Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 35087

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards. This

proposed rulemaking does not involve

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is

not considering the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

H. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This rule is

not subject to Executive Order 13045

because it is not an economically

significant rule as defined by Executive

Order 12866, and because it does not

involve decisions based on

environmental health or safety risks.

I. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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 this rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major’’ rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Chemical accident

prevention, Hazardous substances,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: This action is issued under the

authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412.

Dated: May 25, 2001.

Kathleen C. Callahan,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

Part 63, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A—General Provisions

2. Section 63.14 is amended by

revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference.

***

(d) * * *

(2) New Jersey’s Toxic Catastrophe

Prevention Act Program, (July 20, 1998),

Incorporation By Reference approved

for § 63.99 (a)(30)(i) of subpart E of this

part.

***

Subpart E—Approval of State

Programs and Delegation of Federal

Authorities

3. Section 63.99 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (a)(30) to read

as follows:

§ 63.99 Delegated Federal authorities.

(a) * * *

(30) New Jersey

(i) Affected sources must comply with

the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act

Program (TCPA), (July 20, 1998),

(incorporated by reference as specified

in § 63.14) as described in paragraph

(a)(30)(i)(A) of this section:

(A) Except for authorities identified as

not being delegated, the regulations

incorporated in New Jersey’s ‘‘Toxic

Catastrophe Prevention Act Program,’’

Title 7, Chapter 31, of the New Jersey

Administrative Code: Subchapter 1,

‘‘General Provisions’’ (sections 1.1 to

1.10 except for the definition of ‘‘What

if Checklist’’), Subchapter 2, ‘‘Hazard

Assessment,’’ Subchapter 3, ‘‘Minimum

Requirements for a Program 2 TCPA

Risk Management Program,’’ Subchapter

4, ‘‘Minimum Requirements for a

Program 3 TCPA Risk Management

Program,’’ Subchapter 5, ‘‘Emergency

Response,’’ Subchapter 6,

‘‘Extraordinarily Hazardous

Substances,’’ Subchapter 7, ‘‘Risk

Management Plan and TCPA

Submission,’’ and Subchapter 8, ‘‘Other

Federal Requirements,’’ (effective July

20, 1998), pertain to the sources affected

by 40 CFR part 68 and have been

approved under the procedures in

§§ 63.91, 63.93 and 63.95 to be

implemented and enforced in place of

40 CFR part 68, Subparts A through H,

as may be amended.

(1) Authorities not delegated:

(i) The New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection is not

delegated the Administrator’s authority

to implement and enforce New Jersey’s

Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act

Program, Title 7, Chapter 31, of the New

Jersey Administrative Code, in lieu of

the provisions of 40 CFR part 68 as they

apply to the regulation of processes that

are covered only because they contain

regulated quantities of liquid petroleum

gases (LPG) regulated under the New

Jersey Liquified Petroleum Gas Act of

1950 (N.J.S.A. 21:1B),

(ii) Pursuant to § 63.90(c) the New

Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection is not delegated the

Administrator’s authority to add or

delete substances from the list of

substances established under section

112(r) and set forth in 40 CFR 68.130.

[FR Doc. 01–16561 Filed 7–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63 and 264

[FRL–7001–8]

RIN 2050

NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Hazardous Waste

Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on targeted amendments to the

regulations for hazardous waste burning

cement kilns, lightweight aggregate

kilns, and incinerators promulgated on

September 30, 1999 (NESHAP: Final

35088 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Hazardous Waste Combustors). The

revisions make improvements to the

implementation of the emission

standards, primarily in the areas of

compliance, testing and monitoring. We

are approving these revisions to make it

easier to comply with the September 30,

1999 final rule.

DATES: This rule is effective on October

16, 2001 without further notice, unless

EPA receives adverse comment by

August 17, 2001. If we receive such

comment, we will publish a timely

withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public that this rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on

this direct final rule, you must send an

original and two copies of the comments

referencing Docket Number F–2001–

RC4F–FFFFF to: RCRA Information

Center (RIC), Office of Solid Waste

(5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Headquarters (EPA HQ), Ariel

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460–

0002; or, if using special delivery, such

as overnight express service: RIC,

Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson

Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington,

VA 22202. You may also submit

comments electronically following the

directions in the ‘‘Supplementary

Information’’ section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, call the RCRA Call

Center at 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1–

800–553–7672 (hearing impaired).

Callers within the Washington

Metropolitan Area must dial 703–412–

9810 or TDD 703–412–3323 (hearing

impaired). The RCRA Call Center is

open Monday–Friday, 9 am to 4 pm,

Eastern Standard Time. For more

information on specific aspects of the

NESHAP portion of this direct final

rule, contact Mr. Frank Behan at 703–

308–8476, behan.frank@epa.gov, or

write him at the Office of Solid Waste,

5302W, U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is

publishing this rule without prior

proposal because we view these as

noncontroversial amendments. We

anticipate no adverse comment because

we have worked with the interested

parties in their development. However,

in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of

today’s Federal Register publication, we

are publishing a separate document that

will serve as the proposal to amend the

emissions standards for hazardous

waste burning cement kilns, lightweight

aggregate kilns, and incinerators

promulgated on September 30, 1999, if

adverse comments are filed. This direct

final rule will be effective on October

16, 2001 without further notice unless

we receive adverse comment by August

17, 2001. If EPA receives adverse

comment on one or more distinct

amendments of this rulemaking, we will

publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register indicating which

provisions will become effective and

which provisions are being withdrawn

due to adverse comment. Any of the

distinct amendments in today’s

rulemaking for which we do not receive

adverse comment will become effective

on the date set above. We will address

all public comments in a subsequent

final rule based on the proposed rule,

including any adverse comment on any

distinct amendment, paragraph, or

section of today’s rule. We will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on any amendment must

do so at this time.

Electronic Submittal of Comments

You may submit comments

electronically by sending electronic

mail through the Internet to: rcradocket@epamail.epa.gov. You should

identify comments in electronic format

with the docket number F–2001–RC4F–

FFFFF. You must submit all electronic

comments as an ASCII (text) file,

avoiding the use of special characters or

any type of encryption. The official

record for this action will be kept in the

paper form. Accordingly, we will

transfer all comments received

electronically into paper form and place

them in the official record which will

also include all comments submitted

directly in writing. The official record is

the paper record maintained at the RIC

as described above. We may seek

clarification of electronic comments that

are garbled in transmission or during

conversion to paper form.

You should not electronically submit

any confidential business information

(CBI). You must submit an original and

two copies of CBI under separate cover

to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer,

Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S.

EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Acronyms Used in the Rule

BIF—Boilers and industrial furnaces

CAA—Clean Air Act

CEMS—Continuous emissions

monitors/monitoring system

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations

DOC—Documentation of Compliance

DRE—Destruction and removal

efficiency

dscf—Dry standard cubic feet

dscm—Dry standard cubic meter

EPA/USEPA—United States

Environmental Protection Agency

gr—Grains

HAP—Hazardous air pollutant

HWC—Hazardous waste combustor

MACT—Maximum Achievable Control

Technology

MTEC—Maximum theoretical emissions

concentration

NESHAP—National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NIC—Notice of Intent to Comply

NOC—Notification of compliance

NODA—Notice of data availability

OPL—Operating parameter limit

PM—Particulate matter

POHC—Principal organic hazardous

constituent

ppmv—Parts per million by volume

RCRA—Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act

SVM—Semivolatile metals (lead and

cadmium)

μg—Microgram

Table of Contents

Part One: Overview and Background for

This Direct Final Rule

I. What Is the Purpose of This Direct Final

Rule?

II. What Is the Phase I Rule?

III. What Related Actions Have Been Taken

Since Publication of the Phase I Rule?

Part Two: NESHAP—Amendments to the

HWC Final Rule

I. Hazardous Waste Residence Time

II. Deletion of One-Time Notification of

Compliance with Alternative Clean Air

Act Standards

III. Use of DRE Data in Lieu of Testing

IV. Time Extension for Waiving PM and

Opacity Standards to Correlate PM

CEMS

V. Alternative Hydrocarbon Monitoring

Location for Short Cement Kilns Burning

Hazardous Waste at Locations Other

Than the ‘‘Hot’’ End of the Kiln

VI. Alternative to the Particulate Matter

Standard for Incinerators Feeding Low

Levels of Metals

VII. Deletion of Baghouse Inspection

Requirements

VIII. Feedstream Analysis for Organic HAPs

IX. Revisions to the Metals Feedrate

Extrapolation Procedures

X. Feedrate Limits for Undetectable

Constituents

XI. Revisions to Assist Early Compliance

XII. Accuracy Requirements for Weight

Measurement Devices

XIII. Deletion of Requirement for Establishing

a Scrubber Liquid Minimum pH

Operating Parameter Limit for Mercury

Control for Wet Scrubbers

Part Three: Analytical and Regulatory

Requirements

I. Executive Order 12866

II. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 35089

III. Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’

IV. Environmental Justice Executive Order

12898

V. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

VI. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

VII. Consultation with Tribal Governments

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

IX. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995

X. The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.

801 et seq., as Added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996)

Part Four: State Authority

Part One: Overview and Background

for This Direct Final Rule

I. What Is the Purpose of This Direct

Final Rule?

Today’s notice makes specific changes

to the NESHAP: Final Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous

Waste Combustors (Phase I) rule,

published September 30, 1999 (64 FR

52828). After promulgation, commenters

(primarily the regulated community)

raised numerous potential issues

through informal comments and during

litigation settlement discussions. After

considering the issues raised, we have

decided to promulgate a limited number

of changes to the final rule, most of

them relating to compliance and

implementation.

In a separate action today, we are

proposing and soliciting comment on

several additional amendments to the

Phase I rule. If you wish to comment on

those amendments, you must submit

comments following the directions in

the ADDRESSES section of that action.

The remaining sections of this part

provide additional background

information on the Phase I final rule.

II. What Is the Phase I Rule?

In the Phase I final rule, we adopted

National Emissions Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants to control

toxic emissions from the burning of

hazardous waste in incinerators, cement

kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns.

These emission standards created a

technology-based national cap for

hazardous air pollutant emissions from

the combustion of hazardous waste in

these devices. Additional risk-based

conditions necessary to protect human

health and the environment may be

imposed (assuming a proper, sitespecific justification) under section

3005(c)(3) of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) requires emissions standards for

hazardous air pollutants to be based on

the performance of the Maximum

Achievable Control Technology

(MACT). These standards apply to the

three major categories of hazardous

waste burners—incinerators, cement

kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns.

For purposes of today’s notice, we refer

to these three categories collectively as

hazardous waste combustors (HWC).

Hazardous waste combustors burn about

80% of the hazardous waste combusted

annually within the United States. The

Phase I HWC MACT standards are

expected to achieve significant

reductions in the amount of hazardous

air pollutants being emitted each year.

Additionally, the Phase I HWC MACT

rule satisfies our obligation under RCRA

(the main statute regulating hazardous

waste management) to ensure that

hazardous waste combustion is

conducted in a manner protective of

human health and the environment. By

using both CAA and RCRA authorities

in a harmonized fashion, we consolidate

regulatory control of hazardous waste

combustion into a single set of

regulations, thereby minimizing the

potential for conflicting or duplicative

federal requirements.

More information on the Phase I HWC

MACT rule is available electronically

from the World Wide Web at

www.epa.gov/hwcmact.

III. What Related Actions Have Been

Taken Since Publication of the Phase I

Rule?

On November 19, 1999, we issued a

technical correction to the Phase I HWC

MACT final rule (64 FR 63209). It

clarified our intent with respect to

certain aspects of the Notification of

Intent to Comply and Progress Report

requirements of the 1998 ‘‘Fast Track’’

final rule (63 FR 33783). Additionally,

specific to the Phase I HWC MACT final

rule, we corrected several typographical

errors and omissions.

On July 10, 2000, we issued a second

technical correction to the Phase I HWC

MACT final rule (65 FR 42292). This

action corrected additional

typographical errors and clarified

several issues to make the Phase I rule

easier to understand and implement.

This action also supplied one omission

from the technical correction published

on November 19, 1999, and made one

correction to the related June 19, 1998

‘‘Fast Track’’ final rule (63 FR 33783).

On July 25, 2000, the Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

decided Chemical Manufacturers

Association v. EPA, 217 F. 3d 861 (D.C.

Cir. No. 99–1236). The court held that

EPA had the legal authority to

promulgate a requirement of early

cessation of hazardous waste burning

activity for those sources not intending

to comply with the MACT emission

standards. However, the court also held

that we had not adequately explained

our reasons for imposing the early

cessation requirement. As a result, the

court vacated the early cessation

requirement and the related Notice of

Intent to Comply (NIC) and Progress

Report requirements. This vacature took

effect on October 11, 2000. Since the

requirements were not vacated until

after sources were required to submit

their NICs (on October 2, 2000), we

determined that the court’s action does

not impact a source’s ability to request

a RCRA permit modification using the

streamlined procedures of 40 CFR

270.42(j)(1). As long as a source

complied with the NIC provisions

(including filing the NIC before the

provision was vacated), the source has

met the requirements in 40 CFR

270.42(j)(1) and is therefore eligible for

the streamlined RCRA permit

modification process. The court’s

decision does not impact the emission

standards or compliance schedule for

the other requirements of the HWC

NESHAP Subpart EEE.

On November 9, 2000, we issued a

third technical correction to the Phase I

HWC MACT final rule (65 FR 67268). It

clarified our intent with respect to the

applicability of new source versus

existing source standards for hazardous

waste incinerators. This action also

clarified three issues to make the Phase

I rule easier to understand and

implement.

On May 14, 2001, we issued a final

rule implementing two court orders that

removed affected provisions of the

Phase I HWC MACT final rule from the

Code of Federal Regulations (66 FR

24270). This action removed the Notice

of Intent to Comply provisions

(discussed above) and certain operating

parameter limits of baghouses and

electrostatic precipitators.

Part Two: NESHAP—Amendments to

the HWC Final Rule

I. Hazardous Waste Residence Time

‘‘Hazardous waste residence time’’ is

defined at § 63.1201(a) as the time

elapsed from cutoff of the flow of

hazardous waste into the combustor

(including, for example, the time

required for liquids to flow from the

cutoff valve into the combustor) until

solid, liquid, and gaseous materials from

the hazardous waste, excluding residues

that may adhere to combustion chamber

surfaces, exit the combustion chamber.

As stakeholders recognize, hazardous

waste residence time has significant

regulatory and enforcement

implications. For example, if sources

35090 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1Another special case for addressing residence

time is vitrification melter units, where certain

inorganic waste components are incorporated into

the vitrified melt, and where it is not desirable to

remove the entire melt (i.e., the melt is removed

from the chamber at lengthy, infrequent intervals).

In these cases, it may be appropriate for sources to

recommend an alternative ‘‘effective waste

treatment’’ residence time under § 63.1209(g)(1).

were to exceed an operating

requirement or emission standard after

the hazardous waste residence time has

expired, it is not a violation if the

exceedance occurred because of a startup, shut-down, or malfunction and

sources follow the procedures and

corrective measures prescribed in the

start-up, shut-down, and malfunction

plan. In addition, after the hazardous

waste residence time has expired,

sources may elect to comply with

emission standards the Agency has

promulgated under sections 112 and

129 of the Clean Air Act for source

categories that do not burn hazardous

waste. They would comply with these

standards in lieu of the hazardous waste

combustor standards of Subpart EEE,

Part 63. See § 63.1206(b)(1).

Since promulgation of the hazardous

waste combustor rule, stakeholders have

raised an issue: what is the hazardous

waste residence time for sources that

continuously recycle hazardous wastederived materials?

We are taking direct final action so

that recycled hazardous waste-derived

materials should not be considered

when calculating hazardous waste

residence time.1 See revision to the

definition of hazardous waste residence

time at § 63.1201(a).

A. What Causes Recycle Loops and

What Is the Potential Consequence?

Cement kilns, and possibly other

hazardous waste combustors,

continuously volatilize and condense

toxic constituents derived from

hazardous waste in recycle loops within

the kiln. For example, chlorine and

semivolatile metal hazardous air

pollutants, such as lead and cadmium,

will volatilize in the kiln and partition

to the combustion gas. A portion of

these waste-derived, toxic materials will

condense before the combustion gas

exits the kiln and will partition back

into the raw material bed. Thus, these

waste-derived, toxic materials are

recycled internally within the kiln.

In addition, cement kilns generally

recycle a portion of their collected

particulate matter, known as cement

kiln dust, back into the kiln. This

cement kiln dust contains toxic

constituents derived from hazardous

waste fuel, including metals that are

hazardous air pollutants.

Stakeholders request that these

recycle loops not be considered when

calculating hazardous waste residence

time. Stakeholders note that if the

hazardous waste-derived materials in

these recycle loops were to be

considered in calculating residence

time, then: (1) It would be very

problematic to document when the

recycled waste constituents finally exit

the kiln; and (2) the hazardous waste

residence time would not elapse for an

unnecessarily protracted period of time.

B. How Are We Addressing This Issue?

We conclude that recycle loops need

not be considered in calculating

hazardous waste residence time to

ensure compliance with the emission

standards. Emissions of semivolatile

metals, low volatile metals, and

particulate matter immediately prior to

a waste feed cutoff will typically be well

below levels demonstrated during the

performance test and thus below the

emission standard. This is because

sources typically spike metals (add extra

metals to the waste fuel) during

performance testing to establish a wide

envelope of operating limits to reflect

the maximum operating variability they

are likely to encounter in actual

operation, providing sufficient operating

flexibility for unexpected situations. We

do not believe, though, that conditions

will invariably reflect this maximum

variability before a waste feed cutoff. In

addition, notwithstanding recycle loops,

hazardous waste-derived metals

emissions will begin to decrease upon

waste feed cutoff. The levels will

continue to decrease while the

hazardous waste residence time elapses

and will decrease to very low levels

after the electrostatic precipitator or

baghouse undergoes a cleaning cycle.

Therefore, the metal emission standards

should not be exceeded due to recycle

loops containing hazardous wastederived materials.

For these reasons, we are revising the

definition of hazardous waste residence

time at § 63.1201(a).

II. Deletion of One-Time Notification of

Compliance With Alternative Clean Air

Act Standards

If a source is not feeding hazardous

waste and the hazardous waste

residence time has expired, the source

may elect to comply temporarily with

alternative, otherwise applicable

standards promulgated under the

authority of sections 112 and 129 of the

Clean Air Act. If a source makes this

election, § 63.1206(b)(1)(ii)(A) currently

requires the source to submit to the

Administrator a written, one-time

notification documenting compliance

with those requirements and standards.

The rule requires this notice to alert

regulatory officials that a source claims

to have met the regulatory requirements

for the otherwise applicable standards

(i.e., section 112 and 129 standards the

source would be subject to if the source

did not burn hazardous waste). For

example, a hazardous waste burning

cement kiln may elect to comply with

the MACT standards and operating

requirements applicable to Portland

cement manufacturing facilities

provided under Subpart LLL after the

hazardous waste residence time has

transpired. The notice enables

regulatory officials to know which

sources claim to be in full compliance

with such otherwise applicable

standards and will assist those officials

in establishing source inspection

priorities.

Stakeholders have raised two issues

since promulgation, however, that have

led us to conclude that this notification

requirement is unnecessary. First,

stakeholders have indicated that

virtually all sources are likely to want

to have the option to switch temporarily

to compliance under otherwise

applicable section 112 or 129 standards

at some point during their operations.

Thus, the notice would not have the

intended effect of singling out those

sources that chose to do so for the

purpose of establishing inspection

priorities.

Stakeholders also point out that this

notification requirement is duplicative

of the title V compliance certification

requirement of § 70.5(c)(9) that requires

permit applicants to include in their

application a detailed description of the

source’s compliance status and a

certification by a responsible official of

compliance with all applicable

requirements. In addition, stakeholders

state that title V sources must submit

annual certifications of compliance with

all applicable requirements. See

§ 70.6(c)(5). Thus, stakeholders note that

the only scenario where the

§ 63.1206(b)(1)(ii)(A) notification

requirement is not duplicative is for

sources that have not yet been required

to submit a certification under title V.

In addition, if sources anticipate

complying temporarily with the

alternative standards for nonhazardous

waste combustors after the hazardous

waste residence time has expired,

sources may include appropriate terms

and conditions in the title V permit

using the ‘‘reasonably anticipated

operating scenario’’ provisions of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 35091

2Note that Subpart EEE incorporates this

provision as § 63.1209(q), operating under different

modes of operation.

3 If hazardous waste is fed at a location other than

the normal flame zone, sources must conduct

periodic DRE testing. See § 63.1206(b)(7)(ii).

§ 70.6(a)(9).2 Once both scenarios (i.e.,

for burning hazardous waste and not

burning hazardous waste) are included

in the permit, sources simply document

in the operating record when they

switch from one scenario to another.

Finally, we also note that this

notification requirement has been

targeted for deletion under the Office of

Solid Waste Burden Reduction Project.

See 64 FR 32859 for the goals and

objectives of this project.

For these reasons, we are deleting the

notification requirement of

§ 63.1206(b)(1)(ii)(A).

III. Use of DRE Data in Lieu of Testing

We are revising two provisions

associated with the allowance to use

previously collected data in lieu of the

initial performance test or the

Destruction and Removal Efficiency

(DRE) test under §§ 63.1206(b)(6),

63.1206(b)(7), and 63.1207(c)(2). We are

taking final action to: (1) Remove the

existing restriction preventing the use of

DRE test data collected prior to March

1998 to document compliance with the

DRE standard 3; and (2) eliminate the

requirement limiting previous data to

only RCRA permit issuance or

reissuance testing results.

A. Why Are We Allowing DRE Data

Obtained Prior to March 1998 To Be

Used in Lieu of a New DRE Test?

Stakeholders question why the rule

restricts the age of DRE data for sources

required to conduct only one DRE test

for the life of the source. For DRE

testing, the rule states that if you fire

hazardous waste in the flame zone, and

the system is not modified, then you are

only required to demonstrate

compliance with the MACT DRE

emissions standard once over the

operational life of the device. However,

as part of the final rule data in lieu

provisions, we limit the use of previous

test data submitted for the initial

comprehensive performance test to data

collected after March 1998.

Stakeholders believe that this limit

substantially reduces the number of

sources that can submit previous DRE

test data in lieu of conducting an

additional DRE test. They say that most

sources conducted their RCRA trial

burns before March 1998 and therefore

would be ineligible to submit these

tests. Stakeholders point out that if a

one-time test is sufficient for the life of

the source, then we should not place a

limit on previous RCRA data. We agree

with this logic and are revising the rule

today to require testing only for those

sources that are modified or that fire at

a location other than the flame zone.

B. Why Are We Allowing the Use of

Data Obtained for Purposes Other Than

RCRA Permit Issuance or Reissuance?

Stakeholders also express concern

about the restrictions the rule places on

the type of data that can substitute for

a MACT performance test. The rule now

stipulates that only data collected for

the purpose of RCRA permit issuance or

re-issuance can be submitted as in lieu

data. Our primary concern with in lieu

data submittals is to ensure data quality.

Upon reevaluation, we believe data that

is not associated with RCRA permit

issuance or re-issuance can be reviewed

by the regulatory authority to determine

whether they are suitable for

demonstrating compliance with the DRE

standard and for setting MACT

operating limits. We now understand

that several sources engage in other

types of CAA performance testing with

oversight and quality assurance

requirements comparable to RCRA

testing. This modification will allow

sources to coordinate CAA and RCRA

testing that may facilitate early

compliance. In today’s direct final rule,

we are modifying the current data in

lieu provisions to allow sources to

submit any test data in lieu of

conducting a MACT performance test

provided that the data meet our quality

assurance requirements (except for DRE,

as discussed above). We emphasize that

a data in lieu of request must provide

adequate quality assurance and quality

control documentation. In most cases,

tests conducted without significant

regulatory oversight (and particularly

without a reasonable opportunity for

significant oversight) would not be

considered to be of sufficiently known

quality for use as data in lieu of testing.

For these reasons, we are revising the

requirements of §§ 63.1206(b)(6),

63.1206(b)(7), and 63.1207(c)(2).

IV. Time Extension for Waiving PM and

Opacity Standards To Correlate PM

CEMS

For facilities voluntarily using a

particulate matter (PM) continuous

emissions monitoring system (CEMS),

the final rule allows the particulate

matter standard and operating

parameter limits used to ensure

compliance with that standard to be

waived for up to a 96-hour period

during a PM CEMS correlation test. (See

64 FR 53046). This waiver period is

necessary because PM CEMS outputs

must be correlated to manual method

results and during this time it is

sometimes necessary to exceed the

applicable operating parameter limits to

produce an accurate correlation. The

correlation is most accurate over the

range of particulate matter emissions

tested, so correlation tests should be

performed over the full range of

expected particulate matter emissions

for the particular facility. We

determined that allowing a facility to

operate above the particulate matter

standard for a 96-hour period is

reasonable because this is a sufficient

amount of time to: (1) Increase

emissions to the desired level and reach

system equilibrium; (2) perform

correlation tests at the equilibrium

condition; (3) return to normal

equipment settings indicative of

compliance with emissions standards

and operating parameter limits; and (4)

achieve equilibrium at normal

conditions. (64 FR 52929).

Stakeholders contend that 96 hours

may be too short of a time period to

fulfill the testing requirements and that

the regulations should allow for a longer

time period. From the limited

information available on the time

required for PM CEMS correlation, they

believe that 96 hours may be

insufficient to complete the testing,

particularly for HWCs that burn a

variety of solid wastes. Petitioners

suggest we change this provision to

allow periods longer than 96 hours with

the Administrator’s approval.

In a March 2, 2000 letter to EPA,

stakeholders describe the time necessary

to complete PM CEMS correlation tests

at an Eli Lilly incinerator as an

indication of the need for additional

time beyond the existing 96 hours. In

Phase II of Eli Lilly’s CEMS tests, Eli

Lilly needed approximately 54 hours to

achieve a successful correlation (Eli

Lilly collected 34 data points requiring

approximately three hours per data

point above the particulate matter

standard). This 54 hours only

represented the testing time and did not

include pre-and post-testing

adjustments or the time before and after

the tests when the incinerator was

reaching equilibrium. The petitioners

also point out that Eli Lilly had

personnel with extensive experience in

adjusting their incinerator to achieve

desired HWC MACT particulate matter

concentrations. Facilities with

personnel who do not have this

experience will go through a lengthy

learning process and may need even

more time. Therefore, stakeholders

believe the current 96-hour allowance is

not adequate to correlate a PM CEMS

device in an accurate manner.

35092 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

4 In today’s action, we are defining ‘‘preheater

tower combustion gas monitoring location.’’ See

definition in § 63.1201.

5See 56 FR at 7158.

6See ‘‘Final Technical Support Document for

Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT Standards,

Volume I: Description of Source Categories,’’ July

1999, for a process description of precalciner

cement kilns.

7The alternative hydrocarbon standard would not

replace the hydrocarbon standard of 20 ppmv in the

main stack as provided in § 63.1206(b)(13)(i).

Cement kilns would continue to have the option to

monitor hydrocarbons in the main stack.

Based on the Eli Lilly experience and

discussions with PM CEMS testing

personnel, we agree that the 96-hour

period may not be sufficient for

hazardous waste combustors to correlate

their PM CEMS. Furthermore, we do not

want a 96-hour time limit to be a

disincentive to use of PM CEMS. We

conclude a site specific extension is the

appropriate mechanism to ensure

accurate calibrations and to encourage

the use of particulate matter continuous

emissions monitoring systems.

Therefore, we are adding the phrase

‘‘unless more time is approved by the

Administrator’’ to § 63.1206(b)(8)(v).

V. Alternative Hydrocarbon Monitoring

Location for Short Cement Kilns Burning

Hazardous Waste at Locations Other

Than the ‘‘Hot’’ End of the Kiln

Section 63.1206(b)(13)(i) requires new

and existing cement kilns to comply

with a main stack hydrocarbon standard

of 20 ppmv if hazardous waste is fed at

a location other than the kiln end where

fuels are normally fired and products

are normally discharged (this is also

described as the ‘‘hot’’ end of the kiln).

These other locations can include firing

hazardous waste at midkiln, at the

upper end of the kiln where raw

materials are fed, or in the calciner. In

addition, if hazardous waste is fed at

these other locations, the rule does not

give a cement kiln the option to comply

with a carbon monoxide standard in the

main stack in lieu of the hydrocarbon

standard.

After promulgation of the final rule,

stakeholders provided additional

information supporting an alternative to

the mandatory monitoring location for

hydrocarbons in the main stack for

short, dry process cement kilns. In

today’s notice, we are revising the

requirements of § 63.1206(b)(13) to

allow short, dry process cement kilns to

continuously monitor hydrocarbons in

both the alkali by-pass duct and at a

‘‘preheater tower combustion gas

monitoring location’’ as an alternative to

hydrocarbon monitoring in the main

stack.4 In addition, we are revising the

requirements of § 63.1206(b)(13) to

allow short dry process cement kilns to

continuously monitor both carbon

monoxide in the alkali by-pass duct and

hydrocarbons at a ‘‘preheater tower

combustion gas monitoring location’’

under limited circumstances.

A. Why Are We Finalizing an

Alternative to Hydrocarbon Monitoring

in the Main Stack for Certain Cement

Kilns?

At the time of the final rule, we were

not aware of any short, dry process

cement kilns firing hazardous waste at

other locations than the kiln end where

clinker product is discharged. As a

result, we adopted the approach used in

the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF)

rule 5 to control emissions of organic

hazardous air pollutants from cement

kilns that fire hazardous waste at these

other locations as the best regulatory

model. The BIF rule requires cement

kilns that fire hazardous waste at

locations other than the kiln end where

clinker product is normally discharged

to comply with a hydrocarbon limit in

the main stack. Since promulgation of

the rule, however, stakeholders

submitted information about a new

precalciner 6 cement kiln that will fire

hazardous waste at locations other than

the kiln end where clinker is normally

discharged. One stakeholder also

indicated that the main stack

hydrocarbon standard may not be

achievable due to hydrocarbons released

from the raw materials in the upper

stages of the preheater tower. Therefore,

we are finalizing an alternative to main

stack hydrocarbon monitoring that

addresses a hazardous waste firing

scenario not specifically considered

during the development of the rule.

B. What Alternative to Hydrocarbon

Monitoring in the Main Stack Are We

Finalizing for Cement Kilns?

As an alternative to hydrocarbon

monitoring in the main stack,7 we are

allowing short, dry process cement kilns

to continuously comply with a

hydrocarbon limit, and, under limited

circumstances, a carbon monoxide limit

at two separate locations within the kiln

system. The two monitoring locations

are: (1) In the alkali by-pass duct; and

(2) in the upper stages of the preheater

tower. The latter location is termed a

‘‘preheater tower combustion gas

monitoring location.’’ These two

locations are located downstream (in

terms of gas flow) of all hazardous waste

firing locations. In addition, all

combustion gases pass one of these two

locations.

The stakeholders claim that

continuously monitoring hydrocarbons

at both locations provides the best

assessment of the quality of combustion

and offers the same level of assurance

that hazardous waste is effectively

combusted as does a main stack

hydrocarbon standard. Monitoring for

efficient combustion of the hazardous

wastes at these two locations also avoids

the potential problem of hydrocarbons

generated from organics in the raw

materials and entrained in the gas

stream.

1. Why Is Hydrocarbon Monitoring in

the Alkali By-Pass Duct Appropriate?

Short, dry process cement kilns may

be equipped with an alkali by-pass

system where 10–30 percent of the

rotary kiln combustion gas is diverted to

a separate air pollution control device

and sometimes to a separate stack.

These kiln gases are diverted to avoid a

build-up of metal salts that can

adversely affect cement manufacturing

operations. Hydrocarbon levels in the

by-pass duct are indicative of the

combustion efficiency of hazardous

waste and fossil fuels fired in the rotary

kiln. This is because the by-pass duct

draws off combustion gases from the

kiln prior to the point that hydrocarbons

generated by organic materials in the

raw material can be problematic.

We are finalizing a hydrocarbon

standard of 10 ppmv in the by-pass duct

(in addition to the preheater tower

combustion gas monitoring location

standards discussed below) for new and

existing cement kilns that fire hazardous

waste at a location other than the kiln

end that clinker product is discharged

because this level is indicative of good

combustion conditions in the rotary

kiln. Limiting hydrocarbons to 10 ppmv

in the by-pass is identical to how a

cement kiln with a by-pass duct or

midkiln sampling system that only feeds

hazardous waste at the kiln end where

clinker product is normally discharged

is regulated in the final rule. See

§§ 63.1204(a)(5)(i)(B) and (b)(5)(i)(A)(2).

For the same reasons a hydrocarbon

standard of 10 ppmv was adopted in the

rule, we likewise believe a hydrocarbon

standard of 10 ppmv is appropriate in

this situation. See 64 FR at 52887.

In today’s direct final rule, with the

exception discussed below, we are not

allowing new and existing short, dry

process cement kilns the option to

comply with a carbon monoxide

standard in the alkali by-pass duct when

feeding hazardous wastes at any point

in the rotary kiln downstream (in terms

of gas flow) of the kiln end where

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 35093

8Particulate matter is not a CAA HAP. The HWC

MACT rule establishes a particulate matter standard

to control non-mercury CAA HAP metals that are

not directly controlled with an emission standard.

See 64 FR at 52846–47.

clinker product is normally discharged.

We do not allow this option because we

do not have sufficient emissions data,

using this alternative hazardous waste

firing scenario, to fully evaluate the

impacts. We are concerned that organic

compounds in the hazardous waste

could be thermally cracked to form

pyrolysis by-products rather than be

completely combusted. If so, little

carbon monoxide may be generated by

the process and monitoring carbon

monoxide alone would not ensure that

hydrocarbons were minimized. Without

these emissions data, we believe

hydrocarbon monitoring is a more

conservative, direct surrogate for control

of organic hazardous air pollutants than

are carbon monoxide emissions.

2. Under What Circumstances Is

Monitoring of Carbon Monoxide in the

Alkali By-Pass Appropriate?

There may be limited circumstances

where carbon monoxide monitoring (as

an option to hydrocarbon monitoring) in

the alkali by-pass duct may be

appropriate. An example would be a

cement kiln whose only hazardous

waste firing location upstream (in terms

of gas flow) of the point where

combustion gases are diverted into the

alkali by-pass duct is at the kiln end

where products are normally

discharged. Another example would be

a cement kiln that only fires hazardous

waste at a location(s) downstream (in

terms of gas flow) of the point where

combustion gases are diverted into the

alkali by-pass duct. Firing hazardous

waste under these circumstances

reduces our concern that organic

compounds in the hazardous waste

could be thermally cracked to form

pyrolysis by-products rather than be

completely combusted.

We are finalizing a carbon monoxide

standard of 100 ppmv (as an option to

hydrocarbon monitoring) in the by-pass

duct (in addition to the preheater tower

combustion gas monitoring location

standards discussed below) for new and

existing cement kilns whose only

hazardous waste firing location

upstream of the point where combustion

gases are diverted into the alkali by-pass

duct is at the kiln end where products

are normally discharged. Thus, if

sources feed hazardous waste at the

upper end of the kiln where raw

materials are fed, or any other location

upstream of where gases enter the bypass duct other than the kiln end where

products are discharged, then a cement

kiln would not be eligible for this option

to monitor carbon monoxide instead of

hydrocarbons.

We are finalizing a carbon monoxide

standard of 100 ppmv for control of

organic hazardous air pollutants. A level

of 100 ppmv is the same level that we

established in the rule for cement kilns

that only fire hazardous waste at the

kiln end where products are normally

discharged. See §§ 63.1204(a)(5)(i)(A)

and (b)(5)(i)(A)(1). For the same reasons

a carbon monoxide standard of 100

ppmv was adopted in the rule, we

likewise believe the same carbon

monoxide standard of 100 ppmv is

appropriate in this situation. See 64 FR

at 52887.

In addition, if a source elects to

comply with the carbon monoxide

standard in the by-pass duct, we are

requiring the source to demonstrate

compliance with a hydrocarbon

standard of 10 ppmv in the by-pass duct

during the comprehensive performance

test. This is consistent with the

requirements for cement kilns that

comply with a carbon monoxide

standard in the by-pass duct when only

firing hazardous wastes at the kiln end

where clinker is normally discharged.

See §§ 63.1204(a)(5)(i)(A) and

(b)(5)(i)(A)(1).

3. Why Is Hydrocarbon Monitoring at

the ‘‘Preheater Tower Combustion Gas

Monitoring Location’’ Appropriate?

Since only 10–30 percent of

combustion gas is routed through the

alkali by-pass duct, most short, dry

process cement kilns’ combustion gas

travels through the cyclone stages of the

preheater tower. Typically, raw material

is introduced at the top of the preheater

tower, which is a series of cyclones. Hot

kiln flue gases move counter-current

through the downward-moving raw

material prior to introduction into the

cement kiln. The cyclones are used to

separate the raw material from the

combustion gases and collected raw

material sequentially is dropped into

the next lower stage. Fossil and

hazardous waste fuels can be fired in a

calciner burner prior to the series of

cyclones to further increase the raw

material temperatures prior to

introduction into the cement kiln.

A stakeholder identified a flue gas

sampling location within the preheater

tower where they believe a

representative sample of combustion gas

can be continuously monitored for

hydrocarbons to demonstrate efficient

combustion of the hazardous wastes.

The stakeholder states that the preheater

tower combustion gas monitoring

location allows for continuous

monitoring of hydrocarbons at a

location downstream of the last point of

hazardous waste fuel combustion, yet

upstream of where non-fuel

hydrocarbons from organics in the raw

materials are generated and entrained in

the gas stream. This location is termed

a ‘‘preheater tower combustion gas

monitoring location.’’

We are finalizing a hydrocarbon

standard of 10 ppmv at the preheater

tower combustion gas monitoring

location (in addition to the alkali bypass duct standards above) as an

alternative to the main stack standard of

20 ppmv. Monitoring of hydrocarbons at

the preheater tower combustion gas

monitoring location is necessary to

control emissions of organic hazardous

air pollutants. We are finalizing a

hydrocarbon standard of 10 ppmv for

the same reasons discussed above for

monitoring in the alkali by-pass duct. In

addition, we are not allowing carbon

monoxide monitoring at the preheater

tower combustion gas monitoring

location as an alternative to

hydrocarbon monitoring for the same

reasons discussed above for monitoring

in the alkali by-pass duct.

VI. Alternative to the Particulate Matter

Standard for Incinerators Feeding Low

Levels of Metals

The final rule establishes a particulate

matter emissions standard of 0.015 gr/

dscf for new and existing incinerators as

a surrogate to control non-mercury,

CAA metal hazardous air pollutants

(HAPs).8 The rule also offers an

alternative particulate matter emissions

standard of 0.03 gr/dscf for incinerators

that demonstrate the use of superior

feedrate control of HAP metals in their

hazardous waste feed. See

§ 63.1206(b)(14). Today, we are

eliminating the alternative particulate

matter emissions standard and replacing

it with an alternative metal emissions

control requirement. An incinerator

source may elect to comply with this

alternative requirement in lieu of

complying with the 0.015 gr/dscf

particulate matter standard. This source

would remain subject to the existing

standard for particulate matter in RCRA

rules of 0.08 gr/dscf (a standard which

would remain in the source’s RCRA

permit, should a source elect to comply

with the alternative standard). See

§ 264.343(c). We are finalizing this

option because we conclude that the

alternative metal emissions control

requirements control metal HAP

emissions to levels based on MACT

absent a particulate matter standard.

35094 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

9We developed the term ‘‘Maximum Theoretical

Emissions Concentration’’ to compare metals

feedrates across sources of different sizes. MTEC is

defined as the metals feedrate divided by the gas

flowrate, and is expressed in μg/dscm.

10Sources electing to comply with these

alternative requirements will be subject to the

RCRA PM standard in their RCRA permit. The

RCRA permit must include applicable operating

limits that ensure compliance with the RCRA PM

limit. Permit writers can impose a lower PM limit

where necessary pursuant to the omnibus authority

under section 3005(c)(3) of RCRA.

11These MACT defining feedrates are set out in

‘‘Final Technical Support Document for HWC

Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT

Standards and Technologies,’’ Chapter 6, July 1999.

A. Why Is EPA Eliminating the

Alternative Particulate Matter Standard

and Replacing It With Alternative Metal

Emission Control Requirements?

We included the alternative

particulate matter standard in the final

rule after receiving comments that a

particulate matter standard of 0.015 gr/

dscf is not an appropriate surrogate to

control metal hazardous air pollutants

in situations where the particulate

matter does not contain significant

levels of metal HAPs. For example, this

would include situations where the

hazardous waste does not contain

metals, and the resulting ash contains

only relatively benign salts. (See

§ 63.1206(b)(14) and 64 FR 52972 for

further discussion). To be eligible for

the original alternative standard,

incinerators must demonstrate that: (1)

Non-mercury, metal HAPs are not

detected in any feedstream; and (2) the

maximum theoretical emission

concentrations (MTEC) 9 for semivolatile

and low volatile HAP metals are lower

than the corresponding semivolatile and

low volatile metal emission standards,

assuming that non-detect metals are

present at one-half the detection limit.

Based on additional information from

stakeholders, we have determined that

this approach did not provide the

intended relief to incinerators with low

levels of hazardous air pollutant metals

in their feedstreams for two reasons.

First, even for incinerators with very

low levels of these metals in their feeds,

over time metals measurements above

detection limits will occasionally occur.

This can occur as a result of trace metal

contamination due to corrosion and/or

inherent impurities in raw materials, as

well as potential anomalies and

variability of the analytical

measurement method. Second, high

detection limits that occur as a result of

complex feedstream matrices may

prevent a source from demonstrating

that the MTECs are less than the low

volatile or semivolatile metal emission

standards. Because this original

approach did not provide the intended

relief, we are finalizing a more effective

alternative to the particulate matter

emission standard.

B. What Alternative Is EPA Finalizing?

In today’s notice, we are allowing a

source to operate under alternative HAP

metal emission control requirements

reflecting MACT in lieu of complying

with the 0.015 gr/dscf particulate

emission standard. Under the

alternative, no particulate matter

emission standard will apply to the

incinerator under Subpart EEE;

however, the incinerator will remain

subject to the RCRA particulate matter

standard of 0.08 gr/dscf pursuant to

§ 264.343(c). This is because without a

sufficiently protective particulate matter

standard under Subpart EEE, we cannot

defer our RCRA obligation to provide for

a particulate matter requirement to

Subpart EEE.10

The alternative to the particulate

matter standard has three components.

The first component is simply to meet

metal emission standards for

semivolatile and low volatile metals.

The level of the standard is the same as

that which applies to other incinerators,

but the standard would apply to all HAP

metals, not just those enumerated in the

present semi-and low volatile metal

standards. The second component is a

requirement for the incinerator to

demonstrate that it is using reasonable

hazardous waste metal feedrate control,

i.e., a defined metal feedrate that is

better than the MACT-defining metal

feedrate floor control level. 11 The third

component is a requirement for the

incinerator to demonstrate that its air

pollution control system achieves, at a

minimum, a 90 percent system removal

efficiency for semivolatile metals. These

components, which are described

separately below, should provide for

adequate control of non-mercury HAP

metals in lieu of a particulate matter

standard.

1. What Emission Limitation Must the

Incinerator Comply With Under This

Alternative?

Incinerators must comply with the

same semivolatile and low volatile

metal emission limitations that are

specified in the final rule; however, the

emission limitations apply to both

enumerated and non-enumerated metal

HAPs, excluding mercury. As discussed

in the rule, enumerated metals are those

metals that are directly controlled with

a numerical emission standard, i.e.,

cadmium, lead, arsenic, beryllium,

chromium. Non-enumerated metals are

those metals, i.e., antimony, cobalt,

manganese, nickel, and selenium that

are not controlled directly with an

emission standard, but are controlled

through the surrogate particulate matter

standard. For purposes of these

alternative requirements, the nonenumerated metals are classified as

either a semivolatile or a low volatile

metal, and included in the calculation

of compliance with the corresponding

emissions limit.

For existing incinerators, the resulting

emissions limits are: (1) A semivolatile

emission limitation of 240 μg/dscm for

the combined emissions of lead,

cadmium, and selenium; and (2) a low

volatile emission limitation of 97 μg/

dscm for combined emissions of arsenic,

beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt,

manganese, and nickel (all emissions

corrected to 7% oxygen).

For new sources, the resulting

emissions limits are: (1) A semivolatile

emission limitation of 24 μg/dscm for

combined emissions of lead, cadmium,

and selenium; and (2) a low volatile

emission limitation of 97 μg/dscm for

emissions of arsenic, beryllium,

chromium, antimony, cobalt,

manganese, and nickel (all emissions

corrected to 7% oxygen).

We conclude it is appropriate to

incorporate both the enumerated and

non-enumerated metals into the

semivolatile and low volatile metal

emissions limits because this, in

combination with the other two

requirements discussed below, provides

a reasonable approach to directly assure

that the non-enumerated metal

emissions are controlled to levels

representative of MACT, in lieu of a

particulate matter standard. This

approach, in effect, lowers the existing

semivolatile and low volatile metal

emissions limits because the

contribution of non-enumerated metals

must be accounted for when achieving

the same numerical semivolatile and

low volatile emission limits. We believe

this is appropriate because this

effectively lower emissions limit for

enumerated metals compensates for the

lower emission levels that would have

been achieved if the source used a

particulate matter control device

capable of achieving 0.015 gr/dscf, i.e.,

a control device that is an integral part

of MACT control for semivolatile and

low volatile metals. Put another way, we

regard this emission limitation as an

equivalent means of meeting the floor

standard for HAP metals (except

mercury) already established in the rule.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 35095

12 I.e., the MTEC level that was determined as a

result of the aggregate feedrate analysis that was

used to determine metal feedrate floor control levels

in the September 30, 1999 rule.

13Thus, unlike the current rule where sources can

choose whatever means they wish to comply with

the emissions standard and so are not required to

control feedrates below a regulatory level (so long

as they achieve the emission standard), sources are

required to comply with a specified metal feedrate

limit under the alternative.

14These metal feedrate limits correspond to 25

percent of the MACT-defining MTEC levels. These

MACT defining feedrates are set out in ‘‘Final

Technical Support Document for HWC Standards,

Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards and

Technologies,’’ Chapter 6, July 1999.

15See, for example, Table 8–1, pages 2 and 3,

‘‘Final Technical Document for HWC Standards,

Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards and

Technologies,’’ Chapter 3, July 1999, showing that

sources with SVM feedrates below the MACT

defining level but lacking proper PM control (i.e.,

emitting more PM than allowed by the PM

standard) were unable to achieve the SVM emission

standard.

16See Figure 4–3, ‘‘Draft Technical Support

Document for HWC MACT Standards (NODA),

Volume 1: MACT Evaluations Based on Revised

Database,’’ April 1997.

2. What Hazardous Waste Metal

Feedrate Control Requirement Must the

Incinerator Comply With Under This

Alternative?

Each incinerator that elects to operate

under these alternative requirements

must demonstrate that it is using

reasonable hazardous waste metal

feedrate control, i.e., it complies with a

defined hazardous waste metal feedrate

limit that is significantly lower than the

MACT-defining metal feedrate floor

control level. We define ‘‘reasonable

hazardous waste metal feedrate control’’

as a hazardous waste metal HAP

feedrate that does not exceed 25 percent

of the MACT defining MTEC level.12

Consistent with the above discussed

emission standards, the hazardous

waste metal feedrate limits apply to

both enumerated and non-enumerated

metal HAPs. The non-enumerated metal

HAPs are categorized as either

semivolatile or low volatile, and are

incorporated into a corresponding

semivolatile or low volatile hazardous

waste metal feedrate limit.13

For existing incinerators, the resulting

hazardous waste metal feedrate limits

are: (1) The twelve-hour rolling average

of the maximum theoretical emissions

concentration for lead, cadmium, and

selenium, combined, for the combined

hazardous waste feedstreams to the

incinerator, must not exceed 1,325 μg/

dscm; and (2) the twelve-hour rolling

average of the maximum theoretical

emissions concentration for arsenic,

beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt,

manganese, and nickel, combined, for

the combined hazardous waste

feedstreams to the incinerator, must not

exceed 6,000 μg/dscm.14

For new sources, the resulting

hazardous waste metal feedrate limits

are: (1) The twelve-hour rolling average

of the maximum theoretical emissions

concentration for lead, cadmium, and

selenium, combined, for the combined

hazardous waste feedstreams to the

incinerator, must not exceed 875 μg/

dscm; and (2) the twelve-hour rolling

average of the maximum theoretical

emissions concentration for arsenic,

beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt,

manganese, and nickel, combined, for

the combined hazardous waste

feedstreams to the incinerator, must not

exceed 3250 μg/dscm.

We believe hazardous waste metal

feedrate limits are essential parts of

these alternative requirements. As

discussed in the final rule preamble and

in comment response documents,

particulate matter control is an integral

part of controlling both the enumerated

and non-enumerated semivolatile and

low volatile metals.15 Therefore, any

source that uses a particulate matter

control technique that is less efficient

than the MACT particulate floor

standard should be required to use a

‘‘better than MACT’’ hazardous waste

metal feedrate control (i.e., a level of

feedrate control that compensates for

the inefficient particulate control

collection so that actual emissions of

HAP metals reflect MACT). We believe

that 25 percent of the MACT feedrate

control levels for the combined

enumerated and non-enumerated metal

HAPs is within a reasonable range of

values that are significantly lower than

the MACT feedrate control levels. This

feedrate control requirement, when

combined with the emissions limit and

system removal efficiency requirement,

provides adequate control of metal

HAPs (control equivalent to

promulgated MACT).

3. How Efficient Must the Incinerator’s

Air Pollution Control Equipment

Operate in Order To Comply With This

Alternative?

If you elect to operate under these

alternative requirements, you must

demonstrate that the air pollution

control system achieves at least a 90

percent system removal efficiency for

semivolatile metals. Metal removal

efficiency—whether measured by

control of the surrogate particulate

matter or directly through control of

HAP metals—remains an essential

element (along with feedrate control of

HAP metals) of MACT for the nonmercury HAP metals, as demonstrated

by the performance achievable by (and

achieved by) the average of the best

performing sources. In making this

demonstration, you may spike

semivolatile metals above 25 percent of

the MACT defining MTEC level

provided the emissions limits discussed

above are achieved during the test. You

may perform this test independently of

the comprehensive performance test;

however, you must use this test to

establish applicable operating parameter

limits as described in § 63.1209(n),

excluding the § 63.1209(n)(2) metal

feedrate limit requirements. These

operating limits are needed to assure

that a 90 percent semivolatile metal

system removal efficiency is achieved

during normal operations at the metal

feedrates demonstrated during the test.

The 90 percent system removal

efficiency requirement is based on the

use of a well designed and well

operated high energy venturi type wet

scrubber. An analysis of hazardous

waste incinerator trial burn data shows

that systems with well operated and

well designed venturi scrubbers have

semivolatile metal system removal

efficiencies ranging from approximately

90 percent to greater than 99.9

percent.16 Thus, we are finalizing a

semivolatile metal system removal

efficiency of 90 percent as a

conservative representation of control

using a well designed and well operated

high energy venturi scrubber. This

method to select an appropriate control

level is similar to the approach we used

to develop the alternative particulate

matter standard 0.03 gr/dscf that also

was based on the use of well designed

and well operated high energy venturi

scrubbers.

System removal efficiency provides a

direct indicator of the non-mercury

metal HAP control efficiency of the

hazardous waste incinerator system.

The shift away from the use of a direct

particulate matter emission standard to

control non-mercury metal HAPs is a

result, in part, of the reduced need for

low metal feeding facilities to control

particulate matter. For low metals

feeding facilities, particulate matter may

be composed primarily of non-metal

HAP constituents such as silica,

alumina, iron, etc., or HAP metals not

present in hazardous waste. Thus, the

control of particulate matter is not as

strongly related to the control of HAP

metals contributed by the hazardous

waste compared with facilities which

have feeds containing higher levels of

those metals.

We also believe it is appropriate to

require a 90 percent semivolatile metal

system removal efficiency as part of

these alternative requirements because,

35096 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

17Absent a metal system removal efficiency

requirement under these alternative requirements,

an incinerator could comply with the emission

limitations with feedrate control only without the

use of particulate matter control. This would not be

appropriate if metals are present in the feedstreams

because particulate matter control is an integral part

of controlling metal HAP emissions.

18Letter from Michelle Lusk, CKRC, Thomas

Nilan, CMA, and Melvin Keener, CRWI, to

Elizabeth Cotsworth, EPA, Re. Multi-Industry HWC

MACT Concerns and Solutions, dated March 2,

2000, p. 29 of the attachment.

absent a particulate matter standard,

there would be no explicit requirement

for sources to use an air pollution

control method that effectively removes

metal HAPs from the exhaust

emissions.17 This provision therefore

requires sources that operate under

these alternative requirements to use a

particulate matter control device. Even

though this control device does not have

to be a MACT particulate matter control

device (i.e., a control device that

achieves 0.015 gr/dscf) we believe that

this requirement to achieve a 90 percent

system removal efficiency, when

combined with the hazardous waste

metal feedrate limits and emissions

limits, provides for an adequate level of

control for HAP metals—that is, a level

of control reflecting the level of

performance achieved by, and

achievable by, the average of the best

performing 12 percent of sources.

4. What Operating Requirements Are

Associated With This Alternative?

Semivolatile and low volatile metal

operating parameter limits will be

established to ensure compliance with

the alternative emissions limits

pursuant to § 63.1209(n), except that the

semivolatile and low volatile metal

feedrate limits apply to both the

enumerated and non-enumerated HAP

metals as previously discussed. We

believe this approach is consistent with

the final rule methodology to assure

compliance with the semivolatile and

low volatile metal emission standards

and should be applied here. Note that

the metal feedrate limits established to

ensure compliance with the alternative

emissions limit are mass feedrate limits

for all feedstreams, including

nonhazardous feeds. This is in contrast

to the hazardous waste metal feedrate

limits discussed below that are based

only on hazardous waste metal MTEC

levels.

You must also establish operating

parameter limits to ensure compliance

with the 90 percent system removal

efficiency requirement. Consistent with

the operating limits to ensure

compliance with the alternative metal

emission limitations, these operating

limits would be established pursuant to

§ 63.1209(n), except that metal feedrate

limits are not required for purposes of

ensuring compliance with system

removal efficiency provision.

The twelve-hour rolling average

hazardous waste metal feedrate limits

are based on the combined hazardous

waste feedstreams to the incinerator and

may be expressed either as a maximum

theoretical emission concentration limit

or as a restriction on maximum

hazardous waste metals mass feedrate

and minimum gas flow rate. In doing so,

sources must account for each

hazardous waste feedstream when

determining compliance with the

maximum theoretical emission

concentration limits. Metal constituents

not detected in hazardous waste

feedstreams would be assumed to be

present at one-half the detection limit

when calculating the maximum

theoretical emission concentration for

compliance purposes, applicable to each

hazardous waste feedstream.

VII. Deletion of Baghouse Inspection

Requirements

Section 63.1206(c)(7)(ii) of the final

rule prescribes baghouse operation and

maintenance requirements for

incinerators and lightweight aggregate

kilns. These requirements are not

applicable to cement kilns equipped

with baghouses because cement kilns

must continuously monitor opacity and

comply with an opacity standard.

Nonetheless, cement kilns are required

to address baghouse operation and

maintenance in the operation and

maintenance plan required under

§ 63.1206(c)(7)(i).

The operation and maintenance

requirements under § 63.1206(c)(7)(ii):

(1) Prescribe the frequency of inspection

of specific baghouse operations; and (2)

require the use of a bag leak detector as

a continuous monitor. We are today

deleting the prescribed baghouse

inspection requirements of

§ 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(B)(1–10). Instead we

will rely on the general operation and

maintenance plan requirements under

§ 63.1206(c)(7)(i) and the use of a bag

leak detector to ensure proper operation

and maintenance of the baghouse.

Stakeholders question the rationale

for prescribing generic inspection

frequencies for various baghouse

operations, given that each baghouse

must be equipped with a bag leak

detector. Stakeholders believe that each

source should identify appropriate, sitespecific inspection intervals for

baghouse operations in the facility

operations and maintenance plan

required under § 63.1206(c)(7)(i). In

particular, they highlight two

burdensome inspection requirements:

(1) Monthly visual inspection of the

interior of the baghouse for physical

integrity; and (2) monthly inspection of

bags and bag connections.18

We agree with stakeholders that these

generic provisions are unnecessary and

therefore are deleting the inspection

requirements of § 62.1206(c)(7)(ii)(B)(1–

10). We plan to develop guidance

recommendations on baghouse

inspection procedures that can be used

to develop appropriate inspection

procedures for the operation and

maintenance plan required by

§ 63.1206(c)(7)(i). In addition, we are

deleting the requirements of

§ 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(A) requiring submittal

of the baghouse operations and

maintenance plan to the Administrator.

Given that the operation and

maintenance plan required under

§ 63.1206(c)(7)(i) is not submitted to the

Administrator for review and approval,

we do not see the need to single out the

baghouse operation and maintenance

plan for review and approval,

particularly given that sources must

continuously operate a bag leak detector

system.

VIII. Feedstream Analysis for Organic

HAPs

Section 63.1207(f)(1)(ii) of the final

rule requires sources to include in their

site-specific comprehensive

performance test plan an analysis of all

CAA hazardous air pollutants that could

reasonably be present in their

feedstreams. Regulatory officials will

use this analysis to ensure compliance

with the destruction and removal (DRE)

standards of §§ 63.1203 through

63.1205. Stakeholders raised three

questions about this requirement after

promulgation: (1) Did we consider the

implications of requiring analysis of

HAPs rather than the RCRA organic

compounds on Appendix VIII, Part 261;

(2) why must the test plan for periodic

comprehensive performance testing

include an analysis of organic HAP

compounds for sources that comply

with the DRE standard with a one-time

test; and (3) did we intend to require

analysis of organic compounds for all

feedstreams or just the hazardous waste

feedstreams.

A. What Are the Implications of

Requiring Analysis of CAA HAPs Rather

than RCRA Appendix VIII, Part 261

Organic Compounds?

For the DRE standard, the final rule

requires demonstration of compliance

with one or more principal organic

hazardous pollutants (POHCs) selected

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 35097

19 In cases where an organic HAP is fed at

particularly high concentrations, or where an

organic HAP in the feedstream is particularly toxic,

it is prudent to select such compounds as POHCs

rather than relying only on surrogates that are

considered to be equally or more difficult to

destroy.

20That is, all organic HAPs except those that

would not reasonably be expected to be found in

the feedstream. Further, sources must identify any

constituents excluded from the analysis and explain

the basis for excluding them.

21For example, a description of the accuracy of

the feedstream metal analysis considering the

Continued

from the list of HAPs established by 42

U.S.C. 7412(b)(1), excluding

caprolactam. The basis for the HWC

MACT DRE standard is the current

RCRA requirement to ensure destruction

of Appendix VIII, Part 261, organic

compounds. In demonstrating

compliance under RCRA, sources must

select POHCs from the Appendix VIII

list of organic compounds.

Stakeholders note that selecting

POHCs from the list of organic CAA

HAPs rather than RCRA organic

compounds has several implications.

Stakeholders question whether RCRA

DRE test data can be used in lieu of

MACT DRE testing if the POHCs

selected during the RCRA test are not

organic HAPs under the CAA.

Stakeholders also question how to

ensure DRE of organic HAPs for which

thermal stability data (e.g., low oxygen

thermal stability; heat of combustion)

are not available. In response, we note

that, to satisfy the MACT DRE standard,

sources must ensure that the POHCs

used to demonstrate compliance are

representative of the most difficult to

destroy organic compounds in their

feedstream. For example, if the most

difficult to destroy POHCs for RCRA

DRE testing were used, those POHCs are

also representative of the most difficult

to destroy organic HAPs (irrespective of

whether thermal stability data are

available for a HAP).

B. For Sources That Comply With the

DRE Standard With a One-Time Test,

Why Must Their Periodic

Comprehensive Performance Test Plan

Include an Analysis of Organic HAP

Compounds?

Section 63.1206(b)(7) allows

demonstration of compliance with the

DRE standard only once for the life of

the source provided the source: (1) Is

not modified in a manner than could

affect achievability of the DRE standard;

and (2) does not feed hazardous waste

at a location other than the normal

flame zone. Once a source has

demonstrated compliance with the DRE

standard, stakeholders question why

analysis of waste streams for organic

HAP compounds must be included with

the site-specific test plan for

comprehensive performance testing

every five years.

The rule requires continued analyses

of organic compounds with each

comprehensive performance test plan to

enable regulatory officials to determine

whether the POHCs selected for the

original DRE test continue to represent

the organic HAPs being fed to the

combustor. POHCs are representative of

the organic HAPs fed to the combustor

if they are equally or more difficult to

destroy than those organic HAPs. In

addition, POHCs are selected based on

factors including the concentration of

the organic compound in the feedstream

and the toxicity of particular organic

compounds.19

In retrospect, however, we do not

believe that the comprehensive analysis

required by § 63.1207(f)(1)(ii)(A) 20 is

necessary in all cases to ensure that the

POHCs continue to be representative of

the organic HAPs being fed to the

combustor. For example, if a source

demonstrates compliance with the DRE

standard with POHCs that represent the

most difficult to destroy organic

compounds, a less rigorous feedstream

analysis may be appropriate to address

other concerns, e.g., whether the

feedstream has changed to include

additional organic HAPs that are fed at

high concentrations or that are

particularly toxic. It may also be

appropriate to waive the comprehensive

analysis for organic compounds based

on the generator’s knowledge or on a

combination of waste knowledge and

sampling and laboratory analysis that

the POHCs selected represent the most

difficult to destroy organic compounds

in the waste. Accordingly, we are

amending § 63.1207(f)(1)(ii) to allow

regulatory officials to waive the

comprehensive analysis of organic

compounds if a source documents that

the POHCs used to demonstrate

compliance with the DRE standard

continue to be representative of the

organic HAPs in hazardous waste

feedstreams.

C. We Intended To Require Analysis of

Organic HAPs in Hazardous Waste

Feedstreams Only

Section 63.1207(f)(1)(ii) implies that

sources must analyze all feedstreams for

organic HAPs. The rule should have

required analysis for hazardous waste

feedstreams only. Regulatory officials

will use the analysis to ensure that the

POHCs used to demonstrate compliance

with the DRE standard continue to be

representative of the organic HAPs in

hazardous waste feedstreams. We are

amending § 63.1207(f)(1)(ii) accordingly.

IX. Revisions to the Metals Feedrate

Extrapolation Procedures

For sources using the metal

extrapolation procedures, the final rule

requires documentation that the levels

of metal spiking (adding metals to the

waste feed) be sufficient to demonstrate

that the extrapolation procedures are as

accurate and precise as if full spiking

(no extrapolation) were used. See

§ 63.1207(f)(1)(x)(C). Today we are

amending this provision to require

documentation that spiking levels result

in an extrapolation procedure that

adequately assures compliance with the

emission standard.

We included this requirement in the

final rule to address the uncertainties

that may be associated with

extrapolating low metal feedrates, as

demonstrated during testing, to higher

metal feedrate limits. This

documentation ensures that the

uncertainties associated with the

procedure are adequately addressed and

that the extrapolated metal feedrate

limits ensure compliance with the

emission standard(s).

After discussions with stakeholders,

we determined that the final rule

regulatory language is too prescriptive

and does not directly address our goal

of assuring compliance with the

emission standard. Stakeholders believe

that it may not be possible to spike

metals to levels such that the

extrapolation procedures are as accurate

and precise as if full spiking were used.

They also question the accuracy and

precision of the ‘‘fully spiked’’

feedstream and emissions analyses.

To address these concerns, we are

requiring that sources document a level

of spiking that ensures the extrapolation

methodology is adequate to demonstrate

compliance with the emission standard.

The content and scope of this

documentation should be determined

on a site-specific basis, and should

consider the uncertainties involved with

extrapolating the tested low metal

feedrates to higher metal feedrate limits.

Examples of types of information that

can document that the extrapolation

methodology adequately assures

compliance with the emission standards

may include: (1) A description of the

uncertainties associated with the

extrapolation procedure, such as a

description of the linearity of metal

feedrates as compared to metal emission

rates; (2) a description of the

uncertainties associated with the data to

be used in the extrapolation

procedure; 21 and (3) the extent that

35098 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

representativeness (whether the feedstream is

homogenous) of the feedstream samples if actual,

unspiked feedstream metal levels are used to

calculate metal feedrates.

22For example, separate limits for each location

may not be needed to assure compliance with the

standards if the detection limits are low. In this

situation, a source could assume the constituent is

not present in the non-detect feedstreams, or

perhaps assume it is present at one-half the

detection limit, and establish one total system

feedrate limit instead of separate limits. This would

be accomplished by adding these assumed nondetect feedrate values to the other known feedrates

from the other feed locations.

23Sources will want to delete RCRA permit

requirements that have been superseded by the

Subpart EEE standards. See 64 FR at 52988.

Modifying the RCRA permit precludes concerns

about dual enforcement of emission standards.

these uncertainties are multiplied by the

extrapolation procedure.

X. Feedrate Limits for Undetectable

Constituents

The final rule requires sources to

establish separate feedrate limits during

the comprehensive performance test for

semivolatile metals, low volatile metals,

mercury, total chlorine, and/or ash for

each feedstream that does not contain

detectable levels of these constituents.

See § 63.1207(n). The rule specifies that

these separate feedrate limits must be

established as ‘‘non-detect’’ feedrate

limits. Under this approach, during

normal operations, the feed locations

that have ‘‘non-detect’’ limits cannot be

fed detectable levels of the constituents

unless certain criteria are met. Today,

we are deleting this provision and,

instead, are requiring sources to

document, on a site-specific basis, the

method they will use to account for

non-detects when establishing feedrate

limits.

We included this ‘‘non-detect feedrate

limit’’ provision in the rule so sources

would use a consistent methodology

when establishing feedrate limits that

best assures compliance with the

emission standards. After discussions

with stakeholders, we conclude that our

approach to addressing detection limits

when establishing feedrate limits is too

prescriptive and that there are possibly

alternative approaches that adequately

assure compliance with the emission

standards. Therefore, we are eliminating

the requirements of § 63.1207(n) that

require use of a specific method to

address non-detects when establishing

feedrate limits. As a replacement, we are

requiring sources, on a site-specific

basis, to specify in the comprehensive

performance test workplan the method

they will use to account for non-detects

when establishing their feedrate limits.

This will allow the method to be

reviewed and approved by the

regulatory official on a site-specific

basis.

We continue to believe that the

approach outlined in the final rule can

be used to account for non-detects

during the performance test. However,

as previously mentioned, there may be

alternative approaches that can be used

that adequately assure compliance with

the standards.22

We believe today’s amendments to

address non-detects on a site-specific

basis will simplify the operating

requirements for many combustors. We

anticipate that regulatory officials will

evaluate these site-specific approaches

in part by considering: (1) Proximity of

test results to the regulatory emission

standard(s); (2) site-specific detection

limit levels; and (3) the method or

approach to address feedstream nondetects on a daily basis to demonstrate

feedrate compliance. Accordingly, we

are removing the requirements of

§ 63.1207(n) and adding

§ 63.1207(f)(xxvi).

XI. Revisions To Assist Early

Compliance

In the final rule, we did not fully

consider situations where sources

would conduct performance testing

prior to the compliance date. This

‘‘early compliance’’ prior to the

September 30, 2002 deadline, is likely

to occur to coordinate CAA and RCRA

testing or to ensure the deadline for

conducting the initial comprehensive

performance test (i.e. 180 days after the

compliance date) is met. We are

particularly concerned that the

regulation may inadvertently impede

sources that would like to come into

early compliance. Therefore, we are

eliminating two impediments identified

by stakeholders: (1) The requirement to

stop burning hazardous waste if a

source fails the comprehensive

performance test; and (2) the

requirement for the Documentation of

Compliance.

A. When Is the Compliance Date for

Sources that Comply Early?

Sources that choose to comply early

are establishing a compliance date for

themselves prior to the regulatory

compliance date of September 30, 2002.

On their compliance date, the source

becomes subject to the substantive

requirements of Subpart EEE. For

example, on the compliance date, an

exceedance of an emission standard

(e.g., carbon monoxide) is a violation of

the standard, and an exceedance of an

operating parameter limit is evidence of

failure to ensure compliance with an

emission standard.

After considering the implications of

early compliance, we are identifying the

point at which the early complying

source becomes subject to the

substantive requirements of Subpart

EEE as the postmark date for the

Notification of Compliance (NOC). This

is an appropriate point because the NOC

is a legally enforceable document that

contains all of the standards and

operating parameters for a source

complying with Subpart EEE.23 See new

§ 63.1206(a)(4).

B. Sources That Fail a Comprehensive

Performance Test Prior to the

Compliance Date Are Not Required To

Stop Burning Hazardous Waste

Section 63.1207(l) requires sources

that fail a performance test for a mode

of operation to stop burning hazardous

waste immediately under that mode of

operation. In retrospect, we conclude

that this requirement is not appropriate

for sources that conduct the

performance test prior to the

compliance date, including early

complying sources, because compliance

with the substantive requirements

Subpart EEE is not yet triggered.

Therefore, we are revising the rule

accordingly. See revised § 63.1207(l)(1).

C. Early Complying Sources Would Be

Exempt From the Documentation of

Compliance Requirements

Section 63.1211(d) requires sources to

place their Documentation of

Compliance (DOC) in the operating

record by the regulatory compliance

date. The DOC identifies the applicable

emission standards under Subpart EEE

and the limits on the operating

parameters under § 63.1209 that ensure

compliance with those emission

standards. In addition, the DOC

identifies enforceable operating

requirements from the compliance date

until postmark of the Notification of

Compliance. Given that the compliance

date for early complying sources is the

date the NOC is postmarked, the DOC

would serve no purpose. Therefore, we

are exempting early complying sources

from the DOC requirement. See revised

§ 63.1211(d).

D. Notification of Testing for Sources

That Choose To Comply Early

As with all Subpart EEE sources,

those that comply early must notify

permit officials of the scheduled

performance test date and submit for

review and approval the emissions test

plan and continuous monitoring system

evaluation test plan. See § 63.1207(e).

Review and approval of test plans is

appropriate for sources that comply

early for the same reasons it is

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 35099

24For example, a clamshell bucket cannot

achieve this level of accuracy for the feedstock

because of the large weight of the clamshell relative

to the feedstock and because some of the feedstream

will stick to the bucket.

appropriate for other sources—to ensure

that the source’s performance test plans

will effectively determine whether the

source is in compliance with the

requirements of Subpart EEE. We

encourage permit officials to review

performance test plans expeditiously for

sources that elect to comply early.

XII. Accuracy Requirements for Weight

Measurement Devices

Section 63.1209(b)(2)(ii) specifies that

the accuracy of weight measurement

devices used to monitor flowrate of a

feedstream must be ± 1 percent of the

weight being measured. In addition,

sources are required to verify the

calibration of the device at least once

every three months.

Stakeholders express concerns about

these requirements. We concur with

many of stakeholders’ concerns about

the accuracy requirement for weight

measurement devices and are revising

the rule to specify an accuracy

requirement only for activated carbon

feedrate measurement devices.

Stakeholders state that the ± 1 percent

accuracy requirement is not appropriate

for all weight measurement devices.

This accuracy requirement is the same

as we used in another rulemaking where

it is applied only to the device used to

measure carbon feedrate in an activated

carbon injection system. Stakeholders

state that the ± 1 percent accuracy is not

achievable by many weight

measurement devices, such as devices

that measure the weight of raw

materials.24 Stakeholders also note that

the implementation document for the

boiler and industrial furnace standards

under Part 266, Subpart H, lists

acceptable measurement devices than

cannot achieve this level of accuracy.

We agree with the stakeholders’

concerns and are revising

§ 63.1209(b)(2)(ii) so that the accuracy

requirement applies only to a carbon

injection weight measurement device.

Nonetheless, sources must include in

the continuous monitoring system

evaluation test plan the accuracy and

calibration procedures for each monitor

required under § 63.1209. This

evaluation test plan must be submitted

along with the comprehensive

performance test plan for review and

approval. See § 63.1207(e).

XIII. Deletion of Requirement for

Establishing a Scrubber Liquid

Minimum pH Operating Parameter

Limit for Mercury Control for Wet

Scrubbers

The final rule states that mercury

emissions from hazardous waste

combustors are controlled by: (1)

Controlling the feedrate of mercury; (2)

wet scrubbing to remove soluble

mercury (e.g., mercuric chloride); and

(3) carbon adsorption. There are specific

operating parameter limits (OPL) that

apply to each control technology.

For hazardous waste combustors

using wet scrubbers to control mercury

the OPLs are identical to those that are

required to assure compliance with the

hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas emission

standard. See §§ 63.1209(l)(2) and (o)(3).

We inadvertently established an

inappropriate OPL requirement for

mercury in developing the final rule.

While a minimum pH of the scrubber

water is an important parameter for

chlorine control as required by

§ 63.1209(o)(3)(iv), it is not an

appropriate OPL for mercury control.

The Agency is amending the final rule

by deleting the requirement for

establishing a scrubber liquid minimum

pH as an OPL for mercury control.

Today’s action does not change the

requirements for hydrochloric acid and

chlorine, however.

Part Three: Analytical and Regulatory

Requirements

I. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA

must determine whether a regulatory

action is significant and, therefore,

subject to comprehensive review by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), and the other provisions of the

Executive Order. A significant

regulatory action is defined by the Order

as one that may:

—Have an annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more, or adversely

affect in a material way the economy,

a sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal governments or communities;

—Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action

taken or planned by another agency;

—Materially alter the budgetary impact

of entitlements, grants, user fees, or

loan programs or rights and

obligations or recipients thereof; or

—Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the

principles set forth in Executive Order

12866.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, we have determined that

this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ because it may be considered

significant under point four above:

‘‘Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in Executive Order 12866.’’ As

such, this action was submitted to OMB

for review. Changes made in response to

OMB suggestions or recommendations

will be documented in the public

record.

The aggregate annualized compliance

costs for this rule are estimated to be

less than $100 million. Furthermore,

this rule is not expected to adversely

affect, in a material way, the economy,

a sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal governments or communities.

The benefits to human health and the

environment resulting from today’s final

action have not been monetized but are

deemed to be less than $100 million per

year.

We have prepared two economic

support documents for this action.

These are: Assessment of Potential

Costs, Benefits and Other Impacts

NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Hazardous Waste

Combustors—Technical Amendments

(Assessment), and, Regulatory

Flexibility Screening Analysis (RFSA)

For NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste

Combustors—Technical Amendments.

The Assessment addresses economic

impacts of the thirteen direct final

amendments to the September 30, 1999

final rule. The Assessment also briefly

examines equity considerations and

other impacts. The Regulatory

Flexibility Screening Analysis (RFSA)

briefly examines small entity impacts

potentially resulting from this action.

This Part presents a summary of

findings from the Assessment and the

RFSA documents. The complete

Assessment and RFSA documents are

available in the RCRA docket

established for this action. Interested

readers are encouraged to read these

documents.

A. Why Is This Direct Final Rule

Necessary?

The environmental regulations

promulgated by EPA seek to correct

market failures through the

internalization of negative

environmental externalities. That is not

the case with today’s rule. This action

is necessary in order to clarify and

improve compliance, testing and

monitoring requirements, and general

35100 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

implementation efficiency associated

with the final rule NESHAP: Final

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Hazardous Waste Combustors (64 FR

52828, September 30, 1999).

B. Were Non-Regulatory Alternatives

First Considered?

Section 1(b)(3) of Executive Order

12866 instructs Executive Branch

Agencies to consider and assess

available alternatives to direct

regulation prior to making a

determination for regulation. This

regulatory determination assessment

should be considered, ‘‘to the extent

permitted by law, and where

applicable.’’ The ultimate purpose of the

regulatory determination assessment is

to ensure that the most efficient tool,

regulation, or other type of action is

applied in meeting the targeted statutory

objective(s).

We have already employed education

and outreach programs designed to help

accomplish the objectives of the

amendments in this rule. We believe

that, at this point, a regulatory approach

will ensure appropriate technical

clarification and the necessary

implementation efficiency designed to

fully accomplish our objectives.

C. What Regulatory Options Were

Considered?

This is a direct final action that does

not facilitate the assessment of

alternative regulatory options.

D. What Are the Potential Costs or Cost

Savings of This Direct Final Rule?

The thirteen direct final amendments

presented in today’s action vary

considerably in scope and substance.

Many of the amendments are

anticipated to result in minor to

negligible incremental cost impacts

(savings or increases) to both the

regulated community and the Agency.

Three of the amendments are expected

to result in more substantive cost

impacts to the regulated community.

These findings are briefly summarized

below. The Assessment document

presents a detailed review of our

methodology, data, findings, and

analytical limitations.

1. Deletion of One-Time Notification of

Compliance with Alternative Clean Air

Act Standards (Amendment II)

In the final rule, a source that is not

feeding hazardous waste when the

hazardous waste residence time expires

may elect to comply temporarily with

alternative standards promulgated

under the authority of sections 112 and

129 of the Clean Air Act. If a source

chooses this option,

§ 63.1206(b)(1)(ii)(A) requires the source

to submit to the Administrator a written,

one-time notification documenting

compliance with those requirements

and standards. Since this stipulation

duplicates requirements under title V of

the CAA, such a requirement is

redundant.

A deletion of this requirement

reduces the administrative costs

associated with compliance notification.

Estimates of labor costs and

administrative time spent on such a task

suggest that about three hours per

respondent would be saved. Out of this,

two hours are estimated to be technical

time (costed at a rate of $55 per hour),

and one hour is likely to be management

time (costed at $71 per hour). All

facilities are likely to benefit from this

exemption, thus leading to aggregate

industry-wide cost savings of

approximately $31,000 per year.

2. Alternative to the PM Standard for

Incinerators Feeding Low Levels of

Metals (Amendment VI)

The final rule established a

particulate matter emission standard of

0.015 gr/dscf for new and existing

sources as a surrogate for control of nonmercury CAA metal hazardous air

pollutants (HAPs). The rule also offered

an alternative particulate matter

emission standard of 0.03 gr/dscf for

sources that demonstrate the use of

superior federate control of metals in

their hazardous waste. Today, we are

eliminating the alternative particulate

matter emission standard and replacing

it with metal emissions control

requirements. As a result of this

amendment, no particulate matter

emissions standard would apply to the

incinerator under Subpart EEE.

However, the incinerator would remain

subject to the RCRA particulate matter

standard of 0.08 gr/dscf pursuant to

§ 264.343(c). In addition to the 0.08 gr/

dscf standard, the alternative standard

requires sources to comply with the

following four requirements: (1) A metal

emissions limitation for semivolatile

and low volatile metals that applies to

all CAA HAP metals, excluding

mercury; (2) A requirement for the

incinerator to demonstrate that it is

using reasonable hazardous waste metal

feedrate control, i.e., a defined metal

feedrate that is better than the MACT

defining metal feedrate floor control

level; (3) A requirement for the

incinerator to demonstrate that its air

pollution control system achieves, at a

minimum, a 90 percent system removal

efficiency for semivolatile metals; and

(4) A set of operating requirements

pursuant to § 63.1209(n).

These four components collectively

provide for MACT control of nonmercury CAA metal HAPs in the

absence of a MACT particulate matter

standard. Hence, we believe that while

this amendment would provide some

reduced regulatory requirements to

industry, there would be no adverse

impact on the environment or any

associated social costs.

The cost savings resulting from this

amendment will have two components:

Savings in up-front capital costs and

operation and maintenance cost savings.

The capital cost savings would be a

result of not needing a control device

that meets MACT PM control standards

(i.e., a control device that achieves 0.015

gr/dscf). The unit capital cost savings

for the five sources that are expected to

avail themselves of this standard in a

given year are estimated to be $150,000.

Annualizing this amount over ten years,

using a discount rate of 7 percent, gives

an annual savings of approximately

$21,500 for capital costs per facility.

Operation and maintenance costs for

a less complex system would amount to

approximately $120,000 per year per

facility. These savings arise from

reductions in energy usage (pressure

drop devices can be very energy

intensive); lower solid waste handling

costs, and reduced baghouse

maintenance costs. Assuming that five

facilities are able to take advantage of

this alternative, the total cost savings

per year associated with this

amendment would be approximately

$707,500. It is important to note that the

exact number of facilities that will take

advantage of this standard is difficult to

determine and is likely to change over

time.

3. Feedstream Analysis Requirements

for Organic HAPs (Amendment VIII)

Section 63.1207(f)(1)(ii) requires

sources to include in their site-specific

plan for a comprehensive performance

test an analysis of all Clean Air Act

hazardous air pollutants that could

reasonably be present in ‘‘the

feedstream.’’ Regulators would use these

analyses to ensure compliance with the

destruction and removal efficiency

standards of §§ 63.1203 through

63.1205.

However, upon further review, we

believe that the comprehensive analyses

required by § 63.1206(f)(1)(ii)(A) are not

necessary in all cases to ensure

compliance with the DRE standard. For

example, if the source can demonstrate

compliance with the DRE standard

using POHCs that represent the most

persistent organic compounds, a less

rigorous analysis may be appropriate to

address other concerns, such as whether

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 35101

25U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Solid Waste, ‘‘Addendum to the Assessment of

the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of

the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards:

Final Rule,’’ July 23, 1999.

26Based on the July 1999 Assessment, we found

that the smallest annual firm revenue associated

with the six small facilities was $3.6 million.

Dividing $31,000 by the six facilities results in

approximately $5,200 maximum impact per small

facility. ($5,200/$3.6 million = 0.14 percent).

feedstream has changed to include

additional organic HAPs that are fed at

high concentrations or that are

particularly toxic.

We are, therefore, amending

§ 63.1207(f)(1)(ii) to allow regulatory

officials to waive the comprehensive

analysis of organic compounds if

sources can document that the POHCs

used to demonstrate compliance with

the DRE standard continue to be

representative of the organic HAPs in

hazardous waste feedstreams. This

amendment will result in cost savings in

operation and maintenance expenses,

estimated at $4,000 per facility per year.

With 45 facilities expected to be affected

by this amendment per year, the total

annual cost savings from this effort

amount to approximately $180,000.

In addition to the cost savings of

$918,500 identified above we estimate

that two of the thirteen amendments

would result in quantifiable cost

burdens to industry and the regulatory

agency and/or states. These

amendments are projected to result in

aggregate cost increases of

approximately $8,700 per year. The net

aggregate cost impact associated with

the thirteen amendments is estimated to

be $909,800 per year. This cost impact

estimate will marginally decrease the

total annual social cost projection of $50

to $63 million 25 estimated for

compliance with the final rule. All cost

impacts are dependant upon the

regional enforcement regime.

II. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute, unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s direct final rule on small

entities, a small entity is defined as: (1)

A small business that has fewer than

750, or 500 employees per firm

depending upon the SIC code the firm

is primarily classified in; (2) a small

governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; or (3) a

small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s rule on small entities,

I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. We

have determined that only amendment

II is likely to impact one or more of the

six small hazardous waste combustors.

Under our assumed worst-case scenario

where the maximum cost impacts of this

amendment ($31,000 savings) are

attributed to only these six small

sources, we find that no source would

experience impacts beyond 0.14 percent

of annual gross revenues.26 This does

not represent a significant economic

impact.

Although this rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities, we

nonetheless tried to reduce the impact

of this rule on small entities. Although

not specifically directed toward small

business outreach, we have met with

industry representatives during the

developmental phase and requested

comment and suggestions on all aspects

of this rulemaking. No small business

concerns were brought up by these

industry representatives.

We have completed the analysis:

Regulatory Flexibility Screening

Analysis (RFSA) For NESHAP:

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Hazardous Waste Combustors—

Technical Amendments, in support of

the direct final rule. This RFSA

document is available for review in the

docket established for today’s action.

III. Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection

of Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’

‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This rule is

not subject to the Executive Order

because it is not economically

significant as defined in Executive

Order 12866. Furthermore, we do not

have reason to believe that

environmental health or safety risks

addressed by this action present a

disproportionate risk to children.

In addition, these amendments, as

part of the HWC MACT standards, are

exempt from the requirements of

Executive Order 13045 because the final

rule is a technology-based regulation

rather than a risk-based one.

Nevertheless, the amendments would

not result in any incremental

environmental harm that would affect

children’s health.

IV. Environmental Justice Executive

Order 12898

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal

Actions to Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Population’’ (February 11,

1994), is designed to address the

environmental and human health

conditions of minority and low-income

populations. EPA is committed to

addressing environmental justice

concerns and has assumed a leadership

role in environmental justice initiatives

to enhance environmental quality for all

citizens of the United States. The

Agency’s goals are to ensure that no

segment of the population, regardless of

race, color, national origin, income, or

net worth bears disproportionately high

and adverse human health and

environmental impacts as a result of

EPA’s policies, programs, and activities.

In response to Executive Order 12898,

and to concerns voiced by many groups

outside the Agency, EPA’s Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response

(OSWER) formed an Environmental

Justice Task Force to analyze the array

of environmental justice issues specific

to waste programs and to develop an

overall strategy to identify and address

these issues (OSWER Directive No.

9200.3–17).

We have no data indicating that

today’s rule would result in

disproportionately negative impacts on

minority or low income communities.

V. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104–

4, establishes requirements for Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

regulatory actions on State, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

35102 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any single year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

We have determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any single year. It

is estimated that the direct final

amendments will result in increased

costs to all states (or the Agency) of

approximately $2,100 per year. Thus,

today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

VI. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ are defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

This rule does not have federalism

implications. It will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. This rule is

projected to result in economic impacts

to privately owned hazardous waste

combustion facilities. Marginal

administrative burden impacts may

occur to selected States an/or EPA

Regional Offices if these entities

experience increased administrative

needs, enforcement requirements, or

information requests. However, this rule

will not have substantial direct effects

on the States, intergovernmental

relationships, or the distribution of

power and responsibilities. Thus,

Executive Order 13132 does not apply

to this rule.

VII. Consultation With Tribal

Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal

implications’’ is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes.’’

This final rule does not have tribal

implications. It will not have substantial

direct effects on tribal governments, 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.

Today’s action will not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments, nor will it

impose substantial direct compliance

costs on them. Tribal communities are

not known to own or operate any

hazardous waste combustion facilities,

nor are these communities

disproportionately located adjacent to or

near such facilities. Finally, tribal

governments will not be required to

assume any administrative or permitting

responsibilities associated with this

rule.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

We have prepared an Information

Collection Request (ICR) document (ICR

No. 1773.03) listing the information

collection requirements of this direct

final rule, and have submitted it for

approval to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB has assigned a

control number 2050–0171 for this ICR.

A copy of this ICR may be obtained from

Sandy Farmer, OPIA Regulatory

Information Division, U.S. Environment

Protection Agency (2137), 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington

DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260–2740.

Some of the amendments finalized

today pertain to RCRA provisions of the

rule (i.e., to 40 CFR parts 260 thru 271),

and were covered under an earlier ICR

No. 1361.08. Today’s amendments to

these RCRA provisions are all deregulatory, and do not impose any

burden on the regulated community.

They only reduce the existing burden

shown in that ICR. The ICR No. 1361.08

will be revised to show the reduced

burden when the direct final rule is

promulgated. The public burden

associated with other provisions of this

direct final rule (which are under the

Clean Air Act) is projected to affect

approximately 171 HWC units and is

estimated to average 1.7 hours per

respondent annually. The reporting and

recordkeeping cost burden is estimated

to average $118 per respondent

annually. Burden means total time,

effort, or financial resources expended

by persons to generate, maintain, retain,

disclose, or provide information to or

for a Federal agency. That includes the

time needed to review instructions;

develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purposes

of collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

IX. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub. L. No.

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 35103

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

This rulemaking does not involve

technical standards. Therefore, we are

not considering the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

X. The Congressional Review Act (5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as Added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996)

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A Major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This direct

final rule will be effective on October

16, 2001 unless EPA receives adverse

comment by August 17, 2001.

Part Four: State Authority

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 at

52991).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 264

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous waste,

Insurance, Packaging and containers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures, Surety

bonds.

Dated: June 18, 2001.

Christine Todd Whitman,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSIONS

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 residence time’’ and adding the

definition of ‘‘Preheater tower

combustion gas monitoring location’’ to

paragraph (a) in alphabetical order to

read as follows:

§ 63.1201 Definitions and acronyms used

in this subpart.

(a) * * *

Hazardous waste residence time

means the time elapsed from cutoff of

the flow of hazardous waste into the

combustor (including, for example, the

time required for liquids to flow from

the cutoff valve into the combustor)

until solid, liquid, and gaseous

materials from the hazardous waste

(excluding residues that may adhere to

combustion chamber surfaces and

excluding waste-derived recycled

materials such as cement kiln dust and

internally recycled metals) exit the

combustion chamber. For combustors

with multiple firing systems whereby

the residence time may vary for the

firing systems, the hazardous waste

residence time for purposes of

complying with this subpart means the

longest residence time for any firing

system in use at the time of the waste

cutoff.

* * * * *

Preheater tower combustion gas

monitoring location means a location

within the preheater tower of a dry

process cement kiln downstream (in

terms of gas flow) of all hazardous waste

firing locations and where a

representative sample of combustion gas

to measure combustion efficiency can be

monitored.

* * * * *

3. Section 63.1206 is amended by:

a. Adding paragraph (a)(4).

b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii),

(b)(6)(i), (b)(7)(i)(B), (b)(7)(ii)(B),

(b)(8)(v), (b)(13)(i), and (b)(14).

c. Revising paragraph (c)(7)(ii).

The revisions and additions read as

follows:

§ 63.1206 When and how must you comply

with the standards and operating

requirements?

(a) * * *

(4) Early compliance. If you choose to

comply with the emission standards of

this subpart prior to September 30,

2002, your compliance date is the date

you postmark the Notification of

Compliance under § 63.1207(j)(1).

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) When hazardous waste is not in

the combustion chamber (i.e., the

hazardous waste feed to the combustor

has been cut off for a period of time not

less than the hazardous waste residence

time) and you have documented in the

operating record that you are complying

with all otherwise applicable

requirements and standards

promulgated under authority of sections

112 (e.g., subpart LLL of this part for

cement kilns) or 129 of the Clean Air

Act in lieu of the emission standards of

§§ 63.1203 through 63.1205; the

monitoring and compliance standards of

this section and §§ 63.1207 through

63.1209, except the modes of operation

requirements of § 63.1209(q); and the

notification, reporting, and

recordkeeping requirements of

§§ 63.1210 through 63.1212.

* * * * *

(6) * * *

(i) If a DRE test performed prior to the

compliance date is acceptable as

documentation of compliance with the

DRE standard, you may use the highest

hourly rolling average hydrocarbon

level achieved during the DRE test runs

to document compliance with the

hydrocarbon standard. An acceptable

DRE test is any test for which the data

and results are determined to meet

quality assurance objectives (on a sitespecific basis) such that the results

adequately demonstrate compliance

with the DRE standard.

* * * * *

(7) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) You may use any DRE test data

that documents that your source

achieves the required level of DRE

provided:

(1) You have not modified the design

or operation of your source in a manner

that could effect the ability of your

source to achieve the DRE standard

since the DRE test was performed; and,

(2) The DRE test data meet quality

assurance objectives determined on a

site-specific basis.

(ii) * * *

35104 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(B) You may use any DRE test data

that documents that your source

achieves the required level of DRE

provided:

(1) You have not modified the design

or operation of your source in a manner

that could affect the ability of your

source to achieve the DRE standard

since the DRE test was performed; and,

(2) The DRE test data meet the quality

assurance objectives determined on a

site-specific basis.

* * * * *

(8) * * *

(v) The particulate matter and opacity

standards and associated operating

limits and conditions will not be waived

for more than 96 hours, in the aggregate,

for a correlation test, including all runs

of all test conditions, unless more time

is approved by the Administrator.

* * * * *

(13) * * *

(i) Cement kilns that feed hazardous

waste at a location other than the end

where products are normally discharged

and where fuels are normally fired must

comply with the carbon monoxide and

hydrocarbon standards of § 63.1204 as

follows:

(A) For existing sources, you must not

discharge or cause combustion gases to

be emitted into the atmosphere that

contain either:

(1) Hydrocarbons in the main stack in

excess of 20 parts per million by

volume, over an hourly rolling average

(monitored continuously with a

continuous emissions monitoring

system), dry basis, corrected to 7

percent oxygen, and reported as

propane; or

(2) Hydrocarbons both in the by-pass

duct and at a preheater tower

combustion gas monitoring location in

excess of 10 parts per million by

volume, at each location, over an hourly

rolling average (monitored continuously

with a continuous emissions monitoring

system), dry basis, corrected to 7

percent oxygen, and reported as

propane; or

(3) If the only firing location of

hazardous waste upstream (in terms of

gas flow) of the point where combustion

gases are diverted into the bypass duct

is at the kiln end where products are

normally discharged, then both

hydrocarbons at the preheater tower

combustion gas monitoring location in

excess of 10 parts per million by

volume, over an hourly rolling average

(monitored continuously with a

continuous emissions monitoring

system), dry basis, corrected to 7

percent oxygen, and reported as

propane, and either hydrocarbons in the

by-pass duct in excess of 10 parts per

million by volume, over an hourly

rolling average (monitored continuously

with a continuous emissions monitoring

system), dry basis, corrected to 7

percent oxygen, and reported as

propane, or carbon monoxide in excess

of 100 parts per million by volume, over

an hourly rolling average (monitored

continuously with a continuous

emissions monitoring system), dry basis,

and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If

you comply with the carbon monoxide

standard of 100 parts per million by

volume in the by-pass duct, then you

must also not discharge or cause

combustion gases to be emitted into the

atmosphere that contain hydrocarbons

in the by-pass duct in excess of 10 parts

per million by volume, over an hourly

rolling average (monitored continuously

with a continuous emissions monitoring

system), dry basis, corrected to 7

percent oxygen, and reported as

propane, at any time during the

destruction and removal efficiency

(DRE) test runs or their equivalent as

provided by § 63.1207(b)(7).

(B) For new sources, you must not

discharge or cause combustion gases to

be emitted into the atmosphere that

contain either:

(1) Hydrocarbons in the main stack in

excess of 20 parts per million by

volume, over an hourly rolling average

(monitored continuously with a

continuous emissions monitoring

system), dry basis, corrected to 7

percent oxygen, and reported as

propane; or

(2)(i) Hydrocarbons both in the bypass duct and at a preheater tower

combustion gas monitoring location in

excess of 10 parts per million by

volume, at each location, over an hourly

rolling average (monitored continuously

with a continuous emissions monitoring

system), dry basis, corrected to 7

percent oxygen, and reported as

propane, and

(ii) Hydrocarbons in the main stack, if

construction of the kiln commenced

after April 19, 1996 at a plant site where

a cement kiln (whether burning

hazardous waste or not) did not

previously exist, to 50 parts per million

by volume, over a 30-day block average

(monitored continuously with a

continuous emissions monitoring

system), dry basis, corrected to 7

percent oxygen, and reported as

propane; or

(3)(i) If the only firing location of

hazardous waste upstream (in terms of

gas flow) of the point where combustion

gases are diverted into the bypass duct

is at the kiln end where products are

normally discharged, then both

hydrocarbons at the preheater tower

combustion gas monitoring location in

excess of 10 parts per million by

volume, over an hourly rolling average

(monitored continuously with a

continuous emissions monitoring

system), dry basis, corrected to 7

percent oxygen, and reported as

propane, and either hydrocarbons in the

by-pass duct in excess of 10 parts per

million by volume, over an hourly

rolling average (monitored continuously

with a continuous emissions monitoring

system), dry basis, corrected to 7

percent oxygen, and reported as

propane, or carbon monoxide in excess

of 100 parts per million by volume, over

an hourly rolling average (monitored

continuously with a continuous

emissions monitoring system), dry basis,

and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If

you comply with the carbon monoxide

standard of 100 parts per million by

volume in the by-pass duct, then you

must also not discharge or cause

combustion gases to be emitted into the

atmosphere that contain hydrocarbons

in the by-pass duct in excess of 10 parts

per million by volume, over an hourly

rolling average (monitored continuously

with a continuous emissions monitoring

system), dry basis, corrected to 7

percent oxygen, and reported as

propane, at any time during the

destruction and removal efficiency

(DRE) test runs or their equivalent as

provided by § 63.1207(b)(7).

(ii) If construction of the kiln

commenced after April 19, 1996 at a

plant site where a cement kiln (whether

burning hazardous waste or not) did not

previously exist, hydrocarbons are

limited to 50 parts per million by

volume, over a 30-day block average

(monitored continuously with a

continuous emissions monitoring

system), dry basis, corrected to 7

percent oxygen, and reported as

propane.

* * * * *

(14) Alternative to the particulate

matter standard for incinerators. (i)

General. In lieu of complying with the

applicable particulate matter standard of

§ 63.1203(a)(7) or (b)(7), existing and

new incinerators may elect to instead

comply with the alternative metal

emission control requirements

described in paragraph (b)(14)(ii) or

(b)(14)(iii) of this section, respectively.

(ii) Alternative metal emission control

requirements for existing incinerators.

(A) You must not discharge or cause

combustion gases to be emitted into the

atmosphere that contain lead, cadmium,

and selenium in excess of 240 μg/dscm,

combined emissions, corrected to 7

percent oxygen; and,

(B) You must not discharge or cause

combustion gases to be emitted into the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 35105

atmosphere that contain arsenic,

beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt,

manganese, and nickel in excess of 97

μg/dscm, combined emissions,

corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and,

(C) You must comply with the

provisions specified in paragraph

(b)(14)(iv) of this section.

(iii) Alternative metal emission

control requirements for new

incinerators. (A) You must not discharge

or cause combustion gases to be emitted

into the atmosphere that contain lead,

cadmium, and selenium in excess of 24

μg/dscm, combined emissions,

corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and,

(B) You must not discharge or cause

combustion gases to be emitted into the

atmosphere that contain arsenic,

beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt,

manganese, and nickel in excess of 97

μg/dscm, combined emissions,

corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and,

(C) You must comply with the

provisions specified in paragraph

(b)(14)(iv) of this section.

(iv) Other requirements. Existing and

new incinerators must document in the

operating record that they meet the

requirements of paragraph (b)(14)(iv)(A)

through (C) of this section.

(A) The twelve-hour rolling average of

the maximum theoretical emissions

concentration for lead, cadmium, and

selenium, combined, for the combined

hazardous waste feedstreams to the

incinerator, must not exceed:

(1) For existing incinerators, 1,325 μg/

dscm.

(2) For new incinerators, 875 μg/

dscm.

(B) The twelve-hour rolling average of

the maximum theoretical emissions

concentration for arsenic, beryllium,

chromium, antimony, cobalt,

manganese, and nickel, combined, for

the combined hazardous waste

feedstreams to the incinerator, must not

exceed:

(1) For existing incinerators, 6,000 μg/

dscm.

(2) For new incinerators, 3250 μg/

dscm.

(C) You must document that your air

pollution control system achieves at

least a 90 percent system removal

efficiency for semivolatile metals. In

making this demonstration, you may

spike semivolatile metals above the

applicable levels of paragraph

(b)(14)(iv)(A) or (B) of this section

provided that the applicable alternative

emission limitation of paragraph

(b)(14)(ii)(A) or (iii)(A) of this section is

attained during the test. This test may

be performed independently of the

comprehensive performance test and

must be used to establish applicable

operating parameter limits as described

in § 63.1209(n), not including

§ 63.1209(n)(2), to ensure that a 90

percent semivolatile metal system

removal efficiency is achieved during

normal operations.

(v) Operating limits. (A) Semivolatile

and low volatile metal operating

parameter limits must be established to

ensure compliance with the alternative

emission limitations described in

paragraphs (b)(14)(ii) and (iii) of this

section pursuant to § 63.1209(n), except

that semivolatile metal feedrate limits

would apply to lead, cadmium, and

selenium, combined, and low volatile

metal feedrate limits would apply to

arsenic, beryllium, chromium,

antimony, cobalt, manganese, and

nickel, combined.

(B) Twelve-hour rolling average

hazardous waste metal feedrate limits

required pursuant to paragraphs

(b)(14)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section are

based on the combined hazardous waste

feedstreams to the incinerator and may

be expressed either as an maximum

theoretical emission concentration limit

or as a restriction on maximum

hazardous waste metals mass feedrate

and minimum gas flow rate.

(C) For purposes of complying with

the twelve-hour rolling average

hazardous waste metal feedrate limits of

paragraphs (b)(14)(iv)(A) and (B) of this

section, non-detectable metal

constituents in each hazardous waste

feed must be assumed to be present at

one-half the detection limit.

(c) * * *

(7) * * *

(ii) Bag leak detection system

requirements for baghouses at

lightweight aggregate kilns and

incinerators. If you own or operate a

hazardous waste incinerator or

hazardous waste burning lightweight

aggregate kiln equipped with a baghouse

(fabric filter), you must continuously

operate a bag leak detection system that

meets the specifications and

requirements of paragraph (c)(7)(ii)(A)

of this section and you must comply

with the corrective measures

requirements of paragraph (c)(7)(ii)(B) of

this section:

(A) Bag leak detection system

specification and requirements. (1) The

bag leak detection system must be

certified by the manufacturer to be

capable of continuously detecting and

recording particulate matter emissions

at concentrations of 1.0 milligram per

actual cubic meter or less;

(2) The bag leak detection system

shall provide output of relative

particulate matter loadings;

(3) The bag leak detection system

shall be equipped with an alarm system

that will sound an audible alarm when

an increase in relative particulate

loadings is detected over a preset level;

(4) The bag leak detection system

shall be installed and operated in a

manner consistent with available

written guidance from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency or, in

the absence of such written guidance,

the manufacturer’s written

specifications and recommendations for

installation, operation, and adjustment

of the system;

(5) The initial adjustment of the

system shall, at a minimum, consist of

establishing the baseline output by

adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the

averaging period of the device, and

establishing the alarm set points and the

alarm delay time;

(6) Following initial adjustment, you

must not adjust the sensitivity or range,

averaging period, alarm set points, or

alarm delay time, except as detailed in

the operation and maintenance plan

required under paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this

section. You must not increase the

sensitivity by more than 100 percent or

decrease the sensitivity by more than 50

percent over a 365 day period unless

such adjustment follows a complete

baghouse inspection which

demonstrates the baghouse is in good

operating condition;

(7) For negative pressure or induced

air baghouses, and positive pressure

baghouses that are discharged to the

atmosphere through a stack, the bag leak

detector shall be installed downstream

of the baghouse and upstream of any

wet acid gas scrubber; and

(8) Where multiple detectors are

required, the system’s instrumentation

and alarm system may be shared among

the detectors.

(B) Bag leak detection system

corrective measures requirements. The

operating and maintenance plan

required by paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this

section must include a corrective

measures plan that specifies the

procedures you will follow in the case

of a bag leak detection system alarm.

The corrective measures plan must

include, at a minimum, the procedures

used to determine and record the time

and cause of the alarm as well as the

corrective measures taken to correct the

control device malfunction or minimize

emissions as specified in this paragraph.

Failure to initiate the corrective

measures required by this paragraph is

failure to ensure compliance with the

emission standards in this subpart.

(1) You must initiate the procedures

used to determine the cause of the alarm

within 30 minutes of the time the alarm

first sounds; and

(2) You must alleviate the cause of the

alarm by taking the necessary corrective

35106 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

measure(s) which may include, but are

not to be limited to, the following

measures:

(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air

leaks, torn or broken filter elements, or

any other malfunction that may cause

an increase in emissions;

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter

media;

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter

media, or otherwise repairing th control

device;

(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse

compartment;

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection

system probe, or otherwise repairing the

bag leak detection system; or

(vi) Shutting down the combustor.

4. Section 63.1207 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i).

b. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(A),

(f)(1)(ii)(B), (f)(1)(ii)(C), and (f)(1)(x)(C).

c. Revising paragraph (l)(1)

introductory text.

d. Redesignating paragraph (f)(1)(xxvi)

as (f)(1)(xxvii).

e. Adding paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(D).

f. Adding new paragraph (f)(1)(xxvi).

g. Removing paragraph (n).

The revisions and additions read as

follows:

§ 63.1207 What are the performance

testing requirements?

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) You may request that previous

emissions test data serve as

documentation of conformance with the

emission standards of this subpart

provided that the previous testing:

(A) Results in data that meet quality

assurance objectives (determined on a

site-specific basis) such that the results

adequately demonstrate compliance

with the applicable standards;

(B) Was in conformance with the

requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this

section; and,

(C) Was sufficient to establish the

applicable operating parameter limits

under § 63.1209.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) * * *

(A) Except as provided by paragraph

(f)(1)(ii)(D) of this section, an

identification of such organic hazardous

air pollutants that are present in each

hazardous waste feedstream. You need

not analyze for organic hazardous air

pollutants that would reasonably not be

expected to be found in the feedstream.

You must identify any constituents you

exclude from analysis and explain the

basis for excluding them. You must

conduct the feedstream analysis

according to § 63.1208(b)(8);

(B) An approximate quantification of

such identified organic hazardous air

pollutants in the hazardous waste

feedstreams, within the precision

produced by analytical procedures of

§ 63.1208(b)(8); and

(C) A description of blending

procedures, if applicable, prior to firing

the hazardous waste feedstream,

including a detailed analysis of the

materials prior to blending, and

blending ratios.

(D) The Administrator may approve

on a case-by-case basis a hazardous

waste feedstream analysis for organic

hazardous air pollutants in lieu of the

analysis required under paragraph

(f)(1)(ii)(A) of this section if the reduced

analysis is sufficient to ensure that the

POHCs used to demonstrate compliance

with the applicable DRE standard of

§ 63.1203, § 63.1204, or § 63.1205,

continue to be representative of the

organic hazardous air pollutants in your

hazardous waste feedstreams;

* * * * *

(x) * * *

(C) Documentation that the level of

spiking recommended during the

performance test will mask sampling

and analysis imprecision and

inaccuracy to the extent that the

extrapolated feedrate limits adequately

assure compliance with the emission

standards;

* * * * *

(xxvi) For purposes of calculating

semivolatile metal, low volatile metal,

mercury, and total chlorine (organic and

inorganic), and ash feedrate limits, a

description of how you will handle

performance test feedstream analytical

results that determines these

constituents are not present at

detectable levels.

* * * * *

(l) * * *

(1) Comprehensive performance test.

The provisions of this paragraph do not

apply to the initial comprehensive

performance test if you conduct the test

prior to September 30, 2002 (or a later

compliance date approved under

§ 63.6(i).

* * * * *

5. Section 63.1209 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii).

b. Revising paragraph (l)(2).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 63.1209 What are the monitoring

requirements?

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Accuracy and calibration of

weight measurement devices for

activated carbon injection systems. If

you operate a carbon injection system

the accuracy of the weight measurement

device must be ±1 percent of the weight

being measured. The calibration of the

device must be verified at least once

every three months.

* * * * *

(1) * * *

(2) Wet scrubber. If your combustor is

equipped with a wet scrubber, you must

establish operating parameter limits

prescribed by paragraph (o)(3) of this

section, except for paragraph (o)(3)(iv).

* * * * *

6. Section 63.1211 is amended by

revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 63.1211 What are the record keeping and

reporting requirements?

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) By the compliance date, you must

develop and include in the operating

record a Documentation of Compliance.

You are not subject to this requirement,

however, if you submit a Notification of

Compliance under § 63.1207(j) prior to

the compliance date.

* * * * *

PART 264—STANDARDS FOR

OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF

HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,

STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL

FACILITIES

7. The authority citation for part 264

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,

and 6925.

8. Section 264.340 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraph

(b)(1) and adding paragraph (b)(3) to

read as follows:

§ 264.340 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Except as provided by paragraphs

(b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, the

standards of this part no longer apply

when an owner or operator

demonstrates compliance with the

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) requirements of part

63, subpart EEE of this chapter by

conducting a comprehensive

performance test and submitting to the

Administrator a Notification of

Compliance under §§ 63.1207(j) and

63.1210(d) of this chapter documenting

compliance with the requirements of

part 63, subpart EEE of this chapter.

***

(3) The particulate matter standard of

§ 264.343(c) remains in effect for

incinerators that elect to comply with

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 35107

the alternative to the particulate matter

standard of § 63.1206(b)(14) of this

chapter.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–16425 Filed 7–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 36

[CC Docket No. 80–286; FCC 01–162]

Jurisdictional Separations Reform and

Referral to the Federal-State Joint

Board

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of

effective date.

SUMMARY: This document announces the

effective date of the amendments to our

rules for implementing a five-year

interim ‘‘Freeze’’ of the jurisdictional

separations process in order to simplify

and stabilize the separations process

pending more comprehensive

separations reform. We believe these

modifications will bring simplification

and regulatory certainty to the

separations process in a time of rapid

market and technology changes, until

the comprehensive reform is completed.

The Report and Order in CC Docket No.

80–286 was published in the Federal

Register on June 21, 2001. One of the

rules contained information collection

requirements.

DATES: Section 36.3(b), published at 66

FR 33202, June 21, 2001, was approved

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) on June 22, 2001 and

became effective on June 22, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

Einhorn or Andrew Firth, Common

Carrier Bureau, Accounting Policy

Division, (202) 418–7400, TTY: (202)

418–0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

21, 2001, the Commission released a

Report and Order in CC Docket No. 80–

286 (Order), 66 FR 33202, June 21, 2001,

that took action in response to the

Federal-State Joint Board on

Jurisdictional Separations’

recommended reforms to the

jurisdictional separations process

codified at part 36 of the Commission’s

rules, 47 CFR 36 et seq., as a means to

simplify and stabilize the separations

process pending more comprehensive

reform. Specifically, pending further

reform, the Commission adopts a fiveyear freeze of all part 36 category

relationships and jurisdictional

allocation factors for price cap

incumbent local exchange carriers, and

a freeze of all allocation factors for rateof-return incumbent local exchange

carriers. The Commission believes these

modifications will bring simplification

and regulatory certainty to the

separations process in a time of rapid

market and technology changes, until

comprehensive reform is completed. A

summary of the Order was published in

the Federal Register. See 66 FR 33202,

June 21, 2001. One of the rules

contained information collection

requirements that required OMB

approval. On June 22, 2001, OMB

approved the information collections.

See OMB No. 3060–0988. The rule

amendments adopted by the

Commission in the Order took effect on

June 22, 2001. This publication satisfies

the statement in the Order that the

Commission would publish a document

in the Federal Register announcing the

effective date of that rule.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 36

Jurisdictional separations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–16651 Filed 7–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR PART 73

[DA 01–1239; MM Docket No. 01–37, RM–

10065]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Houston

and Anchorage, AK

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission published in the Federal

Register of June 6, 2001, a document

concerning the allotment of channels in

the State of Alaska. In that Report and

Order, the Commission inadvertently

modified the license of Ubik

Corporation, licensee of Station KNIK–

FM, Anchorage, Alaska, to specify

operation on Channel 286C1 in lieu of

Channel 287C1. This document corrects

that action to modify Station KNIK–FM

to Channel 289C1, the correct channel.

EFFECTIVE DATES: July 2, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media

Bureau, and (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc.

01–14017 published in the Federal

Register of June 6, 2001, (66 FR 30335)

Commission inadvertently modified the

license of Ubik Corporation, licensee of

Station KNIK–FM, Anchorage, Alaska,

to specify operation on Channel 286C1

in lieu of Channel 287C1, rather than

Channel 289C1, the correct channel.

In rule FR Doc. 01–14017, published

on June 6, 2001 (66 FR 30335), make the

following correction. On page 30335, in

the preamble, in the first column, and

in the amendment to § 73.202 in the

second column, remove channel

‘‘286C1’’ and add ‘‘289C1’’ in its place.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A Karousos,

Chief, Allocation Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–16649 Filed 7–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 101

[WT Docket No. 97–81; FCC 01–171]

Multiple Address Systems

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for

reconsideration; clarification.

SUMMARY: The document addresses four

petitions for reconsideration and/or

clarification of the MAS Report and

Order. Specifically, the Commission

responds to requests for reconsideration

and/or clarification of issues relating to

the types of services classified as private

internal, shared use and private carrier

service in the private internal bands,

grandfathering provisions as they relate

to transfers and assignments, service

area coverage of the Gulf of Mexico,

operational flexibility, and other minor

points that help clarify its intentions for

the MAS service. In addition, the

Commission makes minor changes to

certain technical requirements in part

101, as well as, the current application

freeze in the 928/959 megahertz (MHz)

MAS bands. In this document, the

Commission grants two petitions and

grants a third petition, in part. The

fourth petition is dismissed as moot.

DATES: Effective September 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shellie Blakeney at (202) 418–0680,

Public Safety and Private Wireless

Division, Wireless Telecommunications

Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: