Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0117-0153
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large Municipal Waste Combustors
Posted Date: 2006-05-10T12:23:27Z

[Federal Register: May 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 90)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 27323-27348]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10my06-7]                         

[[Page 27323]]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 60

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission 
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large Municipal Waste Combustors; 
Final Rule

[[Page 27324]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0117; FRL-8164-9]
RIN 2060-AL97

 
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission 
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Large Municipal Waste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating amendments to the air emission standards 
for existing and new large municipal waste combustor (MWC) units. 
Standards for MWC units were promulgated in 1995 and implemented in 
2000. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires review of these standards every 
5 years. The review is to be conducted in accordance with CAA section 
129 and section 111 requirements, with standards revised as necessary. 
For existing MWC units, the goal of this action is to amend the 
standards to reflect the actual performance levels being achieved by 
existing MWC units. For new MWC units, the goal of this action is to 
amend the standards to reflect the performance level achievable by MWC 
units constructed in the future. Other technical improvements are also 
being made to the standards for MWC units.

DATES: Effective Dates: The amendment to Sec.  60.50 is effective May 
10, 2006. The final rule amendments to the standards for new sources in 
subpart Eb of 40 CFR part 60 (Sec. Sec.  60.50b, 60.51b, 60.52b, 
60.53b, 60.54b, 60.57b, 60.58b, 60.59b) are effective November 6, 2006. 
The final rule amendments to the emission guidelines for existing 
sources in subpart Cb of 40 CFR part 60 (Sec. Sec.  60.30b, 60.31b, 
60.32b, 60.33b, 60.34b, Tables 1, 2, and 3 to subpart Cb) are effective 
July 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0117. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0117, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room 
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading 
Room is open 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is 
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Walt Stevenson, Energy Strategies 
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), U.S. EPA, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 
541-5264; e-mail address: stevenson.walt@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by 
the final rule are MWC units with a design combustion capacity of 
greater than 250 tons per day. The NSPS and emission guidelines for 
municipal waste combustors affect the following categories of sources:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                SIC code      Examples of potentially regulated
                  Category                     NAICS code      (optional)                  entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry, Federal government, and State/             562213            4953  Solid waste combustors or
 local/tribal governments.                            92411            9511   incinerators at waste-to-energy
                                                                              facilities that generate
                                                                              electricity or steam from the
                                                                              combustion of garbage (typically
                                                                              municipal solid waste); and solid
                                                                              waste combustors or incinerators
                                                                              at facilities that combust garbage
                                                                              (typically municipal solid waste)
                                                                              and do not recover energy from the
                                                                              waste combustion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the 
final rule. To determine whether your facility is regulated by the 
final rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 
60.32b of subpart Cb and 40 CFR 60.50b of subpart Eb. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of the final rule to a particular 
entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Docket. The docket number for the large MWC NSPS (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart Eb) and emission guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb) is 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0117.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the final rule is available on the WWW through 
the Technology Transfer Network Web site (TTN Web). Following 
signature, EPA posted a copy of the final rule on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
 The TTN provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
the final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by July 10, 
2006. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to the final 
rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for 
public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under 
CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by today's final 
action may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal 
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``if the person raising the objection can demonstrate 
to the EPA that is was impracticable to raise such an objection within 
the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection 
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time 
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central 
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such 
a demonstration to the EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration 
to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

[[Page 27325]]

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) 
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and 
the Director of the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20004.
    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to 
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background Information
II. Summary of Amendments
    A. What are the major revisions resulting from the review?
    B. What are the revised emission limits?
    C. Are other amendments being promulgated?
    D. Is an implementation schedule being promulgated?
    E. Has EPA revised the applicability date of the NSPS?
III. Responses to Significant Comments
    A. What areas of the proposal received the most comments?
    B. Why did EPA not recalculate the MACT floor?
    C. Relative to technical issues, how were statistical methods 
used to develop emission limits?
    D. How were the final emission limits selected?
    E. What types of comments were received on the EPA statistical 
methods?
    F. What comments were received on the EPA database and data 
screening procedures?
    G. What was the most important factor affecting emissions 
estimates?
    H. What emission variability factor is appropriate?
    I. What other significant comments were received on the 
proposal, and how were they addressed in the final rule?
    J. What comments were received on the proposed 95 percent CEMS 
data availability requirement and how were they addressed in the 
final rule?
    K. What comments were received on the expanded use of continuous 
emission monitors technology, and how were the comments addressed in 
the final rule?
    L. Would the use of particulate matter continuous emission 
monitors or mercury continuous emission monitors for compliance 
testing require EPA to adopt alternative particulate matter and 
mercury emission limits?
IV. Impacts of the Final Amendments for Existing Units
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background Information

    Section 129 of the CAA, entitled ``Solid Waste Combustion,'' 
requires EPA to develop and adopt NSPS and emission guidelines for 
solid waste incineration units pursuant to CAA sections 111 and 129. 
Section 111(b) of the CAA (NSPS program) addresses emissions from new 
MWC units and section 111(d) of the CAA (emission guidelines program) 
addresses emissions from existing MWC units. The NSPS are directly 
enforceable Federal regulations. The emission guidelines are not 
directly enforceable but, rather, are implemented by State air 
pollution control agencies through sections 111(d)/129 State plans.
    In December 1995, EPA adopted NSPS (subpart Eb of 40 CFR part 60) 
and emission guidelines (subpart Cb of 40 CFR part 60) for MWC units 
with a combustion capacity greater than 250 tons per day. These MWC 
units are referred to as large MWC units. Both the NSPS and emission 
guidelines require compliance with emission limitations that reflect 
the performance of maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The 
NSPS apply to new MWC units after the effective date of the NSPS or at 
start-up, whichever is later. The emission guidelines apply to existing 
MWC units built before the NSPS applicability date and required 
compliance by December 2000. These retrofits were completed on time, 
and the controls installed to meet the required emission limitations 
were highly effective in reducing emissions of all of the CAA section 
129 pollutants emitted by large MWC units.
    Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires EPA to conduct a 5-year 
review of the NSPS and emissions guidelines and, if appropriate, revise 
the NSPS and emission guidelines. The EPA has completed that review. On 
December 19, 2005 (70 FR 75348), EPA proposed amendments to the NSPS 
and emission guidelines to reflect the revisions EPA believes are 
appropriate. EPA carefully considered comments received on the 
proposal, and this action promulgates those revisions.

II. Summary of Amendments

A. What are the major revisions resulting from the review?

    Two major revisions result from EPA's review: Revisions to the 
emission limits and revisions to compliance testing provisions. 
Relative to the 1995 emission guidelines for existing MWC units, the 
emission limits are revised for dioxin, cadmium, lead, mercury, and 
particulate matter. The nitrogen oxides emission limit for mass burn 
rotary waterwall type MWC units is also revised. Relative to the 1995 
NSPS for new MWC units, the emission limits are revised for cadmium, 
lead, mercury, and particulate matter. For both the emission guidelines 
and NSPS, the compliance testing provisions have been revised to 
require increased data availability from continuous emissions 
monitoring systems (CEMS). The revisions require CEMS to generate at 
least 95 percent data availability on a calendar year basis and at 
least 90 percent data availability on a calendar quarter basis. The 
emission guidelines and NSPS have also been revised to allow the 
optional use of CEMS to monitor particulate matter and mercury.

B. What are the revised emission limits?

    The final amendments revise many of the emission limits in both the 
NSPS and emission guidelines. Relative to the NSPS, the most 
significant revisions are in the cadmium and mercury emission limits. 
Relative to the emission guidelines, the most significant revisions are 
in the dioxin/furan (for units equipped with electrostatic 
precipitators (ESPs)) and mercury emission limits, as well as nitrogen 
oxides for mass burn rotary combustors. Table 1 of this preamble 
contains a summary of the final emission limits.

           Table 1.--Final Emission Limits for Large MWC Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Emission limit for
            Pollutant             existing MWC units  Emission limit for
                                          \a\          new MWC units \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/furan (CDD/CDF)..........  30 nanograms per    \b\ 13 nanograms
                                   dry standard        per dry standard
                                   cubic meter total   cubic meter total
                                   mass basis (non-    mass basis.
                                   ESP equipped
                                   units)/35
                                   nanograms per dry
                                   standard cubic
                                   meter total mass
                                   basis (ESP-
                                   equipped units).
Cadmium (Cd)....................  35 micrograms per   10 micrograms per
                                   dry standard        dry standard
                                   cubic meter.        cubic meter.

[[Page 27326]]

Lead (Pb).......................  400 micrograms per  140 micrograms per
                                   dry standard        dry standard
                                   cubic meter.        cubic meter.
Mercury (Hg)....................  50 micrograms per   50 micrograms per
                                   dry standard        dry standard
                                   cubic meter or 85   cubic meter or 85
                                   percent reduction   percent reduction
                                   of mercury          of mercury
                                   emissions.          emissions.
Particulate Matter (PM).........  25 milligrams per   20 milligrams per
                                   dry standard        dry standard
                                   cubic meter.        cubic meter.
Hydrogen chloride (HCl).........  \b\ 29 parts per    \b\ 25 parts per
                                   million dry         million dry
                                   volume or 95        volume or 95
                                   percent reduction   percent reduction
                                   of hydrogen         of hydrogen
                                   chloride            chloride
                                   emissions.          emissions.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)............  \b\ 29 parts per    \b\ 30 parts per
                                   million dry         million dry
                                   volume or 75        volume or 80
                                   percent reduction   percent reduction
                                   of sulfur dioxide   of sulfur dioxide
                                   emissions.          emissions.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)...........  Varies by           \b\ 180 parts per
                                   combustor type      million dry
                                   (see table 1 to     volume/150 parts
                                   subpart Cb of       per million dry
                                   part 60).           volume after
                                                       first year of
                                                       operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits are measured at 7 percent oxygen.
\b\ No change promulgated.

C. Are other amendments being promulgated?

    The final amendments also make the following changes based on 
information received during implementation of the MWC emission 
guidelines and apply equally to the NSPS and emission guidelines, 
unless otherwise specified. Following is a list of the most significant 
changes compared to the 1995 NSPS and emission guidelines.
Operating Practices
     The final amendments revise the operator stand-in 
provisions in Sec.  60.54b(c) to clarify how long a shift supervisor is 
allowed to be off site when a provisionally certified control room 
operator is standing in. A provisionally certified control room 
operator may stand in for up to 12 hours without notifying EPA; for up 
to 2 weeks if EPA is notified; and longer than 2 weeks if EPA is 
notified and the MWC owner demonstrates to EPA that a good faith effort 
is being made to ensure that a certified chief facility operator or 
certified shift supervisor is on site as soon as practicable. In the 
final amendments, a provisionally certified operator who is newly 
promoted or recently transferred to a shift supervisor position or 
chief facility operator position is able to serve up to 6 months 
without notification before taking the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineer's (ASME) Standard for the Qualification and Certification of 
Resource Recovery Facility Operators (QRO) certification exam for full 
certification.
     The final amendments add two additional classifications of 
MWC units to the emission guidelines and add associated carbon monoxide 
limits to assure good combustion practices. The two new classifications 
are ``spreader stoker fixed floor refuse-derived fuel (RDF)-fired/100 
percent coal capable combustor'' and ``semi-suspension RDF-fired 
combustor/wet RDF process conversion.''
Operating Parameters
     The final amendments revise Sec.  60.58b(m) to establish 
an 8-hour block average for measuring activated carbon injection (ACI) 
rate. This makes the NSPS and emission guidelines for large MWC units 
consistent with the newer (year 2000) CAA section 129 regulations for 
small MWC units (40 CFR part 60, subparts AAAA and BBBB), which monitor 
ACI rate using an 8-hour block average.
Performance Testing and Monitoring
     The final amendments revise the annual mercury testing 
requirements to additionally allow for optimization of mercury control 
operating parameters by waiving operating parameter limits during the 
mercury performance test and during the 2 weeks preceding the mercury 
performance test. This is already done for dioxin testing. It is 
recommended that both dioxin and mercury testing be done during 
optimization testing.
     The final amendments revise the relative accuracy 
criterion for sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide CEMS.
     The final amendments add flexibility to the annual 
compliance testing schedule so that a facility tests once per calendar 
year, but no less than 9 months and no more than 15 months since the 
previous test. The revision provides flexibility to facilities when 
facing scheduled and unscheduled outages, adverse local weather 
conditions, and other conditions, while still meeting the intent of the 
compliance testing. The final amendments also require at least five 
compliance tests be completed in each 5-year calendar period.
     The final amendments allow the use of parametric 
monitoring limits from an exceptionally well-operated MWC unit (i.e., 
MWC unit with dioxin emissions for 2 years in a row below 15 nanogram/
dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) for existing MWC units and below 7 
ng/dscm for new MWC units) be applied to all identical units at the 
same plant site without retesting for dioxin.
     The final amendments revise the particulate matter and 
mercury compliance testing requirements to allow the optional use of a 
particulate matter CEMS or mercury CEMS in place of stack testing and 
would allow the optional use of multi-metal, hydrogen chloride, dioxin/
furan CEMS in place of stack tests after which performance 
specifications for these CEMS are promulgated.
     The final amendments add provisions for monitoring the 
activated carbon injection pressure or equivalent parameter.
     The final amendments revise the data availability 
requirement for CEMS. Data must be available for at least 90 percent of 
the hours of operation per calendar quarter and at least 95 percent of 
the hours of operation per calendar year.
     The final amendments clarify the exclusion of monitoring 
data from compliance calculations during periods of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunctions, but requires identification of such periods and an 
explanation for exclusion of such data.
Other Amendments
     The final amendments clarify the meaning of the term 
``Administrator'' in the standards.

D. Is an implementation schedule being promulgated?

    Yes. Under the emission guidelines, and consistent with CAA section 
129, revised State plans containing the revised emission limits and 
other

[[Page 27327]]

requirements in the revised emission guidelines are due within 1 year 
after promulgation of these revisions. That is, revised State plans 
must be submitted to EPA by May 10, 2007.
    The emission guidelines then allow MWC units two compliance 
schedules. As a first option, MWC units have up to 2 years from the 
date of EPA approval of a State plan to comply. Consistent with CAA 
section 129, EPA expects States to require compliance as expeditiously 
as practicable. Large MWC units have already installed the emission 
control equipment necessary to meet the revised limits, and EPA, 
therefore, anticipates that most State plans will include compliance 
dates less than 2 years following approval of State plans. In most 
cases, the only changes necessary are to review the revisions and 
adjust the emission monitoring and reporting accordingly. State plan 
revisions are not approvable until the related State rule or 
enforceable mechanism is adopted and becomes effective. As a second 
compliance option, an owner or operator of an MWC unit that plans a 
substantial upgrade, can apply to the EPA Administrator (if the MWC is 
regulated by a Federal Section 111(d)/129 plan) or the State 
Administrator (if the MWC is regulated by an EPA approved State section 
111(d)/129 plan), for a site-specific compliance schedule that can 
extend up to 5 years following publication of these amendments.
    In revising the emission limits in a State plan, a State has two 
options. First, it could insert the new emission limits in place of the 
current emission limits, follow procedures in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
B, and submit a revised State plan to EPA for approval. If the revised 
State plan contains only the new emission limits (i.e., the existing 
emission limits are not retained), then the new emission limits must 
become effective immediately since the current limits would be removed 
from the State plan. A second approach would be for a State plan to 
include both the current and the new emission limits. This allows a 
phased approach in applying the new limits. That is, the State plan 
would make it clear that the existing emission limits remain in force 
and apply until the date the new emission limits are effective (as 
defined in the State plan).

E. Has EPA revised the applicability date of the NSPS?

    No. The applicability date for the NSPS units remains September 20, 
1994; however, units for which construction or modification is 
commenced after December 19, 2005, are subject to more stringent 
emission limits. Under the final amendments, units that commenced 
construction after September 20, 1994, and on or before December 19, 
2005, continue to be subject to the NSPS emission limits that were 
promulgated in 1995 and that remain in the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb 
NSPS. Units that commence construction after December 19, 2005, are 
subject to the new NSPS limits being added to subpart Eb.
    The EPA is not aware of, and commenters did not identify, any MWC 
units that were modified or reconstructed after June 19, 1996 
(effective date of the December 19, 1995 NSPS), therefore, EPA 
simplified the applicability text for the NSPS to be MWC units that 
commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after September 
20, 1994. The use of one date is the most understandable. As noted in 
adopting regulations for MWC in 1995, any change made to an MWC unit 
for the principal purpose of complying with the subpart Cb, 40 CFR part 
60, emission guidelines or subpart Eb NSPS is not considered to be a 
modification or reconstruction.

III. Responses to Significant Comments

A. What areas of the proposal received the most comments?

    The comment letters received by EPA on the proposed rule, 
identified more than 50 issues for consideration. The most common issue 
was related to the statistical methods used by EPA to assist in 
development of the proposed emission limits. Associated comments 
included those on the adequacy of the database, appropriateness of the 
data screening procedures, and development of emissions variability 
factors. In addition, EPA received legal comments on recalculating the 
MACT floor.

B. Why did EPA not recalculate the MACT floor?

    Section 129(a)(5) of the CAA requires EPA to ``* * * review, and in 
accordance with this section and section 111, revise'' performance 
standards and other requirements under section 129. The provision does 
not mandate that this review be conducted in a single, unvarying 
manner. One commenter, nevertheless, maintains that because of the 
reference to ``this section and section 111,'' EPA is necessarily 
required to repeat the CAA section 129(a) standards development 
process, which includes re-determining the MACT floor for new and 
existing MWC units. EPA does not read the provision as requiring 
another analysis of the MACT floor. A more natural reading of the 
provision is that EPA is to conduct a periodic review to determine 
whether advances in technology warrant revisions to the standards. This 
is the same general approach taken by EPA in reviewing CAA section 111 
standards.
    There is nothing in the language of section 129(a)(5) that speaks 
directly to the issue of whether another floor analysis is required. 
EPA believes that a reasonable interpretation of the reference cited by 
the commenter leads to the conclusion that such an analysis is not 
required. EPA believes that a reasonable interpretation of the 
reference requires EPA to determine ``the degree of emission limitation 
achievable through application of the best system of emission reduction 
which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any 
non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy 
requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately 
demonstrated.'' See, Clean Air Act section 111(a)(1). Recalculating the 
floor as advocated by the commenter would eviscerate the 
Administrator's ability to effectively consider factors that Congress 
has otherwise mandated be considered. That is, once a new floor has 
been calculated, the Administrator cannot establish emission limits 
which are less stringent than that floor even if consideration of costs 
and other factors would otherwise lead him to conclude that this is 
appropriate. EPA believes that Congress would have been explicit in its 
instructions had it intended this result. Since it was not, EPA 
believes that a reasonable interpretation of section 129(a)(5) is that 
it does not require EPA to recalculate the floor for existing units.
    EPA also believes that interpreting section 129(a)(5) as requiring 
additional floor determinations could effectively convert existing 
source standards into new source standards. After 5 years, all sources 
will be performing at least at the existing source MACT level of 
performance and some sources will be performing at the new source MACT 
level of performance. As a result, it is likely that the average 
performance of the best performing 12 percent of sources will be at or 
near the new source MACT level of performance. This would result in 
existing sources being subject to new source MACT requirements on a 5-
year cycle regardless of whether those sources have undergone a change 
which would otherwise require compliance with that standard. EPA sees 
no indication that section 129(a)(5) was intended to have this 
inexorable downward ratcheting effect. Rather, we read the provision as

[[Page 27328]]

requiring EPA to consider developments in pollution control at the 
sources and to revise the standards based on it evaluation of the 
costs, non-air quality effects and energy implications of doing so.

C. Relative to technical issues, how were the statistical methods used 
to develop emission limits?

    The statistical methods were used as an aid. One must remember that 
statistical methods attempt to estimate what could occur in the future 
based on what occurred in the past. Statistical methods provide an 
estimate of what could occur, but they are not the actual process. 
Actual events will determine what actually occurs. The usefulness of 
statistical methods is affected by the appropriateness of the model and 
assumptions used as well as the quality and size of the database. 
Statistical methods are a useful aid in making an informed decision but 
they alone cannot dictate a decision. Human judgment must always be 
applied in making the final decision.

D. How were the final emission limits selected?

    The final emission limits were selected in a three-step process. 
The first step was to develop statistical estimates. The second step 
was to consider the statistical estimates in relation to current 
performance levels. The third step was for EPA to select emission 
limits. Relative to the first step, EPA identified an appropriate 
statistical model, defined reasonable assumptions, and applied the 
model to year 2000 compliance data for all MWC units with the relevant 
control technologies to estimate the peak emission rate that is 
estimated to occur from time to time, considering inherent variability 
in emission levels. Next, EPA obtained year 2000 to 2005 test data from 
more than a dozen MWC units. This data was compared to the statistical 
estimates and considered in relation to public comments. As a last 
step, EPA selected the emission limits for the final standards.

E. What types of comments were received on the EPA statistical methods?

    A range of comments were received on the statistical methodology. 
Some commenters simply presented their own statistical methodology, 
which they claimed was more conventional or appropriate for the data 
analysis being conducted. They went on to claim their methodology would 
lead to more appropriate emission limits. The most common statistical 
methodology identified by commenters followed the approach presented by 
the Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA). EPA concludes that 
the IWSA approach presents another generally acceptable methodology for 
developing emission limits. Based on public comments, EPA revised its 
methodology and updated the database and conducted another analysis. 
The revised methodology used by EPA followed that used by IWSA, but 
improved upon it with more accurate selection of frequency 
distributions on which to base the analyses. Regardless of the 
statistical methodology used, the results of the statistical analysis 
were used only as a tool to aid in selection of appropriate emission 
limits. That is, the estimates from the new statistical analysis were 
used as an aid in selecting the final emission limits. The new analysis 
is contained in the docket.

F. What comments were received on the EPA database and data screening 
procedures?

    Although the MWC database is one of the larger databases EPA has 
had for standards development, a number of commenters indicated the 
database is inadequate because of its age. They indicated that the data 
from initial MACT compliance tests (year 2000) is old and should be 
supplemented with more current data. Some commenters suggested the more 
current data would address emission control performance over time 
including deterioration of the control system. (It could also be argued 
more current data could show improved performance as MWC operators 
became more familiar with operating an emission control system.) EPA 
believes the size of the year 2000 database adequate to address 
emission variability for developing estimates; however, EPA did collect 
2000 to 2005 test data from more than a dozen MWC units to aid in 
reviewing emission control performance over time and to compare to the 
statistical estimates. Additionally, commenters identified a number of 
errors in the database. These were corrected by EPA. Relative to data 
screening as done by EPA at proposal, commenters claimed its use 
inappropriate and that it introduced bias to the results. At proposal, 
EPA had screened data to identify values that required additional 
investigation not because the values were high or low. Based on public 
comments, EPA dropped the data screening procedure in its final 
analysis. In some cases, using the unscreened data rather than the 
screened data changed estimates, but in other cases it did not. For 
example, the particulate matter emissions limit with or without data 
screening did not change. For cadmium, the change from data screening 
to non-screening changed the estimate by 1 micrograms/dry standard 
cubic meter ([mu]g/dscm) (31 [mu]g/dscm to 32 [mu]g/dscm). A more 
significant change resulting from changing from data screening to non-
screening was in the estimate for the lead emission limit.
    EPA found that data received following proposal showed highly 
variable lead emissions. The statistical analysis data for lead used by 
EPA and IWSA was not as variable as data for subsequent years that were 
obtained after the statistical analyses were completed. Therefore, EPA 
discounted both the EPA and industry statistical estimates, and based 
the final limit on a review of the year 2000-2005 test data and public 
comment, selecting a higher emission limit.
    In selecting the final mercury emission limit, EPA again discounted 
both the EPA and industry statistical estimates, and based the final 
limit on a review of the year 2000-2005 test data and public comment, 
this time selecting a lower emission limit. The EPA and IWSA analyses 
used year 2000 test data, and both analyses supported retention of the 
existing mercury limit of 80 [mu]g/dscm. However, EPA obtained mercury 
test data for 68 different tests conducted on ESP-equipped MWC units in 
the 2000 to 2005 time period. These data showed that mercury emissions 
are considerably lower than suggested by the statistical analyses. To 
understand this performance, EPA reviewed uncontrolled mercury 
emissions data from a number of MWC units for the 1995 to 2005 time 
period. The data showed that in 1995, when the MACT standards were 
adopted, average uncontrolled mercury emission levels were about 250 
[mu]g/dscm, and, by 2005, the level was reduced by about 50 percent to 
about 125 [mu]g/dscm. The result of application of 85 percent mercury 
control to these lower mercury inlet levels has resulted in much lower 
mercury outlet levels, as demonstrated by the test data. A 50 percent 
reduction in inlet mercury levels suggests an emission limit of 40 
[mu]g/dscm in the MACT standards. Public comments and test data 
suggested that levels less than 30 [mu]g/dscm are being achieved. 
However, in consideration of the potential use of mercury CEMS and the 
higher mercury variability that may be observed with CEMS use, the 
final standards were set at 50 [mu]g/dscm for both existing and new MWC 
units.

G. What was the most important factor affecting emissions estimates?

    The emission variability factor was the most important factor 
affecting emissions estimates. The emission

[[Page 27329]]

variability factor is an emission factor that is added to the mean 
performance level in order to estimate the peak emissions level that 
will occur from time to time. For example, over an extended period 
(many years) particulate matter emissions from an MWC could average 15 
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm). Clearly, individual 
particulate matter tests would be above and below 15 mg/dscm. The 
emission variability factor addresses how much individual test values 
are estimated to be above the 15 mg/dscm mean value. If the variability 
factor were 10 mg/dscm, it would mean that it is estimated that from 
time to time particulate matter emissions could be as high as 25 mg/
dscm (15 + 10 = 25).

H. What emission variability factor is appropriate?

    Although most commenters and EPA used similar statistical 
methodology, differences were identified in assumptions used to develop 
emission variability factors. EPA used percentiles. The percentile 
addresses how often one would estimate that an emissions level may 
exceed a certain value (the standard). For analysis of CEMS data, such 
as sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides, where 365 tests (24-hr CEMS 
average) are conducted per year, EPA and commenters agreed the emission 
limit should be set at a level that would be expected to be exceeded 
only once per year at a well-operated MWC plant. Once per year 
translates into a 99.7 percentile level. A number of commenters 
suggested the use of a 99.7 percentile for development of limits using 
both CEMS data (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide) and stack test data 
(cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate matter, dioxin, and hydrogen 
chloride). This is one area where EPA disagrees with these commenters. 
EPA concludes a different assumption is appropriate.
    For stack test emission limits, EPA used a different and lower 
percentile. This is the same approach EPA used at proposal. Analysis of 
data to estimate emission limits to be enforced by stack test methods 
must be done using a different approach than where enforcement is to be 
based on CEMS. Historically, for stack test data, EPA used its judgment 
to select appropriate emission limits in consideration of emissions 
variability over a wide range of operating conditions, and 
consideration of the limitations of compliance determination by 
infrequent stack testing. For this rulemaking, EPA moved a step forward 
using statistical methods to aid in estimating appropriate emission 
levels for stack test compliance. The percentile for estimating 
emission limits enforced by infrequent stack testing must also reflect 
a reasonable consideration of emissions variability and compliance 
limitations of stack testing. Based on EPA's experience, EPA concluded 
a 99 percentile was appropriate to estimate achievable emission levels 
for emission limits enforced by stack testing. Therefore, just as done 
in the December 19, 2005 proposal, EPA continues to use a 99 percentile 
for estimating emission limits to be enforced by stack testing and 99.7 
percentile for estimating emission limits to be enforced by CEMS. The 
commenters did not provide any persuasive information for the use of a 
99.7 percentile for both CEMS and stack test compliance methods.

I. What other significant comments were received on the proposal, and 
how were they addressed in the final rule?

    Other significant comment topics included CEMS data availability 
and increased use of CEMS, including particulate matter CEMS and other 
new CEMS technology. The CEMS data availability issue and increased use 
of CEMS technology are discussed below. Other comments are addressed in 
the response to comment document, which is contained in the docket.

J. What comments were received on the proposed 95 percent CEMS data 
availability requirement, and how were they addressed in the final 
rule?

    Most commenters agreed that 95 percent CEMS data availability was 
achievable by a single CEMS, but indicated that legally requiring 
demonstration of such high availability levels on a short term basis 
may result in the installation of a second backup CEMS to assure 
compliance. Commenters indicated that from time to time it is necessary 
to obtain replacement parts for CEMS, sometimes from foreign suppliers, 
and this can quickly deteriorate data availability levels on a short 
term basis. In proposing the 95 percent data availability requirement, 
it was not EPA's intention to require installation of a second backup 
CEMS. To address these concerns, the final rule addresses CEMS data 
availability in two steps. First, a 90 percent CEMS data availability 
requirement is applied on a calendar quarter basis. Second, a 95 
percent data availability requirement is applied on a calendar year 
basis. The procedure for calculation of data availability is also 
revised in the final rule to be hours of valid CEMS data collected 
divided by the hours of MWC operation. This is done on a calendar 
quarter basis for the 90 percent requirement and on a calendar year 
basis for the 95 percent requirement. The current requirement of 
obtaining CEMS data for 75 percent of the operating hours per day 
before data is counted toward the CEMS data availability requirement 
has been removed from the MWC regulations to assure consistency with 
CEMS requirements for other source categories.

K. What comments were received on the expanded use of CEMS technology, 
and how were the comments addressed in the final rule?

    In the proposal, EPA allowed the optional use of particulate matter 
CEMS and requested comment on the optional use of particulate matter 
CEMS, multi-metal CEMS, hydrogen chloride CEMS, and semi-continuous 
dioxin monitoring. Some commenters stated the CEMS have not been 
validated on MWC units; that PM CEMS have not been installed in any MWC 
in the United States; and the use of PM CEMS on MWCs in Europe are not 
indicative of the appropriateness of their use in the United States, 
because of differences in how CEMS are used for enforcement. While PM 
CEMS are used in the United States on other types of sources, there 
could be some operational differences between these sources and MWCs 
that affect the performance of PM CEMS on MWCs.
    In the final rule, EPA is allowing, as optional test methods, the 
use of particulate matter CEMS and mercury CEMS, since performance 
specifications are available for these CEMS. In the regulations, the 
owners or operators of an MWC would provide EPA a 30 day notice before 
starting to use the CEMS and provide a 30 day notice if they elect to 
discontinue the use of the CEMS. As an incentive for the optional 
application of CEMS in the MWC context, EPA is modifying the monitoring 
availability requirements. The 90 percent and 95 percent CEMS data 
availability requirements do not apply to particulate matter CEMS or 
mercury CEMS use for the first 2 years of application. For the other 
CEMS (multi-metal, hydrogen chloride, and semi-continuous dioxin 
monitoring), their optional use is allowed after their respective 
performance specifications are adopted by EPA. No dates for adoption 
are currently scheduled.

L. Would the use of particulate matter CEMS or mercury CEMS for 
compliance testing require EPA to adopt alternative particulate matter 
and mercury emission limits?

    Theoretically, yes. The use of particulate matter CEMS or mercury

[[Page 27330]]

CEMS for compliance testing would theoretically require EPA to adopt 
alternative particulate matter and mercury emission limits. The move 
from once per year stack testing (where emission limits were calculated 
from the 99 percentile) to CEMS (99.7 percentile) suggests the emission 
limit should be increased if the same data averaging period is used. To 
address this, the final rule increases the data averaging period from 8 
hours (typical particulate matter and mercury stack test period) to a 
24-hr daily average if particulate matter or mercury CEMS are used. 
Past analysis of sulfur dioxide CEMS and nitrogen oxides CEMS data (and 
utility particulate matter CEMS data) indicate increasing the averaging 
period to a 24-hr daily average will reduce emissions variability and 
associated peak emissions estimates. EPA supports the optional use of 
particulate matter and mercury CEMS, but is fully aware that no 
particulate matter CEMS or mercury CEMS data from MWC units are 
available from domestic MWC units. EPA encourages MWC owners or 
operators who elect to apply particulate matter or mercury CEMS, to 
notify EPA as soon as data are collected to allow a determination if 
alternative emission limits are appropriate.

IV. Impacts of the Final Amendments

    EPA projects the final amendments will have no additional impacts 
to air, water, or energy since the final emission limits can be 
achieved using the same air pollution control technology that was used 
to comply with the current emission limits. Similarly, EPA expects 
minimal cost and no economic impact for the same reason. Existing large 
MWC units will continue to use their existing MACT control technology 
to meet the emission limits, and will not incur costs to retrofit 
equipment. In addition, EPA does not believe that the revised limits 
will result in any increase in operating or maintenance costs. The same 
conclusions apply to new MWC units since EPA expects that new MWC units 
will be equipped with the same control technology used to comply with 
the 1995 NSPS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to review by OMB and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory 
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) 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;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified 
EPA that it considers the final rule a ``significant regulatory 
action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted 
today's action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB 
suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget previously approved the 
information collection requirements contained in the NSPS and emission 
guidelines for large MWC units under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., at the time the NSPS and 
emission guidelines were promulgated on December 19, 1995 and 
subsequent recertifications. The information collection request has 
been assigned OMB Control Number 2060-0210 (EPA ICR No. 1506.10).
    The final amendments result in no changes to the information 
collection requirements of the NSPS or emission guidelines and will 
have no impact on the information collection estimate of project cost 
and hour burden made and approved by OMB. Therefore, the information 
collection requests have not been revised.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This 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.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 40 CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the final rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as follows: (1) A small business in 
the regulated industry that has gross annual revenues of less than $6 
million; (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-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and 
is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of the final rule on small 
entities, EPA has concluded that today's action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, Public 
Law 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, 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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 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 cost-effective, 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.

[[Page 27331]]

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, EPA must have developed a small government agency plan 
under section 203 of the UMRA. 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's regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that the final 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 1 year because the final rule does not require a change 
in the control technology applied. Thus, the final rule is not subject 
to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, 
EPA has determined that the final rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. Therefore, the final rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (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'' is 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.''
    The final 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. The final rule will not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments 
because the regulations will not require any change in the emission 
control technology currently used to comply with the 1995 NSPS and 
emissions guidelines, and will not preempt State law. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to the final amendments.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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.''
    The final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. They 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. EPA is not aware of any large MWC unit owned or 
operated by tribal government. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to the final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (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, EPA 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 EPA considered.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. The final amendments are not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on technology 
performance and not on health and safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.
    Since there would be no change in energy consumption resulting from 
the final rule, EPA does not expect any price increase for any energy 
type. We also expect that there will be no impact on the import of 
foreign energy supplies, and no other adverse outcomes are expected to 
occur with regards to energy supplies. Therefore, EPA concludes that 
the final rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on 
the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the 
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in 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) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary 
consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
annual reports to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with 
explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    The MWC NSPS and emission guidelines involve technical standards. 
The EPA cites the following methods in the NSPS and emission 
guidelines: Methods 1, 3, 3A, 3B, 5, 6, 6A or 6C, 7 or 7A, 7C, 7D, or 
7E, 9, 10, 10A or 10B, 19, 22, 23, 26, 26A, and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A; Performance Specifications (PS) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix B; and appendix F to 40 CFR part 60.
    In previous searches and review, which have been documented and 
placed in the docket, EPA identified four voluntary consensus standards 
that have already been incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 60.17. The 
voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6216 (1998), ``Standard Practice for 
Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and 
Performance Specifications,'' is an acceptable alternative for opacity

[[Page 27332]]

monitor design specifications given in EPA's PS 1 (promulgated in March 
1983). As a result, EPA incorporated ASTM D6216-98 by reference into PS 
1 as the design specifications for opacity monitors in August 2000. (40 
CFR part 60, appendix B.) The MWC NSPS and emission guidelines also 
incorporate by reference into 40 CFR part 60.17 ASME QRO-1-1994, 
``Standard for the Qualification and Certification of Resource Recovery 
Facility Operators'' for operator qualification and certification; ASME 
PTC 4.1-1964 (reaffirmed 1991), ``Power Test Codes: Test Code for Steam 
Generating Units,'' for steam or feedwater flow; and ASME Interim 
Supplement 19.5 (6th Edition, 1971), ``Instruments and Apparatus: 
Application, Part II of Fluid Meters,'' for nozzle and orifice design.
    In this search and review, EPA conducted searches to identify 
voluntary consensus standards in addition to EPA methods in the MWC 
NSPS and emission guidelines. No applicable voluntary consensus 
standards were identified for EPA Methods 7D, 9, 10A, 19, and 22; and 
PS 3 and 4A. The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 
27 voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to the final 
amendments. One of the 27 voluntary consensus standards identified in 
this search was not available at the time the review was conducted for 
the purposes of the amendments because the standard is under 
development by a voluntary consensus body: ASTM WK3159 (Begun in 2003), 
``Practice for Quality Assurance of Instrumental Monitoring Systems.'' 
The EPA determined that two of the remaining 26 standards identified 
for measuring emissions subject to the NSPS and emission guidelines 
were practical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the 
final amendments. EPA determined that 24 standards were not practical 
alternatives to EPA test methods, therefore, EPA does not intend to 
adopt these standards for this purpose. The reasons for EPA's 
determinations are discussed in a memorandum in the docket.
    EPA identified two voluntary consensus standards as alternatives to 
EPA test methods. ASME PTC 19-10-1981--Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses'' includes manual and instrumental methods of analyses for 
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, oxygen, and sulfur dioxide. The 
manual methods of ASME PTC 19-10-1981--Part 10 for measuring the 
nitrogen oxide, oxygen, and sulfur dioxide content of exhaust gas are 
acceptable alternatives to Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 7, and 7C. The 
instrumental methods of ASME PTC 19-10-1981--Part 10 are not acceptable 
as a substitute for EPA Methods 3A, 6C, 7A, 7E, 10, and 10B. The 
instrumental methods are only general descriptions of procedures and 
are not true methods. Therefore, while some of the manual methods are 
acceptable alternatives to EPA methods, the instrumental methods are 
not.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6784-02, ``Standard Test 
Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas 
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),'' 
is an alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury only) as a 
method for measuring mercury. A full discussion of acceptable and 
unacceptable voluntary consensus standards is contained in a memorandum 
in the docket.

J. Congressional Review Act

    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 the final 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 final rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This final rule is not a major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). The final rule amendments to the standards of performance for 
new stationary sources is effective November 6, 2006. The final rule 
amendments to the emission guidelines for existing sources is effective 
on July 10, 2006.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 28, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart Cb--[Amended]

0
2. Revise Sec.  60.30b to read as follows:

Sec.  60.30b  Scope and delegation of authority.

    (a) This subpart contains emission guidelines and compliance 
schedules for the control of certain designated pollutants from certain 
municipal waste combustors in accordance with section 111(d) and 
section 129 of the Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. The 
provisions in these emission guidelines apply instead of the provisions 
of Sec.  60.24(f) of subpart B of this part.
    (b) The following authorities are retained by EPA:
    (1) Approval of exemption claims in Sec.  60.32b(b)(1), (d), (e), 
(f)(1), (i)(1);
    (2) Approval of a nitrogen oxides trading program under Sec.  
60.33b(d)(2);
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods;
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring;
    (5) Waiver of recordkeeping; and
    (6) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.  608(b).

0
3. Amend Sec.  60.31b by adding the definitions of ``EPA,'' ``Semi-
suspension refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/wet refuse-derived fuel 
process conversion,'' and ``Spreader stoker fixed floor refuse-derived 
fuel-fired combustor/100 percent coal capable'' in alphabetical order 
to read as follows:

Sec.  60.31b  Definitions.

    EPA means the Administrator of the U.S. EPA or employee of the U.S. 
EPA who is delegated to perform the specified task.
* * * * *
    Semi-suspension refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/wet refuse-
derived fuel process conversion means a combustion unit that was 
converted from a wet refuse-derived fuel process to a dry refuse-
derived fuel process, and because of constraints in the design of the 
system, includes a low furnace height (less than 60 feet between the 
grate and the roof) and a high waste capacity-to-undergrate air zone 
ratio (greater than 300 tons of waste per day (tpd) fuel per each 
undergrate air zone).
    Spreader stoker fixed floor refuse-derived fuel-fired combustor/100 
percent coal capable means a spreader stoker type combustor with a 
fixed floor grate design that typically fires 100 percent refuse-
derived fuel but is equipped to burn 100 percent coal instead of 
refuse-derived fuel to fulfill 100 percent steam or energy demand.

0
4. Amend Sec.  60.32b by:

[[Page 27333]]

0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e);
0
d. Revising paragraph (f)(1);
0
e. Revising paragraph (i)(1); and
0
f. Adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.32b  Designated facilities.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Notifies EPA of an exemption claim,
* * * * *
    (d) A qualifying small power production facility, as defined in 
section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that 
burns homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not 
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy is 
not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility 
notifies EPA of this exemption and provides data documenting that the 
facility qualifies for this exemption.
    (e) A qualifying cogeneration facility, as defined in section 
3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), that burns 
homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not 
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy 
and steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) that are used for 
industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes, is not subject to 
this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility notifies EPA of 
this exemption and provides data documenting that the facility 
qualifies for this exemption.
    (f) * * *
    (1) Notifies EPA of an exemption claim, and
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) Notifies EPA of an exemption claim,
* * * * *
    (n) Any affected facility meeting the applicability requirements 
under this section is not subject to subpart E of this part.

0
5. Amend Sec.  60.33b by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c);
0
c. Removing table 1 from paragraph (d) introductory text and table 2 
from paragraph (d)(1)(iii); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(2) and (d)(3) introductory text to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.33b  Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor metals, 
acid gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides.

    (a) The emission limits for municipal waste combustor metals are 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section.
    (1) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for 
particulate matter and opacity at least as protective as the emission 
limits for particulate matter and opacity specified in paragraphs 
(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission limit for particulate 
matter contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a 
designated facility is 27 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen. On and after April 28, 2009, the 
emission limit for particulate matter contained in the gases discharged 
to the atmosphere from a designated facility is 25 milligrams per dry 
standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (iii) The emission limit for opacity exhibited by the gases 
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility is 10 percent 
(6-minute average).
    (2) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for 
cadmium at least as protective as the emission limits for cadmium 
specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv) of this section.
    (i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission limit for cadmium contained 
in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility is 
40 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent 
oxygen. On and after April 28, 2009, the emission limit for cadmium 
contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated 
facility is 35 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen.
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (3) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for 
mercury at least as protective as the emission limits specified in this 
paragraph. Before April 28, 2009, the emission limit for mercury 
contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated 
facility is 80 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter or 15 percent of 
the potential mercury emission concentration (85-percent reduction by 
weight), corrected to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less stringent. On 
and after April 28, 2009, the emission limit for mercury contained in 
the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility is 50 
micrograms per dry standard cubic meter or 15 percent of the potential 
mercury emission concentration (85-percent reduction by weight), 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less stringent.
    (4) For approval, a State plan shall include an emission limit for 
lead at least as protective as the emission limit for lead specified in 
this paragraph. Before April 28, 2009, the emission limit for lead 
contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated 
facility is 440 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen. On and after April 28, 2009, the emission limit for 
lead contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a 
designated facility is 400 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
* * * * *
    (c) The emission limits for municipal waste combustor organics, 
expressed as total mass dioxin/furan, are specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
    (1) For approval, a State plan shall include an emission limit for 
dioxin/furan contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a 
designated facility at least as protective as the emission limit for 
dioxin/furan specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), and 
(c)(1)(iii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) Before April 28, 2009, the emission limit for designated 
facilities that employ an electrostatic precipitator-based emission 
control system is 60 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total 
mass), corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
    (ii) On and after April 28, 2009, the emission limit for designated 
facilities that employ an electrostatic precipitator-based emission 
control system is 35 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total 
mass), corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
    (iii) The emission limit for designated facilities that do not 
employ an electrostatic precipitator-based emission control system is 
30 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), corrected to 7 
percent oxygen.
    (d) * * *
    (2) A State plan may establish a program to allow owners or 
operators of municipal waste combustor plants to engage in trading of 
nitrogen oxides emission credits. A trading program must be approved by 
EPA before implementation.
    (3) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for 
nitrogen oxides from fluidized bed combustors at least as protective as 
the emission limits listed in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii) of 
this section.
* * * * *

Sec.  60.34b  [Amended]

0
6. Amend Sec.  60.34b by removing table 3 from paragraph (a) 
introductory text.

0
7. Amend Sec.  60.39b by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;

[[Page 27334]]

0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(B);
0
d. Revising paragraph (e); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.39b  Reporting and recordkeeping guidelines and compliance 
schedules.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, not later 
than December 19, 1996, each State in which a designated facility is 
located shall submit to EPA a plan to implement and enforce all 
provisions of this subpart except the revised April 28, 2009 emission 
limits in Sec.  60.33b(a), (c), and (d). Not later than April 28, 2007, 
each State in which a designated facility is located shall submit to 
EPA a plan to implement and enforce all provisions of this subpart, as 
amended on May 10, 2006. The submittal schedule specified in this 
paragraph is in accordance with section 129(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act 
and applies instead of the schedule provided in Sec.  60.23(a)(1) of 
subpart B of this part.
    (c) For approval, a State plan that is submitted prior to May 10, 
2006 shall include the compliance schedules specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (c)(5) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) The owner or operator of a designated facility may request that 
the Administrator waive the requirement specified in Sec.  60.54b(d) of 
subpart Eb of this part for chief facility operators, shift 
supervisors, and control room operators who have obtained provisional 
certification from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers on or 
before the initial date of State plan approval.
* * * * *
    (e) Not later than August 25, 1998, each State in which a 
designated facility is operating shall submit to EPA a plan to 
implement and enforce all provisions of this subpart specified in Sec.  
60.33b(b)(3) and (d)(3) and the emission limit in paragraph (a)(4) that 
applies before April 28, 2009.
* * * * *
    (g) For approval, a revised State plan submitted not later than 
April 28, 2007 in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, shall 
include compliance schedules for meeting the revised April 28, 2009 
emission limits in Sec.  60.33b(a), (c), and (d) and the revised 
testing provisions in Sec.  60.38b(b).
    (1) Compliance with the revised April 28, 2009 emission limits is 
required as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than April 28, 
2009, except as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
    (2) The owner or operator of an affected facility who is planning 
an extensive emission control system upgrade may petition the 
Administrator for a longer compliance schedule and must demonstrate to 
the satisfaction of the Administrator the need for the additional time. 
If approved, the schedule may exceed the schedule in paragraph (g)(1) 
of this section, but cannot exceed May 10, 2011.
    (h) In the event no plan for implementing the emission guidelines 
is approved by EPA, all designated facilities meeting the applicability 
requirements under Sec.  60.32b shall be in compliance with all of the 
guidelines, including the revised April 28, 2009 emission limits in 
Sec.  60.33b(a), (b), (c), (d), and Sec.  60.34b(a), and the revised 
testing provisions in Sec.  60.38b(b), no later than May 10, 2011.

0
8. Add tables 1, 2, and 3 to the end of subpart Cb to read as follows:

    Table 1 to Subpart Cb of Part 60.--Nitrogen Oxides Guidelines for
                          Designated Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          On and after
                                    Before April 28,    April 28, 2009,
                                     2009,  nitrogen    nitrogen oxides
    Municipal waste combustor        oxides emission     emission limit
            technology              limit  (parts per      (parts per
                                   million by volume)      million by
                                           \a\            volume) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass burn waterwall..............  205...............  205.
Mass burn rotary waterwall.......  250...............  210.
Refuse-derived fuel combustor....  250...............  250.
Fluidized bed combustor..........  180...............  180.
Mass burn refractory combustors..  No limit..........  No limit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.

 Table 2 to Subpart Cb of Part 60.--Nitrogen Oxides Limits for Existing
   Designated Facilities Included in an Emissions Averaging Plan at a
                    Municipal Waste Combustor Plant b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          On and after
                                     Before April 28,   April 28, 2009,
                                      2009, nitrogen    nitrogen oxides
     Municipal waste combustor       oxides emission     emission limit
            technology               limit (parts per      (parts per
                                        million by         million by
                                       volume) \b\        volume) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass burn waterwall...............                185                185
Mass burn rotary waterwall........                220                190
Refuse-derived fuel combustor.....                230                230
Fluidized bed combustor...........                165               165
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Mass burn refractory municipal waste combustors and other MWC
  technologies not listed above may not be included in an emissions
  averaging plan.
\b\ Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.

 Table 3 to Subpart Cb of Part 60.--Municipal Waste Combustor Operating
                               Guidelines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Carbon monoxide
                                     emissions levels
     Municipal waste combustor          (parts per       Averaging time
            technology                  million by         (hrs) \b\
                                       volume) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass burn waterwall...............                100                  4

[[Page 27335]]

Mass burn refractory..............                100                  4
Mass burn rotary refractory.......                100                 24
Mass burn rotary waterwall........                250                 24
Modular starved air...............                 50                  4
Modular excess air................                 50                  4
Refuse-derived fuel stoker........                200                 24
Fluidized bed, mixed fuel (wood/                  200             \c\ 24
 refuse-derived fuel).............
Bubbling fluidized bed combustor..                100                  4
Circulating fluidized bed                         100                  4
 combustor........................
Pulverized coal/refuse-derived                    150                  4
 fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor..
Spreader stoker coal/refuse-                      200                 24
 derived fuel mixed fuel-fired
 combustor........................
Semi-suspension refuse-derived                    250             \c\ 24
 fuel-fired combustor/wet refuse-
 derived fuel process conversion..
Spreader stoker fixed floor refuse-               250            \c\ 24
 derived fuel-fired combustor/100
 percent coal capable.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement
  of oxygen concentration, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
  Calculated as an arithmetic average.
\b\ Averaging times are 4-hour or 24-hour block averages.
\c\ 24-hour block average, geometric mean.

Subpart E--[Amended]

0
9. Amend Sec.  60.50 by adding paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.50  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
    (c) Any facility covered by subpart Cb, Eb, AAAA, or BBBB of this 
part is not covered by this subpart.
    (d) Any facility covered by an EPA approved State section 111(d)/
129 plan implementing subpart Cb or BBBB of this part is not covered by 
this subpart.
    (e) Any facility covered by subpart FFF or JJJ of part 62 of this 
title (Federal section 111(d)/129 plan implementing subpart Cb or BBBB 
of this part) is not covered by this subpart.

Subpart Eb--[Amended]

0
10. Amend Sec.  60.50b by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e);
0
d. Revising paragraph (f);
0
e. Revising paragraph (g)(1);
0
f. Revising paragraph (j)(1); and
0
g. Revising paragraph (n).

Sec.  60.50b  Applicability and delegation of authority.

    (a) The affected facility to which this subpart applies is each 
municipal waste combustor unit with a combustion capacity greater than 
250 tons per day of municipal solid waste for which construction, 
modification, or reconstruction is commenced after September 20, 1994.
    (b) * * *
    (1) Notifies EPA of an exemption claim;
* * * * *
    (e) A qualifying small power production facility, as defined in 
section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that 
burns homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not 
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy is 
not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility 
notifies EPA of this exemption and provides data documenting that the 
facility qualifies for this exemption.
    (f) A qualifying cogeneration facility, as defined in section 
3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), that burns 
homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not 
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy 
and steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) that are used for 
industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes, is not subject to 
this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility notifies EPA of 
this exemption and provides data documenting that the facility 
qualifies for this exemption.
    (g) * * *
    (1) Notifies EPA of an exemption claim; and
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) Notifies EPA of an exemption claim;
* * * * *
    (n) The following authorities are retained by the Administrator of 
the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to a State:
    (1) Approval of exemption claims in paragraphs (b), (e), (f), (g) 
and (j) of this section;
    (2) Enforceability under Federal law of all Federally enforceable, 
as defined in Sec.  60.51b, limitations and conditions;
    (3) Determination of compliance with the siting requirements as 
specified in Sec.  60.57b(a);
    (4) Acceptance of relationship between carbon monoxide and oxygen 
as part of initial and annual performance tests as specified in Sec.  
60.58b(b)(7);
    (5) Approval of other monitoring systems used to obtain emissions 
data when data is not obtained by CEMS as specified in Sec.  
60.58b(e)(14), (h)(12), (i)(11), and (n)(14), and (p)(11);
    (6) Approval of a site-specific monitoring plan for the continuous 
emission monitoring system specified in ``60.58b(n)(13) and (o) of this 
section or the continuous automated sampling system specified in Sec.  
60.58b(p)(10) and (q) of this section;
    (7) Approval of major alternatives to test methods;
    (8) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring;
    (9) Waiver of recordkeeping; and
    (10) Performance test and data reduction waivers under ``608(b).
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  60.51b by revising the definition of ``Federally 
enforceable'' and adding the definitions for ``Administrator,'' 
``Continuous automated sampling system,'' and ``EPA,'' in alphabetical 
order to read as follows:

Sec.  60.51b  Definitions.

    Administrator means:
    (1) For approved and effective State Section 111(d)/129 plans, the 
Director of the State air pollution control agency, or employee of the 
State air pollution control agency that is delegated the authority to 
perform the specified task;

[[Page 27336]]

    (2) For Federal Section 111(d)/129 plans, the Administrator of the 
EPA, an employee of the EPA, the Director of the State air pollution 
control agency, or employee of the State air pollution control agency 
to whom the authority has been delegated by the Administrator of the 
EPA to perform the specified task; and
    (3) For NSPS, the Administrator of the EPA, an employee of the EPA, 
the Director of the State air pollution control agency, or employee of 
the State air pollution control agency to whom the authority has been 
delegated by the Administrator of the EPA to perform the specified 
task.
* * * * *
    Continuous automated sampling system means the total equipment and 
procedures for automated sample collection and sample recovery/analysis 
to determine a pollutant concentration or emission rate by collecting a 
single or multiple integrated sample(s) of the pollutant (or diluent 
gas) for subsequent on-or off-site analysis; integrated sample(s) 
collected are representative of the emissions for the sample time as 
specified by the applicable requirement.
* * * * *
    EPA means the Administrator of the U.S. EPA or employee of the U.S. 
EPA who is delegated to perform the specified task.
    Federally enforceable means all limitations and conditions that are 
enforceable by EPA including the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, 40 CFR 
part 61, and 40 CFR part 63, requirements within any applicable State 
implementation plan, and any permit requirements established under 40 
CFR 52.21 or under 40 CFR 51.18 and 40 CFR 51.24.
* * * * *

0
12. Amend Sec.  60.52b by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(4); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.52b  Standards for municipal waste combustor metals, acid 
gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides.

    (a) The limits for municipal waste combustor metals are specified 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.
    (1) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is 
completed or is required to be completed under Sec.  60.8 of subpart A 
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility shall cause 
to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any 
gases that contain particulate matter in excess of the limits specified 
in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (i) For affected facilities that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction after September 20, 1994, and on or 
before December 19, 2005, the emission limit is 24 milligrams per dry 
standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
    (ii) For affected facilities that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction after December 19, 2005, the emission 
limit is 20 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen.
* * * * *
    (3) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is 
completed or is required to be completed under Sec.  60.8 of subpart A 
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility shall cause 
to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any 
gases that contain cadmium in excess of the limits specified in 
paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (i) For affected facilities that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction after September 20, 1994, and on or 
before December 19, 2005, the emission limit is 20 micrograms per dry 
standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
    (ii) For affected facilities that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction after December 19, 2005, the emission 
limit is 10 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen.
    (4) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is 
completed or is required to be completed under Sec.  60.8 of subpart A 
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility shall cause 
to be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected facility any 
gases that contain lead in excess of the limits specified in paragraph 
(a)(4)(i) or (a)(4)(ii) of this section.
    (i) For affected facilities that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction after September 20, 1994, and on or 
before December 19, 2005, the emission limit is 200 micrograms per dry 
standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
    (ii) For affected facilities that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction after December 19, 2005, the emission 
limit is 140 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen.
    (5) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is 
completed or is required to be completed under Sec.  60.8 of subpart A 
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility shall cause 
to be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected facility any 
gases that contain mercury in excess of the limits specified in 
paragraph (a)(5)(i) or (a)(5)(ii) of this section.
    (i) For affected facilities that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction after September 20, 1994 and on or 
before December 19, 2005, the emission limit is 80 micrograms per dry 
standard cubic meter or 15 percent of the potential mercury emission 
concentration (85-percent reduction by weight), corrected to 7 percent 
oxygen, whichever is less stringent.
    (ii) For affected facilities that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction after December 19, 2005, the emission 
limit is 50 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter, or 15 percent of 
the potential mercury emission concentration (85-percent reduction by 
weight), corrected to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less stringent.
* * * * *

0
13. Amend Sec.  60.53b by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
0
e. Adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.53b  Standards for municipal waste combustor operating 
practices.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) During the annual dioxin/furan or mercury performance test and 
the 2 weeks preceding the annual dioxin/furan or mercury performance 
test, no municipal waste combustor unit load limit is applicable if the 
provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met.
    (2) The municipal waste combustor unit load limit may be waived in 
writing by the Administrator for the purpose of evaluating system 
performance, testing new technology or control technologies, diagnostic 
testing, or related activities for the purpose of improving facility 
performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling facility 
emissions. The municipal waste combustor unit load limit continues to 
apply, and remains enforceable, until and unless the Administrator 
grants the waiver.
    (c) * * *
    (1) During the annual dioxin/furan or mercury performance test and 
the 2 weeks preceding the annual dioxin/furan or mercury performance 
test, no particulate matter control device temperature limitations are 
applicable if

[[Page 27337]]

the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met.
    (2) The particulate matter control device temperature limits may be 
waived in writing by the Administrator for the purpose of evaluating 
system performance, testing new technology or control technologies, 
diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose of improving 
facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling 
facility emissions. The temperature limits continue to apply, and 
remain enforceable, until and unless the Administrator grants the 
waiver.
    (d) Paragraph (m)(2) of Sec.  60.58b addresses treatment of 
activated carbon injection rate during dioxin/furan or mercury testing.

0
14. Amend Sec.  60.54b by revising paragraph (c)(2) and adding 
paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.54b  Standards for municipal waste combustor operator training 
and certification.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) If both the certified chief facility operator and certified 
shift supervisor are unavailable, a provisionally certified control 
room operator on site at the municipal waste combustion unit may 
fulfill the certified operator requirement. Depending on the length of 
time that a certified chief facility operator and certified shift 
supervisor are away, the owner or operator of the affected facility 
must meet one of three criteria:
    (i) When the certified chief facility operator and certified shift 
supervisor are both off site for 12 hours or less, and no other 
certified operator is on site, the provisionally certified control room 
operator may perform the duties of the certified chief facility 
operator or certified shift supervisor.
    (ii) When the certified chief facility operator and certified shift 
supervisor are off site for more than 12 hours, but for two weeks or 
less, and no other certified operator is on site, the provisionally 
certified control room operator may perform the duties of the certified 
chief facility operator or certified shift supervisor without notice 
to, or approval by, the Administrator. However, the owner or operator 
of the affected facility must record the period when the certified 
chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor are off site and 
include that information in the annual report as specified under Sec.  
60.59b(g)(5).
    (iii) When the certified chief facility operator and certified 
shift supervisor are off site for more than two weeks, and no other 
certified operator is on site, the provisionally certified control room 
operator may perform the duties of the certified chief facility 
operator or certified shift supervisor without approval by the 
Administrator. However, the owner or operator of the affected facility 
must take two actions:
    (A) Notify the Administrator in writing. In the notice, state what 
caused the absence and what actions are being taken by the owner or 
operator of the facility to ensure that a certified chief facility 
operator or certified shift supervisor is on site as expeditiously as 
practicable.
    (B) Submit a status report and corrective action summary to the 
Administrator every four weeks following the initial notification. If 
the Administrator provides notice that the status report or corrective 
action summary is disapproved, the municipal waste combustion unit may 
continue operation for 90 days, but then must cease operation. If 
corrective actions are taken in the 90-day period such that the 
Administrator withdraws the disapproval, municipal waste combustion 
unit operation may continue.
    (3) A provisionally certified operator who is newly promoted or 
recently transferred to a shift supervisor position or a chief facility 
operator position at the municipal waste combustion unit may perform 
the duties of the certified chief facility operator or certified shift 
supervisor without notice to, or approval by, the Administrator for up 
to six months before taking the ASME QRO certification exam.
* * * * *

0
15. Amend Sec.  60.57b by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and 
(a)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.57b  Siting requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall prepare a 
materials separation plan, as defined in Sec.  60.51b, for the affected 
facility and its service area, and shall comply with the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(10) of this section. The 
initial application is defined as representing a good faith submittal 
as determined by EPA.
* * * * *
    (6) As required under Sec.  60.59b(a), the owner or operator shall 
submit to EPA a copy of the notification of the public meeting, a 
transcript of the public meeting, the document summarizing responses to 
public comments, and copies of both the preliminary and final draft 
materials separation plans on or before the time the facility's 
application for a construction permit is submitted under 40 CFR part 
51, subpart I, or part 52, as applicable.
* * * * *

0
16. Amend Sec.  60.58b by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(6)(i);
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(7);
0
f. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
g. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
0
h. Revising paragraph (c)(3);
0
i. Revising paragraph (c)(9);
0
j. Adding paragraph (c)(10);
0
k. Revising paragraph (c)(11);
0
l. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii);
0
m. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(vii);
0
n. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii);
0
o. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii);
0
p. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iv);
0
q. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ix);
0
r. Revising paragraph (e)(7) introductory text;
0
s. Revising paragraph (e)(12) introductory text;
0
t. Revising paragraph (e)(12)(i)(A);
0
u. Revising paragraph (e)(12)(i)(B);
0
v. Revising paragraph (e)(14);
0
w. Adding paragraph (f)(8);
0
x. Revising paragraph (g)(2);
0
y. Revising paragraph (g)(5)(i);
0
z. Adding paragraph (g)(5)(ii);
0
aa. Revising paragraph (g)(5)(iii);
0
bb. Revising paragraph (g)(7);
0
cc. Revising paragraph (h)(6) introductory text;
0
dd. Revising paragraph (h)(10)(i)(B);
0
ee. Revising paragraph (h)(12);
0
ff. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(ii) introductory text;
0
gg. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(B);
0
hh. Revising paragraph (i)(8);
0
ii. Revising paragraph (i)(9);
0
jj. Revising paragraph (i)(10) introductory text;
0
kk. Revising paragraph (i)(11);
0
ll. Revising paragraph (m) introductory text;
0
mm. Revising paragraph (m)(1)(ii);
0
nn. Revising paragraph (m)(2);
0
oo. Adding paragraph (b)(8);
0
pp. Adding paragraph (d)(3);
0
qq. Adding paragraph (d)(4);
0
rr. Adding paragraph (g)(10);
0
ss. Adding paragraph (m)(4);
0
tt. Adding paragraph (n);
0
uu. Adding paragraph (o);
0
vv. Adding paragraph (p); and
0
ww. Adding paragraph (q) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.58b  Compliance and performance testing.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Except as provided by Sec.  60.56b, the standards under this 
subpart apply

[[Page 27338]]

at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction. Duration of startup, shutdown, or malfunction periods are 
limited to 3 hours per occurrence, except as provided in paragraph 
(a)(1)(iii) of this section. During periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, monitoring data shall be dismissed or excluded from 
compliance calculations, but shall be recorded and reported in 
accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 60.59b(d)(7).
* * * * *
    (iii) For the purpose of compliance with the carbon monoxide 
emission limits in Sec.  60.53b(a), if a loss of boiler water level 
control (e.g., boiler waterwall tube failure) or a loss of combustion 
air control (e.g., loss of combustion air fan, induced draft fan, 
combustion grate bar failure) is determined to be a malfunction, the 
duration of the malfunction period is limited to 15 hours per 
occurrence. During such periods of malfunction, monitoring data shall 
be dismissed or excluded from compliance calculations, but shall be 
recorded and reported in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  
60.59b(d)(7).
* * * * *
    (b) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall install, 
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring 
system for measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the flue 
gas at each location where carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 
oxides emissions, or particulate matter (if the owner or operator 
elects to continuously monitor emissions under paragraph (n) of this 
section) are monitored and record the output of the system and shall 
comply with the test procedures and test methods specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8) of this section.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) The fuel factor equation in Method 3B shall be used to 
determine the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide at a 
sampling location. Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or as an alternative ASME PTC-
19-10-1981--Part 10, as applicable, shall be used to determine the 
oxygen concentration at the same location as the carbon dioxide 
monitor.
* * * * *
    (7) The relationship between carbon dioxide and oxygen 
concentrations that is established in accordance with paragraph (b)(6) 
of this section shall be submitted to EPA as part of the initial 
performance test report and, if applicable, as part of the annual test 
report if the relationship is reestablished during the annual 
performance test.
    (8) During a loss of boiler water level control or loss of 
combustion air control malfunction period as specified in paragraph 
(a)(1)(iii) of this section, a diluent cap of 14 percent for oxygen or 
5 percent for carbon dioxide may be used in the emissions calculations 
for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(10) of this section, the 
procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through 
(c)(11) of this section shall be used to determine compliance with the 
emission limits for particulate matter and opacity under Sec.  
60.52b(a)(1) and (a)(2).
* * * * *
    (2) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A or 3B, or as an alternative ASME 
PTC-19-10-1981--Part 10, as applicable, shall be used for gas analysis.
    (3) EPA Reference Method 5 shall be used for determining compliance 
with the particulate matter emission limit. The minimum sample volume 
shall be 1.7 cubic meters. The probe and filter holder heating systems 
in the sample train shall be set to provide a gas temperature no 
greater than 160 [deg]C. An oxygen or carbon dioxide measurement shall 
be obtained simultaneously with each Method 5 run.
* * * * *
    (9) Following the date that the initial performance test for 
particulate matter is completed or is required to be completed under 
Sec.  60.8 of subpart A of this part for an affected facility, the 
owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for particulate 
matter on a calendar year basis (no less than 9 calendar months and no 
more than 15 calendar months following the previous performance test; 
and must complete five performance tests in each 5-year calendar 
period).
    (10) In place of particulate matter testing with EPA Reference 
Method 5, an owner or operator may elect to install, calibrate, 
maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring system for 
monitoring particulate matter emissions discharged to the atmosphere 
and record the output of the system. The owner or operator of an 
affected facility who elects to continuously monitor particulate matter 
emissions instead of conducting performance testing using EPA Method 5 
shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission 
monitoring system and shall comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (c)(10)(i) through (c)(10)(xiv) of this section. The owner 
or operator who elects to continuously monitor particulate matter 
emissions instead of conducting performance testing using EPA Method 5 
is not required to complete performance testing for particulate matter 
as specified in paragraph (c)(9) of this section and is not required to 
continuously monitor opacity as specified in paragraph (c)(8) of this 
section.
    (i) Notify the Administrator one month before starting use of the 
system.
    (ii) Notify the Administrator one month before stopping use of the 
system.
    (iii) The monitor shall be installed, evaluated, and operated in 
accordance with Sec.  60.13 of subpart A of this part.
    (iv) The initial performance evaluation shall be completed no later 
than 180 days after the date of initial startup of the affected 
facility, as specified under Sec.  60.8 of subpart A of this part or 
within 180 days of notification to the Administrator of use of the 
continuous monitoring system if the owner or operator was previously 
determining compliance by Method 5 performance tests, whichever is 
later.
    (v) The owner or operator of an affected facility may request that 
compliance with the particulate matter emission limit be determined 
using carbon dioxide measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 
percent oxygen. The relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide 
levels for the affected facility shall be established as specified in 
paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
    (vi) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall conduct an 
initial performance test for particulate matter emissions as required 
under Sec.  60.8 of subpart A of this part. Compliance with the 
particulate matter emission limit shall be determined by using the 
continuous emission monitoring system specified in paragraph (c)(10) of 
this section to measure particulate matter and calculating a 24-hour 
block arithmetic average emission concentration using EPA Reference 
Method 19, section 12.4.1.
    (vii) Compliance with the particulate matter emission limit shall 
be determined based on the 24-hour daily (block) average of the hourly 
arithmetic average emission concentrations using continuous emission 
monitoring system outlet data.
    (viii) After April 28, 2008, at a minimum, valid continuous 
monitoring system hourly averages shall be obtained as specified in 
paragraphs (c)(10)(viii)(A) and (c)(10)(viii)(B) for at least 90 
percent of the operating hours per calendar quarter and 95 percent of 
the operating hours per calendar year that the affected facility is 
combusting municipal solid waste.

[[Page 27339]]

    (A) At least two data points per hour shall be used to calculate 
each 1-hour arithmetic average.
    (B) Each particulate matter 1-hour arithmetic average shall be 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-hour 
arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous 
emission monitoring system data.
    (ix) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required under paragraph 
(c)(10)(vii) of this section shall be expressed in milligrams per dry 
standard cubic meter corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and 
shall be used to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic average 
emission concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages shall be 
calculated using the data points required under Sec.  60.13(e)(2) of 
subpart A of this part.
    (x) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data shall be 
used in calculating average emission concentrations even if the minimum 
continuous emission monitoring system data requirements of paragraph 
(c)(10)(viii) of this section are not met.
    (xi) The continuous emission monitoring system shall be operated 
according to Performance Specification 11 in appendix B of this part.
    (xii) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous 
emission monitoring system required by Performance Specification 11 in 
appendix B of this part, particulate matter and oxygen (or carbon 
dioxide) data shall be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-
minute period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the test 
methods specified in paragraphs (c)(10)(xii)(A) and (c)(10)(xii)(B) of 
this section.
    (A) For particulate matter, EPA Reference Method 5 shall be used.
    (B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 
3B, as applicable shall be used.
    (xiii) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration 
drift tests shall be performed in accordance with procedure 2 in 
appendix F of this part.
    (xiv) When particulate matter emissions data are not obtained 
because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, 
calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, emissions data shall 
be obtained by using other monitoring systems as approved by the 
Administrator or EPA Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary, 
valid emissions data for a minimum of 90 percent of the hours per 
calendar quarter and 95 percent of the hours per calendar year that the 
affected facility is operated and combusting municipal solid waste.
    (11) Following the date that the initial performance test for 
opacity is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.  60.8 of 
subpart A of this part for an affected facility, the owner or operator 
shall conduct a performance test for opacity on an annual basis (no 
less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months 
following the previous performance test; and must complete five 
performance tests in each 5-year calendar period) using the test method 
specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this section.
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or as an alternative 
ASME PTC-19-10-1981--Part 10, as applicable, shall be used for flue gas 
analysis.
* * * * *
    (vii) Following the date of the initial performance test or the 
date on which the initial performance test is required to be completed 
under Sec.  60.8 of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an 
affected facility shall conduct a performance test for compliance with 
the emission limits for cadmium and lead on a calendar year basis (no 
less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 calendar months 
following the previous performance test; and must complete five 
performance tests in each 5-year calendar period).
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or as an alternative 
ASME PTC-19-10-1981--Part 10, as applicable, shall be used for flue gas 
analysis.
    (iii) The EPA Reference Method 29 or as an alternative ASTM D6784-
02 shall be used to determine the mercury emission concentration. The 
minimum sample volume when using Method 29 as an alternative ASTM 
D6784-02 for mercury shall be 1.7 cubic meters.
    (iv) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide) measurement shall be obtained 
simultaneously with each Method 29 or as an alternative ASTM D6784-02 
test run for mercury required under paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (ix) Following the date that the initial performance test for 
mercury is completed or is required to be completed under Sec.  60.8 of 
subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an affected facility 
shall conduct a performance test for mercury emissions on a calendar 
year basis (no less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 calendar 
months from the previous performance test; and must complete five 
performance tests in each 5-year calendar period).
* * * * *
    (3) In place of cadmium and lead testing with EPA Reference Method 
29 as an alternative ASTM D6784-02, an owner or operator may elect to 
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission 
monitoring system for monitoring cadmium and lead emissions discharged 
to the atmosphere and record the output of the system according to the 
provisions of paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section.
    (4) In place of mercury testing with EPA Reference Method 29 or as 
an alternative ASTM D6784-02, an owner or operator may elect to 
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission 
monitoring system or a continuous automated sampling system for 
monitoring mercury emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record 
the output of the system according to the provisions of paragraphs (n) 
and (o) of this section, or paragraphs (p) and (q) of this section, as 
appropriate. The owner or operator who elects to continuously monitor 
mercury in place of mercury testing with EPA Reference Method 29 or as 
an alternative ASTM D6784-02 is not required to complete performance 
testing for mercury as specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ix) of this 
section.
    (e) * * *
    (7) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system hourly 
averages shall be obtained as specified in paragraphs (e)(7)(i) and 
(e)(7)(ii) for 90 percent of the operating hours per calendar quarter 
and 95 percent of the operating days per calendar year that the 
affected facility is combusting municipal solid waste.
* * * * *
    (12) The continuous emission monitoring system shall be operated 
according to Performance Specification 2 in appendix B of this part. 
For sources that have actual inlet emissions less than 100 parts per 
million dry volume, the relative accuracy criterion for inlet sulfur 
dioxide continuous emission monitoring systems should be no greater 
than 20 percent of the mean value of the reference method test data in 
terms of the units of the emission standard, or 5 parts per million dry 
volume absolute value of the mean difference between the reference 
method and the continuous emission monitoring systems, whichever is 
greater.
    (i) * * *
    (A) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6, 6A, or 6C, or as an 
alternative ASME PTC-19-10-1981--Part 10, shall be used.
    (B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 
3B, or

[[Page 27340]]

as an alternative ASME PTC-19-10-1981--Part 10, as applicable, shall be 
used.
* * * * *
    (14) When sulfur dioxide emissions data are not obtained because of 
continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration 
checks, and/or zero and span adjustments, emissions data shall be 
obtained by using other monitoring systems as approved by EPA or EPA 
Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary, valid emissions data for 
a minimum of 90 percent of the hours per calendar quarter and 95 
percent of the hours per calendar year that the affected facility is 
operated and combusting municipal solid waste.
    (f) * * *
    (8) In place of hydrogen chloride testing with EPA Reference Method 
26 or 26A, an owner or operator may elect to install, calibrate, 
maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring system for 
monitoring hydrogen chloride emissions discharged to the atmosphere and 
record the output of the system according to the provisions of 
paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section.
    (g) * * *
    (2) The EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 3B, or as an alternative 
ASME PTC-19-10-1981--Part 10, as applicable, shall be used for flue gas 
analysis.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) For affected facilities, performance tests shall be conducted 
on a calendar year basis (no less than 9 calendar months and no more 
than 15 calendar months following the previous performance test; and 
must complete five performance tests in each 5-year calendar period).
    (ii) For the purpose of evaluating system performance to establish 
new operating parameter levels, testing new technology or control 
technologies, diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose 
of improving facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for 
controlling facility emissions, the owner or operator of an affected 
facility that qualifies for the performance testing schedule specified 
in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section, may test one unit for dioxin/
furan and apply the dioxin/furan operating parameters to similarly 
designed and equipped units on site by meeting the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (g)(5)(ii)(A) through (g)(5)(ii)(D) of this 
section.
    (A) Follow the testing schedule established in paragraph 
(g)(5)(iii) of this section. For example, each year a different 
affected facility at the municipal waste combustor plant shall be 
tested, and the affected facilities at the plant shall be tested in 
sequence (e.g., unit 1, unit 2, unit 3, as applicable).
    (B) Upon meeting the requirements in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this 
section for one affected facility, the owner or operator may elect to 
apply the average carbon mass feed rate and associated carbon injection 
system operating parameter levels for dioxin/furan as established in 
paragraph (m) of this section to similarly designed and equipped units 
on site.
    (C) Upon testing each subsequent unit in accordance with the 
testing schedule established in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section, 
the dioxin/furan and mercury emissions of the subsequent unit shall not 
exceed the dioxin/furan and mercury emissions measured in the most 
recent test of that unit prior to the revised operating parameter 
levels.
    (D) The owner or operator of an affected facility that selects to 
follow the performance testing schedule specified in paragraph 
(g)(5)(iii) of this section and apply the carbon injection system 
operating parameters to similarly designed and equipped units on site 
shall follow the procedures specified in Sec.  60.59b(g)(4) for 
reporting.
    (iii) Where all performance tests over a 2-year period indicate 
that dioxin/furan emissions are less than or equal to 7 nanograms per 
dry standard cubic meter (total mass) for all affected facilities 
located within a municipal waste combustor plant, the owner or operator 
of the municipal waste combustor plant may elect to conduct annual 
performance tests for one affected facility (i.e., unit) per year at 
the municipal waste combustor plant. At a minimum, a performance test 
for dioxin/furan emissions shall be conducted on a calendar year basis 
(no less than 9 calendar months and no more than 15 months following 
the previous performance test; and must complete five performance tests 
in each 5-year calendar period) for one affected facility at the 
municipal waste combustor plant. Each year a different affected 
facility at the municipal waste combustor plant shall be tested, and 
the affected facilities at the plant shall be tested in sequence (e.g., 
unit 1, unit 2, unit 3, as applicable). If each annual performance test 
continues to indicate a dioxin/furan emission level less than or equal 
to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), the owner or 
operator may continue conducting a performance test on only one 
affected facility per calendar year. If any annual performance test 
indicates either a dioxin/furan emission level greater than 7 nanograms 
per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), performance tests shall 
thereafter be conducted annually on all affected facilities at the 
plant until and unless all annual performance tests for all affected 
facilities at the plant over a 2-year period indicate a dioxin/furan 
emission level less than or equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic 
meter (total mass).
* * * * *
    (7) The owner or operator of an affected facility where activated 
carbon is used shall follow the procedures specified in paragraph (m) 
of this section for measuring and calculating the carbon usage rate.
* * * * *
    (10) In place of dioxin/furan sampling and testing with EPA 
Reference Method 23, an owner or operator may elect to sample dioxin/
furan by installing, calibrating, maintaining, and operating a 
continuous automated sampling system for monitoring dioxin/furan 
emissions discharged to the atmosphere, recording the output of the 
system, and analyzing the sample using EPA Method 23. This option to 
use a continuous automated sampling system takes effect on the date a 
final performance specification applicable to dioxin/furan from 
monitors is published in the Federal Register or the date of approval 
of a site-specific monitoring plan. The owner or operator of an 
affected facility who elects to continuously sample dioxin/furan 
emissions instead of sampling and testing using EPA Method 23 shall 
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous automated 
sampling system and shall comply with the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (p) and (q) of this section.
    (h) * * *
    (6) At a minimum, valid continuous emission monitoring system 
hourly averages shall be obtained as specified in paragraphs (h)(6)(i) 
and (h)(6)(ii) of this section for 90 percent of the operating hours 
per calendar quarter and for 95 percent of the operating hours per 
calendar year that the affected facility is combusting municipal solid 
waste.
* * * * *
    (10) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 
3B, or as an alternative ASME PTC-19-10-1981--Part 10, as applicable, 
shall be used.
* * * * *
    (12) When nitrogen oxides continuous emission data are not obtained 
because of continuous emission monitoring

[[Page 27341]]

system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span 
adjustments, emissions data shall be obtained using other monitoring 
systems as approved by EPA or EPA Reference Method 19 to provide, as 
necessary, valid emissions data for a minimum of 90 percent of the 
hours per calendar quarter and 95 percent of the hours per calendar 
year the unit is operated and combusting municipal solid waste.
    (i) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous 
emission monitoring system required by Performance Specification 4A in 
appendix B of this part, carbon monoxide and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) 
data shall be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute 
period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the test methods 
specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(A) and (i)(3)(ii)(B) of this 
section. For affected facilities subject to the 100 parts per million 
dry volume carbon monoxide standard, the relative accuracy criterion of 
5 parts per million dry volume is calculated as the absolute value of 
the mean difference between the reference method and continuous 
emission monitoring systems.
* * * * *
    (B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, or 
3B, or ASME PTC-19-10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  60.17 of subpart A of this part), as applicable, shall be used.
* * * * *
    (8) The maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor unit load 
shall be determined during the initial performance test for dioxins/
furans and each subsequent performance test during which compliance 
with the dioxin/furan emission limit specified in Sec.  60.52b(c) is 
achieved. The maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor unit load 
shall be the highest 4-hour arithmetic average load achieved during 
four consecutive hours during the most recent test during which 
compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit was achieved. If a 
subsequent dioxin/furan performance test is being performed on only one 
affected facility at the MWC plant, as provided in paragraph 
(g)(5)(iii) of this section, the owner or operator may elect to apply 
the same maximum municipal waste combustor unit load from the tested 
facility for all the similarly designed and operated affected 
facilities at the MWC plant.
    (9) For each particulate matter control device employed at the 
affected facility, the maximum demonstrated particulate matter control 
device temperature shall be determined during the initial performance 
test for dioxins/furans and each subsequent performance test during 
which compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit specified in 
Sec.  60.52b(c) is achieved. The maximum demonstrated particulate 
matter control device temperature shall be the highest 4-hour 
arithmetic average temperature achieved at the particulate matter 
control device inlet during four consecutive hours during the most 
recent test during which compliance with the dioxin/furan limit was 
achieved. If a subsequent dioxin/furan performance test is being 
performed on only one affected facility at the MWC plant, as provided 
in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section, the owner or operator may 
elect to apply the same maximum particulate matter control device 
temperature from the tested facility for all the similarly designed and 
operated affected facilities at the MWC plant.
    (10) At a minimum, valid continuous emission monitoring system 
hourly averages shall be obtained as specified in paragraphs (i)(10)(i) 
and (i)(10)(ii) of this section for at least 90 percent of the 
operating hours per calendar quarter and 95 percent of the operating 
hours per calendar year that the affected facility is combusting 
municipal solid waste.
* * * * *
    (11) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data must be 
used in calculating the parameters specified under paragraph (i) of 
this section even if the minimum data requirements of paragraph (i)(10) 
of this section are not met. When carbon monoxide continuous emission 
data are not obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system 
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, 
emissions data shall be obtained using other monitoring systems as 
approved by EPA or EPA Reference Method 10 to provide, as necessary, 
the minimum valid emission data.
* * * * *
    (m) The owner or operator of an affected facility where activated 
carbon injection is used to comply with the mercury emission limit 
under Sec.  60.52b(a)(5), and/or the dioxin/furan emission limits under 
Sec.  60.52(b)(c), or the dioxin/furan emission level specified in 
paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section shall follow the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4) of this section.
    (1) * * *
    (ii) An average carbon mass feed rate in kilograms per hour or 
pounds per hour shall be estimated during the initial performance test 
for dioxin/furan emissions and each subsequent performance test for 
dioxin/furan emissions. If a subsequent dioxin/furan performance test 
is being performed on only one affected facility at the MWC plant, as 
provided in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section, the owner or 
operator may elect to apply the same estimated average carbon mass feed 
rate from the tested facility for all the similarly designed and 
operated affected facilities at the MWC plant.
    (2) During operation of the affected facility, the carbon injection 
system operating parameter(s) that are the primary indicator(s) of the 
carbon mass feed rate (e.g., screw feeder setting) shall be averaged 
over a block 8-hour period, and the 8-hour block average must equal or 
exceed the level(s) documented during the performance tests specified 
under paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this section, except as 
specified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i) and (m)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (i) During the annual dioxin/furan or mercury performance test and 
the 2 weeks preceding the annual dioxin/furan or mercury performance 
test, no limit is applicable for average mass carbon feed rate if the 
provisions of paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of this section are met.
    (ii) The limit for average mass carbon feed rate may be waived in 
accordance with permission granted by the Administrator for the purpose 
of evaluating system performance, testing new technology or control 
technologies, diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose 
of improving facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for 
controlling facility emissions.
* * * * *
    (4) Pneumatic injection pressure or other carbon injection system 
operational indicator shall be used to provide additional verification 
of proper carbon injection system operation. The operational indicator 
shall provide an instantaneous visual and/or audible alarm to alert the 
operator of a potential interruption in the carbon feed that would not 
normally be indicated by direct monitoring of carbon mass feed rate 
(e.g., continuous weight loss feeder) or monitoring of the carbon 
system operating parameter(s) that are the indicator(s) of carbon mass 
feed rate (e.g., screw feeder speed). The carbon injection system 
operational indicator used to provide additional verification of carbon 
injection system operation, including basis for selecting the

[[Page 27342]]

indicator and operator response to the indicator alarm, shall be 
included in section (e)(6) of the site-specific operating manual 
required under Sec.  60.54b(e) of this subpart.
    (n) In place of periodic manual testing of mercury, cadmium, lead, 
or hydrogen chloride with EPA Reference Method 26, 26A, 29, or as an 
alternative ASTM D6784-02 (as applicable), the owner or operator of an 
affected facility may elect to install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a continuous emission monitoring system for monitoring 
emissions discharged to the atmosphere and record the output of the 
system. The option to use a continuous emission monitoring system for 
mercury takes effect on the date of approval of the site-specific 
monitoring plan required in paragraph (n)(13) and (o) of this section. 
The option to use a continuous emission monitoring system for cadmium, 
lead, or hydrogen chloride takes effect on the date a final performance 
specification applicable to cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride monitor 
is published in the Federal Register or the date of approval of the 
site-specific monitoring plan required in paragraphs (n)(13) and (o) of 
this section. The owner or operator of an affected facility who elects 
to continuously monitor emissions instead of conducting manual 
performance testing shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 
continuous emission monitoring system and shall comply with the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(13) of this 
section.
    (1) Notify the Administrator one month before starting use of the 
system.
    (2) Notify the Administrator one month before stopping use of the 
system.
    (3) The monitor shall be installed, evaluated, and operated in 
accordance with Sec.  60.13 of subpart A of this part.
    (4) The initial performance evaluation shall be completed no later 
than 180 days after the date of initial startup of the affected 
facility, as specified under Sec.  60.8 of subpart A of this part or 
within 180 days of notification to the Administrator of use of the 
continuous monitoring system if the owner or operator was previously 
determining compliance by Method 26, 26A, 29, or as an alternative ASTM 
D6784-02 (as applicable) performance tests, whichever is later.
    (5) The owner or operator may request that compliance with the 
emission limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 
corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The relationship 
between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected facility 
shall be established as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
    (6) The owner or operator shall conduct an initial performance test 
for emissions as required under Sec.  60.8 of subpart A of this part. 
Compliance with the emission limits shall be determined by using the 
continuous emission monitoring system specified in paragraph (n) of 
this section to measure emissions and calculating a 24-hour block 
arithmetic average emission concentration using EPA Reference Method 
19, section 12.4.1.
    (7) Compliance with the emission limits shall be determined based 
on the 24-hour daily (block) average of the hourly arithmetic average 
emission concentrations using continuous emission monitoring system 
outlet data.
    (8) Beginning on April 28, 2008 for mercury and on the date two 
years after final performance specifications for cadmium, lead or 
hydrogen chloride monitors are published in the Federal Register or the 
date two years after approval of a site-specific monitoring plan, valid 
continuous monitoring system hourly averages shall be obtained as 
specified in paragraphs (n)(8)(i) and (n)(8)(ii) of this section for at 
least 90 percent of the operating hours per calendar quarter and 95 
percent of the operating hours per calendar year that the affected 
facility is combusting municipal solid waste.
    (i) At least two data points per hour shall be used to calculate 
each 1-hour arithmetic average.
    (ii) Each 1-hour arithmetic average shall be corrected to 7 percent 
oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-hour arithmetic average of the 
oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous emission monitoring system data.
    (9) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required under paragraph (n)(7) 
of this section shall be expressed in micrograms per dry standard cubic 
meter for mercury, cadmium, lead and parts per million dry volume for 
hydrogen chloride corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) and shall 
be used to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic (block) average 
emission concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages shall be 
calculated using the data points required under Sec.  60.13(e)(2) of 
subpart A of this part.
    (10) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data shall be 
used in calculating average emission concentrations even if the minimum 
continuous emission monitoring system data requirements of paragraph 
(n)(8) of this section are not met.
    (11) The continuous emission monitoring system shall be operated 
according to the performance specifications in paragraphs (n)(11)(i) 
through (n)(11)(iii) of this section or the approved site-specific 
monitoring plan.
    (i) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A in appendix B of 
this part.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (12) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous 
emission monitoring system required by the performance specifications 
in paragraph (n)(11) of this section, mercury, cadmium, lead, hydrogen 
chloride, and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) data shall be collected 
concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute period) by both the 
continuous emission monitors and the test methods specified in 
paragraphs (n)(12)(i) through (n)(12)(iii) of this section.
    (i) For mercury, cadmium, and lead, EPA Reference Method 29 or as 
an alternative ASTM D6784-02 shall be used.
    (ii) For hydrogen chloride, EPA Reference Method 26 or 26A shall be 
used.
    (iii) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3, 3A, 
or 3B, as applicable shall be used.
    (13) The owner or operator who elects to install, calibrate, 
maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring system for 
mercury, cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride must develop and implement 
a site-specific monitoring plan as specified in paragraph (o) of this 
section. The owner or operator who relies on a performance 
specification may refer to that document in addressing applicable 
procedures and criteria.
    (14) When emissions data are not obtained because of continuous 
emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and 
zero and span adjustments, parametric monitoring data shall be obtained 
by using other monitoring systems as approved by EPA.
    (o) The owner or operator who elects to install, calibrate, 
maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring system for 
mercury, cadmium, lead, or hydrogen chloride must develop and submit 
for approval by EPA, a site-specific mercury, cadmium, lead, or 
hydrogen chloride monitoring plan that addresses the elements and 
requirements in paragraphs (o)(1) through (o)(7) of this section.
    (1) Installation of the continuous emission monitoring system 
sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to 
each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative 
of

[[Page 27343]]

control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last 
control device).
    (2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the pollutant concentration analyzer, and the data 
collection and reduction system.
    (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria 
(e.g., calibrations).
    (4) Provisions for periods when the continuous emission monitoring 
system is out of control as described in paragraphs (o)(4)(i) through 
(o)(4)(iii) of this section.
    (i) A continuous emission monitoring system is out of control if 
either of the conditions in paragraphs (o)(4)(i)(A) or (o)(4)(ii)(B) of 
this section are met.
    (A) The zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable), or high-level 
calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration drift 
specification in the applicable performance specification or in the 
relevant standard; or
    (B) The continuous emission monitoring system fails a performance 
test audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy audit, 
relative accuracy test audit, or linearity test audit.
    (ii) When the continuous emission monitoring system is out of 
control as defined in paragraph (o)(4)(i) of this section, the owner or 
operator of the affected source shall take the necessary corrective 
action and shall repeat all necessary tests that indicate that the 
system is out of control. The owner or operator shall take corrective 
action and conduct retesting until the performance requirements are 
below the applicable limits. The beginning of the out-of-control period 
is the hour the owner or operator conducts a performance check (e.g., 
calibration drift) that indicates an exceedance of the performance 
requirements established under this part. The end of the out-of-control 
period is the hour following the completion of corrective action and 
successful demonstration that the system is within the allowable 
limits. During the period the continuous emission monitoring system is 
out of control, recorded data shall not be used in data averages and 
calculations or to meet any data availability requirements in paragraph 
(n)(8) of this section.
    (iii) The owner or operator of a continuous emission monitoring 
system that is out of control as defined in paragraph (o)(4) of this 
section shall submit all information concerning out-of-control periods, 
including start and end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective 
actions taken in the annual or semiannual compliance reports required 
in Sec.  60.59b(g) or (h).
    (5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures for continuous 
emission monitoring systems as described in paragraphs (o)(5)(i) and 
(o)(5)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Develop and implement a continuous emission monitoring system 
quality control program. As part of the quality control program, the 
owner or operator shall develop and submit to EPA for approval, upon 
request, a site-specific performance evaluation test plan for the 
continuous emission monitoring system performance evaluation required 
in paragraph (o)(5)(ii) of this section. In addition, each quality 
control program shall include, at a minimum, a written protocol that 
describes procedures for each of the operations described in paragraphs 
(o)(7)(i)(A) through (o)(7)(i)(F) of this section.
    (A) Initial and any subsequent calibration of the continuous 
emission monitoring system;
    (B) Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the 
continuous emission monitoring system;
    (C) Preventive maintenance of the continuous emission monitoring 
system, including spare parts inventory;
    (D) Data recording, calculations, and reporting;
    (E) Accuracy audit procedures, including sampling and analysis 
methods; and
    (F) Program of corrective action for a malfunctioning continuous 
emission monitoring system.
    (ii) The performance evaluation test plan shall include the 
evaluation program objectives, an evaluation program summary, the 
performance evaluation schedule, data quality objectives, and both an 
internal and external quality assurance program. Data quality 
objectives are the pre-evaluation expectations of precision, accuracy, 
and completeness of data. The internal quality assurance program shall 
include, at a minimum, the activities planned by routine operators and 
analysts to provide an assessment of continuous emission monitoring 
system performance, for example, plans for relative accuracy testing 
using the appropriate reference method in Sec.  60.58b(n)(12) of this 
section. The external quality assurance program shall include, at a 
minimum, systems audits that include the opportunity for on-site 
evaluation by the Administrator of instrument calibration, data 
validation, sample logging, and documentation of quality control data 
and field maintenance activities.
    (6) Conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous emission 
monitoring system in accordance with the site-specific monitoring plan.
    (7) Operate and maintain the continuous emission monitoring system 
in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
    (p) In place of periodic manual testing of dioxin/furan or mercury 
with EPA Reference Method 23, 29, or as an alternative ASTM D6784-02 
(as applicable), the owner or operator of an affected facility may 
elect to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous 
automated sampling system for determining emissions discharged to the 
atmosphere. This option takes effect on the date a final performance 
specification applicable to such continuous automated sampling systems 
is published in the Federal Register or the date of approval of a site-
specific monitoring plan required in paragraphs (p)(10) and (q) of this 
section. The owner or operator of an affected facility who elects to 
use a continuous automated sampling system to determine emissions 
instead of conducting manual performance testing shall install, 
calibrate, maintain, and operate the sampling system and conduct 
analyses in compliance with the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(p)(1) through (p)(12) of this section.
    (1) Notify the Administrator one month before starting use of the 
system.
    (2) Notify the Administrator one month before stopping use of the 
system.
    (3) The initial performance evaluation shall be completed no later 
than 180 days after the date of initial startup of the affected 
facility, as specified under Sec.  60.8 of subpart A of this part or 
within 180 days of notification to the Administrator of use of the 
continuous monitoring system if the owner or operator was previously 
determining compliance by manual performance testing using Method 23, 
29, or as an alternative ASTM D6784-02 (as applicable), whichever is 
later.
    (4) The owner or operator may request that compliance with the 
emission limits be determined using carbon dioxide measurements 
corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The relationship 
between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected facility 
shall be established as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
    (5) The owner or operator shall conduct an initial performance test 
for emissions as required under Sec.  60.8 of subpart A of this part. 
Compliance with the emission limits shall be determined by using the 
continuous automated

[[Page 27344]]

sampling system specified in paragraph (p) of this section to collect 
integrated samples and analyze emissions for the time period specified 
in paragraphs (p)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) For dioxin/furan, the continuous automated sampling system 
shall collect an integrated sample over each 2-week period. The 
collected sample shall be analyzed using Method 23.
    (ii) For mercury, the continuous automated sampling system shall 
collect an integrated sample over each 24-hour daily period and the 
sample shall be analyzed according to the applicable final performance 
specification or the approved site-specific monitoring plan required by 
paragraph (q) of this section.
    (6) Compliance with the emission limits shall be determined based 
on 2-week emission concentrations for dioxin/furan and on the 24-hour 
daily emission concentrations for mercury using samples collected at 
the system outlet. The emission concentrations shall be expressed in 
nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass) for dioxin/furan 
and micrograms per dry standard cubic meter for mercury, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen (dry basis).
    (7) Beginning on the date two years after the respective final 
performance specification for continuous automated sampling systems for 
dioxin/furan or mercury is published in the Federal Register or two 
years after approval of a site-specific monitoring plan, the continuous 
automated sampling system must be operated and collect emissions for at 
least 90 percent of the operating hours per calendar quarter and 95 
percent of the operating hours per calendar year that the affected 
facility is combusting municipal solid waste.
    (8) All valid data shall be used in calculating emission 
concentrations.
    (9) The continuous automated sampling system shall be operated 
according to the final performance specification in paragraphs 
(p)(9)(i) or (p)(9)(ii) of this section or the approved site-specific 
monitoring plan.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (10) The owner or operator who elects to install, calibrate, 
maintain, and operate a continuous automated sampling system for 
dioxin/furan or mercury must develop and implement a site-specific 
monitoring plan as specified in paragraph (q) of this section. The 
owner or operator who relies on a performance specification may refer 
to that document in addressing applicable procedures and criteria.
    (11) When emissions data are not obtained because of continuous 
automated sampling system breakdowns, repairs, quality assurance 
checks, or adjustments, parametric monitoring data shall be obtained by 
using other monitoring systems as approved by EPA.
    (q) The owner or operator who elects to install, calibrate, 
maintain, and operate a continuous automated sampling system for 
dioxin/furan or mercury must develop and submit for approval by EPA, a 
site-specific monitoring plan that has sufficient detail to assure the 
validity of the continuous automated sampling system data and that 
addresses the elements and requirements in paragraphs (q)(1) through 
(q)(7) of this section.
    (1) Installation of the continuous automated sampling system 
sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to 
each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative 
of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last 
control device).
    (2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the pollutant concentration analytical method, and the data 
collection system.
    (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria.
    (4) Provisions for periods when the continuous automated sampling 
system is malfunctioning or is out of control as described in 
paragraphs (q)(4)(i) through (q)(4)(iii) of this section.
    (i) The site-specific monitoring plan shall identify criteria for 
determining that the continuous automated sampling system is out of 
control. This shall include periods when the sampling system is not 
collecting a representative sample or is malfunctioning, or when the 
analytical method does not meet site-specific quality criteria 
established in paragraph (q)(5) of this section.
    (ii) When the continuous automated sampling system is out of 
control as defined in paragraph (q)(4)(i) of this section, the owner or 
operator shall take the necessary corrective action and shall repeat 
all necessary tests that indicate that the system is out of control. 
The owner or operator shall take corrective action and conduct 
retesting until the performance requirements are within the applicable 
limits. The out-of-control period includes all hours that the sampling 
system was not collecting a representative sample or was 
malfunctioning, or hours represented by a sample for which the analysis 
did not meet the relevant quality criteria. Emissions data obtained 
during an out-of-control period shall not be used in determining 
compliance with the emission limits or to meet any data availability 
requirements in paragraph (p)(8) of this section.
    (iii) The owner or operator of a continuous automated sampling 
system that is out of control as defined in paragraph (q)(4) of this 
section shall submit all information concerning out-of-control periods, 
including start and end dates and hours and descriptions of corrective 
actions taken in the annual or semiannual compliance reports required 
in Sec.  60.59b(g) or (h).
    (5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures for continuous 
automated sampling systems as described in paragraphs (q)(5)(i) and 
(q)(5)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Develop and implement a continuous automated sampling system 
and analysis quality control program. As part of the quality control 
program, the owner or operator shall develop and submit to EPA for 
approval, upon request, a site-specific performance evaluation test 
plan for the continuous automated sampling system performance 
evaluation required in paragraph (q)(5)(ii) of this section. In 
addition, each quality control program shall include, at a minimum, a 
written protocol that describes procedures for each of the operations 
described in paragraphs (q)(7)(i)(A) through (q)(7)(i)(F) of this 
section.
    (A) Correct placement, installation of the continuous automated 
sampling system such that the system is collecting a representative 
sample of gas;
    (B) Initial and subsequent calibration of flow such that the sample 
collection rate of the continuous automated sampling system is known 
and verifiable;
    (C) Procedures to assure representative (e.g., proportional or 
isokinetic) sampling;
    (D) Preventive maintenance of the continuous automated sampling 
system, including spare parts inventory and procedures for cleaning 
equipment, replacing sample collection media, or other servicing at the 
end of each sample collection period;
    (E) Data recording and reporting, including an automated indicator 
and recording device to show when the continuous automated monitoring 
system is operating and collecting data and when it is not collecting 
data;
    (F) Accuracy audit procedures for analytical methods; and
    (G) Program of corrective action for a malfunctioning continuous 
automated sampling system.
    (ii) The performance evaluation test plan shall include the 
evaluation program objectives, an evaluation program summary, the 
performance evaluation schedule, data quality

[[Page 27345]]

objectives, and both an internal and external quality assurance 
program. Data quality objectives are the pre-evaluation expectations of 
precision, accuracy, and completeness of data. The internal quality 
assurance program shall include, at a minimum, the activities planned 
by routine operators and analysts to provide an assessment of 
continuous automated sampling system performance, for example, plans 
for relative accuracy testing using the appropriate reference method in 
60.58b(p)(3), and an assessment of quality of analysis results. The 
external quality assurance program shall include, at a minimum, systems 
audits that include the opportunity for on-site evaluation by the 
Administrator of instrument calibration, data validation, sample 
logging, and documentation of quality control data and field 
maintenance activities.
    (6) Conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous automated 
sampling system in accordance with the site-specific monitoring plan.
    (7) Operate and maintain the continuous automated sampling system 
in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.

0
17. Amend Sec.  60.59b by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(3);
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(6) introductory text;
0
e. Revising paragraph (d)(6)(iv);
0
f. Revising paragraph (d)(6)(v);
0
g. Revising paragraph (d)(7);
0
h. Adding paragraph (d)(10);
0
i. Revising paragraph (d)(12) introductory text;
0
j. Revising paragraph (d)(14);
0
k. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text;
0
l. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(ii);
0
m. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(iv);
0
n. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v);
0
o. Revising paragraph (g)(4);
0
p. Revising paragraph (h)(1);
0
q. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(i)(E);
0
r. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(E);
0
s. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(F);
0
t. Adding paragraph (d)(6)(vi);
0
u. Adding paragraph (d)(6)(vii);
0
v. Adding paragraph (d)(12)(iv);
0
w. Adding paragraph (g)(5);
0
x. Adding paragraph (m);
0
y. Adding paragraph (n); and
0
z. Adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.59b  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The measurements specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) through 
(d)(2)(i)(F) of this section shall be recorded and be available for 
submittal to the Administrator or review on site by an EPA or State 
inspector.
* * * * *
    (E) For owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor 
particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride 
emissions instead of conducting performance testing using EPA manual 
test methods, all 1-hour average particulate matter, cadmium, lead, 
mercury, or hydrogen chloride emission concentrations as specified 
under Sec.  60.58b(n).
    (ii) The average concentrations and percent reductions, as 
applicable, specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through (d)(2)(ii)(F) 
of this section shall be computed and recorded, and shall be available 
for submittal to the Administrator or review on-site by an EPA or State 
inspector.
* * * * *
    (E) For owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor 
particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride 
emissions instead of conducting performance testing using EPA manual 
test methods, all 24-hour daily arithmetic average particulate matter, 
cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride emission concentrations as 
specified under Sec.  60.58b(n).
    (F) For owners and operators who elect to use a continuous 
automated sampling system to monitor mercury or dioxin/furan instead of 
conducting performance testing using EPA manual test methods, all 
integrated 24-hour mercury concentrations or all integrated 2-week 
dioxin/furan concentrations as specified under Sec.  60.586(p).
    (3) Identification of the calendar dates when any of the average 
emission concentrations, percent reductions, or operating parameters 
recorded under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through (d)(2)(ii)(F) of this 
section, or the opacity levels recorded under paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A) of 
this section are above the applicable limits, with reasons for such 
exceedances and a description of corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
    (6) Identification of the calendar dates and times (hours) for 
which valid hourly data specified in paragraphs (d)(6)(i) through 
(d)(6)(vi) of this section have not been obtained, or continuous 
automated sampling systems were not operated as specified in paragraph 
(d)(6)(vii) of this section, including reasons for not obtaining the 
data and a description of corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
    (iv) Municipal waste combustor unit load data;
    (v) Particulate matter control device temperature data; and
    (vi) For owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor 
particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride 
emissions instead of performance testing by EPA manual test methods, 
particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride 
emissions data.
    (vii) For owners and operators who elect to use continuous 
automated sampling systems for dioxins/furans or mercury as allowed 
under ``60.58b(p) and (q), dates and times when the sampling systems 
were not operating or were not collecting a valid sample.
    (7) Identification of each occurrence that sulfur dioxide emissions 
data, nitrogen oxides emissions data, particulate matter emissions 
data, cadmium emissions data, lead emissions data, mercury emissions 
data, hydrogen chloride emissions data, or dioxin/furan emissions data 
(for owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor particulate 
matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, or who elect to 
use continuous automated sampling systems for dioxin/furan or mercury 
emissions, instead of conducting performance testing using EPA manual 
test methods) or operational data (i.e., carbon monoxide emissions, 
unit load, and particulate matter control device temperature) have been 
excluded from the calculation of average emission concentrations or 
parameters, and the reasons for excluding the data.
* * * * *
    (10) An owner or operator who elects to continuously monitor 
emissions instead of performance testing by EPA manual methods must 
maintain records specified in paragraphs (10)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) For owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor 
particulate matter instead of conducting performance testing using EPA 
manual test methods), as required under appendix F of this part, 
procedure 2, the results of daily drift tests and quarterly accuracy 
determinations for particulate matter.
    (ii) For owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor 
cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride instead of conducting EPA 
manual test methods, the results of all quality evaluations, such as 
daily drift tests and

[[Page 27346]]

periodic accuracy determinations, specified in the approved site-
specific performance evaluation test plan required by Sec.  
60.58b(o)(5).
    (iii) For owners and operators who elect to use continuous 
automated sampling systems for dioxin/furan or mercury, the results of 
all quality evaluations specified in the approved site-specific 
performance evaluation test plan required by Sec.  60.58b(q)(5).
* * * * *
    (12) The records specified in paragraphs (d)(12)(i) through 
(d)(12)(iv) of this section.
* * * * *
    (iv) Records of when a certified operator is temporarily off site. 
Include two main items:
    (A) If the certified chief facility operator and certified shift 
supervisor are off site for more than 12 hours, but for 2 weeks or 
less, and no other certified operator is on site, record the dates that 
the certified chief facility operator and certified shift supervisor 
were off site.
    (B) When all certified chief facility operators and certified shift 
supervisors are off site for more than 2 weeks and no other certified 
operator is on site, keep records of four items:
    (1) Time of day that all certified persons are off site.
    (2) The conditions that cause those people to be off site.
    (3) The corrective actions taken by the owner or operator of the 
affected facility to ensure a certified chief facility operator or 
certified shift supervisor is on site as soon as practicable.
    (4) Copies of the written reports submitted every 4 weeks that 
summarize the actions taken by the owner or operator of the affected 
facility to ensure that a certified chief facility operator or 
certified shift supervisor will be on site as soon as practicable.
* * * * *
    (14) For affected facilities that apply activated carbon, 
identification of the calendar dates when the average carbon mass feed 
rates recorded under paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section were less 
than either of the hourly carbon feed rates estimated during 
performance tests for mercury emissions and recorded under paragraphs 
(d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(ii) of this section, respectively, with reasons 
for such feed rates and a description of corrective actions taken. For 
affected facilities that apply activated carbon, identification of the 
calendar dates when the average carbon mass feed rates recorded under 
paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section were less than either of the 
hourly carbon feed rates estimated during performance tests for dioxin/
furan emissions and recorded under paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(ii) 
of this section, respectively, with reasons for such feed rates and a 
description of corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
    (g) Following the first year of municipal waste combustor 
operation, the owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit 
an annual report that includes the information specified in paragraphs 
(g)(1) through (g)(5) of this section, as applicable, no later than 
February 1 of each year following the calendar year in which the data 
were collected (once the unit is subject to permitting requirements 
under title V of the Act, the owner or operator of an affected facility 
must submit these reports semiannually).
    (1) * * *
    (ii) A list of the highest emission level recorded for sulfur 
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, cadmium, 
lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and dioxin/furan (for owners and 
operators who elect to continuously monitor particulate matter, 
cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and dioxin/furan emissions 
instead of conducting performance testing using EPA manual test 
methods), municipal waste combustor unit load level, and particulate 
matter control device inlet temperature based on the data recorded 
under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through (d)(2)(ii)(E) of this section.
* * * * *
    (iv) Periods when valid data were not obtained as described in 
paragraphs (g)(1)(iv)(A) through (g)(1)(iv)(C) of this section.
    (A) The total number of hours per calendar quarter and hours per 
calendar year that valid data for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 
carbon monoxide, municipal waste combustor unit load, or particulate 
matter control device temperature data were not obtained based on the 
data recorded under paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
    (B) For owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor 
particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, and hydrogen chloride 
emissions instead of conducting performance testing using EPA manual 
test methods, the total number of hours per calendar quarter and hours 
per calendar year that valid data for particulate matter, cadmium, 
lead, mercury, and hydrogen chloride were not obtained based on the 
data recorded under paragraph (d)(6) of this section. For each 
continuously monitored pollutant or parameter, the hours of valid 
emissions data per calendar quarter and per calendar year expressed as 
a percent of the hours per calendar quarter or year that the affected 
facility was operating and combusting municipal solid waste.
    (C) For owners and operators who elect to use continuous automated 
sampling systems for dioxin/furan or mercury, the total number of hours 
per calendar quarter and hours per calendar year that the sampling 
systems were not operating or were not collecting a valid sample based 
on the data recorded under paragraph (d)(6)(vii) of this section. Also, 
the number of hours during which the continuous automated sampling 
system was operating and collecting a valid sample as a percent of 
hours per calendar quarter or year that the affected facility was 
operating and combusting municipal solid waste.
    (v) Periods when valid data were excluded from the calculation of 
average emission concentrations or parameters as described in 
paragraphs (g)(1)(v)(A) through (g)(1)(v)(C) of this section.
    (A) The total number of hours that data for sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, municipal waste combustor unit load, 
and particulate matter control device temperature were excluded from 
the calculation of average emission concentrations or parameters based 
on the data recorded under paragraph (d)(7) of this section.
    (B) For owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor 
particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride 
emissions instead of conducting performance testing using EPA manual 
test methods, the total number of hours that data for particulate 
matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride were excluded from 
the calculation of average emission concentrations or parameters based 
on the data recorded under paragraph (d)(7) of this section.
    (C) For owners and operators who elect to use continuous automated 
sampling systems for dioxin/furan or mercury, the total number of hours 
that data for mercury and dioxin/furan were excluded from the 
calculation of average emission concentrations or parameters based on 
the data recorded under paragraph (d)(7) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) A notification of intent to begin the reduced dioxin/furan 
performance testing schedule specified in Sec.  60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of 
this section during the following calendar year and notification of 
intent to apply the average carbon mass feed rate and associated carbon 
injection system operating parameter levels as

[[Page 27347]]

established in Sec.  60.58b(m) to similarly designed and equipped units 
on site.
    (5) Documentation of periods when all certified chief facility 
operators and certified shift supervisors are off site for more than 12 
hours.
    (h) * * *
    (1) The semiannual report shall include information recorded under 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 
carbon monoxide, particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, hydrogen 
chloride, dioxin/furan (for owners and operators who elect to 
continuously monitor particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or 
hydrogen chloride, or who elect to use continuous automated sampling 
systems for dioxin/furan or mercury emissions, instead of conducting 
performance testing using EPA manual test methods) municipal waste 
combustor unit load level, particulate matter control device inlet 
temperature, and opacity.
* * * * *
    (m) Owners and operators who elect to continuously monitor 
particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen chloride, or 
who elect to use continuous automated sampling systems for dioxin/furan 
or mercury emissions, instead of conducting performance testing using 
EPA manual test methods must notify the Administrator one month prior 
to starting or stopping use of the particulate matter, cadmium, lead, 
mercury, hydrogen chloride, and dioxin/furan continuous emission 
monitoring systems or continuous automated sampling systems.
    (n) Additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 
affected facilities with continuous cadmium, lead, mercury, or hydrogen 
chloride monitoring systems. In addition to complying with the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (m) of this section, 
the owner or operator of an affected source who elects to install a 
continuous emission monitoring system for cadmium, lead, mercury, or 
hydrogen chloride as specified in Sec.  60.58b(n), shall maintain the 
records in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(10) of this section and report 
the information in paragraphs (n)(11) through (n)(12) of this section, 
relevant to the continuous emission monitoring system:
    (1) All required continuous emission monitoring measurements 
(including monitoring data recorded during unavoidable continuous 
emission monitoring system breakdowns and out-of-control periods);
    (2) The date and time identifying each period during which the 
continuous emission monitoring system was inoperative except for zero 
(low-level) and high-level checks;
    (3) The date and time identifying each period during which the 
continuous emission monitoring system was out of control, as defined in 
Sec.  60.58b(o)(4);
    (4) The specific identification (i.e., the date and time of 
commencement and completion) of each period of excess emissions and 
parameter monitoring exceedances, as defined in the standard, that 
occurs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the affected 
source;
    (5) The specific identification (i.e., the date and time of 
commencement and completion) of each time period of excess emissions 
and parameter monitoring exceedances, as defined in the standard, that 
occurs during periods other than startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions 
of the affected source;
    (6) The nature and cause of any malfunction (if known);
    (7) The corrective action taken to correct any malfunction or 
preventive measures adopted to prevent further malfunctions;
    (8) The nature of the repairs or adjustments to the continuous 
emission monitoring system that was inoperative or out of control;
    (9) All procedures that are part of a quality control program 
developed and implemented for the continuous emission monitoring system 
under Sec.  60.58b(o);
    (10) When more than one continuous emission monitoring system is 
used to measure the emissions from one affected source (e.g., multiple 
breechings, multiple outlets), the owner or operator shall report the 
results as required for each continuous emission monitoring system.
    (11) Submit to EPA for approval, the site-specific monitoring plan 
required by Sec.  60.58b(n)(13) and Sec.  60.58b(o), including the 
site-specific performance evaluation test plan for the continuous 
emission monitoring system required by Sec.  60.58(b)(o)(5). The owner 
or operator shall maintain copies of the site-specific monitoring plan 
on record for the life of the affected source to be made available for 
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the site-specific 
monitoring plan is revised and approved, the owner or operator shall 
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the plan on record to be 
made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for 
a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan.
    (12) Submit information concerning all out-of-control periods for 
each continuous emission monitoring system, including start and end 
dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions taken, in the 
annual or semiannual reports required in paragraphs (g) or (h) of this 
section.
    (o) Additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 
affected facilities with continuous automated sampling systems for 
dioxin/furan or mercury monitoring. In addition to complying with the 
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (m) of this section, 
the owner or operator of an affected source who elects to install a 
continuous automated sampling system for dioxin/furan or mercury, as 
specified in Sec.  60.58b(p), shall maintain the records in paragraphs 
(o)(1) through (o)(10) of this section and report the information in 
(o)(11) and (o)(12) of this section, relevant to the continuous 
automated sampling system:
    (1) All required 24-hour integrated mercury concentration or 2-week 
integrated dioxin/furan concentration data (including any data obtained 
during unavoidable system breakdowns and out-of-control periods);
    (2) The date and time identifying each period during which the 
continuous automated sampling system was inoperative;
    (3) The date and time identifying each period during which the 
continuous automated sampling system was out of control, as defined in 
Sec.  60.58b(q)(4);
    (4) The specific identification (i.e., the date and time of 
commencement and completion) of each period of excess emissions and 
parameter monitoring exceedances, as defined in the standard, that 
occurs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the affected 
source;
    (5) The specific identification (i.e., the date and time of 
commencement and completion) of each time period of excess emissions 
and parameter monitoring exceedances, as defined in the standard, that 
occurs during periods other than startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions 
of the affected source;
    (6) The nature and cause of any malfunction (if known);
    (7) The corrective action taken to correct any malfunction or 
preventive measures adopted to prevent further malfunctions;
    (8) The nature of the repairs or adjustments to the continuous 
automated sampling system that was inoperative or out of control;
    (9) All procedures that are part of a quality control program 
developed and implemented for the continuous automated sampling system 
under Sec.  60.58b(q);
    (10) When more than one continuous automated sampling system is 
used to measure the emissions from one affected source (e.g., multiple 
breechings, multiple outlets), the owner or operator

[[Page 27348]]

shall report the results as required for each system.
    (11) Submit to EPA for approval, the site-specific monitoring plan 
required by Sec.  60.58b(p)(11) and Sec.  60.58b(q) including the site-
specific performance evaluation test plan for the continuous emission 
monitoring system required by Sec.  60.58(b)(q)(5). The owner or 
operator shall maintain copies of the site-specific monitoring plan on 
record for the life of the affected source to be made available for 
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the site-specific 
monitoring plan is revised and approved, the owner or operator shall 
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the plan on record to be 
made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for 
a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan.
    (12) Submit information concerning all out-of-control periods for 
each continuous automated sampling system, including start and end 
dates and hours and descriptions of corrective actions taken in the 
annual or semiannual reports required in paragraphs (g) or (h) of this 
section.

[FR Doc. 06-4197 Filed 5-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P