December
1, 2000, effective December 30, 2000. Published in the Indiana Register
on January 1, 2001 (24 IR 958).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-440 Filed 1-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P