[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6968-6996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-3373]



[[Page 6967]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 63, 266, and 270



NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste 
Combustors; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2002 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 6968]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63, 266, and 270

[FRL-7143-4]
RIN 2050-AE79


NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous 
Waste Combustors (Final Amendments Rule)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA established standards for hazardous waste-burning cement 
kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and incinerators on September 30, 
1999 (NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Hazardous Waste Combustors) pursuant to section 112(d) of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA). This rule included not only the standards themselves, but a 
battery of provisions setting out the means by which the standards 
would be implemented. Following promulgation of this final rule, the 
regulated community, through informal comments, raised numerous issues 
on specific requirements of the rule relating to provisions 
implementing the emission standards. In response to these concerns, we 
proposed and requested comment on changes to discrete provisions in the 
final rule on July 3, 2001. Today's action finalizes some of the 
amendments proposed in that notice. These amendments do not change the 
numerical emission standards, but rather focus on improvements to the 
implementation of the emission standards, primarily in the areas of 
compliance, testing and monitoring. A related final rule establishing 
interim emission standards was published in the Federal Register on 
February 13, 2002.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on February 14, 2002. The 
incorporation by reference of a publication listed in this rule is 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 14, 
2002.

ADDRESSES: You may view the docket to this rulemaking in the RCRA 
Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The docket number is F-
2002-RC6F-FFFFF. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, we 
recommend that you make an appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. You 
may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no 
charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, call the RCRA 
Call Center at 1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672 (hearing impaired). 
Callers within the Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703-412-9810 
or TDD 703-412-3323 (hearing impaired). The RCRA Call Center is open 
Monday-Friday, 9 am to 4 pm, Eastern Standard Time. For more 
information, contact Frank Behan at 703-308-8476, [email protected], 
or Michael Galbraith at 703-605-0567, [email protected], or 
write to them at the Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Acronyms Used in the Rule

APCD--Air pollution control device
ASME--American Society of Mechanical Engineers
CAA--Clean Air Act
CEMS--Continuous emissions monitors/monitoring system
COMS--Continuous opacity monitoring system
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
DOC--Documentation of Compliance
DRE--Destruction and removal efficiency
dscf--Dry standard cubic feet
dscm--Dry standard cubic meter
EPA/USEPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
gr--Grains
HAP--Hazardous air pollutant
HWC--Hazardous waste combustor
MACT--Maximum Achievable Control Technology
NESHAP--National Emission Standards for HAPs
ng--Nanograms
NIC--Notice of Intent to Comply
NOC--Notification of compliance
OPL--Operating parameter limit
PM--Particulate matter
POHC--Principal organic hazardous constituent
ppmv--Parts per million by volume
psig--Pounds per square inch gage
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TEQ--Toxicity equivalence

    Official Record. The official record is the paper record maintained 
at the address in ADDRESSES above.
    Supporting Materials Availability on the Internet. Supporting 
materials are available on the Internet. To access the information 
electronically from the World Wide Web (WWW), type website http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust.

Table of Contents

Part One--What Events Led Up to This Rule?

I. What Is the Background of This Rule?
    A. What Is the Phase I Rule?
    B. How Did the Court's Opinion To Vacate the Rule and 
Petitioners Joint Motion To Stay the Mandate Affect Phase I and 
Today's Rule?
II. Which Proposed Amendments Are Included in This Rule?

Part Two--What Revisions, Proposed in the Parallel Proposal, Are We 
Making Today?

I. What Previous DRE Test Results May You Use To Demonstrate 
Compliance With the MACT DRE Standard?
II. What Are the Hydrocarbon Monitoring Requirements for Short 
Cement Kilns Burning Hazardous Waste at Locations Other Than the 
``Hot'' End of the Kiln?
III. Why Are We Deleting the Baghouse Inspection Requirements?
IV. What Are the Requirements for Feedstream Analysis of Organic 
HAPs?

Part Three--What Revisions, Proposed in the Technical Amendments 
Proposal, Are We Making in Today's Rule?

I. What Revisions Are We Making to the Combustion System Leak 
Provisions?
    A. What Did We Propose to Change?
    B. What Were Commenters' Reactions to the Proposed Amendments?
    C. What Were Commenters' Objections to Instantaneous Pressure 
Limits?
II. What Revisions Are We Making to the Operator Training and 
Certification Requirements?
III. What Time Extensions for Testing Are Available If the 
Comprehensive Performance Test Plan Has Not Been Approved?
IV. What Flexibility Is Provided in Operations During Confirmatory 
Testing for Dioxin/Furans?
V. How Can You Waive Operating Parameter Limits During Performance 
Testing and Pretesting?
    A. How Can You Waive OPLs during the Initial Comprehensive 
Performance Test?
    B. How Can You Waive OPLs During Subsequent Comprehensive 
Performance Tests?
VI. What Are the Calibration Requirements for Temperature 
Measurement Devices?
VII. What Changes Are We Making to the Particulate Matter Operating 
Requirements for Sources Using Activated Carbon Injection and Carbon 
Beds?
VIII. How May You Comply Temporarily With Alternative, Otherwise 
Applicable MACT Standards?
    A. What Are the Implications of Being an Affected Source Only 
Under Subpart EEE?
    B. How Are Rolling Averages Calculated When Changing Modes of 
Operation?
IX. What Are the Procedures for Allowing Use of Less Sensitive Bag 
Leak Detection Systems?

Part Four--What Technical Corrections Are Being Made in Today's 
Rule?

I. What Corrections Are We Making to part 63, Subpart EEE?
    A. Several Typographical Errors Are Corrected
    B. Several Citations Are Corrected
II. What Correction Are We Making to Sec. 266.100?
III. What Correction Are We Making to Sec. 270.42(j)(1): Combustion 
Facility

[[Page 6969]]

Changes to Meet part 63 MACT Standards?
IV. What Correction Are We Making to Table 1 to Subpart EEE--General 
Provisions Applicable to Subpart EEE?

Part Five--What Are the Analytical and Regulatory Requirements?

I. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
II. What Economic and Equity Analyses Were Completed in Support of 
the Proposed Rule?
III. What Substantive Comments Were Received on the Cost/Economic 
Aspects of Proposed Rule?
IV. What Are the Potential Costs and Benefits of Today's Final Rule?
V. What Consideration Was Given to Small Entities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. 
seq.?
VI. Was the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Considered in this Final 
Rule?
VII. Were Equity Issues and Children's Health Considered in this 
Final Rule?
VIII. What Consideration Was Given to Tribal Governments in this 
Final Rule?
IX. Were Federalism Implications Considered in Today's Final Rule?
X. Were Energy Impacts Considered?
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
XIII. The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as Added 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996)

Part Six--Delegation Implications

I. What Is the Authority for the Final Amendment Rule?
II. Why Should I Apply for Delegation of this Rule?

Part One--What Events Led up to This Rule?

I. What Is the Background of This Rule?

A. What Is the Phase I Rule?

    Today's notice finalizes specific changes to the NESHAP: Final 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors 
(Phase I) rule, published September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52828). In the 
Phase I final rule, we adopted National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants to control emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs) from burning hazardous waste in incinerators, cement 
kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns pursuant to section 112(d) of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA), which provisions require that the emission 
standards reflect the performance of best available control technology. 
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 3d 855, 857 (D.C. Cir. 
2001). This level of control is usually referred to as MACT, maximum 
available control technology. Id. at 859. These standards apply to the 
three major categories of hazardous waste burners--incinerators, cement 
kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns. For purposes of today's rule, 
we refer to these three categories collectively as hazardous waste 
combustors (HWC).
    More information on the Phase I HWC MACT rule is available 
electronically from the World Wide Web at www.epa.gov/hwcmact.

B. How Did the Court's Opinion To Vacate the Rule and Petitioners Joint 
Motion To Stay the Mandate Affect Phase I and Today's Rule?

    A number of parties, representing interests of both industrial 
sources and of the environmental community, sought judicial review of 
the emission standards and certain related provisions. Petitions for 
review have also been filed challenging certain of the implementation 
provisions of the rule, but these petitions have been severed from the 
litigation dealing with the emission standards, and all litigation on 
these challenges has been stayed by consent of the parties.
    As described in the ``interim standards'' final rule in yesterday's 
Federal Register, the D.C. Circuit, in the case challenging emission 
standards, found that EPA had failed to explain adequately how its 
methodology for calculating so-called MACT floors satisfied the 
requirements of section 112(d)(3). Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, 255 
F. 3d 855 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
    On October 19, 2001, we, together with all other petitioners that 
challenged the hazardous waste combustor emission standards, filed a 
joint motion asking the Court to stay the issuance of its mandate for 
four months to allow us time to develop interim standards. Although 
neither the opinion, nor the litigation, deals with the implementation 
provisions at issue in this rulemaking,\1\ these issues became a part 
of post-July 24 discussions between EPA and the petitioners. As part of 
the joint agreement and joint motion to the court which resulted from 
those discussions, we agreed to promulgate by February 14, 2002 several 
of the compliance and implementation amendments to the rule which we 
proposed on July 3, 2001 (66 FR 35126). Further information on this 
process is found in the ``interim standards'' final rule in yesterday's 
Federal Register, and the joint motion can be viewed and/or downloaded 
from EPA's Hazardous Waste Combustion website http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/preamble.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted above, virtually all issues involving 
implementation provisions were severed and assigned separate case 
numbers, and so were not before the panel which decided Cement Kiln 
Recycling Coalition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Which Proposed Amendments Are Included in This Rule?

    After promulgation of the Phase I rule, commenters (primarily the 
regulated community) raised numerous potential issues through informal 
comments, during EPA-conducted implementation workshops (which are open 
to the general public), and during litigation settlement discussions. 
After considering the issues raised, we proposed 33 amendments to the 
Phase I rule on July 3, 2001 (66 FR 35126, 35087, and 35124). Nine of 
these proposed amendments were promulgated in a Direct Final rule,\2\ 
and 14 are being finalized today. Ten amendments will be considered as 
we proceed with a rulemaking on the final replacement standards 
scheduled to be promulgated by June 14, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Thirteen amendments were promulgated on July 3, 2001 in a 
direct final rule contingent upon the Agency not receiving adverse 
comment on the amendments. See 66 FR 35087. The Agency received 
adverse comment on four amendments, and issued a partial withdrawal 
of the direct final rule on October 15, 2001 (66 FR 52361) that 
withdrew promulgation of those four amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate notice published in the Federal Register on July 3, 
2001, we took direct final action on certain amendments to the Sept. 
1999 Phase I rule (66 FR 35087). We published the direct final rule 
without prior proposal because we viewed those amendments as being 
noncontroversial. We stated that we would withdraw any amendments from 
the direct final rulemaking that received adverse comments and instead, 
would seek comment on those amendments through the ``parallel'' 
proposal that was published on July 3, 2001 (66 FR 35124).
    The following tables include information on all the amendments from 
the July 3, 2001 proposals.

[[Page 6970]]



              Combustion Mact Amendments: Direct Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Approach to address
         No.             Title of amendment             amendment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...................  Hazardous Waste           No adverse comments
                       Residence Time.           received. The amendment
                                                 became effective on
                                                 Oct. 16, 2001.
II..................  Deletion of One-time      No adverse comments
                       Notification of           received. The amendment
                       Compliance with           became effective on
                       Alternative Clean Air     Oct. 16, 2001.
                       Act Standards.
III.................  Use of DRE Data in Lieu   Adverse comments were
                       of Testing.               received, thus the
                                                 amendment was proposed
                                                 in the ``parallel''
                                                 proposal, and is being
                                                 promulgated in this
                                                 rule.
IV..................  Time Extension for        No adverse comments
                       Waiving PM and Opacity    received.The amendment
                       Standards to Correlate    became effective on
                       PM CEMs.                  Oct. 16, 2001.
V...................  Alternative Hydrocarbon   Adverse comments were
                       Monitoring Location for   received, thus the
                       Short Cement Kilns        amendment was proposed
                       Burning Hazardous Waste   in the ``parallel''
                       at Locations Other Than   proposal, and is being
                       the ``Hot'' End of the    promulgated in this
                       Kiln.                     rule.
VI..................  Alternative to the        No adverse comments
                       Particulate Matter        received. The amendment
                       Standard for              became effective on
                       Incinerators Feeding      Oct. 16, 2001.
                       Low Levels of Metals.
VII.................  Deletion of Baghouse      Adverse comments were
                       Inspection Requirements.  received, thus the
                                                 amendment was proposed
                                                 in the ``parallel''
                                                 proposal, and is being
                                                 promulgated in this
                                                 rule.
VIII................  Feedstream Analysis for   Adverse comments were
                       Organic HAPs.             received, thus the
                                                 amendment was proposed
                                                 in the ``parallel''
                                                 proposal, and is being
                                                 promulgated in this
                                                 rule.
IX..................  Revisions to the Metals   No adverse comments
                       Feedrate Extrapolation    received. The amendment
                       Procedures.               became effective on
                                                 Oct. 16, 2001.
X...................  Feedrate Limits for       No adverse comments
                       Undetectable              received. The amendment
                       Constituents.             became effective on
                                                 Oct. 16, 2001.
XI..................  Revisions to Assist       No adverse comments
                       Early Compliance.         received. The amendment
                                                 became effective on
                                                 Oct. 16, 2001.
XII.................  Accuracy Requirements     No adverse comments
                       for Weight Measurement    received. The amendment
                       Devices.                  became effective on
                                                 Oct. 16, 2001.
XIII................  Deletion of Requirement   No adverse comments
                       for Establishing a        received. The amendment
                       Scrubber Liquid Minimum   became effective on
                       pH Operator Parameter     Oct. 16, 2001.
                       Limit for Mercury
                       Control for Wet
                       Scrubbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Combustion MACT Amendments
                              Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Approach to address
         No.             Title of amendment             amendment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...................  Definition of Research,   The amendment will be
                       Development, and          addressed in a future
                       Demonstration Sources.    MACT rule.
II..................  Identification of an      The amendment is will be
                       Organics Residence Time   addressed in a future
                       That Independent From     MACT rule.
                       and Shorter Than the
                       Hazardous Waste
                       Residence Time.
III.................  Controls on APCDs After   The amendment will be
                       the Hazardous Waste       addressed in a future
                       Residence Time Has        MACT rule.
                       Expired.
IV..................  Instantaneous Monitoring  The amendment is
                       of Combustion Zone        promulgated in today's
                       Pressure.                 rule.
V...................  Operator Training and     The amendment is
                       Certification.            promulgated in today's
                                                 rule.
VI..................  Bag Leak Detection        The amendment is
                       System.                   promulgated in today's
                                                 rule.
VII.................  Time Extensions for       The amendment is
                       Performance Testing If    promulgated in today's
                       the Test Plan Has Not     rule.
                       Been Approved.
VIII................  Flexibility in            The amendment is
                       Operations During         promulgated in today's
                       Confirmatory              rule.
                       Performance Testing for
                       Dioxin/Furans.
IX..................  Waiving Operating         The amendment is
                       Parameter Limits During   promulgated in today's
                       Performance Testing.      rule.
X...................  Method 23 as an           The amendment will be
                       Alternative to Method     addressed in a future
                       0023A for Dioxin/Furans.  MACT rule.
XI..................  Calibration Requirements  The amendment is
                       for Thermocouples.        promulgated in today's
                                                 rule.
XII.................  Alternative Approach to   The amendment will be
                       Establish Operating       addressed in a future
                       Parameter Limits.         MACT rule.
XIII................  Extrapolation of          The amendment will be
                       Operating Parameter       addressed in a future
                       Limits.                   MACT rule.
XIV.................  Limit on Minimum          The amendment will be
                       Combustion Chamber        addressed in a future
                       Temperature for Cement    MACT rule.
                       Kilns.
XV..................  Revisions to Operating    The amendment is
                       Requirements for          promulgated in today's
                       Activated Carbon          rule.
                       Injection and Carbon
                       Bed Systems.
XVI.................  Clarification of          Amendment is promulgated
                       Requirements to Confirm   in today's rule.
                       Carbon Bed Age.
XVII................  Revisions to Operating    The amendment will be
                       Parameter Limits for      addressed in a future
                       Wet Scrubbers.            MACT rule.
XVIII...............  Reproposal of kVA Limits  The amendment will be
                       for Electrostatic         addressed in a future
                       Precipitators and         MACT rule.
                       Request for Comment on
                       Approaches to Ensure
                       Baghouse Performance.
XIX.................  How to Comply             Amendment is promulgated
                       Temporarily with          in today's rule.
                       Alternative, Otherwise
                       Applicable MACT
                       Standards.

[[Page 6971]]

 
XX..................  RCRA Permitting           The amendment will be
                       Requirements for          addressed in a future
                       Sources Entering the      MACT rule.
                       RCRA Process Post-Rule
                       Promulgation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part Two--What Revisions, Proposed in the Parallel Proposal, Are We 
Making Today?

I. What Previous DRE Test Results May You Use To Demonstrate 
Compliance With the MACT DRE Standard

A. Why Are We Deleting the Age Restriction for Using Data in Lieu of 
Performing a DRE Test?

    Today we are revising the September 1999 final rule to allow 
sources that inject hazardous waste only in the flame zone to use any 
previous destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) test results to 
document compliance with the DRE standard, provided the data meet our 
quality assurance/quality control requirements. These revisions do not 
affect sources that inject hazardous waste in places other than the 
normal flame zone.
    Prior to today's change, we allowed data that were no older than 
five years to be used to document compliance with the DRE standard. 
However, stakeholders observed that sources that inject hazardous waste 
only in the flame zone need only document compliance with the DRE 
requirement once for the life of the source under September 1999 final 
rule, provided the test continues to be representative of current 
design and operating conditions. Stakeholders reasoned that, given that 
a single test is acceptable to document compliance with the DRE 
standard for the life of the source, the rule should allow use of DRE 
data older than five years to document compliance with the standard. We 
agree with stakeholders' concerns. Accordingly, in the parallel 
proposal to the direct final rule, we proposed to allow any DRE results 
(that meet QA/QC requirements and that continue to represent the design 
and operation of the source), irrespective of how old the tests are, to 
be used in lieu of having the source perform a new DRE test. All 
comments we received on this issue were favorable.
    This change does not apply to sources that inject hazardous waste 
outside of the flame zone because the September 1999 final rule 
requires that these sources document compliance with the DRE standard 
every five years. These sources may use DRE test results that are no 
older than five years old to document compliance with the initial DRE 
test, and are required to perform a new test every five years. Although 
we explained in the preamble to the July 3, 2001 proposal that the 
revision discussed above applies only to sources that feed hazardous 
waste in the flame zone, one commenter notes that the proposed rule did 
not make a distinction between sources that feed waste in the flame 
zone versus other sources. We agree with this commenter and have 
corrected this oversight in today's amendment.

B. Why Are We Expanding the Type of Allowable DRE Test Results To 
Include Any Results That Pass QA/QC?

    The September 1999 final rule restricts the DRE test data that can 
be used in lieu of performing a new test to data obtained in support of 
a previous RCRA permit issuance or reissuance. We did this because we 
wanted to ensure that the DRE data used met the quality assurance/
quality control requirements applicable to data used to demonstrate 
compliance with the standards under the RCRA permit process. 
Stakeholders, however, expressed concerns that data meeting EPA's 
quality requirements can be generated outside the RCRA permit process. 
For example, a source might perform some type of CAA performance 
testing. This testing potentially could have the same level of 
oversight, and the same quality, as data obtained during the RCRA 
permit process.
    We agree with stakeholders' concerns. In the parallel proposal to 
the direct final rule, we proposed to allow other DRE data provided 
that the data were obtained with the same level of oversight and 
quality as those data obtained during the RCRA permitting process. All 
commenters agree with this proposal and we are promulgating this 
amendment as proposed.

II. What Are the Hydrocarbon Monitoring Requirements for Short 
Cement Kilns Burning Hazardous Waste at Locations Other Than the 
``Hot'' End of the Kiln?

    We are revising the requirements of Sec. 63.1206(b)(13) to allow 
short, dry process cement kilns to continuously monitor hydrocarbons in 
both the alkali by-pass duct and at a ``preheater tower combustion gas 
monitoring location'' as an alternative to hydrocarbon monitoring in 
the main stack. These revisions are identical to those proposed (in the 
parallel proposal to the direct final rule (66 FR 35124 and 35092)). 
Accordingly, we are revising the requirements of Sec. 63.1206(b)(13)(i) 
and adding the definition for a ``preheater tower combustion gas 
monitoring location'' to Sec. 63.1201(a) as proposed.
    Prior to today's action, Sec. 63.1206(b)(13)(i) required new and 
existing cement kilns to comply with a main stack hydrocarbon standard 
of 20 ppmv if hazardous waste is fed at a location other than the kiln 
end where fuels are normally fired and products are normally discharged 
(this is also described as the ``hot'' end of the kiln). These other 
locations can include firing hazardous waste at midkiln, at the upper 
end of the kiln where raw materials are fed, or in the calciner. As 
explained in the final rule promulgated on September 30, 1999, we 
concluded that it would not be appropriate for cement kilns to comply 
with a hydrocarbon standard in the by-pass duct if hazardous waste is 
fed at a location downstream (relative to the direction of flue gas 
flow) of the by-pass sampling location. We stated that such operation 
would result in combustion of hazardous waste that would not be 
monitored by a hydrocarbon monitor (64 FR 52971).
    Today's rule establishes an alternative to the main stack 
hydrocarbon standard of 20 ppmv for short, dry process cement kilns. 
Specifically, we are finalizing an alternative hydrocarbon standard of 
10 ppmv measured continuously both in the alkali by-pass duct and at a 
preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location. This alternative 
monitoring approach satisfies our concern that the combustion of 
hazardous waste is monitored continuously by a hydrocarbon monitor.
    One commenter opposed the proposed revisions to the hydrocarbon 
monitoring requirements and stated that the provision inappropriately 
establishes a separate category for short, dry process cement kilns and 
weakens the hydrocarbon standard by allowing for an increase in 
emissions. Three other

[[Page 6972]]

commenters supported the proposed changes to allow short, dry process 
cement kilns to continuously monitor hydrocarbons in the alkali by-pass 
duct and at the preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location.
    We disagree with the commenter that this hydrocarbon monitoring 
alternative establishes a separate subcategory for short, dry process 
cement kilns. The final rule promulgated on September 30, 1999 (64 FR 
at 52885-52888) established different hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide 
standards for cement kilns with and without by-pass sampling systems. 
See Secs. 63.1204(a)(5)(i) and (ii). All the existing short, dry 
process cement kilns burning hazardous waste are equipped with a by-
pass duct and are subject to the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide 
standards of Sec. 63.1204(a)(5)(i). Today's final rule thus does not 
create a new subcategory for short, dry process cement kilns.
    We also disagree with the commenter that the alternative 
hydrocarbon monitoring requirements weaken the hydrocarbon standard 
resulting in increased hydrocarbon emissions. We note that the 
hydrocarbon emission standard for the hydrocarbon monitoring 
alternative (10 ppmv) is more stringent than the hydrocarbon standard 
in the main stack (20 ppmv). All hydrocarbon emissions from the 
combustion of hazardous wastes would be reflected in the hydrocarbon 
measurements in the by-pass duct and at the preheater tower monitoring 
location and would decrease with improved combustion efficiency. As a 
result, this reflects MACT control or better because the hydrocarbon 
standard under the alternative is more stringent. As a result, one 
likely outcome of the alternative is that sources may burn hazardous 
waste under more efficient conditions.
    We recognize, however, that a source electing the hydrocarbon 
monitoring alternative could substitute for its normal raw materials 
with other raw materials containing higher trace levels of organics. 
This monitoring alternative wouldn't detect higher concentrations of 
hydrocarbons emitted from the main stack (associated with the new raw 
materials) even though hydrocarbon concentrations originating from the 
combustion of hazardous waste remains the same. This substitution 
scenario is unlikely to occur for cement kilns because these facilities 
are sited near the primary raw material source to avoid transportation 
costs. Transporting large quantities of an alternative sources of raw 
material(s) is likely to be prohibitively costly. Moreover, we 
anticipate that any potential concerns associated with such raw 
material substitutions can be addressed in a site-specific risk 
assessment conducted as part of the RCRA permitting process. See 
Horsehead Resource Development Co. v. Browner, 16 F.3d 1246, 1262-63 
(D.C. Cir. 1994) (EPA may permissibly regulate combined emissions from 
burning both hazardous wastes and non-wastes from boilers and 
industrial furnaces pursuant to its RCRA authority).
    Accordingly, we are revising the requirements of 
Sec. 63.1206(b)(13)(i) and adding the definition for a ``preheater 
tower combustion gas monitoring location'' to Sec. 63.1201(a).

III. Why Are We Deleting the Baghouse Inspection Requirements?

    As proposed (66 FR 35124 and 35096), we are deleting the prescribed 
baghouse inspection requirements of Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(B)(1-10) 
applicable to incinerators and lightweight aggregate kilns. We find 
that the general operation and maintenance plan requirements under 
Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(i) and the use of a bag leak detector are adequate 
to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the baghouse. We believe 
that generic, prescriptive requirements (e.g., monthly inspection of 
bags, bag connections and the interior of the baghouse for physical 
integrity) may impose burdensome cost without commensurate benefits 
because such requirements may be inappropriate for the particular 
source. In lieu of complying with generic requirements, each source is 
required to develop monitoring and inspection procedures and to include 
those procedures in the general operation and maintenance plan.
    We are also deleting the requirements of Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(A) 
and Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(xv) requiring submittal of the baghouse 
operations and maintenance plans to the Administrator. We had already 
determined that the general operation and maintenance plan required 
under Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(i) need not be submitted to the Administrator 
for review and approval. Therefore, we find no need to now single out 
the baghouse operation and maintenance plan for review and approval, 
since sources must continuously operate a bag leak detector system that 
identifies baghouse malfunctions.
    Most comments favored the revision. One commenter, however, favors 
retaining the inspection provisions, and states that inspections 
trigger preventive maintenance, prevent malfunctions, and identify 
sources of fugitive emissions. We believe that site-specific baghouse 
inspection and monitoring provisions included in the operation and 
maintenance plan, coupled with a bag leak detector system, will ensure 
proper operation and maintenance of the baghouse because a bag leak 
detection system is a state-of-the-art monitoring system that ensures 
that the baghouse continues to operate in a manner consistent with good 
air pollution control practices. See also 64 FR 52908, September 30, 
1999. The operation and maintenance plan must be included in the 
operating record and is subject to review by the inspectors to 
determine whether it is adequate to ensure the baghouse is operated and 
maintained in a manner consistent with good air pollution control 
practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels required by 
all relevant standards. Secs. 63.1206(c)(7) and 63.6(e). We do not 
regard further requirements as necessary to assure proper baghouse 
operation and maintenance.

IV. What Are the Requirements for Feedstream Analysis of Organic 
HAPs?

    In the parallel proposal to the direct final rule (66 FR 35124 and 
35096), we intended to clarify the requirements for feedstream analysis 
of organic HAPs for compliance with the DRE standard. Section 
63.1207(f) requires you to obtain ``an analysis of each feedstream, 
including hazardous waste, other fuels, and industrial feedstocks, as 
fired, that includes: * * * an identification of such organic hazardous 
air pollutants that are present in the feedstream, except that you need 
not analyze for organic hazardous air pollutants that would reasonably 
not be expected to be found in the feedstream.'' Following promulgation 
of the rule, stakeholders expressed concern about whether we had sought 
to require an analysis of all waste feedstreams or only the hazardous 
waste feedstreams. Stakeholders also brought to our attention that 
there were certain implications of requiring an analysis of CAA HAPs 
rather than RCRA Appendix VIII organic compounds, and stated that the 
requirement for continued analysis of organic HAPs every five years for 
the comprehensive performance test is overly burdensome if a source 
qualifies to comply with the DRE standard with a one-time emissions 
test.
    We addressed stakeholders' concerns in the proposed rule as 
follows. First, we addressed the implications of selecting POHCs from 
the list of organic CAA HAPs rather than from the list of RCRA organic 
compounds for demonstrating compliance with the DRE standard. One 
stakeholder questioned whether RCRA DRE test data can be used in lieu 
of MACT DRE testing if the

[[Page 6973]]

POHCs selected during the RCRA test are not organic HAPs under the CAA. 
Another question was how to ensure DRE of those organic HAPs for which 
thermal stability data are not available. In response, we stated that, 
to satisfy the MACT DRE standard, sources must ensure that the POHCs 
used to demonstrate compliance are representative of the most difficult 
to destroy organic compounds in their hazardous waste feedstream. For 
instance, the most difficult to destroy POHCs used for RCRA DRE testing 
would also be representative of the most difficult to destroy CAA 
organic HAPs. See 66 FR 35097.
    Second, we responded to questions on the frequency for analyzing 
organic HAP compounds in hazardous waste feedstreams. Stakeholders had 
questioned why analysis of waste streams for organic HAP compounds must 
be included with the site-specific test plan for comprehensive 
performance testing every five years once a source has demonstrated 
compliance with the DRE standard with a one-time test under the 
conditions of Sec. 63.1206(b)(7)(i). In the proposal, we agreed with 
stakeholders that the comprehensive analysis required by 
Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(ii)(A) is not necessary in all cases. As a result, 
we proposed to add Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(ii)(D) to allow regulatory 
officials to waive the comprehensive analysis of organic compounds, 
provided that the POHCs used to demonstrate compliance with the DRE 
standard continue to be representative of the organic HAPs being fed to 
the combustor. See 66 FR 35097.
    Third, we clarified that we intended to require analysis of organic 
HAPs in the hazardous waste feedstreams only. Section 
63.1207(f)(1)(ii)(A) could be read to imply that sources must analyze 
all feedstreams for organic HAPs. We proposed to amend this section to 
reflect our true intent not to require analysis for all feedstreams. 
See 66 FR 35097.
    The majority of commenters on the proposal agree with the 
clarifications. However, one commenter asserts that POHCs should be 
selected considering organic HAPs in all feedstreams, not just 
hazardous waste feedstreams. The commenter reasons that approval of a 
comprehensive performance test plan without knowledge of the organic 
HAPs in all feedstreams could result in selecting POHCs that do not 
represent the most difficult to destroy organic compounds in all 
feedstreams. Thus, the DRE test may not ensure destruction of the most 
difficult to destroy compounds fed to the combustor. The commenter also 
suggests that the analysis for HAPs in all waste streams should be 
required because one or more of the POHCs selected based on hazardous 
waste feedstream analysis may also be present in nonhazardous waste 
streams. If the feedrate of POHCs in nonhazardous waste feedstreams are 
not accounted for during DRE testing, the DRE calculation will be 
conservatively low because more POHCs will be fed than accounted for in 
the calculation. In summary, the commenter's first concern addresses 
the analysis of feedstreams for HAPs for POHC selection prior to 
conducting the performance test, while the second concern addresses the 
analysis of feedstreams for HAPs that are chosen as POHCs for purposes 
of calculating DRE during the performance test.
    With respect to commenter's first concern, we disagree with the 
need to consider organic HAPs in all feedstreams for POHC selection. We 
adopted the DRE requirement from existing RCRA requirements where it 
applies only to hazardous waste feeds,\3\ and did so to satisfy section 
3004 (o)(1)(B) of RCRA, which requires EPA to retain a DRE requirement 
for hazardous waste. Also, repromulgation of the RCRA requirement as a 
CAA standard saves the administrative burden of separate RCRA DRE 
permitting. See 64 FR at 52847. In addition, even if all feedstreams 
were considered for POHC selection, we conclude that organic HAPs in 
fossil fuels and raw materials would not be selected as the POHCs of 
greatest concern considering the types and concentration of those 
organic HAPs relative to the types and concentration of organic HAPs in 
hazardous waste feedstreams. Finally, we note that owners and operators 
typically select the same POHCs to demonstrate DRE regardless of the 
hazardous waste present. These POHCs are among the most difficult 
compounds to destroy of any organic compounds. Thus, presence of 
organic HAPs in nonhazardous waste feedstreams is generally moot 
because they would not suggest any different POHCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, the DRE requirements of Sec. 266.104 for cement 
kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns apply to hazardous waste 
feedstreams only, not fossil fuel or raw material feedstreams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the commenter's second concern, we agree that the 
DRE calculation will be conservatively low if POHCs are present in 
nonhazardous waste feedstreams and not accounted for in the 
calculation. However, we are not aware that this has been a problem for 
sources trying to show compliance with DRE. Therefore, based upon the 
commenter's two concerns, we think the proposed clarifications are 
appropriate.

Part Three--What Revisions, Proposed in the Technical Amendments 
Proposal, Are We Making in Today's Rule?

I. What Revisions Are We Making to the Combustion System Leak 
Provisions?

    We are making several revisions to the combustion system leak 
provisions. First, we are amending the definition of an instantaneous 
pressure monitor to better clarify that the intent of the combustion 
system leak requirements is to prevent fugitive emissions from the 
combustion of hazardous waste rather than from nonhazardous 
feedstreams. The revised definition also clarifies that instantaneous 
pressure monitors must detect and record pressure at a frequency 
adequate to detect combustion system leak events, as determined on a 
site-specific basis. See Sec. 63.1201(a) and Sec. 63.1209(p). Second, 
you must specify the method that you plan to use to control combustion 
system leaks in the performance test workplan and Notification of 
Compliance. See Sec. 1206(c)(5)(ii). Finally, in response to numerous 
comments, today's rule also adopts a provision that will allow you, 
upon prior written approval of the Administrator, to use other 
techniques to monitor pressure that can be demonstrated to prevent 
fugitive emissions without the use of instantaneous pressure limits. 
See Sec. 63.1206(c)(5)(i)(D).
A. What Did We Propose To Change?
    The September 1999 final rule requires you to control combustion 
system leaks by either: (1) Keeping the combustion zone sealed; (2) 
maintaining the maximum combustion zone pressure lower than the ambient 
pressure using an instantaneous monitor; or (3) using an alternative 
means to provide control of system leaks. After publication of the 
final rule, stakeholders expressed concern that the requirement to 
maintain the combustion zone pressure lower than ambient pressure 
(option 2 above) could result in an overly prescriptive requirement. 
Stakeholders believe this regulatory language can be interpreted to 
require you to monitor and record combustion zone pressure at a 
frequency of every 50 milliseconds. Stakeholders also requested that we 
clarify that combustion system leaks refer to fugitive emissions 
resulting from the combustion of hazardous waste, and not fugitive 
emissions that originate from nonhazardous process streams

[[Page 6974]]

(e.g., the clinker product at a cement kiln).
    In response to the above concerns, we proposed several amendments 
to the combustion system leak provisions. 66 FR at 35132. First, we 
proposed to modify the definition of an instantaneous pressure monitor 
to read as follows: ``Instantaneous monitoring for combustion system 
leak control means detecting and recording pressure without use of an 
averaging period, at a frequency adequate to detect combustion system 
leak events from hazardous waste combustion.''
    Second, we proposed to revise the automatic waste feed cutoff 
regulatory language to read as follows: ``If you comply with the 
requirements for combustion system leaks under Sec. 63.1206(c)(5) by 
maintaining the maximum combustion chamber zone pressure lower than 
ambient pressure to prevent combustion system leaks from hazardous 
waste combustion, you must perform instantaneous monitoring of pressure 
and the automatic waste feed cutoff system must be engaged when 
negative pressure is not adequately maintained.''
    Third, we proposed that you must specify the method used to control 
combustion system leaks in the performance test workplan and 
notification of compliance. If you control combustion system leaks by 
maintaining the combustion zone pressure lower than ambient pressure 
using an instantaneous monitor, we also proposed that you must specify 
the monitoring and recording frequency of the pressure monitor, and 
specify how the monitoring approach will be integrated into the 
automatic waste feed cutoff system.
    Stakeholders also suggested that we allow averaging of the pressure 
readings over short periods of time, e.g., a 5-second rolling average 
updated every second, in demonstrating the combustion system is 
maintained below ambient pressure. As result, we requested comment on 
whether such a monitoring approach is appropriate.
B. What Were Commenters' Reactions to the Proposed Amendments?
    We received no adverse comments on the proposed amendments that: 
(1) Require you to specify the method that will be used to control 
combustion system leaks in the performance test workplan and 
notification of compliance; and (2) revise the automatic waste feed 
cutoff provision that addresses combustion system leak events. We are 
finalizing these proposed amendments in today's rulemaking.
    The majority of commenters supported the proposed amendment to the 
definition of instantaneous monitoring. Many of those supporting this 
amendment, however, were opposed to the concept of requiring 
instantaneous pressure limits altogether (see discussion below). One 
commenter expressed concern that the definition of instantaneous 
monitoring can still be interpreted to require you to monitor pressure 
as often as once every 50 milliseconds. Although the proposed 
definition of instantaneous monitoring clarifies that monitoring 
frequency should be adequate to detect combustion system leaks, the 
language does not specify what is considered to be an appropriate 
frequency. We conclude that such specificity in regulations would not 
be appropriate because sources differ substantially in design and 
operation such that different monitoring frequencies may be needed to 
prevent fugitive emissions. As a result, we are adopting, unchanged, 
the proposed revision to the definition of instantaneous monitoring.
    Rather than specify a minimum monitoring frequency in the 
regulations, we clarify here that we do not intend for the 
instantaneous monitoring requirements to require a pressure monitoring 
frequency as often as once as every 50 milliseconds. We believe a 
reasonable pressure monitoring frequency that could meet the intent of 
the instantaneous monitoring definition is once every second, and a 
reasonable pressure recording frequency could be once every minute, 
provided that: (1) the automatic waste feed cutoff is engaged when a 
one-second reading exceeds ambient pressure; (2) you record in the 
operating record when any such event occurs; and (3) the pressure 
reading that is recorded every minute represents the highest one-second 
observation during the previous minute.
C. What Were Commenters' Objections to Instantaneous Pressure Limits?
    Commenters disagree with the premise that a positive pressure event 
equates to a release of fugitive emissions, citing examples of positive 
pressure events that, based on system design and operation, do not 
result in fugitive emissions. They claim the rule as currently written 
will discourage innovative engineering solutions that would minimize 
fugitive emissions (e.g., installation of new kiln seals) because of 
the presumption that any positive pressure excursion results in an 
automatic waste feed cutoff.
    We acknowledge that positive pressure events do not necessarily 
result in fugitive emissions. For example, there are state-of-the-art 
rotary kiln seal designs (such as shrouded and pressurized seals) which 
are capable of handling positive pressures without fugitive releases. 
Specifically, we are aware of rotary kilns operated at the U.S. 
Department of Energy (USDOE) Savannah River Site and USDOE Oak Ridge 
Site that have been used for radioactive and hazardous waste treatment 
which are designed to prevent the release of radioactive materials. The 
Savannah River kiln uses multiple graphite seals with pressurized 
chambers between the seals to prevent out-leakage at kiln pressures up 
to the pressure in the seal chamber (10 psig). The Oak Ridge kiln uses 
overlapping spring plate seals to form an air seal, and is designed to 
withstand positive pressures up to 2 psig. See Support Document for 
Fugitive Emission Control, February, 2002 for more information.
    However, we believe these kilns are highly unusual, and that other 
conventional rotary kilns used in the hazardous waste combustion 
industry may not have seals which are designed for such positive 
pressure operation. In fact, we believe that, for most rotary kilns in 
current service, positive pressure events can result in fugitive 
releases. The level of such fugitive releases will be dependent on 
factors including the magnitude of the pressure excursion and the 
design and operation of the kiln.
    Nonetheless, we agree that explicit restrictions on positive 
pressure events could discourage you from implementing innovative 
methods to prevent fugitive emissions, and we agree that instantaneous 
negative pressure limits may be not warranted for all hazardous waste 
combustion sources. A solution that was recommended by several 
commenters would amend the pressure monitoring requirements by 
including a provision that will, upon prior written approval of the 
Administrator, allow you to use other techniques to monitor pressure 
which can be demonstrated to prevent fugitive emissions without the use 
of instantaneous pressure limits. Such a provision would clarify that 
you can use a compliance approach that does not require pressure to be 
maintained below ambient on an instantaneous basis provided you 
demonstrate that the method prevents fugitive emissions. We agree that 
this recommended amendment is reasonable and appropriate. Today's rule 
adopts this revision to the combustion system leak provisions.
    Many commenters believe instantaneous pressure monitoring

[[Page 6975]]

requirements will increase the number of automatic waste feed cutoffs, 
resulting in rapid switching between use of supplementary fuel and 
hazardous waste fuel. The instantaneous pressure monitoring 
requirements could thus have a negative impact, resulting in increased 
use of fossil fuel and, because of the non-steady-state nature of 
combustion conditions associated with the rapid switching of fuels, 
increased pollutant emissions. Commenters claim the use of short 
averaging periods, time delays, or damping of the transmitter response 
times would allow properly designed facilities to handle these types of 
pressure changes while still minimizing fugitive emissions.
    We believe automatic waste feed cutoffs are appropriate non-
compliance deterrents, and are necessary whenever you exceed an 
emission standard or operating requirement (e.g., when fugitive 
emissions occur). If you repeatedly exceed the emission standards you 
should modify your operating practices and/or design of the unit to 
minimize the number of exceedances. However, we agree that needless 
triggering of automatic waste feed cutoffs when you are not exceeding 
an emission standard may provide less environmental protection, not 
more. As previously discussed, there may be instances when positive 
pressure events do not result in combustion system leaks. We believe 
the provision we are adopting that will allow you to use other 
techniques to monitor pressure that can be demonstrated to prevent 
fugitive emissions adequately addresses these commenters' concerns.
    Several commenters suggest we abandon the instantaneous pressure 
monitoring requirement altogether and use the existing RCRA fugitive 
emission regulatory language in Sec. 264.345.\4\ One commenter agrees 
that there are some units where instantaneous negative pressure limits 
are desirable to minimize fugitive emissions. Other commenters claim we 
should abandon the instantaneous monitoring requirements because we 
require different levels of protection across different regulations. 
Specifically, the instantaneous pressure monitoring requirements in the 
Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT rule appear to reflect a zero tolerance 
for combustion system leaks while the requirements of the RCRA Subpart 
BB regulations covering air emissions for equipment leaks are less 
restrictive for the same types of wastes. One commenter states that the 
instantaneous pressure monitoring requirements should be abandoned 
because we have not demonstrated combustion system leaks present health 
risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We note the Sec. 264.345 language does not explicitly 
require instantaneous pressure monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that combustion system leaks must be prevented whenever 
it is reasonably possible. This is the approach currently required by 
existing RCRA hazardous waste incinerator and boiler and industrial 
furnace rules. See Secs. 264.345(d)(2) and 266.103(h)(2). Instantaneous 
pressure monitoring without the use of averaging periods is an 
appropriate, demonstrated compliance strategy option that achieves this 
goal. As a result, we cannot agree to drop the instantaneous monitoring 
requirements for all facilities. However, as previously stated, 
instantaneous pressure monitoring requirements may not be warranted for 
all hazardous waste combustion sources to prevent combustion system 
leaks and we are including a provision that allows you to use other 
techniques to monitor pressure which can be demonstrated to prevent 
fugitive emissions.
    We acknowledge the differences between the RCRA Subpart BB and MACT 
combustion system leak requirements. The MACT provisions are designed 
to assure compliance with the hazardous waste combustor emission 
standards and to assure that you operate in a manner consistent with 
good air pollution control practices. CAA Section 112(d) MACT emission 
standards and good air pollution control practices are generally 
technology specific and dependent on the type of regulated unit--they 
are not risk-based standards. Fugitive emissions from open tanks, pumps 
and valves will not be regulated the same as fugitive emissions from 
hazardous waste combustors because they are different devices that 
practically must use different pollution abatement systems.\5\ 
Therefore, we do not agree with the commenters' assertions that there 
is an inappropriate disparity between the Subpart BB and MACT 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, fugitive emissions from combustors are 
generally controlled by maintaining a negative combustion chamber 
pressure to ensure the organic wastes remain in the unit at the 
elevated temperatures to achieve organic destruction. Fugitive 
emissions from tanks and valves are generally controlled with 
containment systems (tank covers or vapor recovery systems), 
periodic leak inspections, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter believes that a five second pressure averaging or 
delay period is adequate for most sources, but for systems with high 
performance or double seals, a longer time could be warranted and for 
systems with less effective seals, a shorter period could be 
appropriate. Another commenter believes that we should allow you to 
average the positive pressure events over a time period not to exceed 
15 seconds. A third comment recommends that the averaging period be no 
longer than a half of a second.
    We disagree that a pressure averaging time not to exceed either 
five or fifteen seconds would be appropriate for all sources. The 
pressure monitoring technique that adequately prevents combustion 
system leaks is site-specific and will be dependent on many factors, 
including combustion chamber type and design, kiln seal design, 
hazardous waste feed practices, etc. If you choose to implement a 
pressure averaging compliance approach, today's adopted amendment 
requires you, on a site-specific basis, to demonstrate that the 
averaging period adequately prevents fugitive emissions.
    Finally, one commenter states that EPA should not require chemical 
demilitarization facilities to maintain negative pressures in the 
combustion chamber at all times due to the energetic nature of the 
feedstream. The commenter states that although it is not possible to 
eliminate all transient pressure spikes in chemical demilitarization 
furnaces, the commenter believes the engineering features of the units 
and the air containment systems address environmental concerns. 
Furthermore, the commenter asserts that fugitive emissions that are 
released from these units into the containment rooms are controlled to 
better than a 99.9999% destruction removal efficiency, and suggests 
this meets or exceeds the control level that would be achieved if those 
same emissions had passed through the air pollution control system.
    The chemical demilitarization facilities are unique because: (1) 
They thermally treat chemical agents; and (2) the combustion units are 
located in enclosed rooms where the air is exhausted through a bank of 
carbon filters specifically designed to control fugitive emissions. We 
are convinced that combustion system leaks should be prevented whenever 
it is reasonably possible, even considering the fact that the fugitive 
emissions are controlled by a secondary device. We consider this 
necessary because of the toxicity of these wastes, and because we 
believe such an approach is consistent with current good air pollution 
control practices.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We believe minimizing fugitive emissions whenever reasonably 
possible to be consistent with good air pollution practices because 
this best ensures the organic waste remains in the combustion unit 
for a duration of time, and at an elevated temperature, necessary to 
achieve adequate organic destruction.

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

[[Page 6976]]

    Because it appears that these facilities may be designed to 
adequately control the fugitive emissions that are released from the 
combustion units, a pressure monitoring scheme that does not include 
the use of instantaneous limits may be warranted.\7\ We note that there 
are two existing regulatory mechanisms that allow you to implement a 
fugitive emission control compliance approach other than one that uses 
instantaneous pressure limits. First, Sec. 63.1206(c)(5)((i)(C) allows 
you to use an alternative means to provide control of combustion system 
leaks equivalent to maintenance of combustion zone pressure lower than 
ambient pressure, upon prior written approval of the Administrator. 
Also, the alternative monitoring provisions of Sec. 63.1209(g)(1) allow 
you to petition the regulatory official for approval to use alternative 
monitoring methods. As previously discussed, we are amending the 
pressure monitoring requirements to include a provision that will, upon 
prior written approval of the Administrator, allow the use of other 
techniques to monitor pressure which can be demonstrated to prevent 
fugitive emissions without the use of instantaneous pressure limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The information provided by the commenter that describes the 
control efficiency for released fugitive emissions does not contain 
the level of detail that would allow us to conclusively evaluate the 
commenter's assertions. For example, no information was provided 
explaining whether comparable carbon removal efficiencies would be 
achieved for such low organic concentration levels that result after 
the fugitive emissions are diluted by the containment room air (as 
compared to the destruction and removal efficiency in the 
combustor). The level of review is more appropriately conducted by 
the local regulatory official.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What Revisions Are We Making to the Operator Training and 
Certification Requirements ?

    On July 3, 2001 (see 66 FR 35132-34), we proposed changes to the 
operator training and certification requirements of Sec. 63.1206(c)(6). 
Today we are finalizing those changes as proposed. These changes revise 
the rule to: (1) Allow incinerator control room operators to be trained 
and certified under either a site-specific, source-developed and 
implemented program; or the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
(ASME) program; or a state program; (2) for sources that choose to use 
the ASME program, require only provisional ASME certification by the 
compliance date for existing facilities, and by the date of assuming 
duties for new employees; (3) delete the requirement to provide control 
room operator training and certification for shift supervisors; (4) 
require control room operators to complete an annual review or 
refresher course covering prescribed topics to maintain certification; 
and (5) clarify that a certified control room operator must be on duty 
at the source at all times the source is in operation.
    As explained at proposal, the ASME program comprises of testing in 
two parts. The ASME administers a comprehensive, generic, written test 
addressing operations of various types of incinerators and their 
pollution control systems, and awards provisional certification to 
operators passing this test. Full certification is awarded later after 
an operator with provisional certification passes an on-site, site-
specific oral examination. The ASME does not implement any training 
programs for these tests, and also does not require any annual review 
or refresher course to maintain certification. Under today's rule, each 
source is required to impart requisite training to its operators to 
pass the tests administered either by the ASME, or by the source 
itself; and also to implement an annual review or refresher course, 
described in detail at proposal.
    Most commenters strongly favor all the revisions. One commenter, 
however, states that deleting certification requirements for shift 
supervisors is unwise and can lead to increased emissions, and that the 
certified supervisors can fill in during absences of the operator. We 
were not persuaded by this comment. Today's revision mandates the 
presence of a certified operator at all times the source is in 
operation. Because there will always be some periods of absence of any 
particular operator (due to vacation time, sickness etc.), the source 
will prepare plans for such periods and record them in the training and 
certification program, that is a part of the operating record. Since 
many sources are operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and there is 
more than one operator in the control room (with one being the chief or 
head operator), we believe each source will train and certify several 
operators, and plan their rotational assignments according to their 
needs. It is the responsibility of each source to plan whether to 
utilize the shift supervisor, or a deputy of the chief control room 
operator during any absences. Of course, if a shift supervisor is used 
for such occasions, the shift supervisor must be trained and certified 
as a control room operator.
    One commenter states that no state programs for control room 
operators are available. We agree that state programs may not be 
available, but believe that some states are either considering 
developing their own operator programs, or actively review, approve and 
oversee the facility-developed site-specific training programs. We do 
not want to foreclose any opportunity either to the sources, or to the 
states in this matter.
    Another commenter states that the preamble to the proposal 
stipulates a written test, and does not mention use of equivalent 
techniques such as a computerized test. We agree that a computerized 
test or other testing approach equivalent to a written test may be 
appropriate and note that the regulation does not require use of a 
written test. If you plan to use an alternative to a written test, 
however, you should describe the testing approach in your training and 
certification program.

III. What Time Extensions for Testing Are Available If the 
Comprehensive Performance Test Plan Has Not Been Approved?

    As proposed on July 3, 2001 (66 FR at 35135), we are revising the 
September 1999 rule to allow you to perform your comprehensive 
performance test later than you otherwise must if the permitting 
authority has not approved your test plan. To get a time extension, you 
must petition the permitting authority for a time period not to exceed 
six months. This petition may be renewed for a total time extension of 
one year. Permitting authorities should grant these extensions if the 
source has acted in good faith. You must, however, perform your test no 
later than one year after the test date (or sooner if your time 
extension expires before one year) that would have applied if the test 
plan had been approved in a timely manner.
    In the final rule, we made no provision for having the test date 
delayed. We stated that sources would have to perform their 
comprehensive performance test within 6 months of the compliance date 
regardless of whether the test plan had been approved. At the time we 
stated that ``if permit officials nevertheless fail to act within the 
nine month review and approval period, a source could argue that this 
failure is tacit approval of the plan and that later `second guessing' 
is not allowed.'' See 64 FR at 52912. However, stakeholders noted that 
there is nothing to prohibit a permitting official from disapproving a 
plan after the actual test had been performed. If this occurs, the 
source

[[Page 6977]]

would be required to rerun a test based on the revised test plan.
    Combustion source owners are very concerned about this potential 
scenario. They point out that comprehensive performance tests are very 
expensive, often several hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 
commercial source, and possibly more than a million dollars at a 
government installation due to the unique circumstances encountered 
while burning munitions or mixed waste. Therefore, we agree with 
stakeholders that a comprehensive performance test should not have to 
be rerun when circumstances prevent the permitting official from 
approving the test plan in a timely manner.
    We proposed an amendment to the final rule that we believe 
addresses stakeholders' concerns. The proposed amendment specifically 
allowed sources to petition the Administrator under Sec. 63.7(h) to 
waive the test requirement for up to six months if the test plan is not 
approved. This will give the permitting official an additional six 
months to act on the test plan. The source also could request a second 
waiver of up to six months if the plan is not approved following the 
initial six month period. You would qualify for this waiver if you 
submitted your test and evaluation plans on time, and made a good faith 
effort to accommodate any comments you received on those plans. The 
proposed amendment also describes the procedures for obtaining the 
waiver, what documentation you must include in the waiver, and how to 
involve the public.
    We are promulgating this amendment as proposed. All but two 
commenters support the amendment. The commenters opposing the amendment 
are concerned that, despite as much as a 12-month respite from testing, 
the source might still have to perform a test after those 12 months 
without an approved test plan. Many commenters that support the 
proposed amendment also mention this concern. However, while we are 
sympathetic to the legitimate need for a time extension due to 
circumstances preventing the permitting authority to approve or deny 
the test plan, we continue to ``believe that an open-ended test date 
will not provide an incentive for either sources or regulatory 
officials to resolve differences related to a test plan, thereby 
unnecessarily delaying testing.'' See 66 FR at 35135 for our previous 
discussion on this issue. None of the commenters provide information on 
this issue beyond what was available at the time the final rule was 
promulgated. Therefore, our belief at the time of the final rule that 
the test date should not be open-ended, has not changed, nor do we have 
any basis to believe that any extension beyond one year is needed.

IV. What Flexibility Is Provided in Operations During Confirmatory 
Testing for Dioxin/Furans?

    On July 3, 2001 (see 66 FR at 35136), we proposed changes to the 
requirements for confirmatory performance testing for dioxin/furan to 
provide flexibility in operations during confirmatory testing. Today we 
are finalizing those changes as proposed, and are making an additional 
revision to clarify which historical data are used to calculate normal 
operating values. These changes to Sec. 63.1207(g)(2) revise the rule 
to: (1) Allow approval in the test plan of operations under a wider 
range for a particular parameter based on information justifying that 
operating within the required range may be problematic; and (2) allow 
the Administrator to accept test results based on operations outside of 
the range specified in the confirmatory test plan. Under the existing 
rule, sources are required to operate so that carbon monoxide or 
hydrocarbon levels, and operating parameter limits associated with the 
dioxin/furan emission standard, are within the range of the average 
values over the previous 12 months up to the maximum or minimum value, 
as appropriate, that is allowed. Stakeholders expressed concern that it 
was difficult to control operation of the combustor to the required 
range for each operating parameter simultaneously. In particular, they 
stated it will be difficult to operate within a potentially narrow 
range of carbon monoxide levels for sources that normally operate close 
to the 100 ppmv limit, because carbon monoxide levels are dependent on 
many combustion-related factors and cannot be directly ``dialed in'' as 
can be done for other parameters (e.g., activated carbon injection 
feedrate).
    Today's amendment to Sec. 63.1207(g)(2) also allows the 
Administrator to accept test results based on operations outside of the 
range specified in the test plan when a source did not anticipate a 
problem in maintaining the operating levels within the required range 
(and therefore did not request advance approval to do so), but because 
of unforeseen factors, was unable to maintain the required range. This 
provision would give permit writers discretion to accept emissions data 
obtained when operating outside of the prescribed range so that sources 
would not have to incur the costs of an additional confirmatory test. 
In determining whether to accept test results from operations outside 
of the range specified in the test plan, permit writers would consider 
factors including: (1) the magnitude and duration of the deviation from 
the required range; (2) the historical range of the parameter (e.g., 
the range between the 10th and 90th percentile time-weighted average 
values for the parameter); (3) the proximity of the emission test 
results to the standard; and (4) the reason for not maintaining the 
required range. These factors determine whether the operations are 
reasonably representative of normal operations and how important it may 
be that test operations are truly representative of normal operations.
    Most commenters support the proposed amendment, and we are revising 
Sec. 63.1207(g)(2) as proposed with one minor change. The September 
1999 final rule required you to exclude data pertaining to 
malfunctions, monitor calibrations, and nonhazardous waste operations 
when calculating normal operating levels. Today we are also requiring 
you to exclude data pertaining to startup and shutdown operations as 
well when calculating these averages. We did not propose to explicitly 
exclude you from using startup and shutdown data because you were 
previously not allowed to burn hazardous waste during these events. We 
conclude this change is now necessary given that some sources may, in 
limited circumstances, burn hazardous waste during startup and shutdown 
as a result of the changes to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
compliance requirements.
    One commenter suggests that we should not require sources to 
exclude data pertaining to nonhazardous waste operations when 
calculating these averages. The commenter states that the amount of 
time sources operate while not burning hazardous waste is negligible 
and would not affect the calculated average values. We acknowledge that 
the time you operate while not burning hazardous waste (while also not 
in startup, shutdown, or malfunction mode) may be negligible, and thus 
may not significantly affect the calculated average values. However, we 
believe the data acquisition systems in use today are readily capable 
of omitting these data when calculating the averages, and excluding 
nonhazardous waste operating data is preferable. As a result, we 
conclude no change is necessary.

[[Page 6978]]

V. How Can You Waive Operating Parameter Limits During Performance 
Testing and Pretesting?

    Section 63.1207(h) automatically waives operating parameter limits 
(OPLs) during subsequent comprehensive performance tests under an 
approved performance test plan. Stakeholders raised two concerns that 
we addressed in the proposed rule: (1) OPLs defined in the 
Documentation of Compliance should be waived during the initial 
comprehensive performance test and associated pretesting; and (2) OPLs 
should be waived during testing and pretesting irrespective of whether 
the test plan has been approved. 66 FR at 35136-37.

A. How Can You Waive OPLs During the Initial Comprehensive Performance 
Test?

    We explained in the proposed rule why the rule need not be revised 
to waive OPLs during the initial comprehensive performance, or 
associated pretesting. This is because the OPLs are defined in the 
Documentation of Compliance (DOC) prior to the initial comprehensive 
performance test, and you may revise the DOC at any time prior to 
submitting the Notification of Compliance. To widen the operating 
envelope by making the OPLs less stringent, you need only provide 
information in the operating record justifying why operating under the 
less stringent OPLs is likely to ensure compliance with the emission 
standards. You would revise the DOC accordingly, and record the DOC in 
the operating record. Review and approval by regulatory officials is 
not required.
    An industry commenter states the rule should be revised to 
explicitly waive the OPLs defined in the DOC during the initial 
performance test because revising the DOC and providing support that 
the revised OPLs ensure compliance with the emission standards may not 
be a simple process. We do not agree, and the commenter did not 
elaborate on why revising the DOC would be burdensome. Moreover, we 
note that the supporting information required for DOC modification must 
be developed and included in the performance test plan as justification 
to deviate from the current OPLs when the plan is submitted for review 
and approval.
    We conclude that it is not necessary to revise the rule to waive 
OPLs during the initial comprehensive performance test and associated 
pretesting because you may revise the OPLs in the Documentation of 
Compliance at any time.

B. How Can You Waive OPLs During Subsequent Comprehensive Performance 
Tests?

    Section 63.1207(h) waives operating parameter limits (OPLs) during 
subsequent comprehensive performance tests under an approved 
performance test plan. In our proposal, we addressed the potential 
situation where you are facing the deadline for conducting the 
comprehensive performance test but the test plan has not been approved 
and regulatory officials have not extended the compliance date. We 
proposed to revise the rule to waive OPLs during subsequent 
comprehensive performance testing and associated pretesting, provided 
that you record the emission test results of the pretesting. We 
reasoned that the emission test results would confirm whether you were 
in compliance with the emission standards when operating under the less 
stringent OPLs.
    Most commenters agree with the proposal but noted that: (1) We 
revised Sec. 63.1207(h)(2) to waive OPLs during pretesting provided 
that emission test results are recorded but neglected to revise 
Sec. 63.1207(h)(1) that waives OPLs under the performance test only 
when there is an approved test plan; and (2) in revising 
Sec. 63.1207(h)(2), we excluded a phrase added in a technical 
correction (see 65 FR at 42293 (July 10, 2000)) allowing the 
Administrator to renew the 720 hour limit on pretesting. Both omissions 
were inadvertent, and we include them in today's final rule.
    One commenter states that OPLs should not be waived if the test 
plan is not approved by EPA. We disagree. The OPLs are waived only 
during pretesting or performance testing where the source is conducting 
emissions testing and recording the results of the tests. This 
documentation of compliance or noncompliance with the emission 
standards serves as an incentive to operate the source under 
alternative OPLs that ensure compliance with the standards.
    We conclude it is appropriate to revise the rule as proposed to 
waive OPLs during subsequent comprehensive performance testing and 
pretesting (provided that emissions test results during pretesting are 
recorded) and to allow the Administrator to renew the 720 hour limit on 
pretesting as promulgated in the July 10, 2000 technical correction. 
See revised Secs. 63.1207(h).

VI. What Are the Calibration Requirements for Temperature 
Measurement Devices?

    The September 1999 final rule requires that thermocouples and other 
temperature measurement devices, such as pyrometers, must be 
recalibrated every three months. However, stakeholders are concerned 
that recalibrating these devices every three months can be particularly 
burdensome and offers little environmental benefit (i.e., among other 
things, no better assurance of compliance with the actual emission 
standards) over a less frequent calibration interval. In the July 2001 
proposal, we discussed stakeholders' concerns and requested more 
information on the need for, and burden associated with, calibrating 
temperature measurement devices. See 66 FR at 35138. We also indicated 
that analysis of comments may lead us to conclude that 
Sec. 63.1209(b)(2)(i) should be deleted in lieu of a requirement that 
each source develop an appropriate calibration procedure and frequency 
and include that information in the evaluation plan required by 
Sec. 63.8(e)(3)(i).
    Nearly all commenters agree with the need to provide flexibility in 
calibration frequency. Rather than delete Sec. 63.1209(b)(2)(i), 
however, commenters suggest that we revise that provision to require 
calibration of temperature measurement devices using the manufacturer's 
procedures and calibration frequency. Also, commenters suggest that the 
calibration be performed at least once a year, unless a less frequent 
optical pyrometer calibration interval is approved by the 
Administrator.
    We agree with commenters' suggestions and are revising 
Sec. 63.1209(b)(2)(i) accordingly.

VII. What Changes Are We Making to the Particulate Matter Operating 
Requirements for Sources Using Activated Carbon Injection and 
Carbon Beds?

    We are amending two provisions that apply to activated carbon 
injection and carbon bed operating systems. First, we are deleting the 
regulatory language that requires sources using activated carbon 
injection systems to limit the particulate matter emissions to levels 
achieved during the comprehensive performance test. We instead are 
requiring these sources to establish operating limits on the 
particulate matter control device to assure compliance with both the 
mercury and dioxin/furan emission standards. Second, we are deleting 
the requirement for sources equipped with carbon beds to establish 
particulate

[[Page 6979]]

matter operating parameter limits for purposes of ensuring compliance 
with dioxin/furan and mercury emission standards.
    We explained at proposal that it is inappropriate to explicitly 
require a site-specific particulate matter limit if a carbon injection 
system is used because the rule does not require continuous monitoring 
of particulate matter emissions. 66 FR at 35141. The use of a site-
specific particulate matter limit was originally thought to go in 
tandem with a requirement to use particulate matter continuous emission 
monitors. Because we do not require sources to use particulate matter 
CEMS for compliance purposes, however, we concluded these site-specific 
particulate matter limits were inappropriate, and proposed to delete 
this requirement. We instead proposed to require these sources to 
establish operating limits on the particulate matter control device 
consistent with the approach used to control particulate emissions for 
compliance assurance with the semivolatile and low volatile metals 
emission standards.
    The proposal also explained that particulate matter control 
downstream of a carbon bed is not needed to ensure compliance with the 
dioxin/furan and mercury emission standards. We noted that most, if not 
all, carbon bed systems in use today are positioned downstream from 
particulate matter control devices to minimize particulate buildup in 
the carbon bed. Carbon beds are also designed so that carbon leakage 
into the flue gas is minimized. As a result, we proposed to delete the 
language that requires sources equipped with carbon beds to control 
particulate matter emissions to ensure compliance with the dioxin/furan 
and mercury standards.
    We received no adverse comments on these proposed amendments. We 
are, therefore, adopting the proposed revisions in today's rulemaking.

VIII. How May You Comply Temporarily With Alternative, Otherwise 
Applicable MACT Standards?

    Section 63.1206(b)(1)(ii), as revised (66 FR 35087 (July 3, 2001)), 
allows you to stop complying with the emission standards and operating 
requirements of Subpart EEE temporarily after the hazardous waste 
residence time has expired and to comply with otherwise applicable 
Clean Air Act requirements promulgated under Sections 112 and 129, 
provided you document in the operating record that you are complying 
with those alternative standards. If the Agency has not promulgated 
Clean Air Act Section 112 or 129 MACT standards for the nonhazardous 
waste burning class of sources in a particular source category, there 
are no otherwise applicable MACT standards for the source.
    Stakeholders asked for clarification on the procedures during a 
transition between Subpart EEE standards and the otherwise applicable 
Section 112 or 129 MACT standards. In the July 3, 2001 proposed rule 
(66 FR at 35145-46) we explained that: (1) sources are affected sources 
only under Subpart EEE with respect to stack emissions, even when 
complying with the otherwise applicable MACT standards under an 
alternative mode of operation under Sec. 63.1209(q); and (2) sources 
that elect to comply with otherwise applicable MACT standards after the 
hazardous waste residence time has expired must include all 
requirements of those MACT standards, not just operating limits, in the 
operating record, the Documentation of Compliance, the Notification of 
Compliance, and the title V permit application. We also proposed a 
revised approach to calculate rolling averages for compliance with 
operating parameter limits when changing modes of operation. We discuss 
these issues below, including comments received and our final 
determinations.

A. What Are the Implications of Being an Affected Source Only Under 
Subpart EEE?

    At proposal, we explained that sources that invoke 
Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(ii) to become temporarily exempt from the emission 
standards and operating requirements of Subpart EEE remain an affected 
source under Subpart EEE (and only Subpart EEE) with respect to stack 
emissions requirements until the source meets the requirements 
specified in Table 1 to Sec. 63.1200 for no longer being an affected 
source. To implement this clarification, we proposed to require you to 
define the period of compliance with the otherwise applicable Clean Air 
Act requirements promulgated under Sections 112 and 129 as an 
alternative mode of operation under Sec. 63.1209(q). Thus, during this 
mode of operation, you would be exempt from the emission standards and 
operating requirements of Subpart EEE, except the requirements for the 
otherwise applicable Section 112 and 129 MACT standards you specify 
under Sec. 63.1209(q).
    We also proposed to revise the rule to clarify that otherwise 
applicable Section 112 and 129 MACT standards are ``applicable 
requirements'' under Subpart EEE if you elect to operate under that 
mode of operation after the hazardous waste residence time has expired. 
Because the source is an affected source only under Subpart EEE, those 
alternative, otherwise applicable MACT standards must be specified in a 
manner that is enforceable under Subpart EEE. Consequently, you must 
specify those alternative, otherwise applicable MACT standards, 
including not only the operating parameter limits under the Section 112 
and 129 standards, but also the associated monitoring and compliance 
requirements and notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements, in the operating record under Sec. 63.1209(q), the 
Documentation of Compliance (DOC) under Sec. 63.1211(d), the 
Notification of Compliance (NOC) under Sec. 63.1207(j), and the title V 
permit application.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We also noted in the proposal that, under Sec. 70.6(a)(9), 
the title V permit must contain terms and conditions for all 
reasonably anticipated modes of operation, and thus, must contain 
the alternative, otherwise applicable MACT requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters generally agree with our proposed approach to implement 
the alternative, otherwise applicable Section 112 and 129 MACT 
requirements after the hazardous waste residence time has expired. One 
commenter suggests, however, that we clarify that, if the Agency has 
not promulgated Section 112 or 129 MACT requirements applicable to the 
source, the source is exempt from operating requirements during that 
mode of operation. We agree with the commenter and addressed this 
situation in the proposal in footnote 37 (66 FR at 35145). If the 
Agency has not promulgated Section 112 or 129 MACT requirements 
applicable to the source, the source is exempt from operating 
requirements under the alternative, otherwise applicable MACT standards 
mode of operation provided that: (1) The hazardous waste residence time 
has expired; and (2) the source establishes this mode of operation 
under Sec. 63.1209(q) and notes in the operating record when it enters 
and leaves this mode of operation. The source must nonetheless identify 
this mode of operation (i.e., where it is exempt from operating 
requirements) in the DOC, NOC, and title V permit application to assist 
compliance assurance.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Please note such source could conceivably be subject to 
case-by-case permitting under section 112(j)(2) or 112(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter also suggests that the rule should be revised to 
waive the automatic waste feed cutoff requirements under 
Sec. 63.1206(c)(3) when a source elects to continue operating under the 
Subpart EEE emission standards and operating requirements even though 
the hazardous waste residence time has

[[Page 6980]]

expired (i.e., the source elects not to comply with the alternative, 
otherwise applicable MACT standards). The commenter reasons that, 
because the hazardous waste residence time has expired, there is no 
need to require compliance with the hazardous waste feed cutoff 
requirements. We conclude that no regulatory revisions are needed 
because it is self-evident which provisions are applicable after the 
hazardous waste residence time has expired. For example, it is self-
evident that the general requirements of Sec. 63.1209(c)(3)(i) for the 
automatic waste feed cutoff system to cutoff the hazardous waste feed 
are not applicable, because hazardous waste is not being fed. Other 
requirements continue to be applicable, however. For example, 
Sec. 63.1206(c)(3)(iii) continues to apply because it requires you to 
continue monitoring operating parameter limits after a cutoff and 
prohibits you from restarting the hazardous waste feed until the 
operating parameters and emission levels are within the specified 
limits.
    After considering comments on the proposed rule, we conclude that, 
as proposed, Sec. 63.1209(q) should be revised to add paragraph (q)(1) 
to provide requirements for operating under otherwise applicable 
Section 112 and 129 MACT standards.

B. How Are Rolling Averages Calculated When Changing Modes of 
Operation?

    Section 63.1209(q) as originally promulgated requires you to begin 
calculating rolling averages anew (i.e., without considering previous 
recordings) when you begin complying with the operating parameter 
limits for an alternative mode of operation. We now believe this 
approach is problematic as it was to be implemented. As you change 
modes of operation, you would not be able to calculate a 60-minute 
rolling average, for example, until you had collected 60 one-minute 
average recordings for the parameter. Thus, for the initial hour after 
changing a mode of operation, you would not be able to document 
compliance with the operating parameter limits. To address this 
concern, we proposed that you would use the most recent continuous 
monitoring system recordings when operating under a mode of operation 
to calculate rolling averages when renewing operations under that same 
mode. Under this approach, to calculate an hourly rolling average when 
you changed to an alternative mode of operation, you would add the 
first one-minute average recording to the 59 one-minute average 
recordings when you last operated under that mode of operation. Thus, 
rolling averages could be calculated after the first minute of renewing 
operations under a mode of operation.
    Several commenters express concern that the proposed approach of 
retrieving one-minute average recordings from when you last operated 
under that mode of operation to calculate a rolling average can place a 
significant burden on a source's data acquisition system. The data 
acquisition system would be required to store and retrieve 59 minutes 
from a mode of operation under which the source may operate only 
infrequently. This approach would increase the memory requirements of a 
source's data acquisition system and increase programming efforts and 
costs because of the increased number of data registers used for 
storage.
    Commenters suggest two alternative approaches to calculate rolling 
averages when changing modes of operation. One alternative, the ``Start 
Anew'' approach, is the currently promulgated approach, but it would be 
implemented differently. The other alternative approach, the ``Seamless 
Transition'' approach, is an approach that we discussed in a footnote 
in the July 3, 2001 proposed rule. We agree with commenters' concerns 
about allowing only one approach to calculate rolling averages after a 
transition to a new mode of operation (i.e., the ``Retrieval 
Approach''), and have promulgated all three approaches, as discussed 
below, because they are equally effective. You may use any of these 
approaches.
1. How Does the Retrieval Approach Work?
    The retrieval approach works as described above and in the July 3, 
2001 proposed rule. You use the most recent continuous monitoring 
system recordings when operating under a mode of operation to calculate 
rolling averages when renewing operations under that mode. Although 
this approach may be burdensome in some situations as commenters state, 
it may be preferable in some situations to the other two approaches 
discussed below. See new Sec. 63.1209(q)(2)(i).
2. How Does the Start Anew Approach Work?
    Under the start anew approach, you calculate rolling averages anew 
without considering previous recordings. This is the currently 
promulgated approach. See old Sec. 63.1209(q) and new 
Sec. 63.1209(q)(2)(ii).
    Under today's rule, however, you are required to implement the 
approach differently. As discussed above, this approach is problematic 
if implemented as currently required because you are not able to 
calculate an hourly rolling average, for example, until you record 60 
one-minute average values for a parameter under the new mode of 
operation. During that hiatus, you cannot document compliance with the 
OPLs. Under today's rule, to calculate an hourly rolling average after 
changing a mode of operation, you must calculate the hourly rolling 
average as the average of the available one-minute values for the 
parameter until enough one-minute values are available to calculate an 
hourly rolling average. Similarly, to calculate a 12-hour rolling 
average immediately after changing a mode of operation, you must 
calculate the 12-hour rolling average as the average of the available 
one-minute values for the parameter until enough one-minute values are 
available to calculate a 12-hour rolling average. See new 
Sec. 63.1209(q)(2)(ii). This is a conservative approach to calculating 
rolling averages because you are not able to use the full averaging 
period to lessen the impact of abnormally high one-minute recordings 
until you accumulate, for example, 60 one-minute averages for the 
hourly rolling average.
    You may not transition to a new mode of operation using this 
approach if the most recent operation in that mode resulted in an 
exceedance of an applicable emission standard measured with a CEMS or 
operating parameter limit prior to the hazardous waste residence time 
expiring. This condition ensures that sources cannot avoid compliance 
with Sec. 63.1206(c)(3)(iii) after an automatic waste feed cutoff by 
ignoring the parameter recordings that occurred when hazardous waste 
was in the combustion chamber and the OPLs were exceeded, and then 
quickly restarting the hazardous waste feed once the operating 
parameters and emission levels are within the specified limits.\10\ The 
purpose of this provision is to provide an additional incentive to 
avoid exceedances when hazardous waste is in the combustion chamber by 
delaying restart of the hazardous waste feed until the operating 
parameters (and emissions measured with a CEMS) are within the limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See letter form Jim Berlow, USEPA, to Michelle Luck, Cement 
Kiln Recycling Coalition, dated June 21, 2001 (in the docket for 
this rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. How Does the Seamless Transition Approach Work?
    Several commenters recommend the seamless transition approach that 
we discussed in footnote 41 in the July 3, 2001 proposal. 66 FR at 
35146. Under this approach, you continue calculating

[[Page 6981]]

rolling averages using data from the previous operating mode provided 
that both the operating limits and the averaging period for the 
parameter are the same for both modes of operation. We agree that this 
approach is an appropriate alternative and finalize it as new 
Sec. 63.1209(q)(2)(iii). Note, however, that if parameter recordings 
from a previous mode of operation where you may not be burning 
hazardous waste contribute to an exceedance in the new mode of 
operation when you are burning hazardous waste and hazardous waste 
remains in the combustion chamber, you have nonetheless exceeded an 
emission standard or operating limit when hazardous waste is in the 
combustion chamber.

IX. What Are the Procedures for Allowing Use of Less Sensitive Bag 
Leak Detection Systems?

    In the July 2001 proposed rule, we requested comment on whether the 
bag leak detection system requirements should be revised to explicitly 
allow sources to petition the Administrator to use bag leak detection 
monitors that have detection limits higher than 1.0 milligrams per 
actual cubic meter as required by the September 1999 final rule. See 66 
FR at 35134. We reasoned that less sensitive bag leak detectors would 
be acceptable in situations where the detector could nonetheless detect 
subtle changes in baseline, normal mass emissions of particulate 
matter. In determining whether the detector is sensitive enough to 
detect subtle changes in baseline, normal mass emissions, the 
permitting authority could consider information such as results of 
site-specific tests that document the detector provides a measurable 
and repeatable change in opacity output with an increase in particulate 
matter mass emissions at normal emission levels.
    All commenters support this revision, saying that we should 
explicitly allow a source to petition the Agency using the alternative 
monitoring provisions under Sec. 63.1209(g)(1) to use a less sensitive 
bag leak detector. Therefore, we are revising new 
Sec. 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(A)(1) by appending it with the following phrase: 
``* * * unless a source demonstrates, pursuant to the procedures in 
Sec. 63.1209(g)(1), that a higher sensitivity would adequately detect 
bag leaks.''

Part Four-What Technical Corrections Are Being Made in Today's 
Rule?

I. What Corrections Are We Making to Part 63, Subpart EEE?

    We are making several corrections to 40 CFR part 63, Subpart EEE, 
published on September 30, 1999.

A. Several Typographical Errors Are Corrected

    In today's rule, we correct a typographical error shown in entry 
(2) in Table 1 to Sec. 63.1200 by replacing the word ``extent'' with 
``extend.''
    We also revise by italicizing several paragraph numbers and 
headings that will make the regulatory text easier to read. The 
paragraphs revised include Secs. 63.1206(b)(5)(i)(C)(1), 
63.1209(g)(1)(B)(1) through (3), 63.1209(g)(1)(C)(1) and (2), 
63.1209(l)(1), 63.1209(m)(3), 63.1209(n)(4), and 63.1209(o)(1).
    We also correct several typographical errors. We correct 
Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(x) by removing an extra '')'' from the paragraph. 
Section 63.1207(m)(4)(i) is corrected by capitalizing ``Notification of 
Compliance.'' We correct a typographical error in the first sentence of 
Sec. 63.1209(b)(5)(iii)(A) by removing the word ``to'' before the word 
``monitoring.'' The typographical error in the heading of paragraph 
Sec. 63.1209(k)(8)(ii) is also corrected. We revise the paragraph 
heading from ``mum time in-use'' to ``Maximum time in-use.'' Finally, 
we correct a typographical error in the first sentence of 
Sec. 63.1213(a) by replacing the word ``data'' with ``date.''

B. Several Citations Are Corrected

    In the May 14, 2001 rule, we removed the Notice of Intent to Comply 
(NIC) provisions that were vacated in Chemical Manufacturers 
Association v. EPA, 217 F.3d 861 (D.C. Cir. 2000). When we removed the 
NIC requirements from Secs. 63.1210 and 63.1211 and redesignated 
follow-on paragraphs in those sections, we did not also revise several 
references to the redesignated paragraphs of Secs. 63.1210 and 63.1211. 
The paragraphs revised include Secs. 63.1206(b)(11), 63.1206(c)(1)(i), 
63.1207(j)(1)(ii), 63.1207(j)(3), 63.1209(a)(1)(ii)(A), 63.1209(f)(1), 
and 266.100(b)(1).
    In the May 14, 2001 rule, we also made changes to the compliance 
dates provisions of Sec. 63.1206(a). However, when we redesignated 
paragraph (a)(3) to (a)(2) in that rule, we inadvertently failed also 
to revise a cite within old paragraph (a)(3). Today's rule corrects the 
reference in Sec. 63.1206(a)(2) from paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to 
(a)(2)(ii).
    We also correct an incorrect citation in Sec. 63.1207(f)(1)(xvii). 
This paragraph inadvertently refers to Sec. 63.1209(m)(5)(i) instead of 
Sec. 63.1209(n)(5)(i). We make that correction today.
    Finally, we correct an incorrect citation in 
Sec. 63.1207(m)(4)(ii). This paragraph inadvertently refers to 
Sec. 63.1207(m)(3)(iv) instead of Sec. 63.1207(m)(4)(i). We make that 
correction today.

II. What Correction Are We Making to Sec. 266.100?

    We are making two corrections to Sec. 266.100(d) to correct errors 
made when we promulgated the September 30, 1999 final rule. When we 
added Sec. 266.100(b) to address integration of the MACT standards and 
redesignated paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), as (c), (d), (e), 
(f), and (g), respectively, we did not revise several references within 
these paragraphs. Today's rule revises the reference to old paragraph 
(c)(2) in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) to (d)(2); the reference to old 
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) in paragraph (d)(2)(i) to (d)(1)(iii); the 
reference to old paragraph (c)(1)(iii) in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) to 
(d)(1)(iii); the reference to old paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) in 
paragraph (d)(3) to (d)(1) and (d)(3), respectively; the reference to 
old paragraph (c)(1) in paragraph (d)(3)(i) to (d)(1); and the 
reference to old paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(1)(ii) in paragraph 
(d)(3)(i)(D) to (d)(3) and (d)(1)(ii), respectively.
    In addition, when we added Sec. 266.100(h) in the September 30, 
1999 final rule to provide reduced sampling and analysis and 
notification and recordkeeping requirements for secondary lead smelters 
complying with the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP, we inadvertently 
deleted regulatory language in old paragraph (c)(3) that was 
redesignated paragraph (d)(3). We restore that regulatory language in 
(d)(3) today.
    Finally, we correct a reference in Sec. 266.100(a) from paragraphs 
(b), (c), (d), and (f) to paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (g), and (h).

III. What Correction Are We Making to Sec. 270.42(j)(1): Combustion 
Facility Changes To Meet Part 63 MACT Standards?

    We are correcting an error in the RCRA permitting regulations 
relating to the vacature of the Notification of Intent to Comply (NIC) 
and its associated requirements. On October 11, 2000, the D.C. Circuit 
issued a mandate to vacate the Notification of Intent to Comply 
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, Subpart EEE (Chemical Manufacturers 
Association v. EPA, 217 F. 3d 861, D.C.

[[Page 6982]]

Cir. 2000). We subsequently directed the Office of the Federal Register 
to remove those provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations on May 
14, 2001 (66 FR 24270). Since sources were required to comply with the 
NIC requirements in order to be eligible for the RCRA Streamlined 
Permit Modification procedure, we also modified Sec. 270.42(j)(1) to 
address the court's mandate.
    Previously, Sec. 270.42(j)(1) required owners or operators to first 
comply with the NIC requirements of Sec. 63.1210 before requesting a 
streamlined RCRA permit modification. Sources were required to submit 
their final NICs by October 2, 2000. Since the court's mandate was not 
issued until after existing sources were required to submit their NICs, 
we determined that the court's action did not impact the sources' 
eligibility for a streamlined RCRA permit modification, provided, of 
course, that they submitted their NICs by October 2, 2000, as required 
by the rule. To clarify this in the regulatory language, we revised 
Sec. 270.42(j)(1) to state that owners or operators must have complied 
with the Notification of Intent to Comply requirements of Sec. 63.1210 
that were in effect prior to May 14, 2001 in order to request a 
streamlined permit modification. In doing so, we incorrectly referred 
to the date that we removed the NIC provisions from the federal 
regulations (May 14, 2001) as the date on which those provisions were 
no longer in effect. Instead, we should have referenced the date of the 
court's mandate (October 11, 2000). The removal of the requirements 
from the federal regulations was only a ministerial action in 
acknowledgment of the court's October 11, 2000 order to vacate. Thus, 
in today's rulemaking, we are correcting the referenced date in 
Sec. 270.42(j)(1) from May 14, 2001 to October 11, 2000.

IV. What Correction Are We Making to Table 1 to Subpart EEE--
General Provisions Applicable to Subpart EEE?

    Table 1 to Subpart EEE identifies which General Provisions provided 
under Subpart A, Part 63, are not applicable to hazardous waste 
combustors. We are amending that table to: (1) conform to revisions to 
Subpart EEE promulgated in a related final rule establishing interim 
emission standards and which was published in the Federal Register on 
February 13, 2002; (2) to make several other technical corrections; and 
(3) to clarify the explanation of the applicability of the General 
Provisions.
    We are making the following specific corrections to Table 1 to 
Subpart EEE:
    a. The applicability explanations for Secs. 63.6(e), (f), and (h), 
and 63.7(e) are corrected to acknowledge that the emission standards 
and operating requirements of Subpart EEE do not apply during startup, 
shutdown, and malfunctions;
    b. The applicability explanation for Sec. 63.7(a) is clarified to 
note that Sec. 63.1207(e)(3) allows you to petition the Administrator 
under Sec. 63.7(h) to provide an extension of time to conduct a 
performance test;
    c. The applicability explanation for Sec. 63.8(c) is revised to 
correct the reference to Sec. 63.1211(c) rather than Sec. 63.1211(d);
    d. The applicability explanations for Secs. 63.8(c) and (g) are 
revised to delete the reference to applicability only to cement kilns 
because it is self-evident that only cement kilns are subject to an 
opacity emission standard under Subpart EEE. Further, if other sources 
were to use a COMS under alternative monitoring or other provisions, 
those sources would be required to comply with Sec. 63.8(c); and
    e. The applicability explanation for Sec. 63.9(f) is corrected to 
require compliance with that paragraph for sources that are allowed 
under Sec. 63.1209(a)(1)(v) to use visible determinations of opacity 
for compliance in lieu of a COMS.

Part Five--What Are the Analytical and Regulatory Requirements?

I. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must determine whether a 
regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to 
comprehensive review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and 
the other provisions of the Executive Order. A significant regulatory 
action is defined by the Order as one that may:
    Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;

--Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency;
--Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs or rights and obligations or recipients thereof; 
or
--Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 
12866.

    Today's final action was submitted to OMB for review and 
confirmation. Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, the Agency, 
in conjunction with OMB has determined that today's final amendments 
rule does not represent a ``significant regulatory action.'' Today's 
final action does not meet any of the criteria identified above. 
Changes to this section of the Preamble made in response to OMB 
suggestions or recommendations are documented in the public record.
    The aggregate annualized social cost for this final rule are less 
than $100 million. Furthermore, this rule is not expected to adversely 
effect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The 
benefits to human health and the environment resulting from today's 
final rule have not been monetized but are believed to be less than 
$100 million per year.

II. What Economic and Equity Analyses Were Completed in Support of 
the Proposed Rule?

    We prepared two economic support documents for the July 3, 2001 
proposed rule: Assessment of Potential Costs, Benefits and Other 
Impacts, NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous 
Waste Combustors--Technical Amendments to the Final Rule: NESHAP: Final 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors, 
September 30, 1999, dated May, 2001, and Regulatory Flexibility 
Screening Analysis (RFSA) For NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors Technical Amendments to the 
Final Rule: NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Hazardous Waste Combustors, September 30, 1999, dated May, 2001. Both 
documents are available in the docket established for the July 3, 2001 
action.
    The Assessment document addressed both the thirteen direct final 
amendments and the twenty proposed amendments. Three of the proposed 
amendments in the direct final rule are finalized in today's rule and 
are projected to result in cost savings. Our analysis found that the 
amendment revising the alternative to the particulate matter standard 
for incinerators resulted in the single most significant projected cost 
savings. This amendment accounted for an estimated 77 percent, or 
$707,500, of the total quantifiable annual cost savings of $918,500. 
The direct final amendment addressing

[[Page 6983]]

feedstream analysis was projected to result in annual cost savings of 
$180,000, while the amendment on deletion of one-time notification of 
compliance accounted for the remaining cost savings. The total 
projected cost burden associated with the July 3, 2001 direct final 
amendments was estimated at $8,700 per year. The analysis found that 
most of the cost burdens are easily quantifiable, whereas many of the 
cost savings were not readily quantifiable and, are therefore not 
included in the aggregate estimate.
    We were able to develop a quantified cost savings estimate for only 
one of the twenty proposed amendments in the Assessment. The amendment 
addressing method 23 as an alternative to method 0023A for dioxin/
furans was projected to result in cost savings of $102,600 per year. 
Five of the twenty proposed amendments were projected to result in an 
aggregate quantifiable cost burden of $361,100 per year. Approximately 
45 percent of this increased cost burden would be on the government. 
The proposed amendment revising the operator training and certification 
provisions was estimated to account for 84 percent of the total 
estimated cost burden.
    No measurable impacts were projected in any of the following 
categories related to equity and regulatory concerns: environmental 
justice; children's health protection; unfunded mandates; tribal 
governments; and regulatory takings.
    The RFSA document prepared in support of the July 3, 2001 actions 
analyzed potential impacts to small entities associated with both the 
direct final and proposed amendments. Based on our worst-case scenario, 
we found that there would not be a significant economic impact on any 
of the small business combustor companies subject to rule (amendment) 
requirements.

III. What Substantive Comments Were Received on the Cost/Economic 
Aspects of Proposed Rule?

    We received no substantive comments on the cost/economic issues 
associated with either the direct final or proposed amendments. 
Selected commenters, however, incorporated minor references to cost 
issues as part of their comments on other issues. One commenter 
indicated that unnecessary testing cost increases and complications 
would result without the flexibility to use DRE data in lieu of 
testing. The incorporation of this amendment into today's final rule 
relieves this cost concern. Two commenters indicated support for the 
Agency's proposed amendment that would allow use of site-specific 
operator training and certification programs. This flexibility was 
supported as a means of avoiding the burden and complications 
associated with training requirements established under the final rule. 
The incorporation of this amendment into today's final rule addresses 
this cost concern.
    Four commenters referenced cost issues associated with the 
amendment addressing the time extension for performance testing. These 
commenters generally supported the amendment but felt, in some cases, 
that it did not go far enough to address unforeseen circumstances and 
to mitigate the concerns associated with the potential for unnecessary 
performance testing and related costs. We are sensitive to these 
concerns; however, we continue to believe that an open-ended test date 
will not provide an incentive for either sources or regulatory 
officials to resolve differences related to the test plan. We believe 
that this stimulus will help mitigate unnecessary cost impacts.

IV. What Are the Potential Costs and Benefits of Today's Final 
Rule?

    The value of any regulatory action is traditionally measured by the 
net change in social welfare that it generates. A rule that generates 
positive net welfare would be advantageous to society and should be 
promulgated. A rule that results in negative net welfare to society 
should be avoided, assuming all other factors are equal.
    We have assessed the impacts of this final rule in our economic 
support document: Assessment of Potential Costs, Benefits and Other 
Impacts, and, Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis (RFSA) for 
NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste 
Combustors; Final Rule--Amendments to the NESHAP: Final Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors: Final Rule, 
September 30, 1999, dated January 2, 2002. This document is available 
in the docket established in support of today's action. A brief summary 
of findings is presented below.
    Today's rule revises several requirements promulgated in the 
September 30, 1999 rule. Cost impacts associated with the final 
amendments are not fully quantifiable. All amendments, however, are 
projected to result in zero cost impacts or national annual net cost 
savings to industry, as projected from the baseline of the September 
30, 1999 rule. The total cost burden to government associated with the 
final amendments is estimated at $160,000 per year. No quantifiable 
benefits and/or environmental implications have been identified.

V. What Consideration Was Given to Small Entities Under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 
et. seq.?

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the 
impacts of today's final rule on small entities, a small entity is 
defined either by the number of employees or by the annual dollar 
amount of sales/revenues. The level at which an entity is considered 
small is determined for each NAICS code by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
    The Agency has examined the potential effects today's final rule 
may have on small entities, as required by the RFA/SBREFA. We have 
found that four of the final amendments are projected to result in 
measurable cost impacts. The amendment addressing feedstream analysis 
for organic HAPs would result in cost savings but we expect that only 
larger operations would be impacted. The other three final amendments 
are projected to result in a measurable cost burden. Of these three, 
only the amendment addressing operator training and certification may 
potentially result in a cost burden to small hazardous waste 
combustors. Under an assumed worst-case, or high end cost scenario, we 
estimate maximum total costs on each ``small'' hazardous waste 
combustor company to average $25,700 ($154,000/6 = $25,700 per 
``small'' source). Based on this high cost scenario, impacts on an 
individual small company basis would be no more than 0.71 percent of 
the annual gross sales. This figure is less than our threshold of 1 
percent for determination of potentially significant economic impact. 
This amendment, however, was designed to ultimately provide regulatory 
relief. The lack of available data prevented us from quantifying cost 
savings potentially associated with this amendment. Overall impacts are 
likely to be considerably less than the 0.71 percent ``high-end'' 
estimate presented here. Based on this analysis we believe that it is 
reasonable to conclude that

[[Page 6984]]

there would not be a significant economic impact to any of the small 
business combustor companies potentially subject to rule requirements. 
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Full details of the small entity analysis are presented in our 
report: Assessment of Potential Costs, Benefits and Other Impacts, and, 
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis (RFSA) for NESHAP: Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors; Final 
Rule--Amendments to the NESHAPS: Final Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors: Final Rule, September 30, 
1999, dated January 2, 2002. This document is available in the docket 
established in support of today's action.

VI. Was the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Considered In This Final 
Rule?

    Executive Order 12875, ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership'' (October 26, 1993), calls on federal agencies to provide 
a statement supporting the need to issue any regulation containing an 
unfunded federal mandate and describing prior consultation with 
representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments. 
Signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(UMRA) supersedes Executive Order 12875, reiterating the previously 
established directives while also imposing additional requirements for 
federal agencies issuing any regulation containing an unfunded mandate.
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
single year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most 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. 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.
    Today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA. 
Today's final rule will not result in $100 million or more in 
expenditures. The aggregate annualized social costs for today's final 
rule are projected to be less than one million dollars. Furthermore, 
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA. 
Section 203 requires agencies to develop a small government Agency plan 
before establishing any regulatory requirements that may significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments. We 
have determined that this rule will not significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments.

VII. Were Equity Issues and Children's Health Considered In This 
Final Rule?

    By applicable executive order, we are required to consider the 
impacts of today's rule with regard to environmental justice and 
children's health.

(1) Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'

    ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency. Today's final rule is not subject to the Executive Order 
because it is not economically significant, as defined in Executive 
Order 12866.

(2) Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population'' (February 
11, 1994), is designed to address the environmental and human health 
conditions of minority and low-income populations. EPA is committed to 
addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership 
role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental 
quality for all citizens of the United States. The Agency's goals are 
to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, 
national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high and 
adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of EPA's 
policies, programs, and activities. In response to Executive Order 
12898, and to concerns voiced by many groups outside the Agency, EPA's 
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) formed an 
Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental 
justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall 
strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No. 
9200.3-17). We have no data indicating that today's final rule would 
result in disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low income 
communities.

VIII. What Consideration Was Given to Tribal Governments In This 
Final Rule?

    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.''
    Today's final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on

[[Page 6985]]

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 the Order. Today's rule 
will not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian 
tribal governments, nor impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
them.

IX. Were Federalism Implications Considered in Today's Final Rule?

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Today's 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 the Order. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to this rule.

X. Were Energy Impacts Considered?

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (May 18, 2001), addresses the 
need for regulatory actions to more fully consider the potential energy 
impacts of the proposed rule and resulting actions. Under the Order, 
agencies are required to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when a 
regulatory action may have significant adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use, including impacts on price and foreign 
supplies. Additionally, the requirements obligate agencies to consider 
reasonable alternatives to regulatory actions with adverse affects and 
the impacts the alternatives might have upon energy supply, 
distribution, or use.
    Today's final rule is not likely to have any significant adverse 
impact on factors affecting energy supply. We believe that Executive 
Order 13211 is not relevant to this action.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    We have prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
(ICR No. 1773.07) listing the information collection requirements of 
this final rule, and have submitted it for approval to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB has assigned a control number 
2050-0171 for this ICR. A copy of this ICR may be obtained from Sandy 
Farmer, OPIA Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environment 
Protection Agency (2137), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 
20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The public burden associated with this final rule (which is under 
the Clean Air Act) is projected to affect approximately 171 HWC units 
and is estimated to average 7.6 hours per respondent annually. The 
reporting and recordkeeping cost burden is estimated to average $440 
per respondent annually. Burden means total time, effort, or financial 
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, 
or provide information to or for a Federal agency. That includes the 
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and 
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, 
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining 
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the 
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and 
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of 
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of 
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

XII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub L. No. 104-113, 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 final rule does not require the implementation of technical 
standards, as defined above; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of 
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) do not apply.

XIII. The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as Added 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996)

Is Today's Final Action Subject to Congressional Review?

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq., as added 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major Rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 804(2). This final rule will become effective on February 14, 
2002.

Part Six--Delegation Implications

I. What Is the Authority for the Final Amendment Rule?

    Unlike the September 30, 1999 Final HWC NESHAP rule, this rule does 
not include any significant changes or additions affecting the RCRA 
program. This Final Amendment Rule amends the promulgated standards 
located in 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. Therefore, this discussion 
pertains only to delegation of amendments to State, Local, and Tribal 
(S/L/T) agencies pursuant to the CAA program.
    Section 112(l) of the CAA allows us to delegate the authority to S/
L/T programs to implement and enforce emission standards for pollutants 
subject to section 112 regulations. Thus, a S/L/T agency that receives 
112(l) delegation can implement and enforce the amendments being made 
today. A S/L/T agency also can implement the amendments for Title V 
major sources (see 40 CFR 70.2) via their Title V authority because it 
is independent of their delegation status. By having an approved Title 
V program, the S/L/T agency has demonstrated that it has the legal 
authority, resources, and expertise to implement and enforce standards 
for section 112 pollutants.
    As before, we encourage S/L/T agencies to apply for and receive 
112(l) delegation for this rule. The key advantages afforded to S/L/T 
agencies

[[Page 6986]]

who receive delegation are that they become the primary enforcement 
authority and can exercise delegable provision authorities. 
Additionally, it ensures clear and consistent requirements for affected 
sources and regulators. For example, a source need only report 
compliance assurance monitoring to its primary enforcement authority.
    State, Local, and Tribal agencies still have the ability to choose 
which delegation options to use when applying for delegation of Federal 
authorities for this rule. The 112(l) delegation process begins when 
the S/L/T agency applies for delegation of a section 112 rule without 
changes (straight delegation), by rule adjustment, substitution of 
requirements, state program approval (SPA), or equivalency by permit 
(EBP).\11\ Also, the partial approval option is available for any S/L/T 
who cannot or chooses not to take full delegation of an entire 
standard. The drawback to this option is that it can create 
inconsistent requirements since the S/L/T agency will enforce portions 
of the standard, while we will enforce the remaining portions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Refer to Hazardous Air Pollutants: Amendments to the 
Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities; 
Final Rule at 65 FR 55810 or the CAA Delegation for the HWC NESHAP 
fact sheet at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/toolkit/coverpage.htm for further information on delegation procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Why Should I Apply for Delegation of This Rule?

    This rule will be effective upon promulgation. As with the Phase I 
NESHAP, a S/L/T agency will need to incorporate the amendments of this 
rule into a major source's new, renewed, or revised Title V permit 
regardless of whether it has received delegation. However, by receiving 
delegation of 112(l), a S/L/T agency can approve minor changes to a 
Federal NESHAP. For instance, it can substitute an emission limitation 
that is more stringent than a Federal standard.
    In light of the benefits afforded to a 
S/L/T agency if it receives 112(l) delegation, we recognize that the 
process of applying for and receiving delegation can be a lengthy one. 
This may be especially true for those agencies that do not have 
established agreements in place to receive automatic delegation of 
unchanged standards. There are agencies who choose to utilize the 
delegation options provided under 112(l), which are not as 
straightforward as the unchanged standards. In these cases, the review 
period required when applying for one of the delegation options 
combined with a state's legislative proceedings, are factors that can 
prolong the delegation process. Therefore, we encourage the S/L/T 
agency to do what makes sense given circumstances relevant to timing 
issues and resource needs.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 63

    Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 266

    Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous waste, 
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 270

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous materials 
transportation, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: February 7, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.


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

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (i) ASME standard number QHO-1-1994 and QHO-1a-1996 Addenda. This 
standard is titled as ``Standard for the Qualification and 
Certification of Hazardous Waste Incinerator Operators.'' The Director 
of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a 
copy of this document from the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York, N.Y. 10017. You may inspect 
a copy at the RCRA Information Center, Crystal Gateway One, 1235 
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, 
DC.
    3. Section 63.1200 is amended by revising entry (2) in Table 1 in 
paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1200  Who is subject to these regulations?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

                  Table 1 to Sec.  63.1200.--Hazardous Waste Combustors Exempt From Subpart EEE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               If * * *                               And If * * *                           Then * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *
(2) You are a research, development,   You operate for no longer than one year     You are not subject to this
 and demonstration source.              after first burning hazardous waste (Note   subpart (Subpart EEE). This
                                        that the Administrator can extend this      exemption applies even if
                                        one-year restriction on a case-by-case      there is a hazardous waste
                                        basis upon your written request             combustor at the plant site
                                        documenting when you first burned           that is regulated under this
                                        hazardous waste and the justification for   subpart. You still, however,
                                        needing additional time to perform          remain subject to Sec.
                                        research, development, or demonstration     270.65 of this chapter.
                                        operations).
 
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 6987]]

* * * * *

    4. Section 63.1201 is amended by adding the definition of 
``Preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location'' to paragraph (a) 
in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1201  Definitions and acronyms used in this subpart.

    (a) * * *
    Preheater tower combustion gas monitoring location means a location 
within the preheater tower of a dry process cement kiln downstream (in 
terms of gas flow) of all hazardous waste firing locations and where a 
representative sample of combustion gas to measure combustion 
efficiency can be monitored.
* * * * *

    5. Section 63.1204 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(iii) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 63.1204  What are the standards for hazardous waste burning cement 
kilns?

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) You must calculate rolling averages for operating parameter 
limits as provided by Sec. 63.1209(q)(2).
* * * * *

    6. Section 63.1206 is amended by:
    a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(i).
    b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as (a)(3).
    c. Revising paragraphs (b)(5)(i)(C)(1), (b)(6)(i) and (b)(6)(ii), 
(b)(7), (b)(11), and (b)(13)(i).
    d. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) introductory text, (c)(5)(i)(C), 
(c)(6), and (c)(7)(ii).
    e. Adding paragraph (c)(5)(i)(D).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1206  When and how must you comply with the standards and 
operating requirements?

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) If you commenced construction or reconstruction of your 
hazardous waste combustor after April 19, 1996, you must comply with 
this subpart by the later of September 30, 1999 or the date the source 
starts operations, except as provided by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 
section. * * *
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (1) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(5)(i)(C)(2) of this 
section, after the change and prior to submitting the notification of 
compliance, you must not burn hazardous waste for more than a total of 
720 hours (renewable at the discretion of the Administrator) and only 
for the purposes of pretesting or comprehensive performance testing. 
Pretesting is defined at Sec. 63.1207(h)(2)(i) and (ii).
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) If a DRE test performed pursuant to Sec. 63.1207(c)(2) is 
acceptable as documentation of compliance with the DRE standard, you 
may use the highest hourly rolling average hydrocarbon level achieved 
during the DRE test runs to document compliance with the hydrocarbon 
standard. An acceptable DRE test is any test for which the data and 
results are determined to meet quality assurance objectives (on a site-
specific basis) such that the results adequately demonstrate compliance 
with the DRE standard.
    (ii) If during this acceptable DRE test you did not obtain 
hydrocarbon emissions data sufficient to document compliance with the 
hydrocarbon standard, you must either:
    (A) Perform, as part of the performance test, an ``equivalent DRE 
test'' to document compliance with the hydrocarbon standard. An 
equivalent DRE test is comprised of a minimum of three runs each with a 
minimum duration of one hour during which you operate the combustor as 
close as reasonably possible to the operating parameter limits that you 
established based on the initial DRE test. You must use the highest 
hourly rolling average hydrocarbon emission level achieved during the 
equivalent DRE test to document compliance with the hydrocarbon 
standard; or
    (B) Perform a DRE test as part of the performance test.
    (7) Compliance with the DRE standard. (i) Except as provided in 
paragraphs (b)(7)(ii) and (b)(7)(iii) of this section:
    (A) You must document compliance with the Destruction and Removal 
Efficiency (DRE) standard under Secs. 63.1203 through 63.1205 only once 
provided that you do not modify the source after the DRE test in a 
manner that could affect the ability of the source to achieve the DRE 
standard.
    (B) You may use any DRE test data that documents that your source 
achieves the required level of DRE provided:
    (1) You have not modified the design or operation of your source in 
a manner that could effect the ability of your source to achieve the 
DRE standard since the DRE test was performed; and,
    (2) The DRE test data meet quality assurance objectives determined 
on a site-specific basis.
    (ii) Sources that feed hazardous waste at a location in the 
combustion system other than the normal flame zone must demonstrate 
compliance with the DRE standard during each comprehensive performance 
test;
    (iii) For sources that do not use DRE previous testing to document 
conformance with the DRE standard pursuant to Sec. 63.1207(c)(2), you 
must perform DRE testing during the initial comprehensive performance 
test.
* * * * *
    (11) Calculation of hazardous waste residence time. You must 
calculate the hazardous waste residence time and include the 
calculation in the performance test plan under Sec. 63.1207(f) and the 
operating record. You must also provide the hazardous waste residence 
time in the Documentation of Compliance under Sec. 63.1211(c) and the 
Notification of Compliance under Secs. 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(b).
* * * * *
    (13) * * *
    (i) Cement kilns that feed hazardous waste at a location other than 
the end where products are normally discharged and where fuels are 
normally fired must comply with the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon 
standards of Sec. 63.1204 as follows:
    (A) For existing sources, you must not discharge or cause 
combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain either:
    (1) Hydrocarbons in the main stack in excess of 20 parts per 
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored 
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
    (2) Hydrocarbons both in the by-pass duct and at a preheater tower 
combustion gas monitoring location in excess of 10 parts per million by 
volume, at each location, over an hourly rolling average (monitored 
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
    (3) If the only firing location of hazardous waste upstream (in 
terms of gas flow) of the point where combustion gases are diverted 
into the bypass duct is at the kiln end where products are normally 
discharged, then both hydrocarbons at the preheater tower combustion 
gas monitoring location in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, 
over an hourly rolling average

[[Page 6988]]

(monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), 
dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane, and 
either hydrocarbons in the by-pass duct in excess of 10 parts per 
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored 
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane, or carbon 
monoxide in excess of 100 parts per million by volume, over an hourly 
rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions 
monitoring system), dry basis, and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If 
you comply with the carbon monoxide standard of 100 parts per million 
by volume in the by-pass duct, then you must also not discharge or 
cause combustion gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain 
hydrocarbons in the by-pass duct in excess of 10 parts per million by 
volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a 
continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen, and reported as propane, at any time during the 
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs or their equivalent 
as provided by Sec. 63.1206(b)(7).
    (B) For new sources, you must not discharge or cause combustion 
gases to be emitted into the atmosphere that contain either:
    (1) Hydrocarbons in the main stack in excess of 20 parts per 
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored 
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
    (2)(i) Hydrocarbons both in the by-pass duct and at a preheater 
tower combustion gas monitoring location in excess of 10 parts per 
million by volume, at each location, over an hourly rolling average 
(monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), 
dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane, and
    (ii) Hydrocarbons in the main stack, if construction of the kiln 
commenced after April 19, 1996 at a plant site where a cement kiln 
(whether burning hazardous waste or not) did not previously exist, to 
50 parts per million by volume, over a 30-day block average (monitored 
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane; or
    (3)(i) If the only firing location of hazardous waste upstream (in 
terms of gas flow) of the point where combustion gases are diverted 
into the bypass duct is at the kiln end where products are normally 
discharged, then both hydrocarbons at the preheater tower combustion 
gas monitoring location in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, 
over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a 
continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 
percent oxygen, and reported as propane, and either hydrocarbons in the 
by-pass duct in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over an 
hourly rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous 
emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, 
and reported as propane, or carbon monoxide in excess of 100 parts per 
million by volume, over an hourly rolling average (monitored 
continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, 
and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If you comply with the carbon 
monoxide standard of 100 parts per million by volume in the by-pass 
duct, then you must also not discharge or cause combustion gases to be 
emitted into the atmosphere that contain hydrocarbons in the by-pass 
duct in excess of 10 parts per million by volume, over an hourly 
rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions 
monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and 
reported as propane, at any time during the destruction and removal 
efficiency (DRE) test runs or their equivalent as provided by 
Sec. 63.1206(b)(7).
    (ii) If construction of the kiln commenced after April 19, 1996 at 
a plant site where a cement kiln (whether burning hazardous waste or 
not) did not previously exist, hydrocarbons are limited to 50 parts per 
million by volume, over a 30-day block average (monitored continuously 
with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 
7 percent oxygen, and reported as propane.
* * * * *
    (c)* * * (1) * * * (i) You must operate only under the operating 
requirements specified in the Documentation of Compliance under 
Sec. 63.1211(c) or the Notification of Compliance under 
Secs. 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(b), except:
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Upon prior written approval of the Administrator, an 
alternative means of control to provide control of combustion system 
leaks equivalent to maintenance of combustion zone pressure lower than 
ambient pressure; or
    (D) Upon prior written approval of the Administrator, other 
technique(s) which can be demonstrated to prevent fugitive emissions 
without use of instantaneous pressure limits; and
* * * * *
    (6) Operator training and certification. (i) You must establish 
training programs for all categories of personnel whose activities may 
reasonably be expected to directly affect emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants from the source. Such persons include, but are not limited 
to, chief facility operators, control room operators, continuous 
monitoring system operators, persons that sample and analyze 
feedstreams, persons that manage and charge feedstreams to the 
combustor, persons that operate emission control devices, and ash and 
waste handlers. Each training program shall be of a technical level 
commensurate with the person's job duties specified in the training 
manual. Each commensurate training program shall require an examination 
to be administered by the instructor at the end of the training course. 
Passing of this test shall be deemed the ``certification'' for 
personnel, except that, for control room operators, the training and 
certification program shall be as specified in paragraphs (c)(6)(iii) 
through (c)(6)(vi) of this section.
    (ii) You must ensure that the source is operated and maintained at 
all times by persons who are trained and certified to perform these and 
any other duties that may affect emissions of hazardous air pollutants. 
A certified control room operator must be on duty at the site at all 
times the source is in operation.
    (iii) Hazardous waste incinerator control room operators must:
    (A) Be trained and certified under a site-specific, source-
developed and implemented program that meets the requirements of 
paragraph (c)(6)(v) of this section; or
    (B) Be trained under the requirements of, and certified under, the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Standard Number QHO-1-1994 and 
QHO-1a-1996 Addenda (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14(e)). If 
you choose to use the ASME program:
    (1) Control room operators must, prior to the compliance date, 
achieve provisional certification, and must submit an application to 
ASME and be scheduled for the full certification exam. Within one year 
of the compliance date, control room operators must achieve full 
certification;
    (2) New operators and operators of new sources must, before 
assuming their

[[Page 6989]]

duties, achieve provisional certification, and must submit an 
application to ASME, and be scheduled for the full certification exam. 
Within one year of assuming their duties, these operators must achieve 
full certification; or
    (C) Be trained and certified under a State program.
    (iv) Cement kiln and lightweight aggregate kiln control room 
operators must be trained and certified under:
    (A) A site-specific, source-developed and implemented program that 
meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(6)(v) of this section; or
    (B) A State program.
    (v) Site-specific, source developed and implemented training 
programs for control room operators must include the following 
elements:
    (A) Training on the following subjects:
    (1) Environmental concerns, including types of emissions;
    (2) Basic combustion principles, including products of combustion;
    (3) Operation of the specific type of combustor used by the 
operator, including proper startup, waste firing, and shutdown 
procedures;
    (4) Combustion controls and continuous monitoring systems;
    (5) Operation of air pollution control equipment and factors 
affecting performance;
    (6) Inspection and maintenance of the combustor, continuous 
monitoring systems, and air pollution control devices;
    (7) Actions to correct malfunctions or conditions that may lead to 
malfunction;
    (8) Residue characteristics and handling procedures; and
    (9) Applicable Federal, state, and local regulations, including 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace standards; and
    (B) An examination designed and administered by the instructor; and
    (C) Written material covering the training course topics that may 
serve as reference material following completion of the course.
    (vi) To maintain control room operator qualification under a site-
specific, source developed and implemented training program as provided 
by paragraph (c)(6)(v) of this section, control room operators must 
complete an annual review or refresher course covering, at a minimum, 
the following topics:
    (A) Update of regulations;
    (B) Combustor operation, including startup and shutdown procedures, 
waste firing, and residue handling;
    (C) Inspection and maintenance;
    (D) Responses to malfunctions or conditions that may lead to 
malfunction; and
    (E) Operating problems encountered by the operator.
    (vii) You must record the operator training and certification 
program in the operating record.
    (7) * * *
    (ii) Bag leak detection system requirements for baghouses at 
lightweight aggregate kilns and incinerators. If you own or operate a 
hazardous waste incinerator or hazardous waste burning lightweight 
aggregate kiln equipped with a baghouse (fabric filter), you must 
continuously operate a bag leak detection system that meets the 
specifications and requirements of paragraph (c)(7)(ii)(A) of this 
section and you must comply with the corrective measures requirements 
of paragraph (c)(7)(ii)(B) of this section:
    (A) Bag leak detection system specification and requirements. (1) 
The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to 
be capable of continuously detecting and recording particulate matter 
emissions at concentrations of 1.0 milligrams per actual cubic meter 
unless you demonstrate, pursuant to procedures in Sec. 63.1209(a)(1), 
that a higher sensitivity would adequately detect bag leaks;
    (2) The bag leak detection system shall provide output of relative 
particulate matter loadings;
    (3) The bag leak detection system shall be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound an audible alarm when an increase in relative 
particulate loadings is detected over a preset level;
    (4) The bag leak detection system shall be installed and operated 
in a manner consistent with available written guidance from the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency or, in the absence of such written 
guidance, the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations 
for installation, operation, and adjustment of the system;
    (5) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum, 
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the 
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and 
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time;
    (6) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the 
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm 
delay time, except as detailed in the operation and maintenance plan 
required under paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this section. You must not 
increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the 
sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365 day period unless such 
adjustment follows a complete baghouse inspection which demonstrates 
the baghouse is in good operating condition;
    (7) For negative pressure or induced air baghouses, and positive 
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a 
stack, the bag leak detector shall be installed downstream of the 
baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber; and
    (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm system may be shared among the detectors.
    (B) Bag leak detection system corrective measures requirements. The 
operating and maintenance plan required by paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this 
section must include a corrective measures plan that specifies the 
procedures you will follow in the case of a bag leak detection system 
alarm. The corrective measures plan must include, at a minimum, the 
procedures used to determine and record the time and cause of the alarm 
as well as the corrective measures taken to correct the control device 
malfunction or minimize emissions as specified below. Failure to 
initiate the corrective measures required by this paragraph is failure 
to ensure compliance with the emission standards in this subpart.
    (1) You must initiate the procedures used to determine the cause of 
the alarm within 30 minutes of the time the alarm first sounds; and
    (2) You must alleviate the cause of the alarm by taking the 
necessary corrective measure(s) which may include, but are not to be 
limited to, the following measures:
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter 
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in 
emissions;
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise 
repairing the control device;
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment;
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system; or
    (vi) Shutting down the combustor.

    7. Section 63.1207 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i).
    b. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(iv).
    c. Adding paragraph (e)(3).
    d. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(A), (f)(1)(ii)(B), (f)(1)(ii)(C), 
(f)(1)(x) introductory text, and (f)(1)(xvii).
    e. Adding paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(D).
    f. Removing and reserving paragraph (f)(1)(xv).

[[Page 6990]]

    g. Revising paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii).
    h. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(v).
    i. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) introductory text.
    j. Revising paragraphs (j)(1)(ii) and (j)(3).
    k. Revising paragraphs (m)(4)(i) and (m)(4)(ii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1207  What are the performance testing requirements?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * * (i) You may request that previous emissions test data 
serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards of 
this subpart provided that the previous testing:
    (A) Was initiated after 54 months prior to the compliance date, 
except as provided by paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) or (c)(2)(iv) of this 
section;
    (B) Results in data that meet quality assurance objectives 
(determined on a site-specific basis) such that the results demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable standards;
    (C) Was in conformance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of 
this section; and
    (D) Was sufficient to establish the applicable operating parameter 
limits under Sec. 63.1209.
* * * * *
    (iv) The data in lieu test age restriction provided in paragraph 
(c)(2)(i)(A) of this section does not apply to DRE data provided you do 
not feed hazardous waste at a location in the combustion system other 
than the normal flame zone.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) Petitions for time extension if Administrator fails to approve 
or deny test plans. You may petition the Administrator under 
Sec. 63.7(h) to obtain a ``waiver'' of any performance test--initial or 
periodic performance test; comprehensive or confirmatory test. The 
``waiver'' would be implemented as an extension of time to conduct the 
performance test at a later date.
    (i) Qualifications for the waiver. (A) You may not petition the 
Administrator for a waiver under this section if the Administrator has 
issued a notification of intent to deny your test plan(s) under 
Sec. 63.7(c)(3)(i)(B);
    (B) You must submit a site-specific emissions testing plan and a 
continuous monitoring system performance evaluation test plan at least 
one year before a comprehensive performance test is scheduled to begin 
as required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, or at least 60 days 
before a confirmatory performance test is scheduled to begin as 
required by paragraph (d) of this section. The test plans must include 
all required documentation, including the substantive content 
requirements of paragraph (f) of this section and Sec. 63.8(e); and
    (C) You must make a good faith effort to accommodate the 
Administrator's comments on the test plans.
    (ii) Procedures for obtaining a waiver and duration of the waiver: 
(A) You must submit to the Administrator a waiver petition or request 
to renew the petition under Sec. 63.7(h) separately for each source at 
least 60 days prior to the scheduled date of the performance test;
    (B) The Administrator will approve or deny the petition within 30 
days of receipt and notify you promptly of the decision;
    (C) The Administrator will not approve an individual waiver 
petition for a duration exceeding 6 months;
    (D) The Administrator will include a sunset provision in the waiver 
ending the waiver within 6 months;
    (E) You may submit a revised petition to renew the waiver under 
Sec. 63.7(h)(3)(iii) at least 60 days prior to the end date of the most 
recently approved waiver petition;
    (F) The Administrator may approve a revised petition for a total 
waiver period up to 12 months.
    (iii) Content of the waiver. (A) You must provide documentation to 
enable the Administrator to determine that the source is meeting the 
relevant standard(s) on a continuous basis as required by 
Sec. 63.7(h)(2). For extension requests for the initial comprehensive 
performance test, you must submit your Documentation of Compliance to 
assist the Administrator in making this determination.
    (B) You must include in the petition information justifying your 
request for a waiver, such as the technical or economic infeasibility, 
or the impracticality, of the affected source performing the required 
test, as required by Sec. 63.7(h)(3)(iii).
    (iv) Public notice. You must notify the public (e.g., distribute 
public mailing list) of your petition to waive a performance test.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) Except as provided by paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(D) of this section, 
an identification of such organic hazardous air pollutants that are 
present in each hazardous waste feedstream. You need not analyze for 
organic hazardous air pollutants that would reasonably not be expected 
to be found in the feedstream. You must identify any constituents you 
exclude from analysis and explain the basis for excluding them. You 
must conduct the feedstream analysis according to Sec. 63.1208(b)(8);
    (B) An approximate quantification of such identified organic 
hazardous air pollutants in the hazardous waste feedstreams, within the 
precision produced by analytical procedures of Sec. 63.1208(b)(8); and
    (C) A description of blending procedures, if applicable, prior to 
firing the hazardous waste feedstream, including a detailed analysis of 
the materials prior to blending, and blending ratios.
    (D) The Administrator may approve on a case-by-case basis a 
hazardous waste feedstream analysis for organic hazardous air 
pollutants in lieu of the analysis required under paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii)(A) of this section if the reduced analysis is sufficient to 
ensure that the POHCs used to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable DRE standard of Sec. 63.1203, Sec. 63.1204, or Sec. 63.1205, 
continue to be representative of the organic hazardous air pollutants 
in your hazardous waste feedstreams;
* * * * *
    (x) If you are requesting to extrapolate metal feedrate limits from 
comprehensive performance test levels under Secs. 63.1209(l)(1)(i) or 
63.1209(n)(2)(ii)(A):
* * * * *
    (xvii) If you propose to use a surrogate for measuring or 
monitoring gas flowrate, you must document in the comprehensive 
performance test plan that the surrogate adequately correlates with gas 
flowrate, as required by paragraph (m)(7) of this section, and 
Sec. 63.1209(j)(2), (k)(3), (m)(2)(i), (n)(5)(i), and (o)(2)(i).
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Carbon monoxide (or hydrocarbon) CEMS emissions levels must be 
within the range of the average value to the maximum value allowed, 
except as provided by paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this section. The average 
value is defined as the sum of the hourly rolling average values 
recorded (each minute) over the previous 12 months, divided by the 
number of rolling averages recorded during that time. The average value 
must not include calibration data, startup data, shutdown data, 
malfunction data, and data obtained when not burning hazardous waste;
    (ii) Each operating limit (specified in Sec. 63.1209) established 
to maintain

[[Page 6991]]

compliance with the dioxin/furan emission standard must be held within 
the range of the average value over the previous 12 months and the 
maximum or minimum, as appropriate, that is allowed, except as provided 
by paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this section. The average value is defined 
as the sum of the rolling average values recorded over the previous 12 
months, divided by the number of rolling averages recorded during that 
time. The average value must not include calibration data, startup 
data, shutdown data, malfunction data, and data obtained when not 
burning hazardous waste;
* * * * *
    (v) The Administrator may approve an alternative range to that 
required by paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section if you 
document in the confirmatory performance test plan that it may be 
problematic to maintain the required range during the test. In 
addition, when making the finding of compliance, the Administrator may 
consider test conditions outside of the range specified in the test 
plan based on a finding that you could not reasonably maintain the 
range specified in the test plan and considering factors including 
whether the time duration and level of the parameter when operations 
were out of the specified range were such that operations during the 
confirmatory test are determined to be reasonably representative of 
normal operations. In addition, the Administrator will consider the 
proximity of the emission test results to the standard.
* * * * *
    (h) * * * (1) Current operating parameter limits established under 
Sec. 63.1209 are waived during subsequent comprehensive performance 
testing.
    (2) Current operating parameter limits are also waived during 
pretesting prior to comprehensive performance testing for an aggregate 
time not to exceed 720 hours of operation (renewable at the discretion 
of the Administrator) under an approved test plan or if the source 
records the results of the pretesting. Pretesting means:
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Upon postmark of the Notification of Compliance, you must 
comply with all operating requirements specified in the Notification of 
Compliance in lieu of the limits specified in the Documentation of 
Compliance required under Sec. 63.1211(c).
* * * * *
    (3) See Secs. 63.7(g), 63.9(h), and 63.1210(b) for additional 
requirements pertaining to the Notification of Compliance (e.g., you 
must include results of performance tests in the Notification of 
Compliance).
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Identify in the Notification of Compliance a minimum gas 
flowrate limit and a maximum feedrate limit of mercury, semivolatile 
metals, low volatile metals, and/or total chlorine and chloride from 
all feedstreams that ensures the MTEC as calculated in paragraph 
(m)(2)(iii) of this section is below the applicable emission standard; 
and
    (ii) Interlock the minimum gas flowrate limit and maximum feedrate 
limit of paragraph (m)(4)(i) of this section to the AWFCO system to 
stop hazardous waste burning when the gas flowrate or mercury, 
semivolatile metals, low volatile metals, and/or total chlorine and 
chloride feedrate exceeds the limits of paragraph (m)(4)(i) of this 
section.
* * * * *

    8. Section 63.1209 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A).
    b. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(5)(iii)(A).
    c. Revising paragraph (f)(1).
    d. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(iii)(B)(1), (g)(1)(iii)(B)(2), 
(g)(1)(iii)(B)(3), (g)(1)(iii)(C)(1), and (g)(1)(iii)(C)(2).
    e. Revising paragraphs (k)(5) and (k)(8)(ii).
    f. Revising paragraphs (l)(1) introductory text, (l)(3), and 
(l)(4).
    g. Revising paragraph (m)(3).
    h. Revising paragraph (n)(4).
    i. Revising paragraph (o)(1).
    j. Revising paragraph (q).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec. 63.1209  What are the monitoring requirements?

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) You must maintain and operate each COMS in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec. 63.8(c) except for the requirements under 
Sec. 63.8(c)(3). The requirements of Sec. 63.1211(c) shall be complied 
with instead of Sec. 63.8(c)(3); and
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Calibration of thermocouples and pyrometers. The calibration of 
thermocouples must be verified at a frequency and in a manner 
consistent with manufacturer specifications, but no less frequent than 
once per year. You must operate and maintain optical pyrometers in 
accordance with manufacturer specifications unless otherwise approved 
by the Administrator. You must calibrate optical pyrometers in 
accordance with the frequency and procedures recommended by the 
manufacturer, but no less frequent than once per year, unless otherwise 
approved by the Administrator. And,
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) * * * (A) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(B) of 
this section, you must continue monitoring operating parameter limits 
with a CMS when the hazardous waste feed is cutoff if the source is 
operating. You must not resume feeding hazardous waste if an operating 
parameter exceeds its limit.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Section 63.8(c)(3). The requirements of Sec. 63.1211(c), that 
requires CMSs to be installed, calibrated, and operational on the 
compliance date, shall be complied with instead of section 63.8(c)(3);
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (1) Data or information justifying your request for an alternative 
monitoring requirement (or for a waiver of an operating parameter 
limit), such as the technical or economic infeasibility or the 
impracticality of using the required approach;
    (2) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring 
requirement, including the operating parameter to be monitored, the 
monitoring approach/technique (e.g., type of detector, monitoring 
location), the averaging period for the limit, and how the limit is to 
be calculated; and
    (3) Data or information documenting that the alternative monitoring 
requirement would provide equivalent or better assurance of compliance 
with the relevant emission standard, or that it is the monitoring 
requirement that best assures compliance with the standard and that is 
technically and economically practicable.
    (C) * * *
    (1) Notice of the information and findings on which the intended 
disapproval is based; and
    (2) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional information 
to the Administrator before final action on the request. At the time 
the Administrator notifies you of intention to disapprove the request, 
the Administrator will specify how much time you will have after being 
notified of the intended

[[Page 6992]]

disapproval to submit the additional information.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (5) Particulate matter operating limit. If your combustor is 
equipped with an activated carbon injection system, you must establish 
operating parameter limits on the particulate matter control device as 
specified by paragraph (m)(1) of this section;
* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (ii) Maximum time in-use. You must replace a catalytic oxidizer 
with a new catalytic oxidizer when it has reached the maximum service 
time specified by the manufacturer.
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (1) Feedrate of total mercury. You must establish a 12-hour rolling 
average limit for the total feedrate of mercury in all feedstreams as 
the average of the test run averages, unless mercury feedrate limits 
are extrapolated from performance test feedrate levels under the 
following provisions.
* * * * *
    (3) Activated carbon injection. If your combustor is equipped with 
an activated carbon injection system, you must establish operating 
parameter limits prescribed by paragraphs (k)(5) and (k)(6) of this 
section.
    (4) Activated carbon bed. If your combustor is equipped with an 
activated carbon bed system, you must comply with the requirements of 
(k)(7) of this section to assure compliance with the mercury emission 
standard.
    (m) * * *
    (3) Maximum ash feedrate. Owners and operators of hazardous waste 
incinerators must establish a maximum ash feedrate limit as the average 
of the test run averages.
    (n) * * *
    (4) Maximum total chlorine and chloride feedrate. You must 
establish a 12-hour rolling average limit for the feedrate of total 
chlorine and chloride in all feedstreams as the average of the test run 
averages.
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (1) Feedrate of total chlorine and chloride. You must establish a 
12-hour rolling average limit for the total feedrate of chlorine 
(organic and inorganic) in all feedstreams as the average of the test 
run averages.
* * * * *
    (q) Operating under different modes of operation. If you operate 
under different modes of operation, you must establish operating 
parameter limits for each mode. You must document in the operating 
record when you change a mode of operation and begin complying with the 
operating limits for an alternative mode of operation.
    (1) Operating under otherwise applicable standards after the 
hazardous waste residence time has transpired. As provided by 
Sec. 63.1206(b)(1)(ii), you may operate under otherwise applicable 
requirements promulgated under sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air 
Act in lieu of the substantive requirements of this subpart.
    (i) The otherwise applicable requirements promulgated under 
sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act are applicable requirements 
under this subpart.
    (ii) You must specify (e.g., by reference) the otherwise applicable 
requirements as a mode of operation in your Documentation of Compliance 
under Sec. 63.1211(c), your Notification of Compliance under 
Sec. 63.1207(j), and your title V permit application. These 
requirements include the otherwise applicable requirements governing 
emission standards, monitoring and compliance, and notification, 
reporting, and recordkeeping.
    (2) Calculating rolling averages under different modes of 
operation. When you transition to a different mode of operation, you 
must calculate rolling averages as follows:
    (i) Retrieval approach. Calculate rolling averages anew using the 
continuous monitoring system values previously recorded for that mode 
of operation (i.e., you ignore continuous monitoring system values 
subsequently recorded under other modes of operation when you 
transition back to a mode of operation); or
    (ii) Start anew. Calculate rolling averages anew without 
considering previous recordings.
    (A) Rolling averages must be calculated as the average of the 
available one-minute values for the parameter until enough one-minute 
values are available to calculate hourly or 12-hour rolling averages, 
whichever is applicable to the parameter.
    (B) You may not transition to a new mode of operation using this 
approach if the most recent operation in that mode resulted in an 
exceedance of an applicable emission standard measured with a CEMS or 
operating parameter limit prior to the hazardous waste residence time 
expiring; or
    (iii) Seamless transition. Continue calculating rolling averages 
using data from the previous operating mode provided that both the 
operating limit and the averaging period for the parameter are the same 
for both modes of operation.

    9. Section 63.1210 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.1210  What are the notification requirements?

    (a) Summary of requirements. (1) You must submit the following 
notifications to the Administrator:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Reference                           Notification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.9(b)................................  Initial notifications that you
                                          are subject to Subpart EEE of
                                          this Part.
63.9(d)................................  Notification that you are
                                          subject to special compliance
                                          requirements.
63.9(j)................................  Notification and documentation
                                          of any change in information
                                          already provided under Sec.
                                          63.9.
63.1206(b)(5)(i).......................  Notification of changes in
                                          design, operation, or
                                          maintenance.
63.1207(e), 63.9(e), 63.9(g)(1) and (3)  Notification of performance
                                          test and continuous monitoring
                                          system evaluation, including
                                          the performance test plan and
                                          CMS performance evaluation
                                          plan.\1\
63.1210(b), 63.1207(j), 63.1207(k),      Notification of compliance,
 63.1207(l), 63.9(h), 63.10(d)(2),        including results of
 63.10(e)(2).                             performance tests and
                                          continuous monitoring system
                                          performance evaluations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ You may also be required on a case-by-case basis to submit a
  feedstream analysis plan under Sec.  63.1209(c)(3).

    (2) You must submit the following notifications to the 
Administrator if you request or elect to comply with alternative 
requirements:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Notification, request,
               Reference                     petition, or application
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.9(i)................................  You may request an adjustment
                                          to time periods or postmark
                                          deadlines for submittal and
                                          review of required
                                          information.

[[Page 6993]]

 
63.10(e)(3)(ii)........................  You may request to reduce the
                                          frequency of excess emissions
                                          and CMS performance reports.
63.10(f)...............................  You may request to waive
                                          recordkeeping or reporting
                                          requirements.
63.1204(d)(2)(iii).....................  Notification that you elect to
                                          comply with the emission
                                          averaging requirements for
                                          cement kilns with in-line raw
                                          mills.
63.1204(e)(2)(iii).....................  Notification that you elect to
                                          comply with the emission
                                          averaging requirements for
                                          preheater or preheater/
                                          precalciner kilns with dual
                                          stacks.
63.1206(b)(4), 63.1213, 63.6(i),         You may request an extension of
 63.9(c).                                 the compliance date for up to
                                          one year.
63.1206(b)(5)(i)(C)....................  You may request to burn
                                          hazardous waste for more than
                                          720 hours and for purposes
                                          other than testing or
                                          pretesting after making a
                                          change in the design or
                                          operation that could affect
                                          compliance with emission
                                          standards and prior to
                                          submitting a revised
                                          Notification of Compliance.
63.1206(b)(8)(iii)(B)..................  If you elect to conduct
                                          particulate matter CEMS
                                          correlation testing and wish
                                          to have federal particulate
                                          matter and opacity standards
                                          and associated operating
                                          limits waived during the
                                          testing, you must notify the
                                          Administrator by submitting
                                          the correlation test plan for
                                          review and approval.
63.1206(b)(8)(v).......................  You may request approval to
                                          have the particulate matter
                                          and opacity standards and
                                          associated operating limits
                                          and conditions waived for more
                                          than 96 hours for a
                                          correlation test.
63.1206(b)(9)..........................  Owners and operators of
                                          lightweight aggregate kilns
                                          may request approval of
                                          alternative emission standards
                                          for mercury, semivolatile
                                          metal, low volatile metal, and
                                          hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas
                                          under certain conditions.
63.1206(b)(10).........................  Owners and operators of cement
                                          kilns may request approval of
                                          alternative emission standards
                                          for mercury, semivolatile
                                          metal, low volatile metal, and
                                          hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas
                                          under certain conditions.
63.1206(b)(14).........................  Owners and operators of
                                          incinerators may elect to
                                          comply with an alternative to
                                          the particulate matter
                                          standard.
63.1206(b)(15).........................  Owners and operators of cement
                                          and lightweight aggregate
                                          kilns may request to comply
                                          with the alternative to the
                                          interim standards for mercury.
63.1206(c)(2)(ii)(C)...................  You may request to make changes
                                          to the startup, shutdown, and
                                          malfunction plan.
63.1206(c)(5)(i)(C)....................  You may request an alternative
                                          means of control to provide
                                          control of combustion system
                                          leaks.
63.1206(c)(5)(i)(D)....................  You may request other
                                          techniques to prevent fugitive
                                          emissions without use of
                                          instantaneous pressure limits.
63.1207(c)(2)..........................  You may request to base initial
                                          compliance on data in lieu of
                                          a comprehensive performance
                                          test.
63.1207(d)(3)..........................  You may request more than 60
                                          days to complete a performance
                                          test if additional time is
                                          needed for reasons beyond your
                                          control.
63.1207(e)(3), 63.7(h).................  You may request a time
                                          extension if the Administrator
                                          fails to approve or deny your
                                          test plan.
63.1207(h)(2)..........................  You may request to waive
                                          current operating parameter
                                          limits during pretesting for
                                          more than 720 hours.
63.1207(f)(1)(ii)(D)...................  You may request a reduced
                                          hazardous waste feedstream
                                          analysis for organic hazardous
                                          air pollutants if the reduced
                                          analysis continues to be
                                          representative of organic
                                          hazardous air pollutants in
                                          your hazardous waste
                                          feedstreams.
63.1207(g)(2)(v).......................  You may request to operate
                                          under a wider operating range
                                          for a parameter during
                                          confirmatory performance
                                          testing.
63.1207(i).............................  You may request up to a one-
                                          year time extension for
                                          conducting a performance test
                                          (other than the initial
                                          comprehensive performance
                                          test) to consolidate testing
                                          with other state or federally-
                                          required testing.
63.1207(j)(4)..........................  You may request more than 90
                                          days to submit a Notification
                                          of Compliance after completing
                                          a performance test if
                                          additional time is needed for
                                          reasons beyond your control.
63.1207(l)(3)..........................  After failure of a performance
                                          test, you may request to burn
                                          hazardous waste for more than
                                          720 hours and for purposes
                                          other than testing or
                                          pretesting.
63.1209(a)(5), 63.8(f).................  You may request: (A.) Approval
                                          of alternative monitoring
                                          methods for compliance with
                                          standards that are monitored
                                          with a CEMS; and (B.) approval
                                          to use a CEMS in lieu of
                                          operating parameter limits.
63.1209(g)(1)..........................  You may request approval of:
                                          (A.) Alternative monitoring
                                          methods, except for standards
                                          that you must monitor with a
                                          continuous emission monitoring
                                          system (CEMS) and except for
                                          requests to use a CEMS in lieu
                                          of operating parameter limits;
                                          or (B.) a waiver of an
                                          operating parameter limit.
63.1209(l)(1)..........................  You may request to extrapolate
                                          mercury feedrate limits.
63.1209(n)(2)(ii)......................  You may request to extrapolate
                                          semivolatile and low volatile
                                          metal feedrate limits.
63.1211(d).............................  You may request to use data
                                          compression techniques to
                                          record data on a less frequent
                                          basis than required by Sec.
                                          63.1209.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *

    10. Section 63.1211 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) 
to read as follows:

[[Page 6994]]

Sec. 63.1211  What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

    (a) Summary of reporting requirements. You must submit the 
following reports to the Administrator:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Reference                              Report
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.10(d)(4)............................  Compliance progress reports, if
                                          required as a condition of an
                                          extension of the compliance
                                          date granted under Sec.
                                          63.6(i).
63.10(d)(5)(i).........................  Periodic startup, shutdown, and
                                          malfunction reports.
63.10(d)(5)(ii)........................  Immediate startup, shutdown,
                                          and malfunction reports.
63.10(e)(3)............................  Excessive emissions and
                                          continuous monitoring system
                                          performance report and summary
                                          report.
63.1206(c)(2)(ii)(B)...................  Startup, shutdown, and
                                          malfunction plan.
63.1206(c)(3)(vi)......................  Excessive exceedances reports.
63.1206(c)(4)(iv)......................  Emergency safety vent opening
                                          reports.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Summary of recordkeeping requirements. You must retain the 
following in the operating record:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Reference                  Document, data, or information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1200, 63.10(b) and (c)..............  General. Information required
                                          to document and maintain
                                          compliance with the
                                          regulations of Subpart EEE,
                                          including data recorded by
                                          continuous monitoring systems
                                          (CMS), and copies of all
                                          notifications, reports, plans,
                                          and other documents submitted
                                          to the Administrator.
63.1204(d)(1)(ii)......................  Documentation of mode of
                                          operation changes for cement
                                          kilns with in-line raw mills.
63.1204(d)(2)(ii)......................  Documentation of compliance
                                          with the emission averaging
                                          requirements for cement kilns
                                          with in-line raw mills.
63.1204(e)(2)(ii)......................  Documentation of compliance
                                          with the emission averaging
                                          requirements for preheater or
                                          preheater/precalciner kilns
                                          with dual stacks.
63.1206(b)(1)(ii)......................  If you elect to comply with all
                                          applicable requirements and
                                          standards promulgated under
                                          authority of the Clean Air
                                          Act, including Sections 112
                                          and 129, in lieu of the
                                          requirements of Subpart EEE
                                          when not burning hazardous
                                          waste, you must document in
                                          the operating record that you
                                          are in compliance with those
                                          requirements.
63.1206(b)(5)(ii)......................  Documentation that a change
                                          will not adversely affect
                                          compliance with the emission
                                          standards or operating
                                          requirements.
63.1206(b)(11).........................  Calculation of hazardous waste
                                          residence time.
63.1206(c)(2)..........................  Startup, shutdown, and
                                          malfunction plan.
63.1206(c)(2)(v)(A)....................  Documentation of your
                                          investigation and evaluation
                                          of excessive exceedances
                                          during malfunctions.
63.1206(c)(3)(v).......................  Corrective measures for any
                                          automatic waste feed cutoff
                                          that results in an exceedance
                                          of an emission standard or
                                          operating parameter limit.
63.1206(c)(3)(vii).....................  Documentation and results of
                                          the automatic waste feed
                                          cutoff operability testing.
63.1206(c)(4)(ii)......................  Emergency safety vent operating
                                          plan.
63.1206(c)(4)(iii).....................  Corrective measures for any
                                          emergency safety vent opening.
63.1206(c)(5)(ii)......................  Method used for control of
                                          combustion system leaks.
63.1206(c)(6)..........................  Operator training and
                                          certification program.
63.1206(c)(7)(i)(D)....................  Operation and maintenance plan.
63.1209(c)(2)..........................  Feedstream analysis plan.
63.1209(k)(6)(iii), 63.1209(k)(7)(ii),   Documentation that a substitute
 63.1209(k)(9)(ii), 63.1209(o)(4)(iii).   activated carbon, dioxin/furan
                                          formation reaction inhibitor,
                                          or dry scrubber sorbent will
                                          provide the same level of
                                          control as the original
                                          material.
63.1209(k)(7)(i)(C)....................  Results of carbon bed
                                          performance monitoring.
63.1209(q).............................  Documentation of changes in
                                          modes of operation.
63.1211(c).............................  Documentation of compliance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    11. Section 63.1213 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1213  How can the compliance date be extended to install 
pollution prevention or waste minimization controls?

    (a) Applicability. You may request from the Administrator or State 
with an approved title V program an extension of the compliance date of 
up to one year. * * *
* * * * *

    12. Table 1 to Subpart EEE is amended to read as follows:

                      Table 1 to Subpart EEE.--General Provisions Applicable to Subpart EEE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Reference                          Applies to subpart EEE                    Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1...................................  Yes.
63.2...................................  Yes.
63.3...................................  Yes.
63.4...................................  Yes....................................
63.5...................................  Yes.

[[Page 6995]]

 
63.6(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e)........  Yes.
63.6(f)................................  Yes....................................  Except that the performance
                                                                                   test requirements of Sec.
                                                                                   63.1207 apply instead of Sec.
                                                                                    63.6(f)(2)(iii)(B).
63.6(g) and (h)........................  Yes.
63.6(i)................................  Yes....................................  Section 63.1213 specifies that
                                                                                   the compliance date may also
                                                                                   be extended for inability to
                                                                                   install necessary emission
                                                                                   control equipment by the
                                                                                   compliance date because of
                                                                                   implementation of pollution
                                                                                   prevention or waste
                                                                                   minimization controls.
63.6(j)................................  Yes.
63.7(a)................................  Yes....................................  Except Sec.  63.1207(e)(3)
                                                                                   allows you to petition the
                                                                                   Administrator under Sec.
                                                                                   63.7(h) to provide an
                                                                                   extension of time to conduct
                                                                                   a performance test.
63.7(b)................................  Yes....................................  Except Sec.  63.1207(e)
                                                                                   requires you to submit the
                                                                                   site-specific test plan for
                                                                                   approval at least one year
                                                                                   before the comprehensive
                                                                                   performance test is scheduled
                                                                                   to begin.
63.7(c)................................  Yes....................................  Except Sec.  63.1207(e)
                                                                                   requires you to submit the
                                                                                   site-specific test plan
                                                                                   (including the quality
                                                                                   assurance provisions under
                                                                                   Sec.  63.7(c)) for approval
                                                                                   at least one year before the
                                                                                   comprehensive performance
                                                                                   test is scheduled to begin.
63.7(d)................................  Yes.
63.7(e)................................  Yes....................................  Except Sec.  63.1207
                                                                                   prescribes operations during
                                                                                   performance testing and Sec.
                                                                                   63.1209 specifies operating
                                                                                   limits that will be
                                                                                   established during
                                                                                   performance testing (such
                                                                                   that testing is likely to be
                                                                                   representative of the extreme
                                                                                   range of normal performance).
63.7(f)................................  Yes.
63.7(g)................................  Yes....................................  Except Sec.  63.1207(j)
                                                                                   requiring that you submit the
                                                                                   results of the performance
                                                                                   test (and the notification of
                                                                                   compliance) within 90 days of
                                                                                   completing the test, unless
                                                                                   the Administrator grants a
                                                                                   time extension, applies
                                                                                   instead of Sec.  63.7(g)(1).
63.7(h)................................  Yes....................................  Except Sec.  63.1207(c)(2)
                                                                                   allows data in lieu of the
                                                                                   initial comprehensive
                                                                                   performance test, and Sec.
                                                                                   63.1207(m) provides a waiver
                                                                                   of certain performance tests.
                                                                                   You must submit requests for
                                                                                   these waivers with the site-
                                                                                   specific test plan.
63.8(a) and (b)........................  Yes.
63.8(c)................................  Yes....................................  Except: (1) Sec.  63.1211(c)
                                                                                   that requires you to install,
                                                                                   calibrate, and operate CMS by
                                                                                   the compliance date applies
                                                                                   instead of Sec.  63.8(c)(3);
                                                                                   and (2) the performance
                                                                                   specifications for CO, HC,
                                                                                   and O2 CEMS in subpart B, of
                                                                                   this chapter requiring that
                                                                                   the detectors measure the
                                                                                   sample concentration at least
                                                                                   once every 15 seconds for
                                                                                   calculating an average
                                                                                   emission level once every 60
                                                                                   seconds apply instead of Sec.
                                                                                    63.8(c)(4)(ii).
63.8(d)................................  Yes.
63.8(e)................................  Yes....................................  Except Sec.  63.1207(e)
                                                                                   requiring you to submit the
                                                                                   site-specific comprehensive
                                                                                   performance test plan and the
                                                                                   CMS performance evaluation
                                                                                   test plan for approval at
                                                                                   least one year prior to the
                                                                                   planned test date applies
                                                                                   instead of Secs.  63.8(e)(2)
                                                                                   and (3)(iii).
63.8(f) and (g)........................  Yes.
63.9(a)................................  Yes.
63.9(b)................................  Yes....................................  Note: Section 63.9(b)(1)(ii)
                                                                                   pertains to notification
                                                                                   requirements for area sources
                                                                                   that become a major source,
                                                                                   and Sec.  63.9(b)(2)(v)
                                                                                   requires a major source
                                                                                   determination. Although area
                                                                                   sources are subject to all
                                                                                   provisions of this subpart
                                                                                   (Subpart EEE), these sections
                                                                                   nonetheless apply because the
                                                                                   major source determination
                                                                                   may affect the applicability
                                                                                   of part 63 standards or title
                                                                                   V permit requirements to
                                                                                   other sources (i.e., other
                                                                                   than a hazardous waste
                                                                                   combustor) of hazardous air
                                                                                   pollutants at the facility.
63.9(c) and (d)........................  Yes.
63.9(e)................................  Yes....................................  Except Sec.  63.1207(e) which
                                                                                   requires you to submit the
                                                                                   comprehensive performance
                                                                                   test plan for approval one
                                                                                   year prior to the planned
                                                                                   performance test date applies
                                                                                   instead of Sec.  63.9(e).
63.9(f)................................  Yes....................................  Section 63.9(f) applies if you
                                                                                   are allowed under Sec.
                                                                                   63.1209(a)(1)(v) to use
                                                                                   visible determination of
                                                                                   opacity for compliance in
                                                                                   lieu of a COMS.
63.9(g)................................  Yes....................................  Except Sec.  63.9(g)(2)
                                                                                   pertaining to COMS does not
                                                                                   apply.
63.9(h)................................  Yes....................................  Except Sec.  63.1207(j)
                                                                                   requiring you to submit the
                                                                                   notification of compliance
                                                                                   within 90 days of completing
                                                                                   a performance test unless the
                                                                                   Administrator grants a time
                                                                                   extension applies instead of
                                                                                   Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(iii). Note:
                                                                                   Even though area sources are
                                                                                   subject to this subpart, the
                                                                                   major source determination
                                                                                   required by Sec.
                                                                                   63.9(h)(2)(i)(E) is
                                                                                   applicable to hazardous waste
                                                                                   combustors for the reasons
                                                                                   discussed above.
63.9(i) and (j)........................  Yes.
63.10..................................  Yes....................................  Except reports of performance
                                                                                   test results required under
                                                                                   Sec.  63.10(d)(2) may be
                                                                                   submitted up to 90 days after
                                                                                   completion of the test.
63.11..................................  No.
63.12-63.15............................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 6996]]

PART 266--STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES 
AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

    1. The authority citation for part 266 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), 3004, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922, 
6924, 6925, and 6937.


    2. Section 266.100 is amended by:
    a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a).
    b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(1).
    c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(3) 
introductory text, (d)(3)(i) introductory text, and (d)(3)(i)(D).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec. 266.100  Applicability.

    (a) The regulations of this subpart apply to hazardous waste burned 
or processed in a boiler or industrial furnace (as defined in 
Sec. 260.10 of this chapter) irrespective of the purpose of burning or 
processing, except as provided by paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (g), and 
(h) of this section.* * *
* * * * *
    (b) * * * (1) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section, the standards of this part no longer apply when an affected 
source demonstrates compliance with the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT) requirements of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter 
by conducting a comprehensive performance test and submitting to the 
Administrator a Notification of Compliance under Secs. 63.1207(j) and 
63.1210(b) of this chapter documenting compliance with the requirements 
of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter.* * *
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) The hazardous waste is burned solely for metal recovery 
consistent with the provisions of paragraph (d)(2) of this section;
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The hazardous waste has a total concentration of organic 
compounds listed in part 261, appendix VIII, of this chapter exceeding 
500 ppm by weight, as-fired, and so is considered to be burned for 
destruction. The concentration of organic compounds in a waste as-
generated may be reduced to the 500 ppm limit by bona fide treatment 
that removes or destroys organic constituents. Blending for dilution to 
meet the 500 ppm limit is prohibited and documentation that the waste 
has not been impermissibly diluted must be retained in the records 
required by paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section; or
    (ii) The hazardous waste has a heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb or 
more, as-fired, and so is considered to be burned as fuel. The heating 
value of a waste as-generated may be reduced to below the 5,000 Btu/lb 
limit by bona fide treatment that removes or destroys organic 
constituents. Blending for dilution to meet the 5,000 Btu/lb limit is 
prohibited and documentation that the waste has not been impermissibly 
diluted must be retained in the records required by paragraph 
(d)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (3) To be exempt from Secs. 266.102 through 266.111, an owner or 
operator of a lead or nickel-chromium or mercury recovery furnace 
(except for owners or operators of lead recovery furnaces subject to 
regulation under the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP) or a metal 
recovery furnace that burns baghouse bags used to capture metallic 
dusts emitted by steel manufacturing, must provide a one-time written 
notice to the Director identifying each hazardous waste burned and 
specifying whether the owner or operator claims an exemption for each 
waste under this paragraph or paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The 
owners or operator must comply with the requirements of paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section for those wastes claimed to be exempt under that 
paragraph and must comply with the requirements below for those wastes 
claimed to be exempt under this paragraph (d)(3).
    (i) The hazardous wastes listed in appendices XI, XII, and XIII, 
part 266, and baghouse bags used to capture metallic dusts emitted by 
steel manufacturing are exempt from the requirements of paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section, provided that:
* * * * *
    (D) The owner or operator certifies in the one-time notice that 
hazardous waste is burned under the provisions of paragraph (d)(3) of 
this section and that sampling and analysis will be conducted or other 
information will be obtained as necessary to ensure continued 
compliance with these requirements. Sampling and analysis shall be 
conducted according to paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section and records 
to document compliance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall be 
kept for at least three years.
* * * * *

PART 270--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE 
PERMIT PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and 
6974.


    2. Section 270.42 is amended by revising paragraph (j)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 270.42  Permit modifications at the request of the permittee.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) Facility owners or operators must have complied with the 
Notification of Intent to Comply (NIC) requirements of 40 CFR 63.1210 
that were in effect prior to October 11, 2000, (See 40 CFR Part 63 
Revised as of July 1, 2000) in order to request a permit modification 
under this section.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 02-3373 Filed 2-13-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P