[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36473-36476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17330]



[[Page 36473]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[AD-FRL-7010-3]
RIN A2060-AJ51


Standards of Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors for 
Which Construction is Commenced After September 20, 1994 or for Which 
Modification or Reconstruction is Commenced After June 19, 1996 and 
Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste 
Combustors That are Constructed On or Before September 20, 1994

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; amendment.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the standards of performance for large 
municipal waste combustors by expanding the definition of mass burn 
rotary waterwall municipal waste combustors (MWC) to include mass burn 
tumbling-tile grate waterwall municipal waste combustors. This change 
ensures that the same emission limit is established for both types of 
MWC designs since they exhibit similar combustion characteristics. 
Since the emissions guidelines for large municipal waste combustors 
reference the definitions included in the standards of performance, 
this amendment to the standards has the effect of amending both the 
standards and the guidelines.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective on September 10, 2001, 
without further notice, unless significant adverse comments are 
received by August 13, 2001.
    If significant material adverse comments are received by August 13, 
2001, this direct final rule will be withdrawn and the comments 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposal. If no 
significant material adverse comments are received, no further action 
will be taken on the proposal and this direct final rule will become 
effective on September 10, 2001.

ADDRESSES: By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in duplicate if 
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 
Attention Docket Number A-90-45, Subcategory IX-D, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. 
In person or by courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) 
to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention 
Docket Number A-90-45, Subcategory IX-D, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a 
separate copy of each public comment be sent to the contact person 
listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Fred Porter, Combustion Group, 
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5251, e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. We are publishing this direct 
final rule without prior proposal because we view this as a 
noncontroversial amendment and do not anticipate adverse comments. 
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are 
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal in the 
event that adverse comments are filed.
    If we receive any significant adverse comments, we will publish a 
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that 
this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public 
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will 
not institute a second comment period on this direct final rule. Any 
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of information 
compiled by EPA in development of this direct final rule. The docket is 
a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking 
process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents 
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, 
the docket contains the record in the case of judicial review. The 
docket number for this rulemaking is A-90-45, Subcategory IX-D.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
electronic copies of this action will be posted on the Technology 
Transfer Network's (TTN) policy and guidance information page http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information 
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities that 
potentially will be affected by this amendment include the following:

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

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that we are now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by 
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 
Secs. 60.50b and 60.32b of the rules. If you have questions regarding 
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), judicial review of the action taken by this direct final rule is 
available only on the filing of a petition for review in the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 10, 2001. 
Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are subject 
to today's action may not be challenged later in civil or criminal 
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Under section 307(d)(7) of the CAA, only an objection to a rule or 
procedure raised with reasonable specificity during the period for 
public comment or

[[Page 36474]]

public hearing may be raised during judicial review.

I. Background

    On December 19, 1995, we promulgated standards of performance (60 
FR 65382) and emissions guidelines (60 FR 65387) for large municipal 
waste combustors. These standards and guidelines establish maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) emission limits for nine 
pollutants for all design types of municipal waste combustors. The 
emission control technology upon which these MACT emission limits are 
based varies somewhat, depending on the specific emission limit. For 
carbon monoxide (CO), the emission control technology upon which the 
MACT emission limits are based is good combustion. As outlined in the 
proposed and final standards and guidelines, good combustion consists 
of several elements: trained operators, waste feed control, combustion 
air control, combustion air preheat, and the use of auxiliary fuel 
burners.
    The magnitude of CO emissions from a combustor are determined 
primarily by the combustion conditions which exist within the 
combustor. While good combustion minimizes CO emissions, it cannot 
achieve the same level of emission reductions for each type of 
combustor design since combustion conditions inherently vary from one 
type of combustor design to another. As a result, the MACT CO emission 
limits in the standards and guidelines vary by type of combustor 
design.
    The MACT CO emission limits for mass burn rotary waterwall 
combustors, for example, are different (i.e., less stringent) than 
those for mass burn waterwall combustors. A mass burn rotary waterwall 
combustor is essentially an inclined rotating waterwall cylinder. Waste 
enters at the elevated end of the cylinder, ignites, and then slowly 
moves down the cylinder as it rotates. As the municipal waste burns, 
the rotation of the cylinder tends to carry the waste partially up the 
wall in the direction of rotation, until it tumbles and falls over on 
itself. When this happens, a large amount of fresh, unburned surface 
area is suddenly exposed to combustion, and this leads to substantial 
fluctuations in CO emission levels.
    Most mass burn waterwall municipal waste combustors do not use an 
inclined rotating cylinder, but use an inclined reciprocating grate to 
burn the municipal waste. Viewed from the side, this inclined grate 
looks like a long set of stair steps. In most cases, every other grate 
step can move back and forth or reciprocate. The waste enters on the 
top step, ignites, and then is slowly pushed down the grate, from one 
step to another, by the reciprocating steps. While the action of moving 
from step to step serves to expose some fresh, unburned surface area to 
combustion, the transition is smoother and less abrupt than that in a 
rotary combustor. As a result, the fluctuations in CO emission levels 
are less extreme and, as mentioned above, the MACT emission limits in 
the standards and guidelines for CO are more stringent for mass burn 
waterwall combustors than for mass burn rotary waterwall combustors.
    Recently, we have learned that there is one other type of mass burn 
waterwall municipal waste combustor design, which is referred to as a 
tumbling-tile grate combustor. Only one large municipal waste combustor 
of this type of design exists in the United States (i.e., Savannah 
Energy Systems located in Savannah, Georgia) and, until the owner/
operator of this combustor brought this to our attention, we were not 
aware of it. This type of combustor design uses a grate to burn 
municipal waste but, because of the unique design of the grate, the 
combustion conditions within the combustor are similar to those within 
a mass burn rotary waterwall combustor.
    When viewed from the side, the grate within this combustor looks 
like a long set of stair steps. However, every third step, which is 
referred to as a ``tumbling-tile,'' is hinged at one end with the other 
end attached to a vertical ram beneath the step. As waste moves down 
the grate, the ram rises, rotating the step around the hinged end. This 
action causes the waste to tumble and fall over on itself exposing a 
large amount of fresh, unburned surface area to combustion.
    The overall effect creates combustion conditions similar to those 
which exist within a rotating combustor. As the waste burns, 
periodically a large amount of fresh, unburned surface area is suddenly 
and abruptly exposed to combustion, and this leads to substantial 
fluctuations in CO emission levels. Good combustion reduces CO emission 
levels from a tumbling-tile grate waterwall combustor to the level 
achieved at rotary waterwall combustors, but cannot reduce CO emissions 
to the level achieved at mass burn waterwall combustors. Thus, the MACT 
emission limits for CO for mass burn tumbling-tile grate waterwall 
combustors and mass burn rotary waterwall combustors should be the 
same.
    This direct final rule amendment, therefore, expands the definition 
of mass burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor to include mass 
burn tumbling-tile grate waterwall municipal waste combustor. This 
action ensures that the same MACT CO emission limit is established for 
both types of municipal waste combustor designs since they exhibit 
similar combustion conditions.
    All terms used but not defined in the guidelines (Subpart Cb--
Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste 
Combustors That are Constructed on or Before September 20, 1994) have 
the meaning given them in the standards (Subpart Eb--Standards of 
Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors for Which Construction 
is Commenced After September 20, 1994 or for Which Modification or 
Reconstruction is Commenced After June 19, 1996). As a result, this 
action has the effect of amending both the standards and the guidelines 
by amending the definition of mass burn rotary waterwall municipal 
waste combustor in the standards.

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(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.
    It has been determined that this direct final rule does not qualify 
as a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive 
Order 12866 and, therefore, is not subject to review by OMB.

[[Page 36475]]

B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' 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.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State 
law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in 
the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This direct 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. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
direct final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This direct final rule does not have tribal implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this direct final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to 
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the 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 considered by EPA.
    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. This direct final rule is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology 
performance and not on health or safety risks. Also, this direct final 
rule is not ``economically significant.''

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 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 to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to 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 objective of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this direct 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. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    The EPA has determined that this direct final rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's direct final rule 
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business in 
the regulated industry that has a gross annual revenue 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

[[Page 36476]]

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 today's direct final rule 
on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This direct final rule will not impose any requirements on small 
entities because it does not impose any additional regulatory 
requirements.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget had previously approved the 
information collection requirements contained in the standards and 
guidelines for large municipal waste combustors under the provisions of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., at the time the 
rules were promulgated on December 19, 1995.
    The amendment contained in this direct final rule results in no 
changes to the information collection requirements of the standards or 
guidelines and will have no impact on the information collection 
estimate of project cost and hour burden made and approved by OMB 
during the development of the standards and guidelines. Therefore, the 
information collection requests have not been revised.
    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.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This direct final rule amendment does not involve technical 
standards. The EPA's compliance with the NTTAA has been addressed in 
the preamble of the standards of performance (60 FR 65382) and 
emissions guidelines (60 FR 65387) promulgated on December 19, 1995.

I. 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. The EPA will submit a report containing 
this direct 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 this direct final rule in 
the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days 
after it is published in the Federal Register. This direct final rule 
is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

    Dated: July 3, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

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

PART 60--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart Eb--[Amended]

    2. Section 60.51b is amended by revising the definition of Mass 
burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor and adding the 
definition of Tumbling-tile as follows:


Sec. 60.51b  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Mass burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor means a field-
erected combustor that combusts municipal solid waste in a cylindrical 
rotary waterwall furnace or on a tumbling-tile grate.
* * * * *
    Tumbling-tile means a grate tile hinged at one end and attached to 
a ram at the other end. When the ram extends, the grate tile rotates 
around the hinged end.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-17330 Filed 7-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U