```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67268-67272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28710]

[[Page 67268]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 [email protected], 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 67270]]

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 Sec. 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 Secs. 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 
one-minute 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 
Secs. 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 
Secs. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-and-comment 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

[[Page 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:

Sec. 63.1201  Definitions and acronyms used in this subpart.

    (a) * * *
    Hazardous waste incinerator means a device defined as an 
incinerator in Sec. 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:

Sec. 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:

Sec. 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 
site-specific 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 
site-specific 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:

Sec. 63.1209  What are the monitoring requirements?

    (a) * * *

[[Page 67272]]

    (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 one-
minute 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 one-minute 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 one-minute 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
```