47402 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1Expressed as chlorine.

2The Agency has since determined that EPA

Method 325.3 for total halogens should not result

in poor matrix recovery.

time to review the study and formulate

comments for the Agency’s

consideration. The Agency does not

believe that more than a 45-day

extension is necessary. Stakeholders

were aware of the types of issues that

would be discussed in the study and

have had, therefore, adequate time to

prepare comments to the Agency on the

general issues. As for specific

information presented in the study, 90

days provides adequate time to respond.

The Agency wishes to move forward

with the mercury-containing lamps

rulemaking and believes that an

extension beyond 45 days would cause

unnecessary delay. See 62 FR 37183

(July 11, 1997) for a more detailed

explanation of the study. Accordingly,

the Agency is extending the comment

period 45 days to October 9, 1997 to

provide for a 90-day comment period.

Dated: August 25, 1997.

Elizabeth A. Cotsworth,

Acting Director Office of Solid Waste.

[FR Doc. 97–23839 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL–5890–2]

Revised Technical Standards for

Hazardous Waste Combustion

Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: This document is a notice of

data availability and invitation for

comment on the following information

pertaining to the proposed revised

standards for hazardous waste

combustors (61 FR 17358 (April 19,

1996)): additional data on various fuel

oils to be used to establish a total

halogen specification to exclude

comparable fuels from the definition of

solid waste.

Readers should note that only

comments about new information

discussed in this notice will be

considered during the comment period.

Issues related to the April 19, 1996

proposed rule and other subsequent

notices that are not directly affected by

the documents or data referenced in

today’s Notice of Data Availability are

not open for further comment.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted by September 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an

original and two copies of their

comments referencing docket number

F–97–CS5A–FFFFF to: RCRA Docket

Information Center, Office of Solid

Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA,

HQ), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,

DC 20460. Deliveries of comments

should be made to the Arlington,

Virginia address listed below.

Comments may also be submitted

electronically through the Internet to:

rcra-docket@epamail.epa.gov.

Comments in electronic format should

also be identified by the docket number

F–97–CS5A–FFFFF. All electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

For other information regarding

submitting comments electronically or

viewing the comments received or

supporting information, please refer to

the proposed rule (61 FR 17358 (April

19, 1996)).

Commenters should not submit

electronically any confidential business

information (CBI). An original and two

copies of the CBI must be submitted

under separate cover to: RCRA CBI

Document Control Officer, Office of

Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M

Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

Public comments and supporting

materials are available for viewing in

the RCRA Information Center (RIC),

located at Crystal Gateway One, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor,

Arlington, Virginia. The RIC is open

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except for Federal holidays. To

review docket materials, the public

must make an appointment by calling

703–603–9230. The public may copy a

maximum of 100 pages from any

regulatory docket at no charge.

Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, contact the RCRA

Hotline at 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1–

800–553–7672 (hearing impaired). In

the Washington metropolitan area, call

703–412–9810 or TDD 703–412–3323.

The RCRA Hotline is open MondayFriday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Eastern

Standard Time. The RCRA Hotline can

also provide directions on how to access

electronically some of the documents

and data referred to in this notice via

EPA’s Cleanup Information Bulletin

Board System (CLU–IN). The CLU–IN

modem access phone number is 301–

589–8366 or Telnet to clu-in.epa.gov for

Internet access. The files posted on

CLU–IN are in Portable Document

Format (PDF) and can be viewed and

printed using Acrobat Reader.

For more detailed information on

specific aspects of this notice, contact

Mary Jo Krolewski, Office of Solid

Waste (5302W), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460, 703–308–7754,

e-mail address:

krolewski.maryjo@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

19, 1996, EPA proposed revised

standards for hazardous waste

combustors (i.e., incinerators and

cement and lightweight aggregate kilns)

that burn hazardous waste. See 61 FR

17358. After an extension, the comment

period closed on August 19, 1996. In

that proposal, EPA included a

comparable fuels provision under which

EPA used a benchmark approach to

develop a series of technical

specifications that would allow

hazardous waste similar in composition

to a commercially available fossil fuel to

be excluded under RCRA when burned.

One of the specifications for comparable

fuels was a limit on total halogens in

comparable fuels. Although total

halogens are not listed in Appendix

VIII, Part 261, EPA proposed a total

halogen specification to ensure that

halogenated products of incomplete

combustion (PICs) and HCl and Cl2

generated from burning a comparable

fuel would not be emitted at higher

levels than from burning a benchmark

fossil fuel. See proposal (61 FR at

17461) and a subsequent notice of data

availability (61 FR 43501 (August 23,

1996)). PICs resulting from the burning

of halogenated compounds can pose a

particular hazard to human health and

the environment.

Using the benchmark approach, EPA

initially proposed total halogen 1

specifications ranging from 10 ppmw to

25 ppmw. These initial total halogen

specifications included both organic

and inorganic halogens. However, the

total halogen data used by EPA in the

proposed rule for its No. 4 and No. 6

fuel oils were based on analytical

methods measuring only total organic

halogens, not both organic and

inorganic halogens. EPA’s decision to

use a method that measured only

organic halogens for No. 4 and No. 6

fuel oils was based on two factors. First,

EPA was concerned about possible

method interferences and poor matrix

recovery when measuring total halogen

in No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oils and used

a method that measures only total

organic halogen.2 Second, EPA was

concerned that No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oils
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 47403

3See, e.g., RCRA Docket F–97CS5A–FFFFF,

number S0001, Chemical Manufacturers

Association letter dated June 27, 1997.

4See RCRA Docket F–97–CS5A–FFFFF, number

S0002, Rohm & Haas letter dated April 14, 1997.

5Commenter’s data include 6 data points on total

halogen in No. 6 fuel oil. EPA screened out one of

the data points as an outlier because it was 170%

greater than any data point in the total halogen

database.

6See 61 FR 9396–97 (March 8, 1996).

can contain widely varying levels of

inorganic chlorides from contamination

with emulsified brine during the oil

extraction or transportation process and

used a method that avoided measuring

these inorganic chlorides.

Commenters disagreed with EPA’s

decision not to include inorganic

halogens in its total halogen analyses for

No. 4 and No. 6 fuel oils. Commenters

argued that inorganic halogens are

normally found in fuel oil and that

EPA’s analysis was not representative of

the total halogen levels in fuel oil.3

Furthermore, commenters argued that

comparable fuel specifications should

be set at levels that commercial fuels

could consistently pass, and should be

based on levels of constituents actually

observed in commercial fuels, regardless

of their derivation. One commenter

submitted additional data on total

halogen content for No. 6 fuel oil.4

EPA is persuaded by commenters’

arguments and is inclined to use data

that reflect measurement of both organic

and inorganic halogens to establish the

total halogen specification. These data

better represent the typical total halogen

content found in benchmark fuels. To

set a total halogen limit that includes

both organic and inorganic halogens,

EPA has gathered data from its own

database (i.e., for Certifications of

Compliance required by the Boiler and

Industrial Furnace Rule) and included

data submitted by one commenter 5 (see

Table 1). In addition, EPA will continue

to use its original gasoline and No. 2

fuel oil halogen data, which include

both organic and inorganic halogens

(see Table 2). EPA invites comment on

the appropriateness of these data for use

in determining a total halogen

specification.

As in the proposed rule, EPA has used

a nonparametric rank order statistical

approach to determine the total halogen

specification. See 61 FR at 17463. Using

this methodology under the composite

fuel approach, the total halogen

specification would be 25 ppmw for the

50th percentile composite, 260 ppmw

for the 90th percentile composite, and

500 ppmw for the 99th percentile

composite. The Agency is not inviting

additional comment on the various

percentiles in this notice. Rather, this

information is provided to enable

interested persons to inspect EPA’s use

of the total halogen data and to

comment thereon, including the

practical impacts of a total halogen

specification of 25, 260, or 500 ppmw.

In addition to new total halogen data,

EPA received comment on an

equivalency determination to qualify for

the comparable fuels exemption. One

commenter argued that the Agency

should consider the commenter’s

candidate comparable fuel as a

comparable fuel even though it cannot

meet the comparable fuel specification

for total halogens (see Fina Oil

comments, docket number RCSP–

00204). The commenter’s candidate

comparable fuel has an average halogen

content of 1145 ppmw, with a standard

deviation of 2400 ppmw. The

commenter submitted the results of an

emissions testing program to

demonstrate that emissions of toxic,

Appendix VIII, Part 261, compounds

from burning its candidate comparable

fuel are similar or lower than emissions

from this same facility when burning

No. 2 fuel oil.

The Agency considered this situation

and the attendant test data carefully, but

continues to maintain that an emissionsbased equivalency determination to the

total halogen specification on a national

regulatory basis would be inappropriate

and infeasible at this time. EPA has

consistently declined to adopt an

alternative national approach that is

based on an extensive comparison of

either emissions or the risk from

emissions because of the inherent

technical complexity and our current

inability to adequately model the risks

from all potential burners of an

unregulated hazardous waste fuel. EPA

also expects that other commenters may

well ask EPA to create emissions-based

equivalency determinations for other

individual and less problematic

compounds. This would again put EPA

administratively in the position of

attempting to create, on a national level,

a defensible and consistent set of

equivalency determinations based on

considerations of comparative emissions

and risk, a position that EPA has

indicated is infeasible at this time.

Finally, if the Agency were to develop

an equivalency determination for total

halogens, the implementation details

needed in a national regulation to

ensure proper combustion of

halogenated wastes would be numerous

including, for example, provisions on

operating parameters, performance

testing, and monitoring. These details

would almost certainly result in a

complicated conditional exclusion from

the definition of solid waste. This

eventuality is viewed as both potentially

unworkable and very difficult to

implement and enforce on a national

basis. However, there remains some

discretion for EPA, through a separate

rulemaking, to classify individual fuels

as non-wastes based on individual

circumstances.6

Therefore, EPA is not inclined at this

time to consider developing any

national equivalency determination to

the total halogen specification as part of

its final deliberations on the comparable

fuel exclusion. At some future point,

perhaps as our understanding of causeand-effect relationships regarding

emissions from a wider variety of

sources grows, EPA may be able to

address aspects of the commenter’s

recommendations if appropriate and

feasible.

TABLE 1: ADDITIONAL TOTAL HALOGEN DATA

Fuel type Facility Total Halogen

(ppmw)

Heat Value

(Btu/lb)

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. Dupont, Wilmington .............................................................. 16 .............................. 19,200

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. Dupont, Wilmington .............................................................. 429 ............................ 19,200

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. Dupont, Wilmington .............................................................. 461 ............................ 19,200

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. Dupont, Wilmington .............................................................. 470 ............................ 19,200

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. Dupont, Wilmington .............................................................. 490 ............................ 19,200

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. Dupont, Wilmington .............................................................. 523 ............................ 19,200

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. Dow Chem., Gales Ferry ..................................................... 83 .............................. 19,587

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. Dow Chem., Gales Ferry ..................................................... 93 .............................. 19,587

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. Dow Chem., Gales Ferry ..................................................... 137 ............................ 19,380

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. American Cyan., Kalamazoo ................................................ <45 (non-detect) ........ 18,571
47404 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1: ADDITIONAL TOTAL HALOGEN DATA—Continued

Fuel type Facility Total Halogen

(ppmw)

Heat Value

(Btu/lb)

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. American Cyan., Kalamazoo ................................................ <45 (non-detect) ........ 18,571

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. American Cyan., Kalamazoo ................................................ <45 (non-detect) ........ 18,571

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Huntsman Poly, Woodbury .................................................. <100 (non-detect) ...... 18,500

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Huntsman Poly, Woodbury .................................................. <100 (non-detect) ...... 18,500

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Huntsman Poly, Woodbury .................................................. <100 (non-detect) ...... 18,500

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Huntsman Poly, Woodbury .................................................. <100 (non-detect) ...... 18,500

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Huntsman Poly, Woodbury .................................................. <100 (non-detect) ...... 18,500

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Huntsman Poly, Woodbury .................................................. <100 (non-detect) ...... 18,500

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia ................................................. 109 ............................ 18,967

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia ................................................. 110 ............................ 18,881

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia ................................................. 171 ............................ 18,976

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Rohm & Haas, Bristol ........................................................... 180 ............................ 18,400

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia ................................................. 840 ............................ 18,300

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia ................................................. 840 ............................ 18,600

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia ................................................. 590 ............................ 18,400

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia ................................................. 660 ............................ 18,300

No. 6 fuel oil .................................................. Rohm & Haas, Philadelphia ................................................. 1000 .......................... 18,400

TABLE 2: TOTAL HALOGEN DATA FROM PROPOSED RULE

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. EPA sample 8835–001 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,583

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. EPA sample 8835–002 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,610

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. EPA sample 8835–003 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,823

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. EPA sample 8835–004 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,755

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. EPA sample 8835–005 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,763

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. EPA sample 8835–006 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,891

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. EPA sample 8835–007 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,570

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. EPA sample 8835–008 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,865

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. EPA sample 8835–009 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,942

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. EPA sample 8835–010 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 20,000

No. 2 fuel oil .................................................. EPA sample 8835–011 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,745

Gasoline ........................................................ EPA sample 8835–001 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,506

Gasoline ........................................................ EPA sample 8835–002 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,394

Gasoline ........................................................ EPA sample 8835–003 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,687

Gasoline ........................................................ EPA sample 8835–004 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,420

Gasoline ........................................................ EPA sample 8835–005 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,189

Gasoline ........................................................ EPA sample 8835–006 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,924

Gasoline ........................................................ EPA sample 8835–007 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,373

Gasoline ........................................................ EPA sample 8835–008 ........................................................ <25 (non-detect) ........ 19,552

Dated: August 25, 1997.

Elizabeth A. Cotsworth,

Acting Director Office of Solid Waste.

[FR Doc. 97–23843 Filed 9–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 54 and 64

[CC Docket Nos. 96–45; 97–21; FCC 97–

292]

Changes to the Board of Directors of

the National Exchange Carrier

Association, Inc. and Federal-State

Joint Board on Universal Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking released August

15, 1997 proposes to amend the

Commission’s rules regarding revenue

information submitted to NECA by TRS

contributors. The proposed rules would

permit USAC, NECA, to the extent that

it is acting on behalf of USAC, and the

permanent universal service

Administrator, to use revenue data

submitted to the TRS Administrator by

TRS contributors in order to verify

revenue information provided on the

Universal Service Worksheet by

contributors to the universal service

support mechanisms.

DATES: Comments are to be filed on or

before September 11, 1997. Reply

comments are to be filed on or before

September 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, NW., Room 222,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Valerie Yates, Legal Counsel, Common

Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–1500 or

Sheryl Todd, Common Carrier Bureau,

(202) 418–7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted

and released on August 15, 1997. The

full text is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. Pursuant to the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, the

Commission released a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking and Order

Establishing a Joint Board, Federal-State

Joint Board on Universal Service, CC

Docket No. 96–45, on March 8, 1996 (61

FR 10499 (March 14, 1996)), a