Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4243 

subject to the applicable recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements of SIPapproved Env-A 900 Owner or Operator 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Obligations, which requires annual 

reporting to the state of emissions data 

and other information relating to 

compliance. Any additional 

recordkeeping requirements are 

outlined within Table 5 in the state’s 

permit to operate. Any additional 

reporting requirements are outlined 

within Table 6 in the state’s permit to 

operate. 

EPA has reviewed RACT Order RO– 

0007 issued by the New Hampshire DES 

to PAK Solutions of Lancaster dated 

December 14, 2022. EPA is proposing an 

approval of this RACT Order into the 

New Hampshire SIP. 

II. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve RACT 

Order RO–0007 issued by the New 

Hampshire DES to PAK Solutions of 

Lancaster on December 14, 2022, as a 

revision to the New Hampshire SIP. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this notice or on 

other relevant matters. These comments 

will be considered before taking final 

action. Interested parties may 

participate in the Federal rulemaking 

procedure by submitting written 

comments to this proposed rule by 

following the instructions listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

RACT Order RO–0007 dated December 

14, 2022, issued by the New Hampshire 

DES to Pak Solutions of Lancaster, as 

discussed in Section I of this preamble. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents generally 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 1 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 

7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 

reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role 

is to approve state choices, provided 

that they meet the criteria of the Clean 

Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further 

defines the term fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The New Hampshire DES did not 

evaluate environmental justice 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and 

did not consider EJ in this action. Due 

to the nature of the action being taken 

here, this action is expected to have a 

neutral to positive impact on the air 

quality of the affected area. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of 

achieving environmental justice for 

people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 18, 2024. 

David Cash, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01228 Filed 1–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0183; FRL 5120–02– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AO18 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large 

Municipal Waste Combustors 

Voluntary Remand Response and 5- 

Year Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 

amendments to the new source 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4244 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

performance standards (NSPS) and 

emission guidelines (EG) for large 

municipal waste combustion (MWC) 

units. These proposed amendments 

reflect the results from a reevaluation of 

the maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) floor levels, a 5-year 

review, and the removal of startup, 

shutdown and malfunction exclusions 

and exceptions. These proposed 

amendments also streamline regulatory 

language, revise recordkeeping and 

electronic notification and reporting 

requirements, re-establish new and 

existing source applicability dates, 

clarify requirements for certain air 

curtain incinerators, close a 2007 

proposed reconsideration action, correct 

certain typographical errors, make 

certain technical corrections, and clarify 

certain provisions in the NSPS and EG. 

These proposed amendments would 

revise all emission limits in the EG, 

except for carbon monoxide (CO) limits 

for two subcategories of combustors, 

and all nine emission limits in the 

NSPS. The EPA is reevaluating the 

MACT floors in response to the EPA’s 

voluntary remand of the large MWC 

rules following a petitioner’s request 

that the EPA review the MACT floors for 

large MWC units in consideration of a 

D.C. Circuit Court decision on MACT 

floor issues. The 5-year review is 

required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

The proposed amendments would result 

in an estimated 14,000 tons per year 

reduction in regulated pollutants. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 25, 2024. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before February 22, 2024. 

Public hearing: If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing on or before 

January 29, 2024, we will hold a virtual 

public hearing. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for information on 

requesting and registering for a public 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2017–0183, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2017–0183 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0183. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0183, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operation are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https:// 

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Charlene E. Spells, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (E143– 

05), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, P.O. Box 12055, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

5255; email address: spells.charlene@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Participation in virtual public 

hearing. To request a virtual public 

hearing, contact the public hearing team 

at (888) 372–8699 or by email at SPPD

publichearing@epa.gov. If requested, the 

hearing will be held via virtual platform 

on February 7, 2024. The hearing will 

convene at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) 

and will conclude at 7:00 p.m. ET. The 

EPA may close a session 15 minutes 

after the last pre-registered speaker has 

testified if there are no additional 

speakers. The EPA will announce 

further details at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/largemunicipal-waste-combustors-lmwc-newsource-performance. 

If a public hearing is requested, the 

EPA will begin pre-registering speakers 

for the hearing no later than 1 business 

day after a request has been received. To 

register to speak at the virtual hearing, 

please use the online registration form 

available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/large-municipal-wastecombustors-lmwc-new-sourceperformance or contact the public 

hearing team at (888) 372–8699 or by 

email at SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. 

The last day to pre-register to speak at 

the hearing will be February 5, 2024. 

Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post 

a general agenda that will list preregistered speakers in approximate 

order at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/largemunicipal-waste-combustors-lmwc-newsource-performance. 

The EPA will make every effort to 

follow the schedule as closely as 

possible on the day of the hearing; 

however, please plan for the hearings to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. 

Each commenter will have 4 minutes 

to provide oral testimony. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide the 

EPA with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via email) by emailing it 

to spells.charlene@epa.gov. The EPA 

also recommends submitting the text of 

your oral testimony as written 

comments to the rulemaking docket. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral testimony 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. 

Please note that any updates made to 

any aspect of the hearing will be posted 

online at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/largemunicipal-waste-combustors-lmwc-newsource-performance. While the EPA 

expects the hearing to go forward as set 

forth above, please monitor our website 

or contact the public hearing team at 

(888) 372–8699 or by email at SPPD

publichearing@epa.gov to determine if 

there are any updates. The EPA does not 

intend to publish a document in the 

Federal Register announcing updates. 

If you require the services of a 

translator or special accommodation 

such as audio description, please preregister for the hearing with the public 

hearing team and describe your needs 

by January 30, 2024. The EPA may not 

be able to arrange accommodations 

without advanced notice. 

Docket: The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0183. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Although 

listed, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. With the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4245 

exception of such material, publicly 

available docket materials are available 

electronically in Regulations.gov. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0183. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit electronically to https:// 

www.regulations.gov/ any information 

that you consider to be CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. This type of 

information should be submitted as 

discussed below. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the Web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

The https://www.regulations.gov/ 

website allows you to submit your 

comment anonymously, which means 

the EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an email comment directly to the 

EPA without going through https://

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, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

digital storage media you submit. If the 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Submitting CBI: Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through https://www.regulations.gov/. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on any digital 

storage media that you mail to the EPA, 

note the docket ID, mark the outside of 

the digital storage media as CBI, and 

identify electronically within the digital 

storage media the specific information 

that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 

one complete version of the comments 

that includes information claimed as 

CBI, you must submit a copy of the 

comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI directly to 

the public docket through the 

procedures outlined in Instructions 

above. If you submit any digital storage 

media that does not contain CBI, mark 

the outside of the digital storage media 

clearly that it does not contain CBI and 

note the docket ID. Information not 

marked as CBI will be included in the 

public docket and the EPA’s electronic 

public docket without prior notice. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. 

Our preferred method to receive CBI 

is for it to be transmitted electronically 

using email attachments, File Transfer 

Protocol (FTP), or other online file 

sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, 

OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic 

submissions must be transmitted 

directly to the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) CBI 

Office at the email address oaqpscbi@

epa.gov, and should include clear CBI 

markings and note the docket ID. If you 

need assistance with submitting large 

electronic files that exceed the file size 

limit for email attachments, and if you 

do not have your own file sharing 

service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov 

to request a file transfer link. If sending 

CBI information through the postal 

service, please send it to the following 

address: OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2017–0183. The mailed CBI 

material should be double wrapped and 

clearly marked. Any CBI markings 

should not show through the outer 

envelope. 

Preamble acronyms and 

abbreviations. Throughout this 

preamble the use of ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or 

‘‘our’’ is intended to refer to the EPA. 

We use multiple acronyms and terms in 

this preamble. While this list may not be 

exhaustive, to ease the reading of this 

preamble and for reference purposes, 

the EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here: 

ACI activated carbon injection 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

APCD air pollution control device 

ASME American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers 

ASNCR advanced selective noncatalytic 

reduction 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

Cd cadmium 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CEMS continuous emissions monitoring 

system 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Units 

CO carbon monoxide 

EAV equivalent annualized value 

EG emission guidelines 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) 

HCl hydrogen chloride 

Hg mercury 

ICR Information Collection Request 

LNTM Low NOX

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MSW municipal solid waste 

MWC municipal waste combustor 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NOX oxides of nitrogen (nitrogen oxides) 

NSPS new source performance standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OTR Ozone Transport Region 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

Pb lead 

PCDD/PCDF polychlorinated 

dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans 

(dioxins/furans) 

PDF portable document format 

PM particulate matter 

ppm parts per million 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PV present value 

QRO Certification for Municipal Solid 

Waste Combustion Facilities Operator 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RDL representative detection level 

RDF/FBC refuse derived fuel fluidized bed 

combustor 

RDF/S refuse-derived fuel stoker combustor 

RDF/SS refuse derived fuel semisuspension or spreader stoker wet process 

conversion combustor 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

SCR selective catalytic reduction 

SNCR selective noncatalytic reduction 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

tpd tons per day 

tpy tons per year 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

UPL upper prediction limit 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4246 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1Order, Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 06–1250 (D.C. 

Cir. filed Feb. 15, 2008). 

2https://www.epa.gov/csapr/good-neighbor-plan2015-ozone-naaqs. 

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is the regulatory background for 

this source category? 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

E. How does the EPA perform the 5-year 

review? 

F. What outreach and engagement did the 

EPA conduct? 

III. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

A. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our 5-year review and 

response to the voluntary MACT floor 

remand, and what is the rationale for 

those decisions? 

B. What other actions are we proposing, 

and what is the rationale for those 

actions? 

C. What compliance dates are we 

proposing, and what is the rationale for 

the proposed compliance dates? 

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the water, solid waste, and 

energy impacts? 

D. What are the cost impacts? 

E. What are the economic impacts? 

F. What are the benefits? 

G. What environmental justice analysis did 

we conduct? 

V. Request for Comments 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

and 1 CFR Part 51 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Executive Order 14096: 

Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment 

to Environmental Justice for All 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The EPA is proposing to revise the 

standards of performance for new 

stationary sources (new source 

performance standards, or NSPS) and 

emission guidelines (EG) for existing 

sources for large municipal waste 

combustors (MWCs) by amending 

existing standards for the large MWC 

source category, which comprises 

incinerators that combust greater than 

250 tons per day (tpd) of municipal 

solid waste (MSW). The EPA is 

exercising its authority under section 

129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 

proposed standards would increase 

stringency of existing regulation of 

emissions of the nine pollutants listed 

in CAA section 129: cadmium (Cd), 

mercury (Hg), lead (Pb), particulate 

matter (PM), hydrogen chloride (HCl), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), polychlorinated 

dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans 

(dioxins/furans or PCDD/PCDF), carbon 

monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX). 

2. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the Regulatory Action in Question 

These proposed amendments reflect 

the results from a reevaluation of the 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) floor, a 5-year 

review, and the removal of startup, 

shutdown and malfunction (SSM) 

exclusions and exceptions. These 

proposed amendments also streamline 

regulatory language, revise 

recordkeeping and electronic reporting 

requirements, re-establish new and 

existing source applicability dates, 

clarify requirements for air curtain 

incinerators, close a 2007 proposed 

reconsideration action, correct certain 

typographical errors, make certain 

technical corrections, and clarify certain 

provisions in the NSPS and EG. 

Specifically, the major proposed 

amendments would do the following: 

• Revise all emission limits in the EG, 

except for CO limits for two combustor 

subcategories, and all nine emission 

limits in the NSPS. With the exception 

of NOX, the proposed standards are the 

result of a reevaluation of the MACT 

floors in response to the D.C. Circuit’s 

2008 remand of the large MWC rules.1

At the same time this reevaluation took 

place, the EPA conducted a 5-year 

review as required by CAA section 

129(a)(5). As a result of this review, the 

EPA is proposing NOX standards that 

are more stringent than the reevaluated 

MACT floor emissions limits for NOX

and are consistent with the recently 

promulgated Good Neighbor Plan 2

which set ozone season standards for a 

significant portion of the large MWC 

source category. 

• Remove the alternative percent 

reduction standards and NOX emissions 

averaging allowance for existing sources 

and replace them with a numeric 

concentration-based emission limits 

only. This would establish a consistent 

approach to compliance for all facilities. 

• Remove SSM exclusions and 

exceptions and significantly revise 

monitoring provisions during these 

periods. For NOX, SO2, and CO, where 

a continuous emissions monitoring 

system (CEMS) continuously measures 

the pollutant concentration, we propose 

eliminating the exclusions of periods of 

SSM from CEMS data averaging 

calculations present in the 1995 large 

MWC rules and replacing them with a 

monitoring and compliance 

demonstration approach used in the 

more recent CAA section 129 

rulemaking for Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Units (CISWI) 

NSPS and EG. 

• Streamline regulatory language to 

be more accessible than the 1995 large 

MWC rule. Primarily, convert text 

describing emission standards and 

performance testing requirements from 

paragraphs into tables to facilitate easier 

implementation and understanding of 

the requirements. 

• Revise recordkeeping and electronic 

reporting requirements for source 

owners and operators to submit 

electronic copies of required 

performance test reports, performance 

evaluation reports, semiannual 

compliance reports, and annual reports 

through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance 

and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI). The electronic submittal of the 

reports addressed in this proposed 

rulemaking will increase the usefulness 

of the data contained in those reports 

and will improve availability and 

transparency. 

• Re-establish new and existing 

source applicability so that large MWC 

units currently subject to the NSPS 

would become ‘‘existing’’ sources under 

the proposed amended standards and 

would be required to meet the revised 

EG by the applicable compliance date 

for the revised guidelines. Large MWC 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4247 

3Note that the EPA is not proposing any 

amendments to 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ea at this 

time, but may reserve this subpart in a future 

action, as discussed later in this preamble. 

units that commence construction after 

the date of this proposal or commence 

a modification on or after the date 6 

months after promulgation of the 

amended standards, would be ‘‘new’’ 

units subject to the more stringent NSPS 

emission limits. 

• Clarify requirements for air curtain 

incinerators that burn only wood waste, 

clean lumber, and yard waste or a 

mixture of these materials. The EPA is 

proposing to eliminate the regulatory 

title V permitting requirement for air 

curtain incinerators that are not located 

at a major source or subject to title V for 

other reasons. 

3. Costs and Benefits 

Table 1 of this preamble summarizes 

the monetized benefits, costs, and 

emissions reductions of this proposed 

action for new and existing large MWCs 

from 2025 through 2044. As indicated in 

Table 1, the EPA projects that the 

proposed amendments would result in 

an estimated 14,000 tons per year 

reduction in regulated pollutants. The 

EPA conducted an economic analysis 

for this proposal, as detailed in the 

document Regulatory Impact Analysis 

for the Proposed Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources 

and Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Sources: Large Municipal Waste 

Combustors (referred to as the RIA in 

this document). The RIA is available in 

the docket and is also briefly 

summarized in section IV of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 1—MONETIZED BENEFITS, COSTS, NET BENEFITS, AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS OF THE PROPOSED NSPS AND

EG AMENDMENTS, 2025–2044 a

[Dollar estimates in millions of 2022 dollars, discounted to 2023] 

3 Percent discount rate 7 Percent discount rate 

Present value Equivalent annualized 

value Present value Equivalent annualized value 

Benefits b ................................................. $5,100 and $16,000 .... $340 and $1,100 ......... $3,100 and $9,800 ...... $290 and $920. 

Compliance costs .................................... $1,700 .......................... $110 ............................. $1,200 .......................... $120. 

Net benefits ............................................. $3,400 and $14,000 .... $230 and $970 ............ $1,800 and $8,500 ...... $170 and $800. 

Emissions reductions (short tons) .......... Total for period of analysis (years 2025–2044): 

Mercury ................................................... 1,100 pounds. 

Dioxins/Furans ........................................ 1000 grams. 

Hydrogen Chloride .................................. 6,900 short tons. 

Sulfur Dioxide .......................................... 48,000 short tons. 

Nitrogen Oxides ...................................... 230,000 short tons. 

Cadmium ................................................. 0.89 short tons. 

Lead ........................................................ 3.6 short tons. 

PM ........................................................... 490 short tons. 

PM <2.5 microns (PM2.5) ........................ 280 short tons. 

Non-monetized benefits in this table ...... Health and environmental benefits from reducing 6,900 short tons of HAP from 2025 to 2044. 

Non-health benefits from reducing 490 short tons of PM, of which 280 short tons are PM2.5, from 

2025 to 2044. 

Visibility benefits. 

Reduced ecosystem/vegetation effects. 

aTotals may not sum due to independent rounding. Numbers rounded to two significant digits unless otherwise noted. 

b Monetized benefits include health benefits associated with reductions in PM2.5 concentrations from reductions in directly emitted PM2.5 and 

precursors such as SO2 and NOX. The monetized health benefits are quantified using two alternative concentration-response relationships from 

Di et al. (2016) and Turner et al. (2017). 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

This proposal applies to large MWCs 

that combust more than 250 tpd of MSW 

as defined under section129(a)(1)(B) of 

the 1990 CAA Amendments (See Pub. L 

101–549, title III, section 305(a), 

November 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2577) and 

regulated under 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts Cb and Eb. The North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes for the large 

municipal waste industry are 562213 

and 924110. This list of categories and 

NAICS codes is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding the entities that 

this proposed action is likely to affect. 

The proposed standards, once 

promulgated, will be directly applicable 

to the affected sources. Some large 

MWCs are owned and operated by local 

or municipal governments, and thus 

would be affected by this proposed 

action. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this action 

is available on the internet. Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA will post a copy of this proposed 

action at https://www.epa.gov/ 

stationary-sources-air-pollution/largemunicipal-waste-combustors-lmwc-newsource-performance. Following 

publication in the Federal Register, the 

EPA will post the Federal Register 

version of the proposal and key 

technical documents at this same 

website. 

A memorandum showing the rule 

edits that would be necessary to 

incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 

60, subparts Cb and Eb 3 proposed in 

this action is available in the docket 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0183). Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, the EPA also will post a 

copy of this document to https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/large-municipal-wastecombustors-lmwc-new-sourceperformance. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by section 129 of the CAA. 

CAA section 129 requires the EPA to 

establish NSPS and EG pursuant to CAA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4248 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

4Elsewhere in the CAA, including under CAA 

section 112(d)(6), the EPA is also obliged to 

undertake periodic reviews. Although the nature or 

scope of the periodic review under CAA section 

112(d)(6) is different than under CAA section 

129(a)(5), it may be worth noting that, even under 

CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA is not obligated to 

recalculate MACT floors in the course of a periodic 

review. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008); Nat’l Ass’n for Surface Finishing v. EPA, 

795 F.3d 1, 7–9 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

sections 111 and 129 for new and 

existing solid waste incineration units, 

including ‘‘incineration units with 

capacity greater than 250 tpd 

combusting municipal waste.’’ This 

action amends the large MWC standards 

under such authority. In addition, CAA 

section 129(a)(5) specifically requires 

the EPA to review the standards at 5- 

year intervals and, if appropriate, revise 

the standards and the requirements for 

solid waste incineration units, including 

large MWC units. 

In setting forth the methodology that 

the EPA must use to establish the firststage technology-based standards, CAA 

section 129(a)(2) provides that standards 

‘‘applicable to solid waste incineration 

units promulgated under . . . [section 

111] and this section shall reflect the 

maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions of . . . [certain listed air 

pollutants] that the Administrator, 

taking into consideration the cost of 

achieving such emission reduction and 

any non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements, determines is achievable 

for new and existing units in each 

category.’’ This level of control is 

referred to as a maximum achievable 

control technology, or MACT standard. 

CAA section 129(a)(4) further directs the 

EPA to set numeric emission limits for 

certain enumerated pollutants (Cd, CO, 

PCDD/PCDF, HCl, Pb, Hg, NOX, PM, and 

SO2). In addition, the standards ‘‘shall 

be based on methods and technologies 

for removal or destruction of pollutants’’ 

according to CAA section 129(a)(3). The 

EPA has substantial discretion to 

distinguish among classes, types, and 

sizes of incinerator units within a 

category while setting standards. 

In promulgating a MACT standard, 

the EPA must first calculate the 

minimum stringency levels for new and 

existing solid waste incineration units 

in a category, based on levels of 

emissions control achieved in practice 

by the subject units. The minimum level 

of stringency is called the MACT floor. 

Different approaches exist for 

determining the floors for new and/or 

existing sources. For new, modified, and 

reconstructed sources, CAA section 

129(a)(2) provides that the ‘‘degree of 

reduction in emissions that is deemed 

achievable . . . shall not be less 

stringent than the emissions control that 

is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar unit, as determined 

by the Administrator.’’ Emissions 

standards for existing units may be less 

stringent than standards for new units, 

but CAA section 129(a)(2) requires that 

the standards ‘‘shall not be less stringent 

than the average emissions limitation 

achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of units in the category.’’ The 

MACT floors form the least-stringent 

regulatory option the EPA may consider 

in the determination of MACT standards 

for a source category and therefore cost 

is not a factor for consideration. As a 

part of the ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ 

evaluation, the EPA must evaluate 

standards more stringent than the floor, 

which includes the consideration of the 

factors outlined in CAA section 

129(a)(2) including the costs, non-air 

quality health and environmental 

impacts, and energy requirements of 

more stringent controls. See also Nat’l 

Ass’n for Surface Finishing v. EPA, 795 

F.3d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (explaining in 

related context under CAA section 

112(d)(2), the EPA’s obligation to set 

more stringent ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ 

standards if practicable). 

MACT analyses involve assessing 

emissions from the best-performing 

units in a source category. The 

assessment can be based on actual 

emissions data, knowledge of existing 

air pollution control in combination 

with actual emissions data, or other 

information such as state regulatory 

requirements that enable the EPA to 

estimate the performance of the 

regulated units. For each source 

category, the assessment involves a 

review of actual emissions data with an 

appropriate accounting for emissions 

variability. Other methods of estimating 

emissions can be used, provided that 

the methods can be shown to provide 

reasonable estimates of the actual 

emissions performance of a source or 

sources. Where there is more than one 

method or technology to control 

emissions, the analysis may result in 

several potential regulations (regulatory 

options), one of which is selected as 

MACT for each pollutant. Each 

regulatory option must be at least as 

stringent as the minimum-stringency 

floor requirements. The EPA must also 

examine, but is not necessarily required 

to adopt, more stringent beyond-thefloor regulatory options to determine 

MACT. Unlike with floor minimum 

stringency requirements, the EPA must 

consider various impacts of the more 

stringent regulatory options in 

determining whether MACT standards 

are to reflect beyond-the-floor 

requirements. If the EPA concludes that 

the more stringent regulatory options 

have unreasonable impacts, the EPA 

selects the floor-based regulatory option 

as MACT. If the EPA concludes that 

impacts associated with beyond-thefloor levels of control are acceptable 

given the emissions reductions 

achieved, the EPA selects those levels as 

MACT. 

Under CAA section 129(a)(2), for new 

sources, the EPA determines the best 

control currently in use for a given 

pollutant and establishes one potential 

regulatory option at the emission level 

achieved by that control, accounting for 

emissions variability. More stringent 

potential beyond-the-floor regulatory 

options might reflect controls used on 

other sources that could be applied to 

the source category in question. For 

existing sources, the EPA determines 

the average emissions limitation 

achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of units to form the floor 

regulatory option. Beyond-the-floor 

options reflect other controls capable of 

achieving better performance. 

As noted earlier in this preamble, 

CAA section 129(a)(5) requires the EPA 

to conduct a review of the standards at 

5-year intervals and, in accordance with 

CAA sections 129 and 111, if 

appropriate, revise the standards. In 

conducting the 5-year review, the EPA 

assesses the performance of and 

variability associated with control 

measures affecting emissions 

performance at sources in the subject 

source category (including the installed 

emissions control equipment), along 

with recent developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies, and 

determines whether it is appropriate to 

revise the NSPS and EG. This approach 

is consistent with the requirement that 

standards under CAA section 129(a)(3) 

‘‘shall be based on methods and 

technologies for removal or destruction 

of pollutants before, during or after 

combustion.’’ We do not interpret CAA 

section 129(a)(5), together with CAA 

section 111, as requiring the EPA to 

recalculate MACT floors in connection 

with this 5-year review.4 This general 

approach is similar to the approach 

taken by the EPA in periodically 

reviewing CAA section 111 standards, 

which, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), 

requires the EPA, except in specified 

circumstances, to review NSPS 

promulgated under that section every 

eight years and to revise the standards 

if the EPA determines that it is 

appropriate to do so. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4249 

5Note that on February 11, 1991, Subpart Ea was 

promulgated that applies Standards of Performance 

to MWCs which commenced construction after 

December 20, 1989, and on or before September 20, 

1994. 

6Specifically, the petitioners pointed to a 2004 

decision from the D.C. Circuit, which remanded 

MACT floors established for existing small MWCs 

derived from state-issued permit limits because the 

Court found the EPA did not fulfill the requirement 

of CAA section 129(a)(2) in setting the floors. See 

Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority v. 

EPA, 358 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Additionally, 

the EPA noted in its motion for a voluntary remand 

that since the time the EPA finalized the 2006 

rulemaking, the D.C. Circuit issued three decisions 

that were relevant to rules promulgated under 

sections 112 and 129 of the CAA, since the floor 

setting requirements in section 129 are essentially 

equivalent to those under section 112. See Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 13, 2007) 

(vacating the EPA’s regulations setting national 

emission standards for brick and clay ceramics 

kilns under Section 112); Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 

June 8, 2007) (vacating the EPA’s regulations setting 

national emission standards under section 112 for 

hazardous air pollutants from industrial, 

commercial, and institutional boilers and process 

heaters and the EPA’s regulations under section 129 

defining the term ‘‘commercial and industrial solid 

waste incineration unit’’); Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir. 

June 19, 2007) (vacating portions of an EPA rule 

promulgated under CAA section 112 regulating 

hazardous air pollutants from the manufacture of 

plywood and composite wood products). 

7Bradley Nelson and Can Kuterdam, AlphaGamma Technologies, Inc., to Walt Stevenson, U.S. 

EPA. ‘‘Performance/Test Data for Large Municipal 

Waste Combustors (MWCs) at MACT Compliance 

(Year 2000 Data). June 18, 2002. EPA Air Legacy 

Docket A–90–45, Item VIII–B–4. 8See 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023). 

B. What is the regulatory background for 

this source category? 

In December 1995, the EPA adopted 

EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb) and 

NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb) 5 for 

large MWC units pursuant to CAA 

section 129. As stated earlier in section 

I.A.1 of this preamble, large MWC units 

have a combustion capacity greater than 

250 tpd of MSW. Both the EG and NSPS 

require compliance with emission 

limitations that reflect the performance 

of MACT. The 1995 NSPS apply to new 

large MWC units which commenced 

construction, were modified, or were 

reconstructed after September 20, 1994. 

The 1995 EG apply to existing large 

MWC units which commenced 

construction on or before September 20, 

1994. The 1995 EG required that 

emission control retrofits be completed 

by December 2000. Retrofits of controls 

at existing large MWC units were 

completed on time (by December 2000) 

and were highly effective in reducing 

emissions of most CAA section 129 

pollutants. Relative to a 1990 baseline, 

the EG reduced organic emissions 

(PCDD/PCDF) by more than 99 percent, 

metal emissions (Cd, Pb, and Hg) by 

more than 93 percent, and acid gas 

emissions (HCl and SO2) by more than 

91 percent. While NOX is also regulated 

under the 1995 EG and NSPS, the 

emissions reductions for NOX were 

relatively modest compared to the other 

CAA section 129 pollutants. 

The CAA requires review of these 

standards at 5-year intervals and, in 

2006, amendments to the 1995 

standards were promulgated. In the 

2006 final rule, titled ‘‘Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources 

and Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Sources: Large Municipal Waste 

Combustors’’ (71 FR 27324, May 10, 

2006), revisions to the emission limits 

and compliance testing provisions were 

made to reflect the actual performance 

achieved by existing MWCs and to 

reflect improvements in CEMS data 

performance and reliability. 

Following promulgation of the 2006 

rulemaking, environmental groups filed 

a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit 

challenging the rulemaking. The 

petitioners challenged the MACT floor 

limits which the EPA promulgated in 

1995. In light of then-recent precedents 

casting doubt on the soundness of 

MACT floors derived in part from stateissued air permits,6 as the 1995 MACT 

floors for large MWCs were, the EPA 

sought a voluntary remand of the 2006 

rule. In its remand motion, the EPA 

announced its intention to grant the 

environmental groups’ administrative 

petition to revisit the 1995 MACT floors 

and reevaluate the 2006 rule as 

necessary to comport with any 

revisions. The D.C. Circuit issued an 

order granting the EPA’s request for a 

remand in 2008, which directed EPA to 

review its 2006 rulemaking. Order, 

Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 06–1250 (D.C. 

Cir. filed Feb. 15, 2008). 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

The majority of the data for 

addressing the MACT remand come 

from source inventory information from 

the original 1995 rulemaking docket and 

compliance test information compiled 

primarily from 2000 to 2009. This data 

set builds upon initial compliance data 

and inventory information collected in 

2000. Starting with initial 2000 

compliance data,7 Microsoft Excel 

spreadsheet template files were created 

to compile compliance data for the 

following years. These spreadsheet 

templates, or load sheets, were 

distributed to EPA regional contacts for 

the regions where a large MWC was 

being operated. The load sheets were 

distributed in early 2008, with most of 

the responses being completed and 

returned at some point during the year. 

Usually, EPA regional office contacts or 

state personnel completed the load 

sheets, but occasionally corporate 

contacts would provide the information. 

Sometimes, copies of compliance test 

reports and annual reports were 

submitted instead of load sheets. In 

these cases, data were extracted from 

the test report and entered into a load 

sheet for the unit or directly entered 

into the large MWC database records. 

The database of emissions data is 

available in the docket for this action. 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

In addition to the compliance data 

compiled in 2009, data gaps for newer 

large MWC facilities were filled by 

downloading publicly available permit 

applications, permits, and test reports 

from State environmental data website 

portals to establish baseline emission 

estimates and air pollution controls 

currently in place for each unit. The 

EPA also conducted a site visit to the 

most recently constructed large MWC 

facility in the United States, where the 

only domestic MWC units with selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) technology to 

control NOX emissions are operated. 

The site visit report and memorandum 

documenting the review and supporting 

information are available in the docket 

for this action. 

Finally, information and analyses 

from a separate rulemaking, the Good 

Neighbor Plan,8 were instrumental in 

the review of the large MWC NSPS and 

EG. Specifically, the 5-year review used 

information on performance, technical 

feasibility, and cost considerations for 

advanced selective noncatalytic 

reduction (ASNCR) and low NOX

(LNTM) controls that can be retrofitted 

onto existing MWC units, as well as 

information on SCR controls for new 

units. 

E. How does the EPA perform the 5-year 

review? 

In conducting 5-year reviews under 

CAA section 129(a)(5), the EPA assesses 

the performance of, and variability 

associated with, control measures 

affecting emissions performance at 

sources in the subject source category 

(including the installed emissions 

control equipment), along with 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies. For 

development of this proposed rule, the 

EPA reviewed available performance 

data for large MWC units. In reviewing 

the standards based on currently 

available emissions information, we 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4250 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

9CAA section 129(a)(5) relies on CAA section 111 

for requirements for 5-year review: ‘‘. . . the 

Administrator shall review, and in accordance with 

this section and section 7411 of this title, revise 

such standards and requirements.’’ CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B) states the following: ‘‘When 

implementation and enforcement of any 

requirement of this Act indicate that emission 

limitations and percent reductions beyond those 

required by the standards promulgated under this 

section are achieved in practice, the Administrator 

shall, when revising standards promulgated under 

this section, consider the emission limitations and 

percent reductions achieved in practice.’’ 

10 Information submitted to the pre-proposal nonregulatory docket at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2022–0920 is not automatically part of the proposal 

record. For information and materials to be 

considered in the proposed rulemaking record, it 

must be resubmitted in the rulemaking docket at 

EPA Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0183. 

addressed the CAA section 129(a)(5) 

review’s goals of assessing the 

performance efficiency of the installed 

equipment and ensuring that the 

emission limits reflect the performance 

of the technologies that sources are 

using to comply with MACT standards. 

In addition, we considered whether new 

technologies, processes, and 

improvements in practices have been 

demonstrated at sources subject to the 

2006 large MWC rule. Our review 

evaluates implementation of the existing 

standards, which includes analysis of 

compliance data and identification of 

control and/or monitoring technologies 

trends that have occurred since the 

MACT standards were promulgated and 

previous 5-year reviews were 

conducted. Where we identify potential 

trends or developments that ‘‘indicate 

that emission limitations and percent 

reductions beyond those required by the 

standards . . . are achieved in 

practice,’’ 9 we analyzed their technical 

feasibility, estimated costs, energy 

implications, and non-air environmental 

impacts. We also consider the emission 

reductions associated with each 

development. This analysis informs our 

decision on whether to revise the 

emissions standards to reflect emission 

limitations ‘‘achieved in practice.’’ In 

addition, we consider the 

appropriateness of applying controls to 

new sources versus retrofitting existing 

sources. We consider any of the 

following to be a potential development: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during development of 

the original MACT standards or 

previous 5-year reviews. 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

that were considered during 

development of the original MACT 

standards or previous 5-year reviews 

and could result in additional emissions 

reduction. 

• Any significant changes in the cost 

(including cost-effectiveness) of 

applying controls (including controls 

the EPA considered during the 

development of the original MACT 

standards or during previous 5-year 

reviews). 

F. What outreach and engagement did 

the EPA conduct? 

There has been significant public 

interest in large MWC facilities due to 

concerns regarding impacts of emissions 

from these sources. In developing this 

proposed rule, the EPA conducted preproposal outreach activities with 

communities with environmental justice 

(EJ) concerns, as well as states and 

tribes. On December 6, 2022, a preproposal roundtable was conducted 

with communities to present 

background information on the industry 

and plans for the rulemaking, and to 

address questions. The EPA emailed 

information to roundtable stakeholders 

explaining how to comment on the nonregulatory docket established to solicit 

public input on the Agency’s efforts to 

review and revise the large MWC 

emission standards. This information 

was sent to tribal nations, small 

businesses, and communities with EJ 

concerns via existing listservs on March 

13, 2023.10 The EPA also conducted a 

public roundtable on March 20, 2023 for 

members of communities with EJ 

concerns and their representatives. 

Additionally, the EPA held a 

consultation meeting with the 

Intergovernmental Association and 

other Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 

(UMRA) stakeholders on March 16, 

2023, to discuss the impact this 

rulemaking will have on operators of 

large MWCs, including units that are 

owned and operated by state and local 

entities. 

III. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

A. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our 5-year review 

and response to the voluntary MACT 

floor remand, and what is the rationale 

for those decisions? 

1. Proposed Limits 

In this action, the EPA is reevaluating 

the initial MACT standards established 

in 1995 for large MWCs pursuant to our 

2008 request to the D.C. Circuit for a 

voluntary remand and conducting the 5- 

year review of large MWC under CAA 

section 129(a)(5). As part of this process, 

we considered four scenarios for setting 

new EG and NSPS emission limits based 

on the EPA’s obligations to reevaluate 

MACT standards established in 1995 

and to conduct the 5-year review under 

CAA section 129(a)(5). As part of EPA’s 

MACT floors reevaluation, the Agency 

first must consider best performing 

units to establish MACT floors limits, 

and then further consider whether 

additional beyond-the-floor controls are 

appropriate. As part of the 5-year 

review, the EPA must further consider 

whether additional controls are 

appropriate given improvements in 

pollution controls. Accordingly, the 

EPA undertook the following analyses 

to identify potential regulatory 

approaches: (1) determined the MACT 

floor limits for all pollutants, (2) 

determined the beyond-the-floor based 

limits for all pollutants, (3) considered 

a combination of both MACT floor 

limits and 5-year review limits 

depending on the pollutant, and (4) 

further considered a combination of 

beyond-the-floor and 5-year review 

limits depending on the pollutant. 

Methodologies and rationale used to 

determine these limits are discussed in 

further detail in sections III.A.2 and 3 

below. For reasons discussed later in 

this section of the preamble, the EPA is 

proposing the third scenario, which 

includes MACT floor limits for all 

pollutants except for NOX. The 

proposed limits for NOX reflect the 

results of the 5-year review. Tables 2 

and 3 of this preamble present the 

proposed EG and NSPS emission limits 

for large MWCs, respectively. Current 

emission limits (from the 2006 rule) for 

existing and new units are provided for 

comparison. NOX and CO limits were 

assessed by subcategories determined by 

combustor type, including mass burn 

waterwall (MB/WW), mass burn rotary 

combustor (MB/RC), refuse-derived fuel 

stoker (RDF/S), RDF spreader stoker 

fixed floor/100 percent coal capable and 

RDF semi-suspension/wet RDF process 

conversion (RDF/SS), and RDF/ 

fluidized bed combustion (RDF/FBC). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4251 

11See note 6, supra. 

12EPA Motion for Voluntary Remand at 8, Sierra 

Club v. EPA, no. 06–1250 (D.C. Cir. filed Nov. 9, 

2007). 13 Id. at 10. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF EXISTING SOURCE LIMITS FOR 2006 LARGE MWC RULE AND THE PROPOSED EMISSION

LIMITS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

Pollutant Units of measure 

2006 EG 

(current) 

limits 

Proposed subcategory EG limits 

MB/WW MB/RC RDF/S RDF/SS RDF/FBC 

Cd .............................. ug/dscm @7 percent O2 .......... 35 1.5 

Pb .............................. ug/dscm @7 percent O2 .......... 400 56 

PM ............................. mg/dscm @7 percent O2 ......... 25 7.4 

Hg .............................. ug/dscm @7 percent O2 .......... 50 12 

PCDD/PCDF .............. ng/dscm @7 percent O2 .......... b 30/35 7.2 

HCl ............................. ppmdv @7 percent O2 ............ 29 13 

SO2 ............................ ppmdv @7 percent O2 ............ 29 20 

NOX a ......................... ppmdv @7 percent O2 ............ c 180–250 110 

CO ............................. ppmdv @7 percent O2 ............ d 50–250 e 100 110 110 e 250 110 

a NOX limit based on the 110 ppm (24-hour) NOX limit being finalized under National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Units equipped 

with SCR devices will be subject to their currently permitted limit of 50 ppm. b 30 ng/dscm for fabric filter equipped MWC units and 35 ng/dscm for electrostatic precipitator-equipped MWC units. 

c Range in limits based on combustor type. MB/WW (205); RDF (250); MB/RC (210); RDF/FBC (180). 

d Range in limits based on combustor type. MB/WW (100); MB/RC (250); RDF/S (200); RDF/SS (250); RDF/FBC (200); modular starved air or 

modular excess air (50). e Reevaluated MACT floor limit was less stringent than current limit, so is not proposed to change. 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF NEW SOURCE LIMITS FOR 2006 LARGE MWC RULE AND THE PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS

FOR NEW SOURCES

Pollutant Units of measure 

2006 NSPS 

(current) 

limits 

Proposed subcategory NSPS limits 

MB/WW MB/RC RDF/S 

Cd ....................................................... ug/dscm @7 percent O2 .................... 10 1.1 

Pb ........................................................ ug/dscm @7 percent O2 .................... 140 13 

PM ....................................................... mg/dscm @7 percent O2 ................... 20 4.9 

Hg ....................................................... ug/dscm @7 percent O2 .................... 50 6.1 

PCDD/PCDF ....................................... ng/dscm @7 percent O2 .................... 13 1.8 

HCl ...................................................... ppmdv @7 percent O2 ....................... 25 7.8 

SO2 ..................................................... ppmdv @7 percent O2 ....................... 30 14 

NOX a ................................................... ppmdv @7 percent O2 ....................... 150 50 

CO ....................................................... ppmdv @7 percent O2 ....................... b 50–150 16 100 

a NOX limit based on 50 ppm (24 hour) permitted limit for units currently equipped with SCR control devices. b Range in limits based on combustor type. MB/WW (100); RDF/S (150); Modular starved air or modular excess air (50). 

2. MACT Floor Assessment 

To correct our initial analysis of 

MACT floors undertaken in 1995, the 

EPA proposes to recalculate the large 

MWC MACT floors to account for the 

development of caselaw calling into 

question the establishment of these 

standards based on state-issued permit 

levels where there is no evidence that 

the permit levels reflect the performance 

of the best performing sources. As 

discussed above, following a series of 

D.C. Circuit cases which called into 

question the use of state permitting data 

for establishing MACT floors,11 the EPA 

sought and was granted a voluntary 

remand of the 2006 revisions to the 

large MWC regulations in response to a 

petition for reconsideration from 

environmental groups to re-evaluate the 

1995 MACT floors, which were also 

based on emission limits established in 

state-issued permits (60 FR 65387, 

December 19, 1995). In its motion for a 

voluntary remand, the EPA explained 

that it intended to ‘‘re-analyze the floors 

in the 1995 rule,’’ 12 and ‘‘revisit the 

data and information used in the 1995 

rule, as well as obtain additional data, 

to determine whether the 1995 floors 

need to be revised.’’ 13 However, in 

reviewing the data and information the 

EPA utilized in calculating the 1995 

MACT floors, the EPA determined that 

it does not have sufficient data from that 

time period to characterize the 

performance of all units that is 

necessary to evaluate MACT floors. 

We are accordingly proposing to base 

our calculation of the MACT floors on 

additional emissions data from sources 

in the large MWC source category. In 

recalculating the MACT floors to correct 

for errors in our initial analysis, 

however, EPA is assessing the state of 

the industry at the time limits were first 

calculated for large MWCs in 1995. 

Given the specifics of the history of the 

regulation of this source category, the 

EPA views this as an appropriate 

approach to establish MACT floors that 

reflect the emission levels actually 

achieved by the best-performing sources 

using the maximum achievable control 

technology before sources in the 

category first complied with the 1995 

standards. The EPA proposes utilizing 

1995 performance levels to re-establish 

MACT floor requirements appropriately 

balances competing interest in this 

rulemaking, by recognizing on one hand 

that LMWC facilities have taken steps to 

reduce emissions since the EPA first 

promulgated 1995 standards, and on the 

other hand the EPA’s obligation to 

ensure MACT floor standards are set 

correctly for each source category 

regulated under CAA section 129. To do 

this, however, the EPA finds it is 

necessary to utilize a different dataset to 

recalculate new MACT floors than the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

I I I I 

I I I I 

I I 

I 
4252 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

14The Large MWC 2009 Database is located in the 

docket for this rulemaking in Microsoft Access 

database format. The memorandum documenting 

the database contents and creation is also available 

in the docket. 

15For PCDD/PCDF, the top performing unit only 

had enough reported data to derive two annual 

averages. In this case, because the UPL template can 

only accommodate data sets of n ≥ 3, unit run data 

were used instead. 

16See memorandum ‘‘MACT Floor Calculations 

for Large Municipal Waste Combustor Units’’ 

available at Docket ID. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0183. 

one used to set the initial MACT floors 

in 1995. 

In a related context, for hospital, 

medical, and infectious waste 

incinerators (HMIWI) regulated under 

CAA section 129, the EPA addressed a 

remand from the D.C. Circuit to provide 

further explanation of the EPA’s 

reasoning in determining MACT floors 

for new and existing HMIWI. See 74 FR 

51368 (October 6, 2009). In that case, 

after the original MACT floors went into 

effect for HMIWI, approximately 94% of 

HMIWI units shutdown, and an 

additional 3% of units obtained 

exemptions from the EPA’s regulations. 

72 FR 5510, 5518 (proposed February 6, 

2007). Because of these significant 

changes in the regulated industry, in 

addressing the D.C. Circuit’s remand, 

the EPA found it was not confident in 

using much of the same data relied 

upon in setting the original MACT 

floors in part because data were 

unavailable from the many units that 

shut down following promulgation of 

the original standards. The EPA instead 

found ‘‘the best course of action [was] 

to re-propose a response to the remand 

based on data from the 57 currently 

operating HMIWI.’’ 73 FR 72962, 72970 

(proposed December 1, 2008). In 

reviewing the EPA’s decision in how it 

recalculated MACT floors for HMIWI, 

the D.C. Circuit found, ‘‘[w]hen the EPA 

determined that its regulation rested on 

unreliable data and that it had to reset 

the floors, the agency was functionally 

regulating on a blank slate even though 

the regulation continued to remain on 

the books.’’ Medical Waste Institute and 

Energy Recovery Council v. E.P.A., 645 

F.3d 420 (D.C. Cir. 2011). 

Similar to the D.C. Circuit’s finding in 

Medical Waste Institute, the EPA 

proposes here it is functionally 

establishing new MACT floors for large 

MWCs on a blank slate. However, unlike 

the HMIWI rulemaking, the EPA has not 

seen significant retirements in the large 

MWC industry since the EPA first 

introduced standards pursuant to CAA 

section 129 in 1995, and the industry 

today is comprised of largely the same 

set of units that were operating before 

the original MACT floors went into 

effect. Instead of retirements, the 

majority of the industry undertook the 

installation of air pollution control 

devices and made other improvements 

to meet the 1995 standards. Therefore, 

the EPA proposes for recalculating 

MACT floors for LMWCs, because the 

industry today is comprised of largely 

the same set of units that were operating 

in 1995, that the EPA is able to calculate 

revised MACT floors appropriate for the 

current LMWC population based on the 

industry’s 1995 performance level. 

In calculating MACT floors, for 

existing sources, the CAA requires that 

MACT limits be no less stringent than 

the average emissions limitation 

achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of units in a source category. 

The EPA must determine some measure 

of the average emissions limitation 

achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of units to form the floor 

regulatory option. For new sources, the 

CAA requires that MACT limits be no 

less stringent than the emissions control 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar unit. 

Our first step in calculating the MACT 

floor limits based on the EPA’s 

proposed rationale was to identify the 

population of units operating at the time 

of the original emission guidelines 

development (1990), then use 

corresponding compliance data reported 

from 2000 through 2009 14 to rank units 

by performance for each pollutant. 

Compliance data were adjusted to 

account for supplemental control from 

air pollution control device (APCD) 

configurations that were not in place 

prior to 1995. These control adjustments 

were made by assigning default control 

efficiencies to each APCD configuration 

for each pollutant, back calculating an 

‘‘uncontrolled’’ emissions value from 

the post-retrofit data, then applying the 

control efficiencies corresponding to 

pre-retrofit configurations to estimate 

emissions that would more accurately 

represent the performance level of units 

operating in 1990. 

Adjusted data were ranked, and top 

performing units were identified for 

each pollutant and any applicable 

subcategories. Then, corresponding 

emissions data were compiled and 

analyzed to determine the average 

performance of those units, with an 

appropriate accounting for emissions 

variability, to establish MACT floor 

emission limits. Separate methodologies 

were used for pollutants having stack 

test data (Cd, Pb, Hg, PM, HCl, and 

PCDD/PCDF) and pollutants having 

CEMS data (CO, NOX, and SO2). 

For each stack test pollutant, a 

statistical analysis was performed on 

annual averages of screened run data 

from the 2000 to 2009 dataset to 

determine an upper prediction limit 

(UPL). For EG limits, average annual run 

data corresponding to the top 12 percent 

of units were used, and for NSPS limits, 

average annual run data for the single 

top performer was used.15 The UPL is 

appropriate when data are not available 

for every source in a population of 

interest and a ‘‘prediction’’ element is 

warranted in the final floor value. This 

is the case for the 1990 population of 

large MWCs because several units shut 

down before compliance data were 

collected. The EPA’s most recent UPL 

template, released in January 2022, was 

used to conduct the analysis. UPL 

results were rounded up to two 

significant figures. 

UPL results and the derived EG and 

NSPS MACT floor limits are presented 

in Table 4 of this preamble. Additional 

discussion of the methodology, detailed 

results, and a copy of the UPL template 

can be found in the docket.16


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4253 

17See memorandum ‘‘MACT Floor Calculations 

for Large Municipal Waste Combustor Units’’ 

available at Docket ID. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0183. 

TABLE 4—LARGE MWC MACT FLOOR EG AND NSPS LIMITS FOR STACK TEST POLLUTANTS

Pollutant Units 

(@7 percent O2) 

EG MACT floor calculations NSPS MACT floor calculations 

UPL result MACT floor 

limit UPL result MACT floor limit 

Cd ...................................................................... ug/dscm ............................................................. 1.44 1.5 0.492 a 1.1 

Pb ...................................................................... ug/dscm ............................................................. 55.65 56 12.19 13 

PM ..................................................................... mg/dscm ............................................................ 7.36 7.4 4.81 4.9 

Hg ...................................................................... ug/dscm ............................................................. 11.997 12 6.07 6.1 

PCDD/PCDF ...................................................... ng/dscm ............................................................ 7.18 7.2 1.73 b 1.8 

HCl ..................................................................... ppmdv ............................................................... 12.92 13 7.799 7.8 

a Calculated results were less than the representative detection level (RDL), so the MACT floor limit has been set at Cd’s 3 times RDL value of 1.1 ug/dscm. 

bThe top performer for PCDD/PCDF only had two years of data. The UPL requires at least three data points, so instead of annual averages, individual test runs 

were used in this case. 

Unlike stack test pollutants, there are 

no individual run data for CEMS 

pollutants. Instead, data for CO, NOX, 

and SO2 are collected continuously, and 

available data comprise only peak 

annual values for which the current rule 

requires reporting. Although upper limit 

statistical approaches were initially 

considered for establishing MACT floor 

limits, it was ultimately determined that 

the data already account for emissions 

variability, since the annual peak 24- 

hour or 4-hour average has been 

selected from the year’s CEMS data and 

represents only the highest end of 

readings for the year. Therefore, no 

statistical calculations to account for 

variability are warranted for the CEMS 

pollutant data sets. The limits were 

reevaluated simply by averaging annual 

peak CEMS data corresponding to the 

top performers for each pollutant and 

applicable subcategory. For NOX and 

CO, separate NSPS limits were 

calculated for only two subcategories, 

MB/WW and RDF. They were not 

broken down further, as was done for 

EG limits, because the MB/RC, RDF/SS, 

and RDF/FBC subcategories represent 

single, unique facilities with unit 

designs that likely will not be used in 

any future large MWC units. For NSPS 

purposes, we assumed the overarching 

MB or RDF subcategories will represent 

performance of any units built in the 

future. 

As with the UPL results for stack test 

pollutants, resulting averages for CEMS 

pollutants were rounded up to two 

significant figures. In cases where 

results were greater (less stringent) than 

the current large MWC EG limit, the 

current limit was retained as the MACT 

floor limit. 

Averages and subsequent MACT floor 

EG and NSPS limits are summarized in 

Tables 5 and 6 of this preamble, 

respectively. Additional discussion of 

the methodology, detailed results, and a 

copy of the UPL template can be found 

in the docket.17

TABLE 5—LARGE MWC MACT FLOOR EG LIMITS FOR CEMS POLLUTANTS

Pollutant Units 

(@7 percent O2) 

EG MACT floor calculations 

Average of annual peak CEMS data MACT floor limit 

MB/WW MB/RC RDF RDF/SS RDF/FBC MB/WW MB/RC RDF RDF/SS RDF/FBC 

SO2 ........................ ppmdv .................... 19.33 20 

NOX ....................... ppmdv .................... 226.52 142.25 157.29 290.83 a 205 150 160 a 180 

CO ......................... ppmdv .................... 168.52 109.92 102.14 818.90 101.40 a 100 110 110 a 250 110 

a Calculated limit was less stringent than current limit so kept at current limit. 

TABLE 6—LARGE MWC MACT FLOOR NSPS LIMITS FOR CEMS POLLUTANTS

Pollutant Units 

(@7 percent O2) 

NSPS MACT floor calculations 

Average of annual peak 

CEMS data MACT floor limit 

MB RDF MB RDF 

SO2 ................................................... Ppmdv .............................................. 13.96 14 

NOX ................................................... Ppmdv .............................................. 130.50 154.46 140 a 150 

CO ..................................................... Ppmdv .............................................. 15.65 99.03 16 100 

a Calculated limit was less stringent than current limit so kept at current limit. 

3. Beyond-the-Floor and 5-Year Review 

Results and Selection of Proposed 

Emission Limits 

For assessing beyond-the-floor 

options at the time of the original 

rulemaking (i.e., as companion to 

addressing the remand of the original 

rule’s MACT floors), the EPA recognizes 

that the majority of large MWC units 

have since been equipped with air 

pollution control devices that would 

represent state-of-the-art technology in 

the 1990s, such as spray dryer absorbers 

(SD) for HCl and SO2; fabric filters for 

PM, Cd, and Pb; activated carbon 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 
4254 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

18See 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023). The Good 

Neighbor Plan established a combination approach 

to secure reductions of ozone-forming emissions of 

NOX from power plants and industrial facilities in 

nine large industries. This included NOX emissions 

limits and compliance assurance requirements for 

large MWC units operating within the Ozone 

Transport Region, which applies to 28 MWC 

facilities with a total of 80 units, across 20 states. 

In promulgating these requirements, the EPA found 

costs effectiveness values to install applicable 

control technologies were in line with control 

technology costs for other large industry sectors 

covered by the rule. 

19As noted, the 5-year review scenario for NOX

was notably cost-effective and technically feasible 

compared to the beyond-the-floor for NOX, so 

beyond-the-floor for all pollutants (scenario 2) was 

not evaluated for cost or air impacts. 

20 In the Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA separately 

found this limit is cost-effective for units inside of 

the Ozone Transport Region. 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 

2023). 

injection (ACI) for Hg and PCDD/PCDF; 

and selective noncatalytic reduction 

(SNCR) for NOX emissions control. 

Therefore, to represent beyond-the-floor 

emission limits for existing sources 

numerically, we have assumed that the 

new source MACT floor (i.e., emissions 

control achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar unit) as the emission 

limit applied to existing sources would 

represent the beyond-the-floor option in 

the reevaluation of the 1995 standards. 

To assess additional control options 

currently in use in completion of the 5- 

year review pursuant to CAA section 

129(a)(5), the EPA assessed the 

performance of, and variability 

associated with, control measures 

affecting emissions performance at large 

MWC sources (including the installed 

emissions control equipment), and 

recent developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies. As 

evidenced by the recently finalized 

Good Neighbor Plan rulemaking,18 there 

are cost-effective advanced NOX control 

technologies available for retrofit to 

existing large MWC units, namely 

ASNCR and Covanta’s LNTM

Technology. Furthermore, for new 

sources, SCR has been installed on the 

most recently constructed large MWC 

facility (comprising three units) in the 

United States, so the permitted emission 

limit for this SCR-equipped facility 

represents the 5-year review-based 

standard for new sources. Neither of 

these control options were being 

applied to large MWC units in the 

1990s, and development and 

commercial application of LN 

technology and ASNCR did not occur 

until the 2000s. To reflect that these 

technologies are now available and 

economically and technically viable, the 

EPA determined that the beyond-thefloor option for NOX did not reflect the 

current state of the control technologies. 

Instead, the third and fourth scenarios 

consider the NOX control technologies 

as 5-year review options for 

consideration and combine this with 

either MACT floor or beyond-the-floor 

controls for the other pollutants. In 

other words, the third scenario consists 

of MACT floor emission limits for all 

pollutants except NOX, which is being 

proposed as a 5-year review emission 

limit. The fourth scenario consists of 

beyond-the-floor emission limits for all 

pollutants except NOX, which is 

proposed as a five-year review emission 

limit. As discussed further at the end of 

this section, as part of the five-year 

review, the EPA also reviewed and is 

taking comment on whether more recent 

improvements present additional 

control options for other pollutants. 

The estimated cost impacts and 

emissions reductions of the MACT floor, 

beyond-the-floor,19 MACT floor/5-year 

review, and beyond-the-floor/5-year 

review are presented in sections IV.D. 

and IV.B of this preamble, respectively. 

Based on our analyses and the findings 

of the Good Neighbor Plan, selecting the 

MACT floor/5-year review scenario 

provides the most cost-effective means 

to maximize emission reductions. As 

presented in section IV.B of this 

preamble, the MACT floor, the MACT 

floor/5-year review scenario, and 

beyond-the-floor/5-year review 

scenarios are expected to result in 5,020, 

14,200 and 16,800 tons per year of 

emissions reductions of regulated 

pollutants, respectively. Therefore, it is 

evident that the emissions reductions 

for the 5-year review scenarios are 

significantly greater than the MACT 

floor (approximately 11,000 tons per 

year more), while the beyond-the-floor 

scenario only adds 2,600 tons per year 

in incremental emissions reduction 

above the MACT floor/5-year review 

scenario. As discussed earlier, cost is 

not a consideration for the MACT floor 

level of control, but consideration of the 

costs, including incremental costeffectiveness, of the 5-year review and 

beyond-the-floor scenarios is allowed. 

In section IV.D of this preamble the cost 

impacts of each scenario assessments 

are presented. In reviewing the cost 

results, the MACT floor/5-year review 

scenario is just under $100 million per 

year in total annual costs (including 

annualized capital costs and operating 

and maintenance costs), while the 

beyond-the-floor/5-year review scenario 

is estimated to cost $582 million per 

year. From a cost-effectiveness 

viewpoint, the MACT floor/5-year 

review scenario comes in at 

approximately $7,000 per ton emissions 

reduction, while the beyond-the-floor/5- 

year review scenario, being over five 

times more costly with less incremental 

emissions reductions, results in a costeffectiveness estimates at approximately 

$35,000 per ton emissions reduction of 

regulated pollutants. Considering this, 

as mentioned above, the MACT floor/5- 

year review scenario provides the most 

cost-effective means to maximize 

emissions reductions and this scenario 

is being proposed. 

Selection of the MACT floor/5-year 

review scenario further recognizes that 

most sources have already been 

retrofitted with APCD that were 

considered to be state of the art for 

MWCs in the 1990s (i.e., spray dryers, 

fabric filters, activated carbon injection, 

and selective noncatalytic reduction). 

That is, other than NOX, most large 

MWC units have control devices in 

place to meet at least some of the 

standards, with options for incremental 

improvements being readily available 

through increased sorbent use, for 

example. The NOX control retrofits that 

are currently available (but were not in 

the 1990s) for most existing large MWCs 

appear to be cost effective 

(approximately $5,000 to $6,000 per 

ton). Except for very limited examples, 

these technologies appear to be, and in 

fact recently have been, technically 

feasible for several existing large MWC 

units currently operating in the U.S. 

As a result of the 5-year review, the 

EPA is proposing the 110 parts per 

million (ppm) (24-hour) NOX limit 

finalized under the Good Neighbor Plan, 

based on the application of ASNCR or 

Covanta LNTM NOX technology. For this 

proposed action, the EPA has evaluated 

this limit for the full population of large 

MWCs, and the EPA finds that this limit 

is cost-effective for units outside of the 

Ozone Transport Region that are not 

covered by the Good Neighbor Plan.20

Unlike the Good Neighbor Plan, the 

EPA is not proposing a mechanism for 

existing large MWCs to request a caseby-case emission limit based on a 

demonstration that application of 

ASNCR and Covanta’s LNTM

Technology or any other NOX emission 

reduction technologies or measures is 

not technically feasible. This is because 

the EPA does not have the same ability 

to establish less stringent case-by-case 

emission limits under CAA section 129 

standards, as it does under the ‘‘good 

neighbor provision’’ of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). We request comment 

on whether there are unique 

circumstances (e.g., combustor design/ 

type) that render the proposed NOX

emission limit technically infeasible 

and whether subcategorized emission 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4255 

21 ‘‘Compliance Cost Analyses for Proposed Large 

MWC Rule Amendments’’ available at Docket ID. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0183. 

limits may be appropriate in certain 

instances. 

For new units, the EPA is proposing 

a NOX NSPS limit of 50 ppm (24-hour), 

based on the permitted NOX limit for 

the only facility currently using SCR 

technology with an air-to-air heat 

exchanger providing flue gas reheat 

prior to entering the SCR reactor. This 

design can only be reasonably applied 

during construction of the unit, so 

retrofitting SCRs to other existing units 

would be technically infeasible and/or 

very costly if a supplemental burner is 

required to provide reheat. We are 

proposing to apply this limit to all new 

units. 

Aside from NOX, the only other 

potential improvements considered 

technically feasible for large MWCs as 

part of the 5-year review are circulating 

fluidized bed scrubbers (CFBS) for acid 

gas control and oxidation catalysts for 

CO control. Neither of these 

technologies appear to be in use on any 

large MWC units, but they have been 

included in construction permits for 

some large MWC unit projects that were 

never constructed. Like SCR, CO 

oxidation catalysts would be 

prohibitively costly to retrofit to existing 

large MWC units, as they would require 

new facility footprint space and flue gas 

routing to accommodate an entirely new 

piece of equipment in the air pollution 

control device system. However, new 

sources may consider their application 

to meet the proposed CO limit. For 

CFBS, theoretically existing acid gas 

control devices could be replaced with 

a CFBS in the same footprint (similar to 

electrostatic precipitator replacement 

with fabric filter devices for particulate 

control) to achieve slightly better acid 

gas control than spray dryer absorbers. 

There is no available cost algorithm 

specific to CFBS, but available 

information comparing technical and 

performance parameters of CFBS and 

spray dryer absorbers (SDAs) indicates 

that SDA costs might serve as a 

reasonable proxy for CFBS costs. Based 

on expected costs for spray dryer 

replacement (since direct CFBS cost 

data are unavailable), the EPA has 

estimated the emissions and cost 

impacts of setting the limits to a level 

that would most likely require most 

existing sources to retrofit with CFBS, 

and has determined that the marginal 

improvement in emissions performance 

compared to increased sorbent injection 

rates using existing controls is not cost 

effective (approximately $73,000 per ton 

versus approximately $4,600 per ton). 

Further explanation is provided in the 

large MWC cost memorandum.21 Since 

we have no data demonstrating the 

technical feasibility on new or existing 

MWC units, we are not proposing 

standards based on any potential 

performance improvements of these 

technologies and are instead using the 

MACT floor calculations to establish EG 

and NSPS limits for existing and new 

units. We request comment on whether 

there are any large MWC units equipped 

with these technologies (i.e., CFBS and 

oxidation catalysts) and the 

performance and cost information of 

these controls. 

B. What other actions are we proposing, 

and what is the rationale for those 

actions? 

1. Changes to the Applicability Date of 

the 1995 Large MWC EG and NSPS 

In this proposal, large MWC units 

would be treated differently under the 

amended standards as proposed than 

they were under the 1995 large MWC 

rule in terms of whether they are 

‘‘existing’’ or ‘‘new’’ sources. Consistent 

with CAA section 129, new dates would 

define which units are considered new 

sources. Large MWC units that are 

currently subject to the NSPS would 

become existing sources under the 

proposed amended standards and 

would be required to meet the revised 

EG standards by the applicable 

compliance date for the revised 

guidelines. However, those units would 

continue to be NSPS units subject to the 

1995 large MWC rule until they become 

subject to the amended existing source 

standards. Large MWC units that 

commence construction after the date of 

this proposal, or for which a 

modification is commenced on or after 

the date 6 months after promulgation of 

the amended standards, would be new 

units subject to the NSPS emission 

limits. Units for which construction or 

modification is commenced prior to 

those dates would be existing units 

subject to the proposed EG. That is, 

under these proposed amendments, any 

large MWC units that commenced 

construction on or before January 23, 

2024, or that are reconstructed or 

modified prior to the date 6 months 

after promulgation of any revised final 

standards, would be subject to the 1995 

large MWC NSPS/1991 NSPS (Ea, as 

appropriate) until the applicable 

compliance date for the revised EG, at 

which time those units would become 

existing sources. Similarly, large MWC 

units subject to the EG under the 1995 

large MWC rule would need to meet the 

revised EG by the applicable 

compliance date for the revised 

guidelines. Large MWC units that 

commence construction after January 

23, 2024 or that are reconstructed or 

modified 6 months or more after the 

date of promulgation of any revised 

standards would have to meet the 

revised NSPS emission limits being 

added to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb 

within 6 months after the promulgation 

date of the amendments or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

Due to the timing of the original 

promulgation of NSPS for this source 

category and the 1990 CAA 

Amendments, there is a second NSPS 

applicable to large MWCs for which 

some standards are still referenced in 

title V operating permits. Subpart Ea 

standards apply to units for which 

construction commenced after 

December 20, 1989, and on or before 

September 20, 1994. Due to the 

proposed resetting of the ‘‘new’’ and 

‘‘existing’’ definitions described above, 

any units that meet subpart Ea 

applicability would become existing 

units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cb once implemented through a state or 

Federal plan. As such, subpart Ea would 

no longer be necessary. We propose to 

‘‘reserve’’ 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ea 

NSPS standards once the revised EG 

emission limits are implemented (i.e., 

remove the current text of subpart Ea 

once it is no longer in use and maintain 

subpart Ea as a placeholder) and request 

comment on whether this future action 

would help or hinder implementation of 

the standards and any potential 

unintended consequences this could 

cause. 

2. Proposed Removal of Alternative 

Percent Reduction Standards for Hg, 

HCl, and SO2 and Emissions Averaging 

Allowance for NOX

In addition to the proposed emission 

limits discussed in section III.A of this 

preamble, we also propose to remove all 

alternative percent reduction standards 

that were allowed in the original 

rulemaking. Specifically, we are 

proposing to remove the 85 percent 

reduction allowed for Hg (NSPS and 

EG), the 95 percent allowed for HCl 

(NSPS and EG), and the 80 percent 

(NSPS) and 75 percent (EG) allowed for 

SO2. The percent reduction standards 

were introduced in 1989 when MWCs 

were regulated under section 111 of the 

CAA. They were established in addition 

to numeric emission limits and offered 

as an alternative means of compliance. 

The rationale for removal of these 

alternative standards is twofold. First, 

the proposed reevaluation of the 

standards relies solely on the vast 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4256 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

22The Good Neighbor Plan did not establish an 

emissions trading program for non-power plant 

industries, including large MWCs, due to 

inadequate baseline data and other information that 

would be needed to develop emissions budgets. See 

88 FR 36683 June 5, 2023. 

23This excludes periods of required routine 

monitor calibrations or quality assurance/quality 

control periods. 

amount of pollutant concentration data 

reported and compiled in the emissions 

database. There are not as much data 

available to evaluate for the alternative 

percent reduction standards, which 

increases the risk of mischaracterizing 

the emissions limitations achieved by 

the best-performing sources when using 

that data. Retaining the existing percent 

reduction alternatives could introduce a 

disconnect between the numeric 

reevaluated limits and the alternative 

percent reduction standards. Second, 

having a numeric concentration limit for 

these pollutants provides a level playing 

field for the environmental protection 

and health of the surrounding 

communities by preventing situations 

where a different concentration of 

pollutants is emitted from facility to 

facility or unit to unit. Most owners and 

operators can meet pollutant 

concentration limits and primarily use 

the concentration as their compliance 

target, with far fewer units emitting at 

much higher concentrations using the 

percent reduction allowance. For these 

reasons, we have determined that, at 

least for the large MWC source category, 

a single pollutant concentration limit is 

the most prevalent compliance standard 

and the most protective of the 

environment and human health for all 

communities where large MWCs 

operate. We request comment on the 

proposed removal of alternative percent 

reduction standards for Hg, HCl, and 

SO2 and on the proposed rationale for 

removal of these alternative standards. 

For similar reasons, we also propose 

to remove the NOX emissions averaging 

alternative provided in 40 CFR 

60.33b(d)(1) of the EG. The EPA has 

observed that this alternative, which 

allows for emissions trading among 

large MWC sources, is scarcely used, if 

at all. Furthermore, the emissions 

averaging alternative is incompatible 

with the NOX emissions standards 

established under the Good Neighbor 

Plan,22 which are similarly being 

proposed as part of this rule’s 5-year 

review process in light of cost-effective 

retrofit options available for increased 

NOX control at existing facilities. We 

understand that this provision may have 

been useful in the original 1995 

rulemaking but have determined that it 

is no longer necessary to provide this 

allowance. We request comment on the 

proposed removal of the NOX emissions 

averaging alternative and on the 

proposed rationale for removal of this 

alternative standard. 

3. Proposed Changes to Startup, 

Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions 

In addition to the proposed actions 

described above, we are proposing 

additional revisions to the NSPS and 

EG. We are proposing revisions to the 

SSM provisions of the NSPS and EG in 

order to ensure that they are consistent 

with the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 

551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), in 

which the court vacated two provisions 

that exempted sources from the 

requirement to comply with otherwise 

applicable CAA section 112(d) (or 

129(a)(1)) emission standards during 

periods of SSM. While the Court’s 

ruling did not specifically address the 

legality of source-category-specific SSM 

provisions adopted in the 1995 large 

MWC rule, the decision calls into 

question the legality of those provisions. 

As such, the EPA is proposing to 

remove the exemption for SSM periods 

contained in the 1995 large MWC rule 

and the proposed emission standards 

summarized in this preamble would 

apply at all times. 

We are not proposing a separate 

emission standard for large MWC units 

that applies during periods of startup 

and shutdown. We determined that 

large MWC units will be able to meet 

the emission limits during periods of 

warmup and startup because most units 

use natural gas or clean distillate oil to 

warm up the unit and do not add waste 

until the unit has reached combustion 

temperatures during a brief startup 

period. Emissions from burning natural 

gas or distillate fuel oil would generally 

be significantly lower than from burning 

solid wastes for most pollutants, 

specifically those where compliance is 

measured using stack tests (e.g., Cd, Pb, 

Hg, PM, PCDD/PCDF, and HCl). 

Emissions during periods of 

shutdown are also generally 

significantly lower than emissions 

during normal operations because the 

materials in the incinerator are almost 

fully combusted before shutdown 

occurs. Furthermore, the approach for 

establishing MACT floors for large MWC 

units ranked individual MWC units 

based on actual performance for each 

pollutant and subcategory, with an 

appropriate accounting of emissions 

variability. Because we accounted for 

emissions variability and established 

appropriate averaging times to 

determine compliance with the 

standards, we believe we have 

adequately addressed any minor 

variability that may potentially occur 

during startup or shutdown. We request 

comment on the proposed removal of 

the exemption for startup and shutdown 

periods and the rationale for applying 

the proposed emission standards at all 

times. 

For NOX, SO2 and CO, where the 

current rule requires that a CEMS 

continuously measures the 

concentration, we are proposing to 

eliminate the exclusions of periods of 

warmup, startup, and shutdown from 

CEMS data averaging calculations 

present in the 1995 large MWC rules 

and replace them with a monitoring and 

compliance demonstration approach 

used in the more recent CAA section 

129 rulemaking for CISWI NSPS and 

EG. First, we are proposing that CEMS 

data must be collected and reported 

whenever the large MWC unit is 

operating. Periods when the combustor 

is operating but no monitoring data are 

recorded due to monitor malfunctions 

would be considered deviations or 

violations.23 This is consistent with 

observed increased CEMS reliability 

(availability) experienced for CEMS 

monitors operated across multiple 

source categories, typically greater than 

99 percent, and the regulatory 

provisions currently associated with 

CEMS data availability. 

Secondly, CEMS data collected while 

the large MWC unit is warming up (no 

waste is introduced to the grate), 

starting up (warmup period is over and 

waste is first fed to the grate but not at 

steady state operation) and shutting 

down (waste is no longer being fed but 

is burning down on grate) will be 

flagged as warmup, startup, or 

shutdown period data. CEMS data 

collected during warmup, startup, or 

shutdown periods will be averaged at 

stack oxygen content and not corrected 

to 7 percent oxygen, as are data during 

normal operations. This is consistent 

with the regulatory approach used for a 

subcategory of units in the CISWI (see 

80 FR 3018, January 21, 2015) that are 

similar in type to large MWCs, where: 

‘‘[P]etitioners indicated that correcting 

CO concentration measurements to 7 

percent oxygen is problematic during 

startup and shutdown periods when the 

flue gas oxygen content approaches the 

oxygen content of ambient air, 

especially with regard to the energy 

recovery unit (ERU) subcategory. 

Oxygen contents relatively close to 

ambient air are often maintained during 

combustion unit startup and shutdown 

in order to safely operate the unit, but, 

as a result, the corrected CO values 

during these periods are artificially 

inflated due to the oxygen correction 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4257 

calculation.’’ To resolve this issue in the 

CISWI rule, the EPA determined that the 

7 percent oxygen correction would not 

be required for CEMS data collected 

during periods of startup and shutdown. 

We are proposing a similar approach 

here, where the CEMS data for the 

warmup period (no time limit specified, 

but we request comment on a 

recommended warmup period cutoff) 

and up to 3 hours of allowable startup 

or shutdown time per occurrence will 

be used to calculate rolling or block 

average values, but will be averaged in 

at stack oxygen content instead of at a 

7 percent oxygen diluent cap. No 

changes to the current 4- or 24-hour 

averaging periods are proposed. Instead, 

we are requesting comment on whether 

we should adopt a 30-day hourly rolling 

average for demonstrating compliance 

for pollutants measured using 

continuous monitoring, similar to 

provisions that have been promulgated 

in many recent combustion standards, 

such as CISWI and the Mercury Air 

Toxics Standards (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart UUUU) and the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial and Institutional Boilers 

and Process Heaters (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart DDDDD), as examples (see 

further discussion on the averaging time 

for CEMS below). 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead, they 

are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of emissions control, process, or 

monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2) 

(Definition of malfunction). The EPA 

interprets CAA section 129 as not 

requiring emissions that occur during 

periods of malfunction to be factored 

into development of CAA section 129 

standards. This reading has been upheld 

as reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S. 

Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606– 

610 (2016). The Court’s reasoning in 

U.S. Sugar applies equally to section 

129 standards given the similarities 

between the section 112 and 129 

standard setting criteria. For the reason 

stated earlier in this preamble, we are 

proposing revisions to 40 CFR 60.58b 

and 40 CFR 60.59b. 

4. Proposed Changes for Optional 

Continuous Monitoring 

The 2006 final amendments to the 

large MWC rules revised the PM and Hg 

compliance testing requirements to 

allow the optional use of a PM CEMS or 

Hg CEMS in place of stack testing, and 

would allow the optional use of multimetal, HCl, PCDD/PCDF CEMS in place 

of stack tests after performance 

specifications for these CEMS are 

promulgated (see 71 FR 27326, May 10, 

2006). These amendments also allowed 

for continuous automated sorbent 

monitoring for Hg and PCDD/PCDF. 

Since this time, other performance 

specifications have been promulgated 

and the EPA is proposing to incorporate 

them into these large MWC 

requirements. However, another 

consideration is to reinvestigate whether 

the use of CEMS for compliance testing 

requires the EPA to adopt alternative 

emission limits. In the 2006 final rule, 

we made the following statements (see 

71 FR 27330, May 10, 2006): 

The move from once per year stack testing 

(where emission limits were calculated from 

the 99 percentile) to CEMS (99.7 percentile) 

suggests the emission limit should be 

increased if the same data averaging period 

is used. To address this, the final rule 

increases the data averaging period from 8 

hours (typical particulate matter and mercury 

stack test period) to a 24-hr daily average if 

particulate matter or mercury CEMS are used. 

Past analysis of sulfur dioxide CEMS and 

nitrogen oxides CEMS data (and utility 

particulate matter CEMS data) indicate 

increasing the averaging period to a 24-hr 

daily average will reduce emissions 

variability and associated peak emissions 

estimates. EPA supports the optional use of 

particulate matter and mercury CEMS but is 

fully aware that no particulate matter CEMS 

or mercury CEMS data from MWC units are 

available from domestic MWC units. EPA 

encourages MWC owners or operators who 

elect to apply particulate matter or mercury 

CEMS, to notify EPA as soon as data are 

collected to allow a determination if 

alternative emission limits are appropriate. 

Note that, if owners and operators 

decide to use PM or Hg CEMS for 

compliance demonstration purposes, 

these data must be submitted to EPA. 

As noted in this section, more recent 

combustion rulemakings have been 

promulgated with 30-day hourly rolling 

averages for pollutants measured with 

Hg CEMS (e.g., Mercury Air Toxics 

Standards—40 CFR part 63, subpart 

UUUU) or other optional CEMS (e.g., 

CISWI NSPS and EG, 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts CCCC and DDDD). We request 

comment on whether the 30-day rolling 

hourly average is appropriate to use in 

the large MWC source category, both for 

the currently required CEMS and for 

optional CEMS and continuous 

automated sampling systems, 

considering potential CEMS reliability/ 

availability concerns, especially for the 

optional CEMS devices that have not 

been extensively applied commercially 

and lack the extensive track record of 

the more established CEMS. We also 

request comment on whether data are 

available to analyze whether an 

alternative emission limit should be 

established for pollutants that have 

standards based on stack test data. 

5. Changes To Streamline Regulatory 

Text Within the Large MWC EG and 

NSPS 

The EPA is proposing changes to the 

regulatory format of the large MWC 

standards to be more accessible and 

easier to follow than the 1995 large 

MWC rule. Paragraph text describing 

emission standards and performance 

testing requirements would be 

converted to tables to facilitate easier 

implementation and understanding of 

the requirements, especially as staged 

compliance dates are introduced with 

the proposed standards. These 

streamlining efforts do not change the 

regulatory numbering of the 1995 rule 

but do add new tables to the end of the 

subparts for these requirements, similar 

to other more recently developed CAA 

section 129 standards. A memorandum 

showing the rule edits that would be 

necessary to incorporate the changes to 

40 CFR part 60, subparts Cb and Eb 

proposed in this action is available in 

the docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2017–0183). 

6. Closing the 2007 Proposed 

Reconsideration of the Large MWC EG 

and NSPS 

In this proposal, we are completing 

action on the March 20, 2007, notice of 

reconsideration that was never 

finalized. In that notice, we announced 

our reconsideration of three out of four 

aspects of the rule that were requested 

for reconsideration: operator stand-in 

provisions, data requirements for 

continuous monitors, and the status of 

operating parameters during the two 

weeks prior to Hg and PCDD/PCDF 

testing (see 72 FR 13016). As a brief 

summary: 

• Operator Stand-In Provisions—A 

petitioner was concerned that the EPA 

was, in its operator stand-in provisions, 

‘‘allow(ing) untrained employees to 

perform the duties of a certified chief 

facility operator or certified shift 

operator.’’ The EPA discussed the 

various certification and training 

requirements of the standards and 

concluded that the ‘‘. . . limited 

exemption did not undermine the MWC 

regulation, did not allow untrained 

individuals to operate the MWC, and 

would, in fact, improve the efficiency of 

the regulation by reducing unnecessary 

reporting and paperwork requirements’’ 

(see 72 FR 13019). 

• Data Requirements for Continuous 

Monitors—Petitioners were concerned 

about the EPA’s elimination of a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4258 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

24While not necessary to respond, we note that 

the Pb standard aspect of the petition for 

reconsideration that was not granted is considered 

moot based on this proposed action to address the 

voluntary remand of the MACT floors which would 

result in more stringent Pb standards. 

25Title V permits are required by Title V of the 

Clean Air Act and are legally enforceable 

documents designed to improve compliance by 

clarifying what sources must do to control pollution 

due to federal or state regulations. More information 

is available at: https://www.epa.gov/title-voperating-permits/basic-information-aboutoperating-permits. 

26CAA section 129(e) generally requires title V 

permits for ‘‘solid waste incineration units.’’ Under 

CAA section 129(g)(1), however, the term ‘‘solid 

waste incineration unit’’ does not include air 

curtain incinerators that only burn wood wastes, 

yard wastes, and clean lumber (and that comply 

with opacity limitations). In addition, in our view, 

the opacity limitations applicable, under CAA 

section 129, to such air curtain incinerators are not 

standards or regulations ‘‘under section 7411,’’ such 

that the air curtain incinerators would be subject to 

a title V permitting requirement under CAA section 

502(a). 

27https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. 

‘‘requirement that operators obtain 

CEMS data for 75 percent of the 

operating hours per day before the data 

is counted toward the CEMS data 

availability requirements.’’ The Agency 

discussed how the CEMS data 

availability requirements have 

continually increased as CEMS have 

become more reliable and noted that 

most rules have migrated away from a 

daily basis and instead use a percent of 

operation basis. As a result, the 

requirements (without the daily 

component) are superior. We also note 

that we are proposing updated CEMS 

data availability requirements in this 

action which require even greater CEMS 

data availability than the requirements 

that were requested for reconsideration 

by petitioners (see 72 FR 13019). 

• Status of Operating Parameters 

During the Two Weeks Prior to Hg and 

PCDD/PCDF Testing—A petitioner 

claimed that the EPA ‘‘now allows 

MWC to avoid meeting mass carbon 

feed rate limits for PCDD/PCDF testing, 

as well as Hg testing, and increases to 

more than four weeks per year the total 

amount of time that MWC can avoid 

meeting mass carbon feed rate limits.’’ 

The EPA discussed the need for 

optimization testing and demonstrated 

how, out of economic and practical 

concerns, these are done in short, often 

the same, test periods so that concerns 

over four weeks of carbon feed rate 

parameters being waived are not 

warranted. As a result, the EPA stated 

that the provision for optimization 

testing for ACI is appropriate and the 

EPA is not proposing to change it (see 

72 FR 13019). 

Of the three issues that we granted 

reconsideration on and discussed in the 

2007 proposal notice, only a single 

comment expressing support for our 

proposed reconsideration approach was 

received. Therefore, in absence of 

adverse comment, we are proposing to 

finalize our reconsideration as 

previously proposed.24 EPA seeks 

comment on the issues discussed above. 

7. Updating Operator Training Exam 

Requirements 

In this proposal, we are updating the 

citation to and incorporating by 

reference the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Standard 

for the Qualification and Certification of 

Resource Recovery Facility Operators 

(QRO). In the 1995 large MWC rule, the 

cited QRO was the 1994 version, QRO– 

1–1994. Since that time, ASME has 

released a 2005 version as the most 

recent one available. This QRO is 

identified as QRO–1–2005 and will be 

incorporated by reference and updated 

within the text of 40 CFR 60.17(g) and 

60.54b. 

8. Proposed Revisions to Title V 

Permitting Requirements for Air Curtain 

Incinerators Burning Only Wood Waste, 

Clean Lumber, and Yard Waste 

CAA section 129(e) generally requires 

title V permits 25 for ‘‘solid waste 

incineration units.’’ Under CAA section 

129(g)(1), however, the term ‘‘solid 

waste incineration unit’’ does not 

include air curtain incinerators that 

only burn wood wastes, yard wastes, 

and clean lumber (and that comply with 

opacity limitations). In our view, the 

opacity limitations applicable under 

CAA 129 to such air curtain incinerators 

are not standards or regulations ‘‘under 

section 7411,’’ such that the air curtain 

incinerators would be subject to a title 

V permitting requirement under CAA 

section 502(a). The 1995 large MWC 

rule (see 60 FR 65387, December 19, 

1995) contains a regulatory requirement 

that air curtain incinerators that burn 

only wood waste, clean lumber, and 

yard waste must apply for and obtain a 

tile V operating permit. The EPA is 

proposing to eliminate this regulatory 

title V permitting requirement for such 

air curtain incinerators that are not 

located at a major source or subject to 

title V for other reasons. 

As background, in previous 

rulemaking for the Other Solid Waste 

Incinerators EG and NSPS (40 CFR part 

60 subparts EEEE and FFFF), we 

provided for title V permitting for these 

air curtain incinerators for various 

reasons, as explained in 70 FR 74884– 

74885 (December 16, 2005). In 

particular, we believed initially that 

compliance with a title V permit was 

necessary to assure compliance with the 

opacity requirements established for 

such incinerators. Since then, the EPA 

has received feedback from several 

states indicating that the title V 

requirements are unnecessarily 

burdensome and expensive for states to 

maintain for these air curtain 

incinerators. Based on available data, air 

curtain incinerators that burn 

exclusively wood waste, clean lumber, 

and yard waste are commonly located at 

facilities that would not otherwise 

require a title V operating permit (such 

as land clearing operations in public or 

private land) and, to EPA’s knowledge, 

no large MWC facility also operates an 

air curtain incinerator on premises.26 In 

this rulemaking, we are reconsidering 

the need for a regulatory requirement for 

title V permitting for these air curtain 

incineration units that are only subject 

to an opacity limitation and related 

requirements to assure compliance, 

because such units are not considered 

solid waste incineration units under 

CAA section 129. Also, based on input 

from various states on the burdens and 

costs of title V permitting for such 

incinerators, we no longer believe it is 

appropriate or necessary to require title 

V permitting. We request comment on 

the proposed removal of title V 

permitting requirements for air curtain 

incinerators that burn only wood waste, 

clean lumber, and yard waste under 

CAA section 129. 

9. Electronic Reporting 

The EPA is proposing that owners and 

operators of large MWC units submit 

electronic copies of required 

performance test reports, performance 

evaluation reports, semiannual 

compliance reports, annual reports, and 

certain notifications through the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A 

description of the electronic data 

submission process is provided in the 

memorandum Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Rules, available in the docket for this 

action. The proposed rule requires that 

performance test results collected using 

test methods that are supported by the 

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) 

as listed on the ERT website 27 at the 

time of the test be submitted in the 

format generated through the use of the 

ERT or an electronic file consistent with 

the xml schema on the ERT website, and 

other performance test results be 

submitted in portable document format 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4259 

28See 60.59b and 60.39b Annual and Semiannual 

Compliance Report Proposal Draft, available at 

Docket ID. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0183. 

29EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective 

Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154. 

30E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA 

Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https:// 

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/ 

documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013- 

09-30.pdf. 

31 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century 

Platform to Better Serve the American People, May 

2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.

archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digitalgovernment/digital-government.html. 

(PDF) using the attachment module of 

the ERT. Similarly, performance 

evaluation results of continuous 

emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) 

measuring relative accuracy test audit 

(RATA) pollutants that are supported by 

the ERT at the time of the test must be 

submitted in the format generated 

through the use of the ERT or an 

electronic file consistent with the xml 

schema on the ERT website, and other 

performance evaluation results be 

submitted in PDF using the attachment 

module of the ERT. The proposed rule 

requires that certain notifications are 

submitted as a PDF upload in CEDRI. 

For semiannual and annual reports, 

the proposed rule requires that owners 

and operators use the appropriate 

spreadsheet template to submit 

information to CEDRI. A draft version of 

the proposed template for these reports 

is included in the docket for this 

action.28 The EPA specifically requests 

comment on the content, layout, and 

overall design of the template(s). 

Additionally, the EPA has identified 

two broad circumstances in which 

electronic reporting extensions may be 

provided. These circumstances are (1) 

outages of the EPA’s CDX or CEDRI 

which preclude an owner or operator 

from accessing the system and 

submitting required reports and (2) force 

majeure events, which are defined as 

events that will be or have been caused 

by circumstances beyond the control of 

the affected facility, its contractors, or 

any entity controlled by the affected 

facility that prevent an owner or 

operator from complying with the 

requirement to submit a report 

electronically. Examples of force 

majeure events are acts of nature, acts of 

war or terrorism, or equipment failure or 

safety hazards beyond the control of the 

facility. The EPA is providing these 

potential extensions to protect owners 

and operators from noncompliance in 

cases where they cannot successfully 

submit a report by the reporting 

deadline for reasons outside of their 

control. In both circumstances, the 

decision to accept the request for 

additional time to report is within the 

discretion of the Administrator, and 

reporting should occur as soon as 

possible. 

The electronic submittal of the reports 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking 

will increase the usefulness of the data 

contained in those reports, is in keeping 

with current trends in data availability 

and transparency, will further assist in 

the protection of public health and the 

environment, will improve compliance 

by facilitating the ability of regulated 

facilities to demonstrate compliance 

with requirements and by facilitating 

the ability of delegated state, local, 

tribal, and territorial air agencies and 

the EPA to assess and determine 

compliance, and will ultimately reduce 

burden on regulated facilities, delegated 

air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic 

reporting also eliminates paper-based, 

manual processes, thereby saving time 

and resources, simplifying data entry, 

eliminating redundancies, minimizing 

data reporting errors, and providing data 

quickly and accurately to the affected 

facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the 

public. Moreover, electronic reporting is 

consistent with the EPA’s plan 29 to 

implement Executive Order 13563 and 

is in keeping with the EPA’s Agencywide policy 30 developed in response to 

the White House’s Digital Government 

Strategy.31 For more information on the 

benefits of electronic reporting, see the 

memorandum Electronic Reporting 

Requirements for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Rules, referenced earlier in this section. 

10. Technical and Implementation 

Corrections 

The EPA is proposing corrections and 

clarifications to the NSPS and EG that 

were identified during implementation 

of the previous regulations. These 

amendments are being made to improve 

the clarity of the NSPS and EG, and to 

make technical corrections that have 

been brought to the EPA’s attention 

since the December 19, 1995, 

promulgation. These corrections and 

clarifications will improve the 

implementation of the regulations by 

large MWC owners and operators, and 

state and Federal air pollution control 

agencies. 

Following is a list of the most 

significant revisions. Non-substantive 

typographical corrections are also 

proposed but are not listed here. 

Applicability and Delegation of 

Authority 

• Adding 40 CFR 60.32b(o) and 

60.50b(q) to clarify that large MWC 

units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cb are not subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Db. This makes the NSPS and 

EG consistent with 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Db, which exempts large MWC 

units from that subpart. 

• Revising 40 CFR 60.30b(b) to clarify 

that approval of certain exemption 

claims in 40 CFR 60.32b(b)(1), (d), (e), 

(f)(1), and (i)(1); approval of a NOX

trading program; approval of major 

alternatives to test methods and 

monitoring; approval of waivers of 

recordkeeping; and performance test 

and data reduction waivers are retained 

by the EPA Administrator and not 

transferred to the state upon delegation 

of authority to the state to implement an 

approved state plan. 

• Revising 40 CFR 60.50b(n)(2) to 

clarify that the EPA Administrator 

retains sole authority to issue the 

federally enforceable 11 tpd limit for 

exemptions in 40 CFR 60.50b(b) and the 

30 percent municipal waste limit for cofired units in 40 CFR 60.50b(j)(2). 

• Revising 40 CFR 60.50b(n)(4) to 

correct a typographical error and clarify 

that the EPA Administrator retains sole 

authority to review and approve 

demonstrations that establish the 

relationship between carbon dioxide 

(not CO) and oxygen as part of initial 

and annual performance tests. 

Definitions 

• Amending the definition of 

‘‘federally enforceable’’ in 40 CFR 

60.51b to correct a cross referencing 

error and reference 40 CFR 51.165 and 

51.166 instead of 40 CFR 51.18 and 

51.24. 

Performance Testing and Monitoring 

• Revising 40 CFR 60.58b(f)(7) and 

60.58b(k)(4) to correct an oversight and 

clarify that the revised testing schedule 

(once per calendar year, but no less than 

9 months and no more than 15 months 

following the previous test) also applies 

to fugitive ash and HCl testing. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

• Revising 40 CFR 60.39b(b) and (g) 

to clarify that state plans were due on 

May 10, 2007, not April 28, 2007. 

• Adding 40 CFR 60.59b(d)(2)(iii) to 

clarify that all data for continuous 

monitoring systems must be recorded 

using ‘‘local time’’ for the location 

where the affected facility is located 

unless an alternative time system is 

approved by the Administrator. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4260 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

32The CAA Section 129 does not require EPA to 

establish the control technology sources must use 

to meet a numeric emission limit. The costs are 

based on assumptions of air pollution control 

device retrofits, new equipment, or increased use of 

sorbent that may be needed to comply with the 

emission limits, but owners will evaluate and use 

the controls that they determine are necessary for 

their source. 

33All sources currently subject to the 1995 large 

MWC EG or NSPS will become existing sources 

once the final revised large MWC standards are in 

place. See section III.B above. 

34See memorandum ‘‘Emission Reduction 

Estimates for Existing Large MWCs’’ available at 

Docket ID. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0183. 

35Furthermore, the annual maximum data for the 

majority of sources do not reflect actual 

performance. As noted in section III.B.3., we are 

proposing significant changes to the continuous 

monitoring reporting provisions so that we have 

access to continuous data. Therefore, an assessment 

of any presumed emission reductions in 

comparison to the reevaluated MACT floor for CO 

is not possible at this time. 

36See memorandum ‘‘Compliance Cost Analyses 

for Proposed Large MWC Rule Amendments’’ 

available at Docket ID. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0183. 

• Revising 40 CFR 60.59b(g)(1) to 

require that owners and operators must 

additionally report the annual 

arithmetic average of all hourly values 

recorded during operations for the 

reporting year. 

C. What compliance dates are we 

proposing, and what is the rationale for 

the proposed compliance dates? 

Under the proposed amendments to 

the EG and consistent with CAA section 

129, revised state plans containing the 

revised existing source emission limits 

and other requirements in the proposed 

amendments would be due within 1 

year after promulgation of the 

amendments. That is, states would have 

to submit revised plans to the EPA 1 

year after the date on which the EPA 

promulgates revised standards. 

The proposed amendments to the EG 

would then allow existing large MWC 

units to demonstrate compliance with 

the amended standards as expeditiously 

as practicable after approval of a state 

plan, but no later than three years from 

the date of approval of a state plan or 

five years after promulgation of the 

revised standards, whichever is earlier. 

Consistent with CAA section 129, the 

EPA expects states to require 

compliance as expeditiously as 

practicable. However, because we 

anticipate that many large MWC units 

will find it necessary to retrofit existing 

emission control equipment and/or 

install additional emission control 

equipment to meet the proposed revised 

limits, the EPA anticipates that states 

may choose to provide the 3-year 

compliance period allowed by CAA 

section 129(f)(2).32

In revising the standards in a state 

plan, a state would have two options. 

First, it could include both the 2006 

large MWC standards and the new 

standards in its revised state plan, 

which would allow a phased approach 

in applying the new limits. That is, the 

state plan would make it clear that the 

standards in the 2006 large MWC rule 

remain in force for large MWC units and 

apply until the date the revised existing 

source standards are effective (as 

defined in the state plan).33 Second, 

states whose existing large MWC units 

do not need to improve their 

performance to meet the revised 

standards may consider an alternative 

approach where the state would replace 

the 2006 large MWC rule standards with 

the standards in the final rule, follow 

the procedures in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart B, and submit a revised state 

plan to the EPA for approval. If the 

revised state plan contains only the 

revised standards (i.e., the 2006 large 

MWC rule standards are not retained), 

then the revised standards must become 

effective immediately for those units 

that are subject to the 2006 large MWC 

rule, since the 2006 large MWC rule 

standards would be removed from the 

state plan. We request comment on the 

feasibility of the proposed compliance 

dates and rationales. 

The EPA will revise the existing 

Federal plan to incorporate any changes 

to existing source emission limits and 

other requirements that the EPA 

ultimately promulgates. The Federal 

plan applies to large MWC units in any 

state without an approved state plan. 

The proposed amendments to the EG 

would allow existing large MWC units 

subject to the Federal plan up to five 

years after promulgation of the revised 

standards to demonstrate compliance 

with the amended standards, as 

required by CAA section 129(b)(3). 

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

The large MWC source category 

comprises units with a capacity greater 

than 250 tpd of MSW. The current 

population of large MWC units is 

estimated to include 152 units at 57 

facilities nationwide. Of these, 129 (85 

percent) are mass burn units, and the 

remaining are refuse-derived fuel 

systems. Approximately 30 percent of 

currently operating large MWCs are 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb 

(2006 NSPS limits), with the remaining 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea 

(NSPS limits for units constructed after 

December 20, 1989, and on or before 

September 20, 1994) or Cb (EG for units 

constructed before September 20, 1994). 

We estimate that there are 22 

municipally owned or operated 

facilities with a total of 62 municipally 

owned or operated large MWC units. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

We have estimated the potential 

emissions reductions from existing 

sources that may be realized through 

implementation of the emission limits 

under consideration. Emissions 

reductions were estimated for all units 

where add-on controls, improvements to 

existing control devices, or increased 

carbon or lime injection rates would 

likely be required to meet a given 

limit.34 Because good combustion 

practices are assumed to be the most 

effective control for CO, as opposed to 

add-on controls or control 

improvements, no additional control 

costs or associated emission reduction 

benefits were assessed for CO.35 For all 

other pollutants, it was assumed that 

units would comply with emission 

limits by operating the control 

measure(s) described in the large MWC 

cost memorandum.36 Reductions in PM 

less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) were also 

assessed. These reductions are 

presented in Table 7 of this preamble. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS BY REGULATORY SCENARIO

Pollutant Unit of measure 

Reductions 

achieved 

through MACT 

floor scenario 

Reductions achieved 

through 

beyond-the-floor/ 

5-year review 

scenario 

Reductions 

achieved 

through 

proposed 

scenario 

Cd ............................................................... ton/yr ......................................................... 0.0443 0.0572 0.0443 

Pb ............................................................... ton/yr ......................................................... 0.181 0.812 0.181 

PM .............................................................. ton/yr ......................................................... 24.4 87.7 24.4 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4261 

37 ‘‘Secondary Impacts of Control Scenarios for 

Large MWC Standards’’ available at Docket ID. No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0183. 

38See memorandum ‘‘Compliance Cost Analyses 

for Proposed Large MWC Rule Amendments’’ 

available at Docket ID. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0183. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS BY REGULATORY SCENARIO—Continued 

Pollutant Unit of measure 

Reductions 

achieved 

through MACT 

floor scenario 

Reductions achieved 

through 

beyond-the-floor/ 

5-year review 

scenario 

Reductions 

achieved 

through 

proposed 

scenario 

PM2.5 .......................................................... ton/yr ......................................................... 14.2 47.1 14.2 

Hg ............................................................... lb/yr ............................................................ 57.0 333 57.0 

PCDD/PCDF .............................................. g/yr ............................................................ 52.2 249 52.2 

HCl ............................................................. ton/yr ......................................................... 344 928 344 

SO2 ............................................................ ton/yr ......................................................... 2,420 4,350 2,420 

NOX ............................................................ ton/yr ......................................................... 2,230 11,400 11,400 

Total .................................................... ton/yr ......................................................... 5,020 16,800 14,200 

Indirect or secondary air emissions 

can result from the increased energy 

requirements associated with the 

operation of new control devices (i.e., 

increased emissions of criteria 

pollutants from the power plants 

supplying that additional electricity). 

However, the reevaluated emission 

limits for large MWCs are unlikely to 

have any consequential secondary air 

impacts, because the increase in energy 

requirements due to new control 

measures is minimal, and what little 

additional energy is required would be 

redirected from power already being 

generated at the plant. 

We expect that existing units still 

operating electrostatic precipitators for 

particulate control will retrofit with a 

fabric filter control device, but the 

difference in energy needs for each of 

these devices is expected to be minimal. 

Furthermore, any improvements made 

to existing fabric filters will not be 

significant enough to require a larger 

fan, meaning that electricity 

consumption would remain unchanged. 

For NOX control, most units already 

have SNCR, so further control would 

require retrofitting with ASNCR or 

LNTM NOX technology. Existing SNCR 

equipment would likely be used by 

these retrofit options, meaning any 

additional power consumption 

requirements would be minimal. In the 

rare case where a unit goes from no 

SNCR to SNCR, the minimal amount of 

power required to pump reagent to the 

furnace would be supplied by the unit’s 

own generating capabilities, rather than 

through fossil fuel combustion. We 

expect Hg and PCDD/PCDF to be further 

controlled through increased carbon 

injection for units that already have ACI 

systems, or with the installation of new 

ACI systems. Increases in power 

demand for existing systems and 

demand for new systems are both 

expected to be minimal and would be 

met with a small fraction of the power 

generation from the facility. Similarly, 

power demand increases for acid gas 

control systems are expected to be 

minimal and met with power that 

facilities are already generating. Acid 

gases are typically controlled with a dry 

sorbent injector scrubber or spray dryer 

absorber. Additional control (i.e., 

increased sorbent injection rates in the 

existing control device) would require 

only minimal increases in sorbent 

conveying equipment power needs. If an 

owner or operator determined a need for 

a retrofit to a CFBS to meet the 

standards for acid gases, this retrofit 

could provide a small savings in sorbent 

injection and power consumption 

needs. A CFBS is generally more 

effective at acid gas control for the same 

amount of sorbent and at an equal to 

lesser power consumption than spray 

dryer absorbers. 

C. What are the water, solid waste, and 

energy impacts? 

We anticipate affected sources will 

need to apply additional controls to 

meet the proposed emission limits. 

These control measures impact waste 

disposal, water usage, and electricity 

requirements. 

PM controls or control improvements 

will increase the amount of particulate 

collected that will require disposal. 

Increased ACI rates for Hg and PCDD/ 

PCDF control, as well as increased lime 

injection for acid gas control, will also 

require additional waste disposal. The 

total amount of solid waste that would 

require disposal as a result of control 

measures implemented to meet the 

proposed limits is anticipated to be 

approximately 66,800 tpy. This includes 

16.7 tpy from PM capture, 15,000 tpy 

from carbon injection, and 51,800 tpy 

from lime injection. 

Advanced SNCR for NOX control is 

the only control measure among those 

expected to be implemented which will 

require additional water usage, as water 

is used in the reagent solution injected 

into the furnace and/or flue gas duct. 

We estimate that 42,800,000 gallons of 

water per year will be used for new NOX

control. The injected liquid evaporates 

in the flue gas stream, so there would be 

no associated wastewater disposal 

requirements. 

The energy impacts associated with 

meeting the proposed emission limits 

would consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or 

improved controls. However, large 

MWCs are already generating their own 

electricity, and the power demand for 

added or improved controls would be 

met at the cost of electricity sales to 

customers. The installation of fabric 

filters would require some unit 

downtime, which would result in a 

decrease in a facility’s electricity 

production. We estimate an electricity 

loss of approximately 35,300 megawatthours for PM control. 

Although we anticipate minimal 

growth in this source category, we 

recognize the possibility that some new 

units may be installed in the future. 

However, we expect any new units to be 

similar to the most recently constructed 

large MWC, which can already meet the 

limits considered for each option. 

Therefore, no additional controls or 

associated secondary impacts are 

anticipated for new sources as a result 

of the proposed limits. 

Further details regarding water, solid 

waste, and energy impacts for new and 

existing sources are provided in the 

large MWC secondary impacts 

memorandum.37

D. What are the cost impacts? 

We have estimated compliance costs 

for all existing units to add the 

necessary controls to meet the proposed 

standards.38 We anticipate an overall 

capital investment of approximately 

$309 million, with an associated total 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4262 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

39The proposal is expected to generate annual 

compliance cost increases greater than 2 percent of 

annual revenue for five out of 21 ultimate parent 

entities. Of these, three are municipally owned, one 

was previously owned by a collection of 

municipalities, and one is privately owned with 56 

units under one parent company. The average costto-sales ratio of the remaining 16 entities is 

approximately 0.35 percent. 

annualized cost (including operating 

and maintenance costs) of 

approximately $99.8 million (in 2022 

dollars). The cost breakdown by 

pollutant grouping and regulatory 

option are provided in Table 8 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 8—COMPLIANCE COSTS BY REGULATORY OPTION

[2025–2044] 

Pollutant grouping 

MACT floor limit option Beyond-the-floor/5-year review option Proposed option 

Total capital 

cost 

($) 

Total annual 

cost 

($/yr) a

Total capital 

cost 

($) 

Total annual 

cost 

($/yr) a

Total capital 

cost 

($) 

Total annual 

cost 

($/yr) a

Particulates (Cd, Pb, PM) ...... $35,700,000 $5,460,000 $113,000,000 $16,400,000 $35,700,000 $5,460,000 

Hg and PCDD/PCDF ............. 16,400,000 22,000,000 65,000,000 121,000,000 16,400,000 22,000,000 

Acid gases (HCl and SO2) ..... .......................... 12,900,000 1,120,000,000 386,000,000 .......................... 12,900,000 

NOX ........................................ 50,800,000 10,800,000 257,000,000 59,400,000 257,000,000 59,400,000 

Total control costs .......... 103,000,000 51,100,000 1,560,000,000 582,000,000 309,000,000 99,800,000 

a Includes operating and maintenance costs. Capital annualized over 20 years at an interest rate of 7.5% unless noted otherwise (See ‘‘Compliance Cost Analyses of the Proposed Rule Amendments for Large MWC Rule Amendments’’ memorandum in the docket to this rulemaking for 

more details). 

E. What are the economic impacts? 

The EPA conducted an economic 

impact analysis for the proposed rule in 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. If the compliance costs, which 

are key inputs to an economic impact 

analysis, are small relative to the 

receipts of the affected companies, then 

the impact analysis may consist of a 

calculation of annual (or annualized) 

costs as a percent of sales for affected 

parent companies. This type of analysis 

is often applied when a partial 

equilibrium or more complex economic 

impact analysis approach is deemed 

unnecessary given the expected size of 

the impacts. The annualized cost per 

sales for a company represents the 

maximum price increase in the affected 

product or service needed for the 

company to completely recover the 

annualized costs imposed by the 

regulation, assuming no change in 

affected output. We conducted a cost-tosales analysis to estimate the economic 

impacts of this proposal, given that the 

equivalent annualized value (EAV) of 

the compliance costs over the period of 

2025 to 2044 are $120 million using a 

7 percent or $110 million using a 3 

percent discount rate in 2022 dollars, 

which is small relative to the revenues 

of the affected industry. 

The EPA estimated the annualized 

compliance cost each firm is expected to 

incur and determined the estimated 

cost-to-sales ratio for affected units. This 

cost averages 0.15 percent of parent 

company revenue and does not exceed 

3.5 percent of parent company revenue 

for any affected unit. The estimated 

cost-to-sales ratio for affected entities, 

none of which are small according to 

Small Business Administration size 

standards, averages 1.1 percent and does 

not exceed 4.4 percent.39 Therefore, the 

projected economic impacts of the 

expected compliance costs of the 

proposal are likely to be relatively small 

as compared to parent company 

revenue. 

F. What are the benefits? 

Pursuant to E.O. 12866 as amended by 

E.O. 14094, the RIA for this action 

analyzes the benefits associated with the 

projected emissions reductions under 

this proposal to inform the EPA and the 

public about these projected impacts. 

This proposed rule is projected to 

reduce emissions of Hg and non-Hg 

metal hazardous air pollutant (HAP), 

PM2.5, SO2, and NOX nationwide. The 

potential impacts of these emissions 

reductions are discussed in detail in 

Section 4 of the RIA. 

The projected reductions in Hg are 

expected to reduce the bioconcentration 

of methylmercury in fish. Subsistence 

fishing is associated with vulnerable 

populations, including minorities and 

those of low socioeconomic status. 

The potential benefits from reducing 

Hg and non-Hg metal HAP were not 

monetized and are therefore not 

reflected in the benefit-cost estimates 

associated with this proposal due to 

methodology and data limitations. 

Instead, we provide a qualitative 

discussion of the health effects 

associated with HAP emitted from 

sources subject to control under the 

proposed action. The EPA remains 

committed to supporting research to 

address these limitations. Potential 

benefits from reductions of PCDD/PCDF 

and reduction in nitrogen and sulfur 

deposition were also not monetized in 

this analysis and are therefore not 

directly reflected in the quantified 

benefit-cost comparisons. We anticipate 

that taking these non-monetized effects 

into account would show the proposal 

to have a greater net benefit. 

The proposed control measures to 

reduce HAP and PM2.5 emissions could 

improve air quality and the health of 

persons living in surrounding 

communities. The proposed control 

measures are expected to reduce about 

0.23 tpy of HAP metal emissions, 

including emissions of Cd, Pb, Hg, and 

PCDD/PCDF. We provide a qualitative 

discussion of the health effects 

associated with HAP emitted from 

sources subject to control under the 

proposed action in Section 4.2 of the 

RIA, available in the docket for this 

action. The EPA remains committed to 

improving methods for estimating HAP 

benefits by continuing to explore 

additional aspects of HAP-related risk 

from large MWCs, including the 

distribution of that risk. 

The proposed control measures are 

also estimated to reduce PM2.5

emissions by about 14 tpy for the source 

category. The EPA estimated monetized 

benefits related to avoided premature 

mortality and morbidity associated with 

reduced exposure to PM2.5 for 2025 to 

2044. The present value (PV) of the 

short-term benefits for the proposed rule 

range from $5.1 billion at a 3 percent 

discount rate to $3.3 billion at a 7 

percent discount rate with an EAV of 

$340 million and $310 million, 

respectively. The EAV represents a flow 

of constant annual values that would 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4263 

yield a sum equivalent to the PV. The 

PV of the long-term benefits for the 

proposed rule range from $17 billion at 

a 3 percent discount rate to $10 billion 

at a 7 percent discount rate with an EAV 

of $1.1 billion and $960 million, 

respectively. All estimates are reported 

in 2022 dollars. For the full set of 

underlying calculations see the LMWC 

Workbook, available in the docket for 

this action. 

G. What environmental justice analysis 

did we conduct? 

The locations of the new, modified, 

and reconstructed sources that will 

become subject to the proposed large 

MWC NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Eb) are not known. Therefore, to 

examine the potential for any EJ issues 

that might be associated with the 

proposed NSPS, we performed a 

proximity demographic analysis for all 

57 existing large MWC facilities that are 

currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts Cb, Ea and Eb. These 

characterize populations near existing 

facilities that might modify or 

reconstruct in the future and become 

subject to the proposed NSPS 

requirements. This proximity 

demographic analysis characterized the 

individual demographic groups of the 

populations living within 5 kilometers 

(approximately 3.1 miles) and within 50 

kilometers (approximately 31 miles) of 

the existing facilities. The EPA then 

compared the data from this analysis to 

the national average for each of the 

demographic groups. 

The results of the proximity 

demographic analysis are shown in 

Table 9 of this preamble. The percent of 

the population living within 5 

kilometers of the existing large MWC 

facilities in the following racial/ 

ethnicity demographics are above the 

national average: African American (20 

percent versus 12 percent nationally), 

Hispanic/Latino (23 percent versus 19 

percent nationally), and other/ 

multiracial (9 percent versus 8 percent 

nationally). In addition, the percent of 

population living within 5 kilometers of 

the existing large MWC facilities is 

above the national average for the 

following demographics: people living 

below the poverty level (16 percent 

versus 13 percent nationally), people 

over 25 without a high school diploma 

(15 percent versus 12 percent 

nationally), and those experiencing 

linguistic isolation (8 percent versus 5 

percent nationally). 

The percent of the population living 

within 50 kilometers of the existing 

large MWC facilities in the following 

racial/ethnicity demographics are above 

the national average: African American 

(14 percent versus 12 percent 

nationally), Hispanic/Latino (21 percent 

versus 19 percent nationally), and other/ 

multiracial (11 percent versus 8 percent 

nationally). In addition, the percent of 

population living within 50 kilometers 

of the large MWC existing facilities is 

above the national average for linguistic 

isolation (8 percent versus 5 percent 

nationally). 

TABLE 9—PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR LARGE MWC FACILITIES

Demographic group Nationwide 

Population 

within 50 km 

of 57 facilities 

Population 

within 5 km of 

57 facilities 

Total population ........................................................................................................................... 328,016,242 82,056,095 3,916,651 

Race and Ethnicity by Percent 

White ............................................................................................................................................ 60 54 48 

African American ......................................................................................................................... 12 14 20 

Native American .......................................................................................................................... 0.7 0.3 0.4 

Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) ....................................................................... 19 21 23

Other and multiracial ................................................................................................................... 8 11 9 

Income by Percent 

Below poverty level ...................................................................................................................... 13 12 16 

Above poverty level ..................................................................................................................... 87 88 84 

Education by Percent 

Over 25 and without a high school diploma ................................................................................ 12 12 15 

Over 25 and with a high school diploma ..................................................................................... 88 88 85 

Linguistically Isolated by Percent 

Linguistically isolated ................................................................................................................... 5 ........................ ........................

Notes: 

• The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census’ 2015–2019 American Community Survey 5-

year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different averages may differ. The total population 

counts within 5 km and 50 km of all facilities are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations. 

• To avoid double counting, the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person is 

identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A 

person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also 

identified as in the Census. 

The proposed large MWC NSPS and 

EG (40 CFR part 60, subparts Cb and Eb) 

cover new and existing solid waste 

incineration units ‘‘with capacity greater 

than 250 tons per day combusting 

municipal waste.’’ The proposed 

standards would increase stringency of 

existing regulation of emissions of the 

nine pollutants listed in CAA section 

129: Cd, Hg, Pb, PM, HCl, SO2, PCDD/ 

PCDF, CO, and NOX, among other 

proposed actions (see section I.A of this 

preamble for a summary of the major 

requirements being proposed). As 

discussed in section IV.B, the proposed 

amendments to the large MWC NSPS 

and EG would result in an estimated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4264 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

14,200 tons per year reduction in 

regulated pollutants. 

The methodology and the results 

(including facility-specific results) of 

the demographic analysis are presented 

in the document titled Analysis of 

Demographic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Large Municipal Waste 

Combustors, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

V. Request for Comments 

We solicit comments on this proposed 

action. In addition to general comments 

on this proposed action, we are also 

interested in additional data that may 

improve the analyses, including data on 

the number of facilities that will require 

retrofit and data to inform EPA’s 

projections of APCD use by large MWCs. 

We are specifically interested in 

receiving any information regarding 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that reduce 

pollutant emissions. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews and 1 CFR Part 51 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined under section 3(f)(1) 

of Executive Order 12866, as amended 

by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, 

the EPA submitted this action to the 

OMB for Executive Order 12866 review. 

Documentation of any changes made in 

response to the Executive Order 12866 

review is available in the docket. The 

EPA prepared an analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with this action. This analysis, 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Proposed Standards of Performance for 

New Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large 

Municipal Waste Combustors,’’ can be 

found in the docket for this action. 

Table 10 of this preamble presents the 

estimated PV and EAV of the projected 

health benefits, compliance costs, and 

net benefits of the proposed rule in 2022 

dollars discounted to 2023. The 

estimated monetized net benefits are the 

projected monetized benefits minus the 

projected monetized costs of the 

proposed rule. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits of its actions, EPA includes all 

potential costs and benefits, and not just 

those that stem from the regulated 

pollutants. Moreover, as explained in 

detail in the RIA, it is not possible to 

monetize the vast majority of the public 

health benefits associated with 

reductions of HAP. Accordingly, the 

projected monetized health benefits 

include those related to public health 

associated with projected reductions in 

fine PM (PM2.5) and ozone 

concentrations. The projected health 

benefits are associated with several 

point estimates and are presented at real 

discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. There 

are no changes in emissions from 

climate pollutants such as carbon 

dioxide (CO2) as determined in the 

analysis of secondary air impacts in 

section IV.B of the preamble. Thus, 

there are no climate benefits or 

disbenefits to be accounted for in the 

estimates of benefits for this proposal. 

The compliance costs are represented in 

this analysis as the costs of control 

technologies and measures applied to 

meet the emissions limits in the 

proposed policy scenario described 

earlier in this preamble. In simple 

terms, these costs are an estimate of the 

increased expenditures for large MWCs 

to implement the proposed 

requirements. 

These results present an incomplete 

overview of the potential effects of the 

proposal because important categories 

of benefits—including benefits from 

reducing Hg and non-Hg metal HAP and 

the benefits from increased transparency 

of emissions—were not monetized and 

are therefore not reflected in the benefitcost tables. We anticipate that taking 

non-monetized effects into account 

would show the proposal to have a 

greater net benefit than this table 

reflects. 

TABLE 10—PROJECTED MONETIZED BENEFITS, COMPLIANCE COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE, 2025 

TO 2044 

[Millions of 2022 dollars, discounted to 2023 dollars] a

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

PV: 

Health benefits c d ....................................... $5,100 and $16,000 ......................................... $3,100 and $9,800. 

Compliance costs ....................................... $1,700 ............................................................... $1,200. 

Net benefits ................................................ $3,400 and $14,000 ......................................... $1,800 and $8,500. 

EAV: b

Health benefits c d ....................................... $340 and $1,100 .............................................. $290 and $920. 

Compliance costs ....................................... $110 .................................................................. $120. 

Net benefits ................................................ $230 and $970 ................................................. $170 and $800. 

aValues have been rounded to two significant figures. Rows may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding. 

bThe annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated over the 20-year period from 2025 to 2044. The choice of this analysis period is explained in the RIA for the proposal. cThe projected monetized benefits include those related to public health associated with reductions in PM2.5 and ozone concentrations. The 

projected health benefits are associated with several point estimates and are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. dSeveral categories of benefits remain unmonetized and are thus not reflected in the table. Non-monetized benefits include important benefits 

from reductions in HAP including Cd, Pb, and PCDD/PCDF emissions. In addition, benefits to provision of ecosystem services associated with 

reductions in nitrogen and sulfur deposition and ozone concentrations are not monetized. 

As shown in Table 10 of this 

preamble, at a 3 percent discount rate, 

this proposed rule is projected to reduce 

PM2.5 and ozone concentrations, 

producing a projected PV of monetized 

health benefits of about $5.1 billion and 

$16 billion, with an EAV of about $340 

million and $1.1 billion discounted at 3 

percent. The PV of the projected 

compliance costs are $1.7 billion, with 

an EAV of about $110 million 

discounted at 3 percent. Combining the 

projected benefits with the compliance 

costs yields a net benefit PV estimate of 

$3.4 billion and $14 billion and an EAV 

of $250 million and $1.0 billion. 

At a 7 percent discount rate, this 

proposed rule is expected to generate 

projected PV of monetized health 

benefits of $3.1 billion and $9.8 billion, 

with an EAV of about $290 million and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4265 

$920 million. The PV of the projected 

compliance costs are $1.2 billion, with 

an EAV of $120 million discounted at 7 

percent. Combining the projected 

benefits with the projected compliance 

costs yields a net benefit PV estimate of 

$1.8 billion and $8.5 billion and an EAV 

of $170 million and $800 million. 

The potential benefits from reducing 

Hg and non-Hg metal HAP were not 

monetized and are therefore not 

reflected in the benefit-cost estimates 

associated with this proposal. Potential 

benefits from PCDD/PCDF emission 

reductions and reduced nitrogen and 

sulfur deposition are not monetized in 

this analysis and are therefore not 

directly reflected in the quantified 

benefit-cost comparisons. We anticipate 

that taking these non-monetized effects 

into account would show the proposal 

to have a greater net benefit. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the PRA. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) documents that 

the EPA prepared has been assigned 

EPA ICR number 1847.10 for subpart Cb 

(OMB Control number 2060–0390) and 

1506.15 for subparts Ea and Eb (OMB 

Control number 2060–0210). You can 

find a copy of the ICR for each subpart 

in the docket for this rule, and they are 

briefly summarized here. 

These regulations apply to facilities 

that own and operate MWC units with 

a combustion capacity greater than 250 

tpd of MSW that were constructed on or 

before September 20, 1994 (subject to 40 

CFR 60, subpart Cb), facilities for which 

construction is commenced after 

December 20, 1989 and on or before 

September 20, 1994 (subject to 40 CFR 

60, subpart Ea), or for which 

construction is commenced after 

September 20, 1994 or for which 

modification or reconstruction is 

commenced after June 19, 1996 (subject 

to 40 CFR 60, subpart Eb). The reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements 

discussed below result from the EG that 

apply to large MWCs covered by the 

EPA-approved and effective state plans 

and, where a state plan has not been 

approved, large MWCs covered by the 

Federal plan, and large MWCs subject to 

the NSPS. This information is being 

collected to ensure compliance with 40 

CFR part 60, subparts Cb and Eb. In 

general, all EG and NSPS require initial 

notifications, performance tests, and 

periodic reports by the owners or 

operators of the affected facilities. They 

are also required to maintain records of 

the occurrence and duration of any SSM 

in the operation of an affected facility, 

or any period during which the 

monitoring system is inoperative. These 

notifications, reports, and records are 

essential in determining compliance, 

and are required of all affected facilities 

subject to EG or NSPS. 

The proposed amendments to the EG 

and NSPS would remove SSM 

exclusions and exceptions. These 

proposed amendments would also 

streamline regulatory language, revise 

recordkeeping, and require electronic 

reporting requirements; re-establish new 

and existing source applicability dates; 

clarify requirements for air curtain 

incinerators; correct certain 

typographical errors; make certain 

technical corrections and clarify certain 

provisions in the NSPS and EG. See 

section 4 of the Supporting Statement to 

the ICR for these proposed amendments 

in the docket to this rulemaking for 

more details. 

For the proposed amendments to the 

EG in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb, the 

EPA is also proposing to revise all 

emission limits, except CO for two 

combustor subcategories. Similarly, for 

the proposed amendments to NSPS 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Eb, the EPA is 

proposing to revise all emission limits. 

Because EPA is proposing to revise 

applicability dates and ultimately 

reserve subpart Ea, the burden 

associated with units currently subject 

to subparts Ea and Eb has been 

combined with the burden for those 

currently subject to subpart Cb. The 

EPA does not anticipate any 

construction of new units or NSPStriggering reconstruction or 

modifications of existing units within 

the next 3 years. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Existing large MWC units constructed 

on or before January 23, 2024, or that are 

reconstructed or modified prior to the 

date 6 months after promulgation of any 

revised final standards. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR 60, subparts Cb, Ea, 

and Eb). 

Estimated number of respondents: 57. 

Frequency of response: Annual. 

Total estimated burden: 980 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $100,000 (per 

year), includes no annualized capital or 

operation and maintenance costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates, and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this rule. You may also 

send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

receipt, OMB must receive comments no 

later than February 22, 2024. The EPA 

will respond to any ICR-related 

comments in the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. We have estimated that no 

small entities would be affected by the 

proposed changes to the EG and NSPS. 

For more information, please refer to the 

RIA for the proposed rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (UMRA) 

This action may contain a Federal 

mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538, that may result in expenditures of 

$100 million or more for state and local 

governments, in the aggregate, and on 

the private sector. As explained in 

section VI.F, this action does not impose 

specific requirements on tribal 

governments. As a result of these 

potential impacts to governmental 

entities and the private sector, the EPA 

initiated consultation with these 

entities. The EPA also held meetings 

described in section VI. E of this 

preamble under Federalism 

consultation. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

The EPA has concluded that this 

action has federalism implications 

under EPA policy for implementing E.O. 

13132, Federalism, because the rule 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs on state or local governments, and 

the Federal government will not provide 

the funds necessary to pay those costs. 

The EPA conducted a Federalism/ 

UMRA consultation outreach briefing 

on March 16, 2023. Invited participants 

included representatives from the 

National Governors Association, the 

National Conference of State 

Legislatures, the Council of State 

Governments, the National League of 

Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 

the National Association of Counties, 

the International City/County 

Management Association, the National 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4266 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Association of Towns and Townships, 

the County Executives of America, and 

the Environmental Council of States to 

request their input on this rulemaking. 

Additionally, the Agency invited 

representatives from the National 

Association of Clean Air Agencies, the 

Association of Air Pollution Control 

Agencies, the Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management 

Officials, and other groups representing 

state and local government 

professionals. The purpose of the 

consultation was to provide general 

background on the rulemaking, answer 

questions, and solicit input from these 

national associations’ state and local 

government members. Due to interest in 

this action, additional outreach 

meetings were held on April 17, 2023, 

and April 27, 2023, and included local 

government representatives of both the 

U.S. Conference of Mayors and the 

Waste To Energy Association, 

respectively. Subsequent to the outreach 

meetings, the EPA received letters from 

multiple organizations. These letters 

were submitted to the pre-proposal nonrulemaking docket. See Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0920. A detailed 

Federalism Summary Impact Statement 

(FSIS) describing the most pressing 

issues raised in pre-proposal and postproposal comments will be forthcoming 

with the final action, as required by 

section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132. 

In the spirit of E.O. 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between state and local 

governments, the EPA specifically 

solicits comment on these proposed 

actions from state and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. The EPA is not aware of 

any large MWC unit owned or operated 

by tribal governments. During the 

development of this action, the EPA 

offered pre-proposal government-togovernment consultation with Tribal 

Nations. No Tribal Nations requested 

consultation with the EPA. This action 

will not have substantial direct costs or 

impacts 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 in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to the proposed amendments. 

Consistent with the EPA Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes, the EPA will offer postproposal government-to-government 

consultation with all federally 

recognized tribes. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying to those regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that the EPA has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because the proposed 

amendments are not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. There 

would be no change in energy 

consumption resulting from the 

proposed amendments, and the EPA 

does not expect any price increase for 

any energy type. We also expect that 

there would be no impact on the import 

of foreign energy supplies, and no other 

adverse outcomes are expected to occur 

with regards to energy supplies. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA 

conducted searches through the 

Enhanced National Standards System 

Network Database managed by the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) to determine if there are 

voluntary consensus standards (VCS) 

that are relevant to this action. The 

Agency also contacted VCS 

organizations and accessed and 

searched their databases. 

We conducted searches for EPA 

Methods 1, 3A, 3B, 5, 6, 6A, 6C, 7, 7A, 

7C, 7D, 7E, 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 19, 22, 23, 

26, 26A, 29 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix 

A. No applicable voluntary consensus 

standards were identified for EPA 

Methods 6C, 7D, 7E, 19 and 22. 

During the search, if the title or 

abstract (if provided) of the VCS 

described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to 

the EPA’s reference method, the EPA 

considered it as a potential equivalent 

method. All potential standards were 

reviewed to determine the practicality 

of the VCS for these rules. This review 

requires significant method validation 

data which meet the requirements of 

EPA Method 301 for accepting 

alternative methods or scientific, 

engineering and policy equivalence to 

procedures in the EPA reference 

methods. The EPA may reconsider 

determinations of impracticality when 

additional information is available for 

particular VCS. 

Three voluntary consensus standards 

were identified as an acceptable 

alternative to EPA test methods for the 

purposes of these rules. 

The EPA proposes to allow use of the 

manual portion only and not the 

instrumental portion of voluntary 

consensus standard ANSI/ASME PTC 

19–10–1981 Part 10 (2010), ‘‘Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analyses’’ as an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 

6B, 7, 7C. This method is available at 

the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20036 and the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, 

New York, NY 10016–5990. See https:// 

www.ansi.org and https://

www.asme.org. The standard is 

available to everyone at a cost 

determined by ANSI/ASME ($96). The 

cost of obtaining this method is not a 

significant financial burden, making the 

methods reasonably available. 

The EPA proposes to allow the use of 

the voluntary consensus standard 

ASTM D7520–16, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity of 

a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere’’ as an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 9 only if the 

following conditions are followed: 

1. During the digital camera opacity 

technique (DCOT) certification procedure 

outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520–16, 

you or the DCOT vendor must present the 

plumes in front of various backgrounds of 

color and contrast representing conditions 

anticipated during field use such as blue sky, 

trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or 

a sparse tree stand). 

2. You must also have standard operating 

procedures in place including daily or other 

frequency quality checks to ensure the 

equipment is within manufacturing 

specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of 

ASTM D7520–16. 

3. You must follow the record keeping 

procedures outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for 

the DCOT certification, compliance report, 

data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used 

for opacity and certification determination. 

4. You or the DCOT vendor must have a 

minimum of 4 independent technology users 

apply the software to determine the visible 

opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For 

each set of 25 plumes, the user may not 

exceed 15 percent opacity of anyone reading 

and the average error must not exceed 7.5 

percent opacity. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4267 

5. This approval does not provide or imply 

a certification or validation of any vendor’s 

hardware or software. The onus to maintain 

and verify the certification and/or training of 

the DCOT camera, software, and operator in 

accordance with ASTM D7520–16 and 

conditions 1 to 4 above is on the facility, 

DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor. 

This method is available at ASTM 

International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 

1030, Washington, DC 20036. See 

https://www.astm.org. The standard is 

available to everyone at a cost 

determined by ASTM ($90). The cost of 

obtaining this method is not a 

significant financial burden, making the 

method reasonably available. 

The EPA proposes to allow the use of 

the voluntary consensus standard 

ASTM D6784–16, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 

Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)’’ 

(D6784–16 was reapproved in 2016 to 

include better quality control than 

earlier 2008 version) as an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion 

for Hg only) as a method for measuring 

Hg. Note that this approval applies to 

concentrations approximately in the 

range of 0.5 to 100 micrograms per 

standard cubic meter (mg/Nm3). This 

method is available at ASTM 

International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 

1030, Washington, DC 20036. See 

https://www.astm.org. The standard is 

available to everyone at a cost 

determined by ASTM ($82). The cost of 

obtaining this method is not a 

significant financial burden, making the 

method reasonably available. 

In addition, for the purpose of this 

rule, the EPA proposes to allow the use 

of facility operator certification method 

ASME QRO–1–2005 (R2015), Standard 

for the Qualification and Certification of 

Resource Recovery Facility Operators. 

The 1995 rule cited a certification for 

facility operator ASME QRO–1–1994. 

Since that time, ASME has released a 

2005 version as the most recent one 

available. This method is available at 

the American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, 

New York, NY 10016–5990. See https:// 

www.asme.org. The standard is 

available to everyone at a cost 

determined by ASME ($59). The cost of 

obtaining this method is not a 

significant financial burden, making the 

methods reasonably available. 

Additional information for the VCS 

search and determinations can be found 

in the memorandum, Voluntary 

Consensus Standard Results for Large 

Municipal Waste Combustors NSPS and 

EG, which is available in the docket for 

this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2017–0183). 

Under 40 CFR 60.8(b) and 60.13(i) of 

subpart A of the General Provisions, a 

source may apply to the EPA to use 

alternative test methods or alternative 

monitoring requirements in place of any 

required testing methods, performance 

specifications or procedures in the final 

rule or any amendments. The EPA 

welcomes comments on this aspect of 

the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially applicable VCS and 

to explain why such standards should 

be used in these regulations. 

The EPA is incorporating by reference 

the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981 

Part 10 (2010), ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas 

Analyses’’ as an acceptable alternative 

to EPA Method 3B, 6, 6A, 6B, 7, 7C. for 

the determination of oxygen content 

(manual procedures only); the VCS 

ASTM D7520–16, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Opacity of 

a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 

Atmosphere’’ as an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 9 only if 

certain conditions are followed as 

described above; and the VCS ASTM 

D6784–16, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound 

and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),’’ as an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 

(Hg portion only) as a method for 

measuring Hg. Further, the EPA is 

incorporating by reference facility 

operator certification method ASME 

QRO–1–2005 (R2015), ‘‘Standard for the 

Qualification and Certification of 

Resource Recovery Facility Operators,’’ 

as an updated certification to the 1994 

version that has been incorporated by 

reference in the current rules. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All 

The EPA believes that the human 

health or environmental conditions that 

exist prior to this action result in or 

have the potential to result in 

disproportionate and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. As stated in Section IV.F. of 

this preamble, the locations of the new, 

modified, and reconstructed sources 

that will become subject to the proposed 

large MWC NSPS (40 CFR 60, subpart 

Eb) are not known. Therefore, to 

examine the potential for any EJ issues 

that might be associated with the 

proposed NSPS, we performed a 

proximity demographic analysis for the 

57 existing large MWC facilities that are 

currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts Cb, Ea and Eb. These 

characterize populations near existing 

facilities that might modify or 

reconstruct in the future and become 

subject to the proposed NSPS 

requirements. 

For large MWCs, a total of 3.9 million 

people live within 5 kilometers 

(approximately 3.1 miles) of existing 

facilities. The proportion of 

demographic groups living near large 

MWC facilities are above the national 

average, include African American, 

Hispanic or Latino and other/multiracial 

populations. The proportion of other 

demographic groups living within 5 

kilometers of large MWC facilities is 

similar or lower than the national 

average. See section IV.F for an analysis 

that characterizes populations living in 

proximity of facilities and risks prior to 

the proposed regulation. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

likely to reduce existing 

disproportionate and adverse effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. While the locations of the 

new, modified, and reconstructed 

sources that will become subject to the 

proposed large MWC NSPS (40 CFR 60 

subpart Eb) are not known, this action 

proposes to establish standards for large 

MWC emission sources that will 

enhance protection for these 

populations by reducing pollutant 

emissions at future modified and 

reconstructed sources and minimizing 

future emission increases resulting from 

new sources. The proposed 

amendments to the EG and NSPS would 

also remove exclusions and exceptions 

from compliance during periods of 

SSM. 

The EPA additionally identified and 

addressed EJ concerns by engaging in 

outreach activities to communities we 

expect to be impacted most by the 

rulemaking (see section II.F). 

The information supporting this 

Executive Order review is contained in 

Section IV.G of this preamble. The 

demographic analysis is presented in 

the document Analysis of Demographic 

Factors for Populations Living Near 

Large Municipal Waste Combustors, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4268 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00747 Filed 1–22–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Part 302–16 

[FTR Case 2022–04 Docket No. GSA–FTR– 

2023–0017, Sequence No. 2] 

RIN 3090–AK65 

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); 

Relocation Allowances— 

Miscellaneous Expenses Allowance 

AGENCY: Office of Government-wide 

Policy (OGP), General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States General 

Services Administration (GSA) is 

proposing to amend the FTR by 

removing the relocation miscellaneous 

expenses allowance (MEA) lump sum 

amounts from the FTR. These lump sum 

amounts will be published in FTR 

Bulletins on an intermittent basis, much 

like what is done for per diem and 

mileage rates. The relocation MEA 

actual (as opposed to lump sum) 

amounts are unchanged and will remain 

in the FTR. The proposed rule would 

also update the types of expenses that 

may or may not be reimbursed by 

relocation MEA when employees 

itemize under actual expense. The 

proposed rule would also update and 

clarify other relocation MEA regulatory 

sections and rearrange them into a more 

sequential order. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat Division at the address 

shown below on or before March 25, 

2024 to be considered in the formation 

of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FTR Case 2022–04 to: 

Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

searching for ‘‘FTR Case 2022–04’’. 

Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘FTR Case 2022–04.’’ 

Follow the instructions provided on the 

screen. Please include your name, 

company name (if any), and ‘‘FTR Case 

2022–04’’ on your attached document. If 

your comment cannot be submitted 

using https://www.regulations.gov, call 

or email the points of contact in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document for alternate instructions. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FTR Case 2022–04, in all 

correspondence related to this case. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Mr. 

Rodney (Rick) Miller, Program Analyst, 

Office of Government-wide Policy, at 

202–501–3822 or travelpolicy@gsa.gov. 

For information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules, contact the 

Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202– 

501–4755 or GSARegSec@gsa.gov. 

Please cite FTR Case 2022–04. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Summary of Significant Changes 

GSA is proposing to amend the FTR 

by removing the relocation MEA lump 

sum amounts, providing that lump sum 

amounts will be published in FTR 

Bulletins on an intermittent basis, 

rearranging the relocation MEA sections 

into a more sequential order, clarifying 

and modifying relocation MEA sections 

by updating employee eligibility for 

relocation MEA, and updating examples 

of expenses for which relocation MEA 

may be authorized or not. 

Pursuant to 5 United States Code 

(U.S.C.) 5738, the Administrator of 

General Services is authorized to 

prescribe regulations necessary to 

implement laws regarding Federal 

employees when assigned a temporary 

change of station (TCS) or when 

otherwise transferred in the interest of 

the Government. The overall 

implementing authority is the FTR, 

codified in title 41 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, chapters 300 

through 304. 

GSA’s OGP continually reviews and 

adjusts policies and regulations under 

its purview to address Government 

relocation needs and to incorporate best 

practices, where appropriate, as a part of 

its ongoing mission to provide policies 

for travel by Federal civilian employees 

and others authorized to travel at 

Government expense. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5724a(f) and 

5737(a)(6), an employee transferred in 

the interest of the Government from one 

official station to another, assigned to a 

TCS location, or who has completed a 

TCS assignment and returned to their 

previous official station is authorized a 

relocation MEA. 

The purpose of the relocation MEA is 

to defray some of the costs incurred due 

to relocating. The allowance is related to 

expenses that are common to living 

quarters, such as fees for disconnecting 

and connecting appliances; cutting and 

fitting rugs, draperies, and curtains 

moved from one residence to another; 

utility fees or deposits that are not offset 

by eventual refunds; forfeiture of 

medical, dental, and other nontransferrable contracts; and the cost of 

changing automobile registration(s) and 

driver’s licenses. 

The FTR provides that a relocation 

MEA may be paid using one of two 

methods: lump sum or actual expense. 

Under the lump sum method, the 

agency pays a lump sum amount 

without requiring employee 

documentation of expenses. Under the 

current regulatory language, the lump 

sum amounts are ‘‘either $650 or the 

equivalent of one week’s basic gross 

pay, whichever is the lesser amount’’ for 

an employee without immediate family 

members relocating with them, and 

‘‘$1300 or the equivalent of two weeks’ 

basic gross pay, whichever is the lesser 

amount’’ for an employee with 

immediate family members relocating 

with them. 

Under the actual expense method, the 

agency may authorize the employee to 

claim actual costs depending on the 

type of expenses incurred, in an amount 

in excess of the prescribed lump sum 

amount. The employee justifies any 

actual expenses by itemizing with 

supporting documentation. 

Reimbursement is limited to one or two 

weeks’ basic gross pay depending on 

whether or not the employee has an 

immediate family relocating with them, 

not to exceed the maximum rate payable 

for a position at GS–13, Step 10, of the 

General Schedule (base) (see 5 U.S.C. 

5332). 

The proposed rule would amend the 

FTR by removing the relocation MEA 

lump sum amounts from the FTR and 

directing readers to an FTR bulletin 

with the relocation MEA lump sum 

amounts. GSA would publish the initial 

FTR bulletin with the relocation MEA 

lump sum amounts prior to the final 

rule effective date. Agencies are advised 

that the relocation MEA lump sum 

amounts are expected to increase since 

they were last updated in 2011. Moving 

forward, GSA will publish FTR 

bulletins to update the relocation MEA 

lump sum amounts, as needed, based on 

changes to the Consumer Price Index. 

The proposed rule would also clarify in 

the regulatory text that ‘‘basic gross 

pay’’, as referenced in FTR part 302–16, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS