67268 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6898–8]

RIN 2050–AE01

NESHAPS: Final Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Hazardous Waste Combustors; Final

Rule—Interpretive Clarification;

Technical Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA, the Agency).

ACTION: Final rule; Interpretive

Clarification and Technical Correction.

SUMMARY: On September 30, 1999 (64

FR 52828), EPA issued a final rule

promulgating revised standards for

hazardous waste incinerators, hazardous

waste burning cement kilns, and

hazardous waste burning lightweight

aggregate kilns. These standards were

promulgated under joint authority of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) and Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Sources subject to these standards have

raised questions regarding the

applicability of new source versus

existing source standards for hazardous

waste incinerators. In part one of today’s

rule, we clarify the original intent of our

rule on these issues. In part two of

today’s rule, we make three technical

corrections.

DATES: This rule is effective on

November 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may view the docket

for this rulemaking at the RCRA

Information Center (RIC), located at

Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

You should ask for docket number F–

2000–RF3C–FFFFF. The RIC is open

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

Friday, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information or to order paper

copies of this Federal Register

document, contact the RCRA Hotline

Monday through Friday between 9 a.m.

and 6 p.m. EST, toll free at (800) 424–

9346; or (703) 412–9810 from

Government phones or if in the

Washington, DC local calling area; or

(800) 553–7672 for the hearing

impaired. For information on this rule

contact David Hockey (5302W), Office

of Solid Waste, Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460, or at

hockey.david@epa.gov, or at telephone

number 703–308–8846.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

Part One: Clarifications

I. What Is the Purpose of This Section?

II. What is the Scope of the Definition of

Hazardous Waste Incinerator?

III. Clarification of ‘‘Reconstructed

Sources’’

Part Two: Technical Corrections

I. What Is the Purpose of This Section?

II. The Deadline for Conducting the

Subsequent Comprehensive Performance

Test After Using Data in Lieu of the

Initial Performance Test is Corrected

III. The Confusion between Continuous

Monitoring System Evaluation Plan and

Evaluation Test Plan is Corrected

IV. Procedures to Begin Calculating

Continuous Monitoring System Rolling

Averages is Corrected for Sources That

Comply Early

Part Three: Good Cause Exemption

Part Four: How is the Program Delegated

Under the Clean Air Act?

Part Five: Analytic and Regulatory

Requirements

Part one: Clarifications

I. What Is the Purpose of This Section?

EPA promulgated emission standards

for hazardous waste-burning

incinerators, lightweight aggregate kilns

and cement kilns on September 30,

1999. 64 FR 52828. These standards

implement section 112(d) of the Clean

Air Act and reflect the performance of

the Maximum Available Control

Technology (or MACT). The standards

themselves are normally called National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP).

The Hazardous Waste Combustor

(HWC) NESHAP contains two sets of

emission standards: One set for existing

sources and a second, generally more

stringent, set for new sources. Several

incinerators subject to this NESHAP

have requested clarification as to the

applicability of new versus existing

source standards in situations when

existing incinerators are modified to

comply with the emission standards.

Specifically, these incinerators have

requested clarification on two issues

that affect the applicability of new

versus existing source standards. First,

incinerator commenters want to know if

an incinerator’s air pollution control

device is considered to be part of the

‘‘affected source’’ for purposes of this

rule. Second, these commenters want to

know if the costs of replacement or

retrofitting of air pollution control

equipment, installed to comply with the

HWC NESHAP (incurred between the

proposal and source’s compliance date),

are to be considered as ‘‘reconstruction’’

costs in determining if new source

standards apply.

After receiving these comments, we

further studied the regulatory text and

determined that the definitions are

either ambiguous or contain

(unintended) gaps on several points. In

this rule, therefore, we set out our

interpretation of these provisions and

add clarifying language to the rules to

remove ambiguity or gaps and to better

express our original intent. We note

further, that these interpretations apply

to this NESHAP alone and so have no

precedential value for interpreting any

other NESHAP or any other Clean Air

Act regulation.

II. What Is the Scope of the Definition

of Hazardous Waste Incinerator?

The HWC MACT standards apply to,

among other sources, ‘‘hazardous waste

incinerators.’’ These are defined at 40

CFR 260.10, as (for purposes relevant

here) ‘‘any enclosed device that [u]ses

controlled flame combustion and

neither meets the criteria for

classification as a boiler, sludge dryer,

or carbon regeneration unit, nor is listed

as an industrial furnace.’’ This

definition does not explicitly address

whether air pollution control equipment

and other hazardous waste burning

equipment, e.g., the waste firing system,

is considered to be part of the

incinerator.

The relationship of this definition to

the question of new source standard

applicability is that, as provided in

§ 63.1206(a)(3), ‘‘if you commenced

construction or reconstruction of your

hazardous waste combustor after April

19, 1996’’, the source is subject to the

new source standards. If pollution

control equipment is part of the

incinerator, then an incinerator that

began retrofitting pollution control

equipment before April 19, 1996

ordinarily would not be subject to the

new source standards. Conversely, if

only the combustion chamber is

considered to be the source, then only

changes to the combustion chamber

begun before April 19, 1996 would be

relevant in assessing new source

standard applicability.

As described by commenters, the

definition of an incinerator at 40 CFR

260.10 is unclear with regard to whether

the ‘‘enclosed device’’ includes the air

pollution control device (APCD). In one

instance, the enclosed device can be

interpreted to include only the burn

chamber, typically either a box or

cylindrical configuration, into which

waste is fed and burned using

controlled flame combustion. However,

the definition also can be read to

include not only the burn chamber, but

also to include other parts of the device

through which combustion off-gases,

that can contain significant

concentrations of hazardous air

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67269

pollutants (HAPs), flow prior to release

to the environment. These APCDs, of

course, are also enclosed and so are part

of the device preventing release of HAPs

until the end of the combustion process.

These gases continue to be regulated, as

is the APCD itself.

In promulgating the HWC NESHAP

rule, we intended that the incinerator

source include not only the combustion

chamber, but also the waste firing

system and the APCD. The commercial

purpose of an HWC is the safe treatment

(destruction) of hazardous organic

pollutants. In order to provide safe

treatment, other HAPs may require

capture, additional treatment, and

disposal. For hazardous waste

incinerators, we regulate, through

specific operating conditions and

monitoring requirements, all aspects of

the source that may affect emissions of

HAPs from the burning of hazardous

wastes. See 64 FR at 53055—53062.

Because the APCD affects emissions of

HAPs, e.g., dioxin/furan formation,

toxic metals capture, acid gas removal,

we consider the APCD integral to the

treatment process, and, therefore, to the

source as a whole. For example, when

describing the applicability of

requirements in response to comments,

we say that requirements apply to

‘‘* * * all components of the

combustor, including associated

pollution control equipment.’’ US EPA,

Response to Comments Background

Document, Volume II: Compliance, PM

Control (PMCOMP.WPD), page 6.

We acknowledge that this intent

should have been expressed in the

definition of an incinerator. Therefore,

we make our intent explicit by adding

the following clarification to the rule:

To the definition of a hazardous waste

incinerator in § 63.1201(a) we add the

following sentence: ‘‘For purposes of

this subpart, the hazardous waste

incinerator includes all associated firing

systems and air pollution control

devices, as well as the combustion

chamber equipment.’’

Most importantly, this interpretation

maintains the status quo in defining

new source incinerators. In

implementing the RCRA subtitle C

rules, we included air pollution controls

as part of the incinerator. This is

important in that section 112(n)(7) of

the CAA calls for integration of the

standards under both RCRA and CAA

programs to the extent practicable

(consistent with the requirements of

section 112). In this case, it is

‘‘practicable,’’ in the words of section

112(n)(7), to carry over this RCRA

practice into implementation of the

MACT standard. We are therefore doing

so here. However, we note that due to

this need to link with the RCRA subtitle

C program, this action creates no

precedent for any other CAA source

category.

III. Clarification of ‘‘Reconstructed

Sources’’

Section 63.1206(a)(3), as promulgated,

states that ‘‘if you commenced

construction or reconstruction of your

hazardous waste combustor after April

19, 1996, you must comply with (the

new source standards).’’

‘‘Reconstruction,’’ in turn, is defined in

the General Provisions (in relevant part)

as ‘‘the replacement of components of

an affected * * * source to such an

extent that the fixed capital cost of the

new components exceeds 50 percent of

the fixed capital costs that would be

required to construct a comparable new

source.’’ Section 63.2 (definition of

‘‘reconstruction’’). In adopting

§ 63.1206(a)(3), we intended that the

cost of retrofitting and replacement of

air pollution control devices installed to

comply with the MACT standard is not

to be considered as a cost of

reconstruction. As shown below, this

principle has long been codified in the

RCRA subtitle C rules. We also stated in

the administrative record to the 1999

HWC MACT rule that we meant for the

same principle to apply here.

The RCRA subtitle C rules have long

included the same cost test for

determining when reconstruction occurs

as is found in the General Provisions. In

40 CFR 270.72(b) we use the definition

of reconstruction in a context directly

analogous to whether new source status

is triggered. This section defines when

changes to an interim status RCRA

facility are so extensive as to amount to

reconstruction, causing a source to be

subject to the more stringent standards

for fully permitted facilities. The rules

state, however, that this reconstruction

cost test does not apply to units that are

added due to the need to comply with

a new RCRA rule. Section 270.72(b)(7).

We initially proposed this principle for

boilers and industrial furnaces burning

hazardous waste (see 52 FR at 17013

(May 6, 1987)), but later codified the

policy for all RCRA facilities in order

that the principle—new units added to

meet new regulations are not to be

considered in applying the

reconstruction cost test—apply

generally. 56 FR at 7186 (Feb. 21, 1991).

In addition, the RCRA rules (as

amended in a 1998 rulemaking) further

state that ‘‘changes necessary to comply

with standards under 40 CFR Part 63

subpart EEE (the hazardous waste

combustor MACT standards)’’ are not to

be considered as reconstruction costs for

purposes of RCRA. Section 270.72(b).

This provision was added specifically to

ensure that the costs of coming into

compliance with the MACT standards

incurred by hazardous waste

combustion sources were not to be

considered in applying the

reconstruction cost test. 63 FR at 33805

(June 19, 1998).

With these existing rules establishing

our approach, we intended to apply the

same principle in determining which

costs were to be included within the

reconstruction cost test used for

determining applicability of new source

standards for hazardous waste

combustors. We also reiterated that

these costs would not be considered as

reconstruction costs in the RCRA

context, emphasizing that this approach

avoided any potential conflict between

the CAA and RCRA regimes (implying

that the principle regarding

reconstruction costs was meant to apply

in both contexts). US EPA, Response to

Comments Background Document, Vol.

1: Miscellaneous Standards, pp. 56–7.

To clarify our intent, today we add

the following sentence to the end of

§ 63.1206(a)(3) New or reconstructed

sources: ‘‘The costs of retrofitting and

replacement of equipment that is

installed specifically to comply with

this subpart, between April 19, 1996

and a source’s compliance date, are not

considered to be reconstruction costs.’’

As with the definition of affected

source, this clarifying change regarding

the reconstruction test, is needed to

further the purpose of section 112(n)(7)

of the CAA. This section calls for

integration of the standards under both

CAA and RCRA programs to the extent

practicable (consistent with the

requirements of section 112). Here, as

just explained, longstanding RCRA

practice is not to include costs of new

units needed to comply with new

regulatory standards as reconstruction

costs. It is ‘‘practicable ‘‘ (section

112(n)(7)) to carry this administrative

principle over into the CAA regime for

RCRA sources. As with the definition of

affected source, this action is therefore

not precedential for any non-RCRA

source category.

Part Two: Technical Corrections

I. What Is the Purpose of This Section?

This final rule also makes three

technical corrections to the Hazardous

Waste Combustor NESHAPS

promulgated on September 30, 1999 (64

FR 52828). First, if you use data in lieu

of your initial comprehensive

performance test, you must commence a

comprehensive performance test within

five years of the commencement date of

the test from which the data were

67270 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1The good cause exemption in 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)

applies here, even though this is a rulemaking

otherwise subject to the procedural standards set

out in section 307 (d) of the Clean Air Act. See CAA

section 307 (d) (1) (final sentence).

obtained. Second, you are required to

submit your continuous monitoring

system (CMS) evaluation test plan rather

than the evaluation plan for review and

approval. Third, if you comply with the

standards early, you begin calculating

continuous monitoring system rolling

averages at the time you elect to begin

complying with the standards.

II. The Deadline for Conducting the

Subsequent Comprehensive

Performance Test After Using Data in

Lieu of the Initial Performance Test Is

Corrected

Section 63.1207(d)(1) inadvertently

requires you to commence the

subsequent comprehensive performance

test within 61 months of the date six

months after the compliance date if you

submit data in lieu of the initial

comprehensive performance test. This is

incorrect. As discussed in the preamble

(see 64 FR at 52917–18), your

subsequent comprehensive performance

test must commence within five years of

the commencement date of the test from

which you are using data in lieu of the

initial comprehensive performance test.

For example, if you commence an

emissions test on September 30 2001,

one year prior to the compliance date,

and the results of that test can be used

in lieu of the initial comprehensive

performance test to demonstrate

compliance with Subpart EEE, you must

commence your subsequent

comprehensive performance test within

five years of that date, September 30,

2006.

For the reasons discussed above, we

revise § 63.1207(d)(1) to make it

consistent with the preamble.

III. The Confusion Between Continuous

Monitoring System Evaluation Plan and

Evaluation Test Plan is Corrected

Sections 63.1207(e)(1) and (e)(2)

inadvertently require you to submit a

continuous monitoring system (CMS)

evaluation plan for review and approval

at least one year prior to the scheduled

date of the CMS performance

evaluation. What we actually intended

was to require you to submit the CMS

evaluation test plan, for review and

approval. The CMS evaluation test plan

describes the actual testing necessary to

demonstrate calibration, minimization

of malfunctions, and how the CMS will

meet the required performance

specifications.

The CMS evaluation plan implements

your CMS quality control program and

specifies how a source will maintain

calibration of the CMS and minimize

malfunctions. As required by Subpart

EEE, you must keep the CMS evaluation

plan on record for the life of the source

and make the plan available for

inspection upon request by the

Administrator. As we correct in today’s

notice you need not submit the CMS

evaluation plan for review and

approval.

We revise §§ 63.1207(e)(1) and (e)(2)

accordingly.

IV. Procedures to Begin Calculating

Continuous Monitoring System Rolling

Averages Is Corrected for Sources That

Comply Early

The September 30, 1999 Final Rule

requires you to begin recording oneminute continuous emission monitor

(CEM) and continuous monitoring

system (CMS) values by 12:01 a.m.,

hourly rolling average values by 1:01

a.m., and twelve hour rolling averages

by 12:01 p.m.. See §§ 63.1209(a)(6)(i)

and (b)(5)(i). Although not explicitly

written, we intended this provision to

apply to you on the regulatory

compliance date (i.e., three years after

Final Rule promulgation). We have

since determined that there could be

situations where you would choose to

voluntarily comply with the MACT

standards before the compliance date. In

such situations, the requirement for you

to begin calculating one-minute

averages, hourly rolling averages, and

12-hour rolling averages by 12:01 a.m.,

1:01 a.m., and 12:01 p.m., respectively,

is inappropriate.

Today we are correcting the

regulatory language in

§§ 63.1209(a)(6)(i) and (b)(5)(i) in order

to clarify that: (1) The requirement to

begin calculating one-minute averages,

hourly rolling averages, and 12-hour

rolling averages by 12:01 a.m., 1:01 a.m.,

and 12:01 p.m., respectively, applies

only to sources that begin complying

with the MACT standards on the

regulatory compliance date; and, (2) if

you elect to comply early with the

MACT standards, you must simply

begin recording CEM and CMS rolling

averages at the time at which you elect

to begin complying with the MACT

standards. We believe this correction is

prudent because of our desire to

promote the concept of early

compliance.

Part Three: Good Cause Exemption

Section 553 of the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),

provides that, when an agency for good

cause finds that notice and public

procedure are impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to the public

interest, the agency may issue a rule

without providing notice and an

opportunity for public comment.1 EPA

has determined that there is good cause

for making today’s rule final without

prior proposal and opportunity for

comment because it merely clarifies

certain requirements and provides

technical corrections (corrects errors) to

the Hazardous Waste Combustors

NESHAP Final Rule (64 FR 52828,

September 30, 1999). The final rule was

subject to notice and comment, and the

clarified regulatory language reflects the

Agency’s views already set out during

the rulemaking and in past Agency

practice. Thus, notice and public

procedure for this action are

unnecessary. EPA finds that this

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B).

Part Four: How Is the Program

Delegated Under the Clean Air Act?

States can implement and enforce the

new MACT standards through their

delegated 112(l) CAA program and/or by

having title V authority. A State’s title

V authority is independent of whether

it has been delegated section 112(l) of

the CAA. Additional information on

state authority under the CAA may be

found in the HWC MACT rule (64 FR

52991).

Part Five: Analytic and Regulatory

Requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

is therefore not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget.

Because the agency has made a ‘‘good

cause’’ finding, see Section I above, that

this action is not subject to notice-andcomment requirements under the

Administrative Procedure Act or any

other statute (see Part Three: Good

Cause Exemption), it is not subject to

the regulatory flexibility provisions of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104–4). In

addition, this action does not

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments or impose a significant

intergovernmental mandate, as

described in sections 203 and 204 of

UMRA. This rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67271

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

This interpretive clarification and

technical correction action does not

involve technical standards; thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. The rule also

does not involve special consideration

of environmental justice related issues

as required by Executive Order 12898

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In

issuing this rule, we have taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct, as

required by section 3 of Executive Order

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

EPA has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. This rule does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Our

compliance with these statutes and

Executive Orders for the underlying rule

is discussed in the September 30, 1999,

Federal Register notice.

The Congressional Review Act, (5

U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. Section 808 allows

the issuing agency to make a good cause

finding that notice and public procedure

is impracticable, unnecessary or

contrary to the public interest. This

determination must be supported by a

brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As

stated previously, EPA has made such a

good cause finding, including the

reasons therefore, and established an

effective date of November 9, 2000. EPA

will submit a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication of the rule in the Federal

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Michael Shapiro,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40 chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 63.1201 is amended by

revising the definition of ‘‘Hazardous

waste incinerator’’ in paragraph (a) to

read as follows:

§ 63.1201 Definitions and acronyms used

in this subpart.

(a) * * *

Hazardous waste incinerator means a

device defined as an incinerator in

§ 260.10 of this chapter and that burns

hazardous waste at any time. For

purposes of this subpart, the hazardous

waste incinerator includes all associated

firing systems and air pollution control

devices, as well as the combustion

chamber equipment.

* * * * *

3. Section 63.1206 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(3)(i) to read as

follows:

§ 63.1206 When and how must you comply

with the standards and operating

requirements?

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) If you commenced construction or

reconstruction of your hazardous waste

combustor after April 19, 1996, you

must comply with this subpart by the

later of September 30, 1999 or the date

the source starts operations, except as

provided by paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this

section. The costs of retrofitting and

replacement of equipment that is

installed specifically to comply with

this subpart, between April 19, 1996

and a source’s compliance date, are not

considered to be reconstruction costs.

* * * * *

4. Section 63.1207 amended by

revising paragraphs (d)(1), (e)(1)(i)

introductory text, (e)(1)(i)(A), (e)(1)(ii),

and (e)(2) to read as follows:

§ 63.1207 What are the performance

testing requirements?

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) Comprehensive performance

testing. You must commence testing no

later than 61 months after the date of

commencing the previous

comprehensive performance test. If you

submit data in lieu of the initial

performance test, you must commence

the subsequent comprehensive

performance test within 61 months of

commencing the test used to provide the

data in lieu of the initial performance

test.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Comprehensive performance test.

You must submit to the Administrator a

notification of your intention to conduct

a comprehensive performance test and

CMS performance evaluation and a sitespecific test plan and CMS performance

evaluation test plan at least one year

before the performance test and

performance evaluation are scheduled

to begin.

(A) The Administrator will notify you

of approval or intent to deny approval

of the site-specific test plan and CMS

performance evaluation test plan within

9 months after receipt of the original

plan.

* * * * *

(ii) Confirmatory performance test.

You must submit to the Administrator a

notification of your intention to conduct

a confirmatory performance test and

CMS performance evaluation and a sitespecific test plan and CMS performance

evaluation test plan at least 60 calendar

days before the performance test is

scheduled to begin. The Administrator

will notify you of approval or intent to

deny approval of the site-specific test

plan and CMS performance evaluation

test plan within 30 calendar days after

receipt of the original test plans.

(2) After the Administrator has

approved the site-specific test plan and

CMS performance evaluation test plan,

you must make the test plans available

to the public for review. You must issue

a public notice announcing the approval

of the test plans and the location where

the test plans are available for review.

* * * * *

5. Section 63.1209 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(6)(i) and (b)(5)(i)

to read as follows:

§ 63.1209 What are the monitoring

requirements?

(a) * * *

67272 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(6) * * *

(i) Calculation of rolling averages

initially. The carbon monoxide or

hydrocarbon CEMS must begin

recording one-minute average values by

12:01 a.m. and hourly rolling average

values by 1:01 a.m., when 60 oneminute values will be available for

calculating the initial hourly rolling

average for those sources that come into

compliance on the regulatory

compliance date. Sources that elect to

come into compliance before the

regulatory compliance date must begin

recording one-minute and hourly rolling

average values within 60 seconds and

60 minutes (when 60 one-minute values

will be available for calculating the

initial hourly rolling average),

respectively, from the time at which

compliance begins.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) * * *

(i) Calculation of rolling averages

initially. Continuous monitoring

systems must begin recording oneminute average values by 12:01 a.m.,

hourly rolling average values by 1:01

a.m.(e.g., when 60 one-minute values

will be available for calculating the

initial hourly rolling average), and

twelve-hour rolling averages by 12:01

p.m.(e.g., when 720 one-minute

averages are available to calculate a 12-

hour rolling average), for those sources

that come into compliance on the

regulatory compliance date. Sources

that elect to come into compliance

before the regulatory compliance date

must begin recording one-minute,

hourly rolling average, and 12-hour

rolling average values within 60

seconds, 60 minutes (when 60 oneminute values will be available for

calculating the initial hourly rolling

average), and 720 minutes (when 720

one-minute values will be available for

calculating the initial 12-hour hourly

rolling average) respectively, from the

time at which compliance begins.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–28710 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–301074; FRL–6751–7]

RIN 2070–AB78

Sulfentrazone; Pesticide Tolerances

for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes

time-limited tolerances for combined

residues of sulfentrazone N-[2,4-

dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-

dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-

triazol-1-yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide

and its major metabolite 3-

hydroxymethyl sulfentrazone N-[2,4-

dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-

dihydro-3-hydroxymethyl-5-oxo-1H1,2,4-triazol-1-

yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide in or on

horseradish and sugarcane. This action

is in response to EPA’s granting of

emergency exemptions under section 18

of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act authorizing use of

the pesticide on horseradish and

sugarcane. This regulation establishes a

maximum permissible level for

combined residues of sulfentrazone in

these food commodities. The tolerances

will expire and are revoked on

December 31, 2002.

DATES: This regulation is effective

November 9, 2000. Objections and

requests for hearings, identified by

docket control number OPP–301074,

must be received by EPA on or before

January 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests may be submitted by

mail, in person, or by courier. Please

follow the detailed instructions for each

method as provided in Unit VII. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, your objections

and hearing requests must identify

docket control number OPP–301074 in

the subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Meredith Laws, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: 703 305–9366; and e-mail

address: laws.meredith@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by

this action if you are an agricultural

producer, food manufacturer, or

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially

affected categories and entities may

include, but are not limited to:

Categories NAICS

codes

Examples of potentially affected

entities

Industry 111 Crop production

112 Animal production

311 Food manufacturing

Categories NAICS

codes

Examples of potentially affected

entities

32532 Pesticide manufacturing

This listing is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. Other types of

entities not listed in the table could also

be affected. The North American

Industrial Classification System

(NAICS) codes have been provided to

assist you and others in determining

whether or not this action might apply

to certain entities. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of This

Document and Other Related

Documents?

1. Electronically.You may obtain

electronic copies of this document, and

certain other related documents that

might be available electronically, from

the EPA Internet Home Page at http://

www.epa.gov/. To access this

document, on the Home Page select

‘‘Laws and Regulations,’’ ‘‘Regulations

and Proposed Rules,’’ and then look up

the entry for this document under the

‘‘Federal Register—Environmental

Documents.’’ You can also go directly to

the Federal Register listings at http://

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person. The Agency has

established an official record for this

action under docket control number

OPP–301074. The official record

consists of the documents specifically

referenced in this action, and other

information related to this action,

including any information claimed as

Confidential Business Information (CBI).

This official record includes the

documents that are physically located in

the docket, as well as the documents

that are referenced in those documents.

The public version of the official record

does not include any information

claimed as CBI. The public version of

the official record, which includes

printed, paper versions of any electronic

comments submitted during an

applicable comment period is available

for inspection in the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),

Rm. 119, Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to

4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB

telephone number is (703) 305–5805.