sources be in continuous compliance with emissions limits at all times,
even during SSM. 75 FR 31964. We proposed that these sources meet the
same standards at all times. Id. We concluded that CISWI units would be
able to meet the emissions limitations during periods of startup
because most units used natural gas or clean distillate oil to start
their incinerators and only add waste after the incinerator has reached

combustion temperatures. Id. We proposed that emissions from burning
natural gas or distillate fuel oil would generally be significantly
lower than from burning solid waste. Id. We further proposed that
emissions during shutdown would also be generally significantly lower
because the waste would be almost fully combusted before the unit began
shutting down. Id. We proposed that these factors, in conjunction with
the variability built into the MACT standards and the longer averaging
periods, meant that sources would be able to comply with the standards
during periods of startup and shutdown. Id. For violations caused by
malfunction events, EPA stated at proposal that we would consider
relevant factors in determining the appropriate action to take.
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA has established standards in this rule that
apply at all times. We have eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping
and reporting related to the SSM exemption. EPA has attempted to ensure
that we have not included in the regulatory language any provisions
that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the
SSM exemption.
    In establishing the standards in this final rule, EPA has taken
into account startup and shutdown periods and have not established
different standards for those periods. The standards that we are
finalizing are based on short term stack tests for pollutants that
generally are not expected to vary significantly at startup and
shutdown. The possible exception here is CO, which in some
subcategories such as ERUs, could vary at startup and shutdown.
However, the percent oxygen operating limits will ensure that
combustion conditions are optimized and the CO is minimized. Solid
waste and fuel-fired ERUs do not normally startup and shutdown more the
once per day. Thus, we are not establishing a separate emission
standard for these periods because startup and shutdown are part of
their routine operations and, therefore, are already addressed by the
standards. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operation. We have
evaluated whether it is appropriate to have the same standards apply
during startup and shutdown as applied to normal operations, and as the
rule is structured, well operated and controlled units should be able
to meet the standards at all times.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 129 standards as a result of a malfunction event, EPA would
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the
good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the
CAA section 129 standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 60.2 (definition of
malfunction).
    Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can
sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. (See,
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and
Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). EPA is therefore adding to the final
rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of
emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 60.2265 and
60.2875 (defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of an
enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a
judicial or administrative proceeding.). We also have added other
regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to
establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set
forth in 60.2120 and 60.2685. See 40 CFR 22.24. The criteria ensure
that the affirmative defense is available only where the event that
causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow definition
of malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable
preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and/or careless
operation). For example, to successfully assert the affirmative
defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and
unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment,
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner
* * *'' The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken
to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with
section Sec.  60.11(d) and to prevent future malfunctions. For example,
the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
``[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable
emission limitations were being exceeded * * *'' and that ``[a]ll
possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the excess
emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human health * *
*'' In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may
challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the
respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the requirements in
the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in
accordance with section 113 of the CAA. See also 40 CFR part 22.77.

I. Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

1. Electronic Reporting Tool
    Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA remove the mandatory
requirement to use the ERT for submitting test results. They also
suggest that EPA revise the provision for test reports, such that these
reports be due no sooner than 90 days following completion of testing.
One commenter stated that sources had requested in the ICR proposal
stage that EPA not use the ERT, which was going through Beta testing,
and informed EPA that the ERT had serious flaws including difficulty of
use, content problems, and inaccessibility. Several commenters
suggested that data submitted through the ERT is error-prone and
imposes additional burdens on reporting sources. Some commenters
asserted that EPA provides no insight or justification in the preamble
or otherwise for requiring this form of data submittal and that the
cost of this requirement, as compared to conventional reporting, is not
evaluated or disclosed in discussion of the cost and impact of the
proposed rule. Commenters state that many of the affected facilities
have not had to participate in such reporting procedures in the past,
and that these facilities will require additional staff time,
equipment, and training to accomplish this requirement. Several
commenters argue that it is also likely that implementation of the
initial testing and most subsequent testing will be done under state
authority and that unless state agencies are willing to use this same
ERT, facilities will have a dual requirement for reporting. Further,
commenters declare that the ERT bypasses the state, creating data
quality issues. Commenters maintain that it is

important to look at the qualifiers, the test methods, the QA/QC plans,
and the justifications before making any decisions on the validity of
the numbers. The commenters explain that test results from testing
companies can incorporate a number of ``qualifiers'' in their data
reporting, and if the electronic tool cannot accommodate the use of
textual explanation to explain ``qualifiers'' for reported data, then
the tool's usefulness and accuracy is suspect and could cause
additional burden on the facility to explain.
    Response: EPA disagrees that the use of ERT should not be required.
The primary purpose of the emissions test is the demonstration that the
facility meets the requirements of the rule. The ERT is designed to
streamline, standardize, and incorporate QA/QC information for all the
test reports and facilitate their submittal to EPA. The ERT will also
make the process of developing emissions factors for rulemaking much
more transparent. All the steps taken and data used to develop
emissions factors for rulemaking will be much clearer with our new
system. We understand that there will be little or no reduction in the
effort needed to produce the test report initially, but as users gain
expertise with the system and it improves over time, the time,
resources, and consistency for review and evaluation will be improved.
    EPA agrees with the commenter on the length of time required to
submit the ERT data. We plan to extend the period for entering data
into the ERT and submitting these data to 90 days.
    EPA recognizes that there have been some issues with the use of the
ERT, and we have worked closely with stakeholders to identify and
correct these issues. As with all new systems, there are always
transition problems as changes to those systems are implemented. EPA
also disagrees with comments regarding the error-prone data resulting
from the use of the ERT. Use of the ERT will help ensure that QA/QC
requirements in the test methods are addressed. There are data fields
in the ERT that clearly indicate to all users what information and data
are required for each performance test. Thus, we believe that the ERT
will improve data quality rather than provide ``error-prone'' data. The
ERT was established to facilitate performance data collection. There
are many performance tests conducted each year and, along with the
associated pertinent data, it would be very time-consuming and
resource-intensive to compile, transfer, store, and analyze the tests
and resultant data using a manual method. Electronic compilation,
transfer, storage, and analysis are now our preferred ways to handle
this amount and kind of information. EPA is committed to electronic
compilation and submittal of data as demonstrated by the requirement to
report data electronically in the TRI program. Other EPA programs, such
as the acid rain and greenhouse gas reporting already also require
electronic submittal of data. The ERT supplements the time-intensive
manual preparation and transcription of stationary source emissions
test plans and reports for emissions sources testing with an electronic
alternative where the resulting data can be transmitted more easily and
quickly to EPA and state, local, or tribal agencies who choose to use
this system. The ERT provides a format and a process that: (1)
Documents the key information and procedures required by the existing
EPA Test Methods; (2) facilitates coordination among the source, the
test contractor, and the regulatory agency in planning and preparing
for the emissions test; (3) provides for consistent criteria to
characterize quantitatively the quality of the data collected during
the emissions test; (4) standardizes the form and content of test
reports; and (5) calculates the emissions factor, and exports the
emissions factor and associated data to WebFIRE. We expect the ERT to
significantly reduce the monitoring and testing burden for testers,
source owners or operators, state, local or tribal agencies, EPA, and
other interested stakeholders in collecting, reviewing, storing, and
accessing test data and reports. In addition, the ERT will produce a
final report that we believe will satisfy test report requirements.
    Although the effort required to compile the performance test
information using the ERT and submitting it to EPA is different from
the existing procedures, we believe that once the test contractors and
reviewers have experience with the ERT, the burden will be comparable
to the existing cost and resources required for performance testing and
reporting. As stated above, we worked closely with stack testing
companies to set up the ERT and have the ERT process mimic most of
their work when producing a final performance test report. We believe
that there is a learning curve for using the ERT, and it will take a
few tests and reports to become proficient in its use. However, as
users continue to employ the ERT, the time, effort, and subsequent
costs needed to produce, review, process, and extract information from
the report will decrease. In addition, we are working on a fix for the
ERT that would allow the ERT to extract data directly into the ERT data
fields by ``tagging'' the data from stack sampling or industry
performance test spreadsheets.
    Regarding the assertion that potential lack of state acceptance,
EPA agrees that states provide an important function in verifying the
accuracy of performance tests. EPA has developed the ERT to include a
module for an independent ``third party'' review of test reports and
data. In this third party review, EPA envisions an independent reviewer
would evaluate the test reports and perhaps observe the performance
test to provide an extra level of QA for the resultant data. EPA
believes this step will help ensure quality tests are conducted and
accurate data are obtained. State personnel would perform these reviews
for each performance test before they submit the test reports to EPA.
State personnel are more familiar with the sources and often observe
the testing. EPA has attempted to address this issue by providing a
third party review module to the ERT. In this ERT module, an
independent reviewer would be given some questions to respond to
regarding how the test was conducted and the quality of the resultant
data. Where the third party reviewer provides negative responses to the
conduct of a performance test, points will be deducted from the overall
rating of the performance test. This, in turn, will impact the overall
rating of the test. Thus, we believe that having an objective third
party reviewer will improve performance tests and the resultant data by
providing the incentive to conduct better performance tests. As
mentioned above, states can be the third party reviewers, if they so
choose. States routinely review performance tests conducted for
permitting and compliance purposes, so they would be better suited to
review the tests. EPA also recognizes the states as having an important
role to play in ensuring that performance tests are conducted properly
and provide quality data. EPA encourages states to continue to ensure
that performance tests are conducted properly and subsequently provide
the test reports and data to EPA.
    Where stack testers need to deviate from the test methods, there
are narrative fields that allow the submittal of this type of
information. We understand that there are conditions that warrant minor
changes or deviations from the test methods, and in these cases, there
are fields in the ERT to include this kind of information and, at the
discretion of the responsible agency, approval of these minor changes
to test methods may be approved in the

course of approving the test plan. Major changes to test methods,
however, must be approved in writing by official letter from the EPA.
2. Records of Non-Waste Materials
    Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA require facilities to
notify appropriate regulatory agencies once they have determined that
they comply with the requirements of the non-hazardous secondary
materials legitimacy criteria and/or the processing requirements in the
solid waste definition rule. The commenter suggested that notifications
should include information on how the determination of a homogeneous
fuel was made, and what methods will be employed to ensure that the
fuel used will continue to comply with the ``homogeneous''
requirements. The commenter suggested that clear recordkeeping and
reporting requirements must be put in place to ensure that enforcement
staff can determine compliance status. Several commenters suggested
that regulating the use of recyclable nonhazardous secondary materials
such as tires will encourage greater use of landfilling which they
asserted is counter to long-standing EPA policy that promotes such
activities.
    Response: EPA has added recordkeeping provisions for units that
burn materials other than traditional fuels that document how each of
those materials meet the non-waste criteria in the Solid Waste
Definition Rule. The newly promulgated procedures for identification of
non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid wastes when used as
fuels in combustion units at 40 CFR 241.3 are self-implementing
provisions that require each source owner or operator to determine
whether the materials they are combusting meet certain legitimacy
criteria, and/or whether the materials have been processed from a
discarded non-hazardous secondary material. Materials that remain
within the control of the generator and that meet the legitimacy
criteria specified in Sec.  241.3(d), as well as materials that are
produced from the processing of discarded non-hazardous secondary
materials, and that meet the legitimacy are not considered solid wastes
(see Sec.  241.3(b)). Traditional fuels are defined in the Solid Waste
Definition Rule, and the rule exempts traditional fuels from being
solid waste.
    To ensure that owners or operators of units combusting materials
review and apply the non-waste provisions in the Solid Waste Definition
Rule, EPA is requiring owners or operators that combust materials that
are not clearly listed as traditional fuels document how the materials
meet the legitimacy criteria and/or the processing requirements in the
Solid Waste Definition Rule. Failure of a source owner or operator to
correctly apply the non-waste criteria would result in incorrect self-
assessments as to whether their combustion units are subject to CISWI.
Requiring sources to document how the non-waste criteria apply to the
materials combusted will both improve self-assessments of
applicability, and will assist EPA and states in the proper
identification of sources subject to CISWI. The definition of CISWI
unit is amended to require that any material combusted that is not a
traditional fuel will be treated as a solid waste unless the source
makes and keeps the record documenting how the material meets non-waste
criteria in the Solid Waste Definition Rule.
    If the material being combusted has received a non-waste
determination pursuant to the petition process in the Solid Waste
Definition Rule at 40 CFR 241.3(c), the source owner or operator must
keep a copy of the non-waste determination granted by EPA. If the
combustion unit is being regulated under CAA section 112 regulations
for boilers and process heaters at major sources (Subpart DDDDD
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants at Major
Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters) or for boilers at area sources (Subpart JJJJJJ--National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers Area Sources), the recordkeeping
requirements in those rules that require documentation of non-waste
criteria meet the non-waste recordkeeping requirements in CISWI.
    EPA has similarly added a recordkeeping requirement and amended the
definition of CISWI unit to require that sources burning tires make and
keep a certification that confirms that the tire is part of an
established tire collection program. The Solid Waste Definition Rule
does not include tires from established tire collection programs as
solid waste. An established tire collection program is defined in the
solid waste rule as a comprehensive collection system that ensures
scrap tires are not discarded and are handled as valuable commodities
in accordance with 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(i) from the point of removal from
the automobile through arrival at the combustion facility.
    The source owner or operator combusting tires, who is not treating
their tires as solid waste and is not subject to the CISWI emission
limits, must keep a record which identifies the name, owner, and
location of the tire collection program from which they obtained the
tires, the quantity of tires received from that program and the date
received, and they must document how the program handles the tires as
valuable commodities consistent with 40 CFR 241.3(b)(2)(i) from the
point of removal from the automobile through arrival at the combustion
facility. The record may be generated and certified (signed) by the
established tire collection program, or by the owner or operator of the
unit combusting tires. A copy of the record must be retained by the
owner or operator of the tire combustion unit, and produced upon
request. The record must include a signed certification by either the
owner or operator of the tire collection program, or the owner or
operator of the combustion unit, that the tires from the program meet
the EPA definition of an established tire collection program in 40 CFR
241. All tires on-site will be treated as solid waste, unless this
record is retained, and it is clear as to which tires each
certification pertains. If tires on-site are from more than one
collection program or generator, there must be a separate certification
for each generator or collection program from which the tires were
obtained, and the owner or operator of the combustion unit must keep
records which clearly identify the on-site location of tires associated
with each certification

J. Air Curtain Incinerators

    Comment: Commenters requested that EPA remove the requirement for
air curtain incinerators regulated under CISWI to obtain a Title V
permit. They suggested that EPA instead require only those units at
major sources or sources that took federally enforceable limits to
become minor sources to obtain a Title V permit under CISWI. Some
argued that an air curtain incinerator is excluded from the statutory
definition of ``solid waste incineration unit.'' Commenters stated that
although CAA section 129(e) requires a ``solid waste incineration
unit'' to obtain a Title V permit, they suggested that the requirement
does not extend to units that are excluded from the definition of
``solid waste incineration unit,'' of which an air curtain incinerator
is only one of several types of excluded units. One commenter suggested
that that EPA allow permitting agencies flexibility in addressing the
ACI system opacity limitation. This opacity requirement can be
addressed through minor source permits, federally enforceable state

operating permits, registration permits or Title V general permits.
    Response: We are not exempting air curtain incinerators located at
area/minor source facilities from the requirement to obtain a Title V
permit in this final rule. Commenters appear to allege that the
requirement to obtain a Title V requirement does not apply to them
because they are not solid waste incineration units and the requirement
in CAA section 129(e) applies only to solid waste incineration units.
Commenters are correct that air curtain incinerators are not solid
waste incineration units pursuant to CAA section 129(g)(1)(C), but that
is only correct if the units ``only burn wood wastes, yard wastes and
clean lumber and [they] * * * comply with opacity limitations to be
established by the Administrator by rule.'' EPA has established opacity
limitations for air curtain incinerators pursuant to sections 111 and
129.
    Pursuant to CAA section 502(a), sources subject to standards or
regulations under CAA section 111 must obtain a Title V permit;
therefore, air curtain incinerators are required to obtain a Title V
permit. As commenters note, EPA may exempt minor and area sources from
the requirement to obtain a Title V permit, but EPA must first
determine that compliance with Title V requirements is ``impracticable,
infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome'' on the sources before
exempting them (CAA section 502(a)). EPA has not made the necessary
finding pursuant to CAA section 502(a) for air curtain incinerators in
any of the CAA section 129 rulemakings, and we believe that air curtain
incinerators exist at CAA section 129 facilities other than at the
commercial and industrial facilities subject to this final rule.
Because we think it is important to treat all air curtain incinerators
in the same manner, we decline to consider a Title V exemption for
minor and area source air curtain incinerators at commercial and
industrial facilities.

K. Role of States

    Comment: Several commenters believe that the states should retain
as much authority as possible to implement and enforce the standards.
Other commenters suggest that EPA allow states and local regulatory
authorities an option for case-by-case determinations. Some commenters
believe that the local permitting agency should retain the authority to
approve alternate compliance approaches under CISWI rules. The
commenters argue that the states are responsible for incorporating the
EG into their own rules, for permitting and inspecting sources, for
enforcing compliance with the rules, and can apply appropriate
discretion when needed. Commenters assert that facilities have more
frequent communication with their local permitting agency, and the
permitting staff have been to the facility and have knowledge about how
the facilities operate. They suggest that the local permitting agency
can also be more timely in responding to facilities' requests, due to
their knowledge of the facility and the limited number of sources they
cover, as opposed to the larger number of sources under an EPA regional
office.
    Response: For previous rules, there has been some confusion about
what authority can be delegated to and exercised by state, local, and
tribal air pollution control agencies and what authority must be
retained by EPA. In some cases, state, local, and tribal air pollution
control agencies were making decisions, such as allowing waivers of
some provisions of this subpart, which cannot be delegated to those
agencies. We clarify the authorities retained by EPA in 40 CFR
60.2030(c), applicable to the EG and the NSPS. The following
authorities, among others, must be retained by EPA for all NSPS and EG:
Approval of alternatives to the emission limits; approval of major
alternatives to test methods or monitoring; and approval of major
alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting. The list also specifically
includes establishment of operating limits for control devices other
than those listed in the rule and review of status reports submitted
when no qualified operators are available. EPA also retains sole
authority for approval of performance test and data reduction waivers
under 40 CFR 60.8(b), and preconstruction siting analyses. These
authorities may affect the stringency of the emission standards or
limitations, which can only be amended by federal rulemaking; EPA may
not transfer these authorities to state, local, or tribal air pollution
control agencies.

L. Biased Data Collection From Phase II ICR Testing

    Comment: Many commenters suggested that EPA ``cherry picked'' the
best data in setting each standard. Several commenters believe the data
that EPA gathered to support the CISWI rule reflects bias, is
incomplete, fundamentally flawed, and that the standards are arbitrary
and capricious. Some commenters argued that EPA's data collection
efforts were biased toward so-called ``top performing facilities''
because EPA directed its information requests to units that it had
reason to believe were the better performing units in each subcategory.
The commenters suggested that the sample population is tainted and has
resulted in proposed standards that are inordinately stringent, are not
representative of the overall performance of the sources in
subcategories to which they apply, and are not in accord with the legal
standards. One commenter suggested that EPA based the standards on a
relatively minute pool of relevant data despite the decade and a half
long process that lead to the proposed rules.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertions that we
obtained skewed data and that data collection efforts to support the
CISWI rule were biased toward ``top performing facilities.'' EPA
documents the procedures used for identifying CISWI units and
collecting information in the CISWI Test Data Database memo for the
proposed rule dated April 26, 2010. As explained in the memo, the
initial database of CISWI units operating in the United States as of
1998 was obtained from the information collected to support EPA's ICR
and promulgate the 2000 CISWI rule. In the 2000 CISWI rule, EPA only
regulated solid waste incineration units at commercial and industrial
facilities that combusted solid waste solely for the purpose of
destroying the waste. Energy recovery units (i.e., boilers and process
heaters) and waste-burning kilns (i.e., cement kilns) were exempt from
the 2000 CISWI rule. In 2005, EPA issued the CISWI Definitions Rule,
which confirmed that ERUs were exempt from CISWI and maintained the
exemption for cement kilns. In 2006, the list of CISWI incinerator
units initially identified based on the CISWI Definitions Rule was
distributed to the 10 EPA Regional offices to confirm whether the units
were operational. Based on the information supplied by the EPA regions,
the initial CISWI database was revised to reflect the unit deletions/
additions provided by the regional contacts. In 2007, the Court vacated
the CISWI Definitions Rule, concluding that the rule was flawed because
CAA section 129 unambiguously regulates any commercial or industrial
combustion unit combusting any solid waste and the CISWI Definitions
Rule exempted units that combust waste if the units also recover energy
in the process. NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d at 1260. While not explicitly
addressed in the decision, the implication of the holding extended
beyond ERUs to other commercial or industrial units

combusting solid waste, e.g., cement kilns.
    EPA developed a two phase information collection process to collect
information from units that may be subject to CISWI in light of the
vacatur of the CISWI Definitions Rule. ``Phase I'' survey requests were
sent to all commercial and industrial facilities that we determined may
have solid waste incineration units and for which EPA did not already
have information. The Phase I surveys were reviewed and used to update
the CISWI inventory for incinerators or ERUs. ``Phase II'' surveys were
then sent out to all CISWI units where emissions test data was missing
from the Phase I database, requesting these units test and report for
the missing pollutants. Through this process, EPA requested information
from all known CISWI units, not solely the best performers as
commenters assert, and we used the data to determine the best-
performing sources to set the standards for this rule.

VI. Impacts of the Action

A. What are the primary air impacts?

    We have estimated the potential emissions reductions from existing
sources that may be achieved through implementation of the emission
limits. However, we realize that some CISWI owners and operators are
likely to determine that alternatives to waste incineration are viable,
such as further waste segregation or sending the waste to a landfill or
MWC, if available. In fact, sources operating incinerators, where
energy recovery is not a goal, may find it cost-effective to
discontinue use of their CISWI unit altogether. Therefore, we have
estimated emissions reductions attributable to existing sources
complying with the limits, as well as those reductions that would occur
if the facilities with incinerators and small, remote incinerators
decide to discontinue the use of their CISWI unit and use alternative
waste disposal options.
    For units combusting wastes for energy production, such as ERUs and
waste-burning kilns, the decision to combust or not to combust waste
will depend on several factors. One factor is the cost to replace the
energy provided by the waste material with a traditional fuel, such as
natural gas. Another factor would be whether the owner or operator is
purchasing the waste or obtaining it at no cost from other generators,
or if they are generating the waste on-site and will have to dispose of
the materials in another fashion, such as landfills. Lastly, these
units would have to compare the control requirements needed to meet the
CISWI emission limits with those needed if they stop burning solid
waste and are then subject to a NESHAP instead. As mentioned before, we
have attempted to align the monitoring requirements for similar non-
waste-burning sources as closely as possible in an effort to make them
consistent and to help sources make the cross-walk between waste and
non-waste regulatory requirements as simple as possible.
    The emissions reductions that would be achieved under this rule
using the definition of solid waste under RCRA are presented in Table
10 of this preamble.

   Table 10--Emissions Reductions for MACT Compliance and Alternative
      Disposal Options for Existing CISWI Using the Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Reductions achieved
                                                          assuming
                               Reductions achieved    incinerators and
          Pollutant           through meeting MACT      small, remote
                                     (ton/yr)         incinerators use
                                                         alternative
                                                    disposal  (ton/yr) a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl.........................            431.2                 443.3
CO..........................         23,449                23,414
Pb..........................              4.52                  4.53
Cd..........................              0.902                 0.903
Hg..........................              0.106                 0.109
PM (filterable).............          1,671                 1,674
dioxin, furans..............              0.000125              0.000127
NOX.........................          5,627                 5,734
SO2.........................          5,208                 5,259
                             -------------------------------------------
     Total..................         36,392                36,530
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The estimated emission reduction does not account for any secondary
  impacts associated with alternate disposal of diverted ERU fuel.

    EPA expects that many existing CISWI owners and operators may find
that alternate disposal options are preferable to complying with the
standards for the incinerator and small, remote incinerator
subcategories. Our experience with regulations for MWC, HMIWI and, in
fact, CISWI, has shown that negative growth in the source category
historically occurs upon implementation of CAA section 129 standards.
Since CISWI rules were promulgated in 2000 and have been in effect for
existing sources since 2005, many existing units have closed. At
promulgation in 2000, EPA estimated 122 units in the CISWI population.
In comparison, the incinerator subcategory in this rule, which contains
any such units subject to the 2000 CISWI rule, has 28 units. EPA is not
aware of any construction of new units since 2000, so we do not believe
there are any units that are currently subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS.
The revised CISWI rule is more stringent, so we expect this trend to
continue. However, EPA does recognize that some facilities may opt to
replace aging incinerator units with new units where it is cost
effective or alternative disposal options are not feasible, as may be
the case with some incinerators, or in very remote locations. We
estimate that there could be one new incineration unit within the next
5 years, and possibly five new small remote incinerators within that
time. In these cases, we have developed model CISWI unit emissions
reduction estimates for these subcategories using the existing unit
baseline and the new source emission limits. Table 11 of this preamble
presents the model plant emissions reductions that would be expected
for new sources.

          Table 11--Emissions Reductions on a Model Plant Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Emission reduction for CISWI
                                         subcategory model units  (tpy
                                            unless otherwise noted)
              Pollutant              -----------------------------------
                                                          Small, remote
                                         Incinerator       incinerator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCl.................................            3.67            0.0
CO..................................            1.23            0.25
Pb..................................            0.83            0.0037
Cd..................................            0.022           0.0007
Hg..................................            0.004           0.000012
PM (filterable).....................          148               0.5
D/F (total mass) \a\................            0.0018          0.0
NOX.................................           16.3             0.15
SO2.................................            7.6             0.15
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................          178               1.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ D/F estimates are given in lb/yr.

    We do not anticipate that any new energy recovery or waste-burning
kiln units will be constructed and will instead use alternative waste
disposal methods or alternative fuels that will not subject them to the
CISWI rule. For example, whole tires obtained from approved tire
management programs and tire-derived fuel from which the metal has been
removed is not considered solid waste under the definition of solid
waste. Consequently, new cement kiln owners will assess their
regulatory requirements under CISWI for burning whole tires or tire-
derived fuel that does not have metals removed against the costs
associated with removing the metal or obtaining tires from an approved
source and complying with the applicable NESHAP instead of the CISWI
rule. Our research suggests that metal removal is routinely practiced
and that several state waste tire management programs are already in
place, and would most likely be a viable option for new kiln owners so
that they would not be subject to the CISWI regulations. Indeed, we
expect that all existing cement kilns that are classified as being
waste-burning solely due to whole tires will, by the compliance date
for the CISWI standards, find a way to obtain their tires through an
approved tire management plan. Likewise, new sources could engineer
their process to minimize waste generation in the first place, or to
separate wastes so that the materials sent to a combustion unit would
not meet the definition of solid waste to begin with. For waste that is
generated, cost analyses have found that alternative waste disposal is
generally available and less expensive.

B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?

    In our analysis, we have selected the lowest cost alternative
(i.e., compliance or alternative disposal) for each facility. We
anticipate affected sources will need to apply additional controls to
meet the emission limits. These controls may use water, such as wet
scrubbers, which would need to be treated. We estimate an annual
requirement of 103 billion gallons per year of additional water would
be required as a result of operating additional controls or increased
sorbent use.
    Likewise, the addition of PM controls or improvements to controls
already in place will increase the amount of particulate collected that
will require disposal. Furthermore, ACI may be used by some sources,
which will result in additional solid waste needing disposal. The
annual amounts of solid waste that would require disposal are
anticipated to be approximately 19,23733,526 tpy from PM capture and
14,289,078 tpy from ACI.
    Perhaps the largest impact on solid waste would come from owners
and operators who decide to discontinue the use of their CISWI unit and
instead send waste to the landfill or MWC for disposal. Based on
tipping fees and availability, we would expect most, if not all, of
this diverted waste to be sent to a local landfill. As we discuss
above, it may be that a good portion of the incinerators would
determine that alternative disposal is a better choice than compliance
with the standards. We estimate that approximately 110,417 tpy of waste
would be diverted to a landfill.
    For new CISWI units, we estimate an annual requirement of 9102
million gallons per year of additional water would be required as a
result of operating additional controls. The annual amounts of solid
waste that would require disposal are anticipated to be approximately
7275.0 tpy from PM capture and 8173.0 tpy from ACI.

C. What are the energy impacts?

    The energy impacts associated with meeting the emission limits
would consist primarily of additional electricity needs to run added or
improved air pollution control devices. For example, increased scrubber
pump horsepower may cause slight increases in electricity consumption
and sorbent injection controls would likewise require electricity to
power pumps and motors. In our analysis, we have selected the lowest
cost alternative (i.e., compliance or alternative disposal) for each
facility. By our estimate, we anticipate that an additional 214,356 MW-
hours per year would be required for the additional and improved
control devices.
    As discussed earlier, there could be instances where owners and
operators of ERUs and waste-burning kilns decide to cease burning waste
materials. In these cases, the energy provided by the burning of waste
would need to be replaced with a traditional fuel, such as natural gas.
Assuming an estimate that 50 percent of the energy input to ERUs and
kilns are from waste materials, an estimate of the energy that would be
replaced with a traditional fuel if all existing units stopped burning
waste materials, is approximately 56 TBtu/yr.
    For new CISWI units, we anticipate that 511 MW-hours per year would
be required for additional and improved control devices. Since we do
not anticipate any new energy recovery or waste-burning kiln units to
be constructed, there would be no additional estimate for energy that
would be replaced with a traditional fuel.

D. What are the secondary air impacts?

    For CISWI units adding controls to meet the emission limits, we
anticipate minor secondary air impacts. The combustion of fuel needed
to generate additional electricity and to operate RTO controls would
yield slight increases in emissions, including NOX, CO, PM,
and SO2 and an increase in CO2 emissions. Since
NOX and SO2 are covered by capped emissions
trading programs, and methodological limitations prevent us from
quantifying the change in CO and PM, we do not estimate an increase in
secondary air impacts for this rule from additional electricity demand.
    We believe it likely that the incinerators may elect to discontinue
the use of their CISWI unit and send the waste to the landfill or other
disposal means. As we discussed in the solid waste impacts above, this
could result in approximately 110,417 tpy of waste going to landfills.
By using EPA's Landfill Gas Estimation Model, we estimate that, over
the 20-year expected life of a CISWI unit, the resulting methane
generated by a landfill receiving the waste would be about 96,300 tons.
If this landfill gas were combusted in a flare, assuming typical flare
emission factors and landfill gas chlorine, Hg, and sulfur
concentrations, the following emissions would be expected: 20 tons of
PM; 8 tons of HCl; 16 tons of SO2; 890 tons of CO; 46 tons
of NOX; and 1.4 lbs of Hg.
    Similar to existing units, we anticipate minor secondary air
impacts for new CISWI units adding controls as discussed above.

E. What are the cost and economic impacts?

    We have estimated compliance costs for all existing units to add
the necessary controls and monitoring equipment, and to implement the
inspections, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to comply with
the CISWI standards. We have also analyzed the costs of alternative
disposal for the subcategories that may have alternative options to
burning waste, specifically for the incinerators and the small, remote
incinerators that may have an alternative to incineration. In our
analysis, we have selected the lowest cost alternative (i.e.,
compliance or alternative disposal) for each facility. Based on this
analysis, we anticipate an overall total capital investment of $652
million with an associated total annual cost of $232 million ($2008).
    Under the rule, EPA's economic model suggests the average national
market-level variables (prices, production-levels, consumption,
international trade) will not change significantly (e.g., are less than
0.02 percent).
    EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on small entities by
comparing compliance costs to sales/revenues (e.g., sales and revenue
tests). EPA's analysis found the tests were below 3 percent for five of
the nine small entities included in the screening analysis.
    In addition to estimating this rule's social costs and benefits,
EPA has estimated the employment impacts of the final rule. We expect
that the rule's direct impact on employment will be small. We have not
quantified the rule's indirect or induced impacts. For further
explanation and discussion of our analysis, see Chapter 4 of the RIA.
    For new CISWI units, we have estimated compliance costs for units
coming online in the next 5 years. This analysis is based on the
assumption that one new incinerator will come online over 5 years and
one new small, remote incinerator will come online each year over the
next 5 years. Additionally, it was assumed that each model unit will
add the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, inspections,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to comply with NSPS limits.
Based on our analysis, we anticipate an overall total capital
investment of $8.4 million over 5 years with an associated total annual
cost (for 2015) of $2.6 million.

F. What are the benefits?

    We estimate the monetized benefits of this regulatory action to be
$340 million to $830 million (2008$), 3 percent discount rate) in the
implementation year (2015). The monetized benefits of the regulatory
action at a 7 percent discount rate are $310 million to $750 million
(2008$). These estimates reflect energy disbenefits valued at $3.8
million. Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and
premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower benefits
estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates fall
between these two estimates.\4\ A summary of the monetized benefits
estimates at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 12
of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Roman, et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in
the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.

             Table 12--Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates For the CISWI NSPS and EG in 2015
                                             [Millions of 2008$] 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Estimated
                                     emission     Total monetized  benefits  (3%  Total monetized  benefits  (7%
            Pollutant               reductions            discount rate)                  discount rate)
                                       (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5...........................             710  $160 to $400..................  $150 to $360.
PM2.5 Precursors:
    SO2.........................           5,170  $150 to $370..................  $140 to $340.
    NOX.........................           5,544  $27 to $66....................  $24 to $59.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................  ..............  $340 to $830..................  $310 to $750.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2015) and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers
  may not sum across rows. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit-per-
  ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form
  PM2.5. Benefits from reducing HAP are not included. These estimates do not include the energy disbenefits
  valued at $3.8 million, but the rounded totals do not change. CO2-related disbenefits were calculated using
  the social cost of carbon, which is discussed further in the RIA.
\2\ The estimates in this table reflect the estimates in the RIA. Due to last minute changes, we were unable to
  incorporate the final engineering costs and emission reductions into the RIA, which would decrease the costs
  by approximately 22% and increase the monetized benefits by approximately 4% from those shown here.

    These benefits estimates represent the total monetized human health
benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 in 2015 from
controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet these
standards. These estimates are calculated as the sum of the monetized
value of avoided premature mortality and morbidity associated with
reducing a ton of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor
emissions. To estimate human health benefits derived from reducing
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions, we used the
general approach and methodology laid out in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell
(2009).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. ``The influence
of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human
health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.'' Air Qual Atmos
Health (2009) 2:169-176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To generate the benefit-per-ton estimates, we used a model to
convert emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and another
model to estimate the changes in human health associated with that
change in air quality. Finally, the monetized health benefits were
divided by the emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton
estimates. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of
their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature
mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would
support the development of differential effects estimates by particle
type. Directly emitted PM2.5, SO2, and
NOX are the primary precursors affected by this rule. Even
though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health
effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because
each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form
PM2.5. For example, SO2 has a lower benefit-per-
ton estimate than direct PM2.5 because it does not directly
transform into PM2.5, and because sulfate particles formed
from SO2 emissions can transport many miles, including over
areas with low populations. Direct PM2.5 emissions convert
directly into ambient PM2.5, thus, to the extent that
emissions occur in population areas, exposures to direct
PM2.5 will tend to be higher, and monetized health benefits
will be higher than for SO2 emissions.
    For context, it is important to note that the magnitude of the PM
benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for
premature mortality. Experts have advised EPA to consider a variety of
assumptions, including estimates based on both empirical
(epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited from scientific
experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the relationship between
PM2.5 concentrations and premature mortality. For this rule,
we cite two key empirical studies, the American Cancer Society cohort
study \6\ and the extended Six Cities cohort study.\7\ In the RIA for
this rule, which is available in the docket, we also include benefits
estimates derived from expert judgments and other assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Pope, et al., 2002. ``Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary
Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air
Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-
1141.
    \7\ Laden, et al., 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA strives to use the best available science to support our
benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation of the science
regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and evolving. After
reviewing the scientific literature and recent scientific advice, we
have determined that the no-threshold model is the most appropriate
model for assessing the mortality benefits associated with reducing
PM2.5 exposure. Consistent with this recent advice, we are
replacing the previous threshold sensitivity analysis with a new
``LML'' assessment. While an LML assessment provides some insight into
the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA
does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to quantify PM-
related mortality impacts using a full range of modeled air quality
concentrations.
    Most of the estimated PM-related benefits in this rule would accrue
to populations exposed to higher levels of PM2.5. Using the
Pope, et al., (2002) study, 85 percent of the population is exposed at
or above the LML of 7.5 [mu]g/m\3\. Using the Laden, et al., (2006)
study, 40 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 10
[mu]g/m\3\. It is important to emphasize that we have high confidence
in PM2.5-related effects down to the lowest LML of the major
cohort studies. This fact is important, because as we estimate PM-
related mortality among populations exposed to levels of
PM2.5 that are successively lower, our confidence in the
results diminishes. However, our analysis shows that the great majority
of the impacts occur at higher exposures.
    This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty
assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA because we lack
the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits
model. In addition, we have not conducted any air quality modeling for
this rule. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis \8\
provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various
assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Final Regulatory
Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by Office of Air
and Radiation. October. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be emphasized that the monetized benefits estimates
provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit
categories, including reducing other air pollutants, ecosystem effects,
and visibility impairment. The benefits from reducing HAP have not been
monetized in this analysis, including reducing 25,000 tons of CO, 470
tons of HCl, 4.1 tons of Pb, 0.95 tons of Cd, 260 pounds of Hg and 92
grams of total D/F each year. Although we do not have sufficient
information or modeling available to provide monetized estimates for
this rulemaking, we include a qualitative assessment of the health
effects of these air pollutants in the RIA for this rule, which is
available in the docket.
    In addition, the monetized benefits estimates provided in Table 12
of this preamble do not reflect the disbenefits associated with
increased electricity and fuel consumption to operate the control
devices. We estimate that the increases in emissions of CO2
would have disbenefits valued at $3.8M at a 3 percent discount rate.
Carbon Dioxide-related disbenefits were calculated using the social
cost of carbon, which is discussed further in the RIA. However, these
disbenefits do not change the rounded total monetized benefits. In the
RIA, we also provide the monetized CO2 disbenefits using
discount rates of 5 percent (average), 2.5 percent (average), and 3
percent (95th percentile).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735;
October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011), this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it
will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the OMB for review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and any changes made in response to
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in

``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources:
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units.'' A copy of
the analysis is available in the Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119 and the
analysis is briefly summarized in section VI of this preamble. The net
benefits table is also provided here.

  Table 13--Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net Benefits for the CISWI NSPS and Emissions
                                               Guidelines in 2015
                                             [Millions of 2008$] a d
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  3% Discount rate                    7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1: MACT Floor:
    Total Monetized Benefits \b\........  $340 to $830...................  $310 to $750.
    Total Social Costs \c\..............  $280...........................  $280.
    Net Benefits........................  $60 to $550....................  $30 to $470.
    Non-monetized Benefits..............  25,000 tons of CO..............
                                          470 tons of HCl................
                                          260 pounds of Hg...............
                                          0.95 tons of Cd................
                                          4.1 tons of lead...............
                                          92 grams of dioxins/furans.....
                                          Health effects from NO2 and SO2
                                           exposure.
                                          Ecosystem effects..............
                                          Visibility impairment..........
Option 2: Beyond-the-Floor:
    Total Monetized Benefits \b\........  $430 to $1,100.................  $390 to $960.
    Total Social Costs \c\..............  $300...........................  $300.
    Net Benefits........................  $130 to $770...................  $90 to $660.
    Non-monetized Benefits..............  25,000 tons of CO..............
                                          470 tons of HCl................
                                          260 pounds of Hg...............
                                          0.95 tons of Cd................
                                          4.1 tons of lead...............
                                          92 grams of dioxins/furans.....
                                          Health effects from NO2 and SO2
                                           exposure.
                                          Ecosystem effects..............
                                          Visibility impairment..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2015), and are rounded to two significant figures. These
  results include units anticipated to come online and the lowest cost disposal assumption.
\b\ The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5
  through reductions of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors such as NOX and SO2. It is important to note
  that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits
  are shown as a range from Pope, et al. (2002) to Laden, et al. (2006). These models assume that all fine
  particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because
  there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the development of differential effects estimates by
  particle type. These estimates include energy disbenefits valued at $3.8 million.
\c\ The methodology used to estimate social costs for 1 year in the multimarket model using surplus changes
  results in the same social costs for both discount rates.
\d\ The estimates in this table reflect the estimates in the RIA. Due to last minute changes, we were unable to
  incorporate the final engineering costs and emission reductions into the RIA, which would decrease the costs
  by approximately 22% and increase the monetized benefits by approximately 4% from those shown here.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them. The ICR documents prepared by EPA have been assigned EPA
ICR number 2384.02 for subpart CCCC, 40 CFR part 60 and 2385.02 for
subpart DDDD, 40 CFR part 60.
    When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them according to
the applicable reporting requirements of these Subparts. An affirmative
defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are
caused by malfunctions is available to a source if it can demonstrate
that certain criteria and requirements are satisfied. The criteria
ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where the event
that causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow
definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or
careless operation) and where the source took necessary actions to
minimize emissions. In addition, the source must meet certain
notification and reporting requirements. For example, the source must
prepare a written root cause analysis and submit a written report to
the Administrator documenting that it has met the conditions and
requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense.
    To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of
the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense
position adopted by a source, EPA provides an administrative adjustment
to this ICR that shows what the notification, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative
defense might entail. EPA's estimate for the required notification,
reports and records, including the root cause analysis, totals $3,141
and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review
relevant data, interview plant employees, and document the events
surrounding a malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emission
limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the record
and reports for submission to EPA. EPA provides this illustrative
estimate of this burden because these costs are only

incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to take
advantage of the affirmative defense.
    The requirements in this final rule result in industry
recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with review of the
amendments for all CISWI, and inspections of scrubbers, FFs, and other
air pollution control devices that may be used to meet the emission
limits for all CISWI. Ongoing parametric monitoring requirements for
ESPs, SNCR, and ACI are also required of all CISWI units. Stack testing
and development of new parameter limits would be necessary for CISWI
that need to make performance improvements in order to meet the
emission limits and for CISWI that, prior to this action, have not been
required to demonstrate compliance with certain pollutants. Visual
emissions tests would be required for all subcategories except waste-
burning kilns on an annual basis. Energy recovery units would be
required to continuously monitor percent oxygen, and units larger than
250 mmBtu/hr would be required to monitor PM emissions using a PM CEMS.
Waste-burning kilns would be required to continuously monitor Hg
emissions using a Hg CEMS and PM emissions using a PM CEMS. Any new
CISWI would also be required to continuously monitor CO emissions. The
annual average burden associated with recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for the EG over the first 3 years following promulgation
is estimated to be 14,672 hours at a total annual labor cost of
$522,323. The total capital and startup plus the O&M costs with the EG
monitoring requirements, EPA Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7
testing, initial stack testing, annual stack testing, storage of data
and reports and photocopying and postage over the 3-year period of the
ICR are estimated at $18,592,079 total and $6,197,360 per year. (The
annual inspection costs are included under the recordkeeping and
reporting labor costs.) The annual average burden associated with the
NSPS over the first 3 years following promulgation of this final rule
is estimated to be 858 hours at a total annual labor cost of $30,527,
since we anticipate only one new small remote incineration unit to be
constructed per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it currently displays
a valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by
OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved
information collection requirements contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any
other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small government organizations
and small government jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of the rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We estimate
that there are 88 entities subject to this regulation, of which 10 of
them are considered to be small companies. The small entities directly
regulated by the rule are facilities engaged in industrial or
commercial operations, such as paper and paperboard manufacturing and
utility providers. The average cost-to-sales ratios for small companies
are below 3.5 percent. The median ratio is 2.2 percent. Only four
entities, which are in 3 different industries, have a sales test that
exceeds 3 percent. For the purposes of this rulemaking, four is not
considered a ``substantial number'' of small entities.
    Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the UMRA of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires federal
agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and
the private sector. This rule contains a federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1
year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a
written statement, which is summarized below.
1. Statutory Authority
    As discussed in section II.A of this preamble, the statutory
authority for the final rule is CAA sections 129 and 111. CAA section
129 CISWI standards include numeric emissions limitations for the nine
pollutants specified in CAA section 129(a)(4), and may include emission
limitations for opacity. Section 129(a)(2) of the CAA directs EPA to
develop standards based on MACT, which require existing and new major
sources to control emissions of the nine pollutants.
    In compliance with section 205(a) of the UMRA, we identified and
considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. The
regulatory alternative upon which the rule is based is the least
costly, most cost-effective alternative to achieve the statutory
requirements of CAA section 129.
2. Social Costs and Benefits
    The RIA prepared for the final rule, including the EPA's assessment
of costs and benefits, is detailed in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis:
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units'' in the docket. Based on estimated compliance costs
on all sources associated with the final rule and the predicted change
in prices and production in the affected industries, the estimated
social costs of the final rule are $218 million (2008 dollars). In the
year of full implementation (2015), EPA estimates the monetized
PM2.5 benefits of the NSPS and EG are $340 million to $830
million and $310 million to $750 million, at 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates respectively. All estimates are in 2008$. Using
alternate relationships between PM2.5 and premature
mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower benefits estimates are
plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates fall between these
estimates. The benefits from reducing other air pollutants have not
been monetized in this analysis, including reducing 23,450 tons of CO,
431 tons of HCl, 4.5 tons of Pb, 0.9 tons of Cd, 210 pounds of Hg, and
110 grams of total dioxins and furans each year. In addition, ecosystem
benefits and visibility benefits have not been monetized in this
analysis.

    Exposure to CO can affect the cardiovascular system and the central
nervous system. Emissions of NOX can transform into PM,
which can result in fatalities and many respiratory problems (such as
asthma or bronchitis); and NOX can also transform into ozone
causing several respiratory problems to affected populations.
    The net benefits for the NSPS and EG are $60 million to $550
million and $30 million to $470 million, at 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates respectively. All estimates are in 2008$.
3. Future and Disproportionate Costs
    The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is
reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the rule and
any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our estimates of the future
compliance costs of the final rule are discussed previously in this
preamble. We do not believe that there will be any disproportionate
budgetary effects of the proposed rule on any particular areas of the
country, state, or local governments, types of communities (e.g.,
urban, rural), or particular industry segments.
4. Effects on the National Economy
    The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the final rule on
the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the
effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of
productive jobs, and international competitiveness of the United States
goods and services if we determine that accurate estimates are
reasonably feasible and that such effect is relevant and material. The
nationwide economic impact of the rule is presented in the ``Regulatory
Impact Analysis: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration Units'' in the docket. This analysis provides
estimates of the effect of the rule on most of the categories mentioned
above. The results of the economic impact analysis are summarized in
section VI of this preamble.
5. Consultation With Government Officials
    The UMRA requires that we describe the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with affected state, local, and tribal officials,
summarize the officials' comments or concerns and summarize our
response to those comments or concerns. We have determined that this
final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, this final rule is not
subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.
    Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with
state and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed action.
    EPA's proposed action estimated expenditures of greater than $100
million to state and local governments and therefore as specified by
the Executive Order, EPA consulted with elected state and local
government officials, or their representative national organizations,
when developing regulations and policies that impose substantial
compliance costs on state and local governments. Pursuant to Agency
policy, EPA conducted a briefing for the ``Big 10'' intergovernmental
organizations representing elected state and local government
officials, as discussed in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75
FR 63260) to formally request their comments and input on the action.
The Big 10 provided EPA with feedback on the proposed standards and EG
for SSI units.
    EPA has concluded that this final rule will not have federalism
implications, as defined by Agency guidance for implementing the
Executive Order, due to the final rule's direct compliance costs on
state or local governments resulting in expenditures of less than $100
million.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule
from state and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000). EPA is not
aware of any CISWI in Indian country or owned or operated by Indian
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the
Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on technology performance.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. EPA estimates that the requirements in
this final rule would cause most CISWI in the ERU and waste-burning
kiln subcategories to modify existing air pollution control devices
(e.g., increase the horsepower of their wet scrubbers) or install and
operate new control devices, resulting in approximately 233,018 MW-
hours per year of additional electricity being used.
    Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting from
this final rule, EPA does not expect any significant price increase for
any energy type. The cost of energy distribution should not be affected
by this final rule at all since the rule would not affect energy
distribution facilities. We also expect that any impacts on the import
of foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse outcomes that may
occur with regards to energy supplies, would not be significant. We,
therefore, conclude that if there were to be any adverse energy effects
associated with this final rule, they would be minimal.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use VCS 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 VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable VCS.
    EPA conducted searches for the ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources:
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units'' through the
Enhanced NSSN database, which is a search engine that is defined as a
National Resource for Global Standards, managed by the ANSI. We also
contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched their databases.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus],'' for its manual methods of measuring the
oxygen or CO2 content of the exhaust gas. These parts of
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus] are acceptable alternatives to EPA Methods
3B, 6, 7 and 7C. This standard is available from the ASME, 3 Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
    Another VCS, ASTM D6735-01, ``Standard Test Method for Measurement
of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust
Sources--Impinger Method,'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method
26A.
    Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02, ``Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from
Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)'' is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 29.
    During the search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the
VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are
similar to EPA's reference method, EPA ordered a copy of the standard
and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. All potential
standards were reviewed to determine the practicality of the VCS for
this rule. This review requires significant method validation data
which meets the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting
alternative methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence
to procedures in EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider
determinations of impracticality when additional information is
available for particular VCS.
    The search identified 24 other VCS that were potentially applicable
to this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the
available standards, EPA determined that 22 candidate VCS (ASTM D3154-
00 (2006), ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO10396:1993 (2007),
ISO12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA
Z223.2-M86 (1999), ISO 9096:1992 (2003), ANSI/ASME PTC 38-1980 (1985),
ASTM D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), ISO 7934:1998, ISO 11632:1998, ASTM D1608-
98 (2003), ISO11564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-M1983, CAN/CSA Z223.21-M1978,
ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (1996), EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), EN
13211:2001, CAN/CSA Z223.26-M1987), ASTM D6735-01 (2009) identified for
measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to
emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other important
technical and policy considerations.
    Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions, a source may
apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, PS, or procedures in the final rule and any amendments.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on EJ. Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations, low-income, and tribal populations in the United
States.
    This final action establishes national emission standards for new
and existing CISWI units. Based on data amendments and corrections that
were incorporated following public comment on the proposed rule, the
EPA estimates that there are approximately 100 such units, including
incinerators, cement kilns, and ERUs, covered by this rule. The final
rule will reduce emissions of all the listed HAP emitted from this
source. This includes emissions of Cd, HC1, lead, Hg, and chlorinated
D/F. Adverse health effects from these pollutants include cancer,
irritation of the lungs, skin, and mucus membranes; effects on the
central nervous system, and damage to the kidneys), and acute health
disorders. The rule will also result in substantial reductions of
criteria pollutants such as CO, NOX, PM, and SO2.
Sulfur dioxide and NO2 are precursors for the formation of
PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions will reduce ozone
and PM2.5 formation and associated health effects, such as
adult premature mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, asthma, and
other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The results of the
demographic analysis are presented in RIA, a copy of which is available
in the docket.
    Based on the fact that the rule does not allow emission increases,
the EPA has determined that the rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority,
low-income, or tribal populations. However, to the extent that any
minority, low income, or tribal subpopulation is disproportionately
impacted by the current emissions as a result of the proximity of their
homes to these sources, that subpopulation also stands to see increased
environmental and health benefit from the emissions reductions called
for by this rule.
    EPA defines ``Environmental Justice'' to include meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To
promote meaningful involvement, EPA developed a communication and
outreach strategy to ensure that interested communities had access to
the proposed rule, were aware of its content, and had an opportunity to
comment during the comment period. During the comment period, EPA
publicized the rulemaking via EJ newsletters, tribal newsletters, EJ
listservs, and the Internet, including the Office of Policy's
Rulemaking Gateway Web site (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/
). EPA also provided general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this
important for my community) for EJ community groups and conducted
conference calls with interested communities. In addition, in
implementing the final rule, state and federal permitting requirements
will provide state and local governments and members of affected
communities the opportunity to provide comments on the permit
conditions associated with permitting the sources affected by this
rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing 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 a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective May 20, 2011.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

    Dated: February 21, 2011.
Lisa Jackson,
Administrator.

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

PART 60--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 60.17 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(93).
0
b. Revising paragraph (h)(4).
0
c. Adding paragraph (o).

Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (93) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) Standard Test Method for
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),
approved April 1, 2008, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  60.2165(j),
60.2730(j), tables 1, 5, 6 and 8 to subpart CCCC, and tables 2, 6, 7,
and 9 to subpart DDDD, Sec. Sec.  60.4900(b)(4)(v), 60.5220(b)(4)(v),
tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, and tables 2 and 3 to subpart MMMM.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved for Sec.  60.56c(b)(4),
Sec.  60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4), Sec.  60.106(e)(2), Sec. Sec.
60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), (i)(3), (i)(4),
(i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4), Sec.  60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4),
(g)(2), and (g)(4), Sec.  60.106a(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(v),
(a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii), and (a)(3)(v), and Sec.  60.107a(a)(1)(ii),
(a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2), tables 1 and 3 of
subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ,
Sec. Sec.  60.4415(a)(2) and (a)(3), 60.2145(s)(1)(i) and (ii),
60.2145(t)(1)(ii), 60.2145(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(s)(1)(i) and (ii),
60.2710(t)(1)(ii), 60.2710(t)(5)(i), 60.2710(w)(3), 60.2730(q)(3),
60.4900(b)(4)(vii) and (viii), 60.4900(b)(5)(i), 60.5220(b)(4)(vii) and
(viii), 60.5220(b)(5)(i), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, and tables 2
and 3 to subpart MMMM.
* * * * *
    (o) The following material is available from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
(202) 272-0167, http://www.epa.gov.
    (1) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  60.2145(r)(2), 60.2710(r)(2),
60.4905(b)(3)(i)(B), and 60.5225(b)(3)(i)(B).
    (2) [Reserved]

0
3. Revise the heading for subpart CCCC to read as follows:

Subpart CCCC--Standards of Performance for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

* * * * *

0
4. Section 60.2005 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.2005  When does this subpart become effective?

    This subpart takes effect on September 21, 2011. Some of the
requirements in this subpart apply to planning the CISWI unit (i.e.,
the preconstruction requirements in Sec. Sec.  60.2045 and 60.2050).
Other requirements such as the emission limitations and operating
limits apply after the CISWI unit begins operation.

0
5. Section 60.2015 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.2015  What is a new incineration unit?

    (a) A new incineration unit is an incineration unit that meets any
of the criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(2) of this
section.
    (1) A commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit that
commenced construction after May 20, 2011.
    (2) A commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit that
commenced reconstruction or modification after September 21, 2011.
    (b) This subpart does not affect your CISWI unit if you make
physical or operational changes to your incineration unit primarily to
comply with the EG in subpart DDDD of this part (Emission Guidelines
and Compliance Times for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units). Such changes do not qualify as reconstruction or
modification under this subpart.

0
6. Section 60.2020 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text.
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).
0
c. Revising paragraph (c).
0
d. Revising paragraphs (e)(3), (f)(3), (g), (m) and (n).
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraphs (j), (k), and (l).
0
f. Removing paragraph (o).

Sec.  60.2020  What combustion units are exempt from this subpart?

    This subpart exempts the types of units described in paragraphs
(a), (c) through (i) and (n) of this section, but some units are
required to provide notifications. Air curtain incinerators are exempt
from the requirements in this subpart except for the provisions in
Sec. Sec.  60.2242, 60.2250, and 60.2260.
* * * * *
    (b) [Reserved]
    (c) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration units that are
regulated under subpart Ea of this part (Standards of Performance for
Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Eb of this part (Standards of
Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Cb of this
part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Time for Large Municipal
Combustors); subpart AAAA of this part (Standards of Performance for
Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or subpart BBBB of this part
(Emission Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units).
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) You submit a request to the Administrator for a determination
that the qualifying cogeneration facility is combusting homogenous
waste as that term is defined in Sec.  60.2265. The request must
include information sufficient to document that the unit meets the
criteria of the definition of a small power production facility and
that the waste material the unit is proposed to burn is homogeneous.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) You submit a request to the Administrator for a determination
that the qualifying cogeneration facility is combusting homogenous
waste as that term is defined in Sec.  60.2265. The

request must include information sufficient to document that the unit
meets the criteria of the definition of a cogeneration facility and
that the waste material the unit is combusting is homogeneous.
    (g) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units for which you are
required to get a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.
* * * * *
    (j) [Reserved]
    (k) [Reserved]
    (l) [Reserved]
    (m) Sewage treatment plants. Incineration units regulated under
subpart O of this part (Standards of Performance for Sewage Treatment
Plants).
    (n) Sewage sludge incineration units. Incineration units combusting
sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage
sludge by removing combustible matter that are subject to subpart LLLL
of this part (Standards of Performance for Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units) or subpart MMMM of this part (Emission Guidelines for Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units). Sewage sludge incineration unit designs
include fluidized bed and multiple hearth.

Sec.  60.2025  [Removed]

0
7. Section 60.2025 is removed.
0
8. Section 60.2030 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(5).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(8) through (c)(10).

Sec.  60.2030  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and
(c)(6) through (10) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (8) Approval of alternative opacity emission limits in Sec.
60.2105 under Sec.  60.11(e)(6) through (e)(8).
    (9) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.
60.2125(j), 60.8(b)(4) and (5).
    (10) Determination of whether a qualifying small power production
facility or cogeneration facility under Sec.  60.2020(e) or (f) is
combusting homogenous waste as that term is defined in Sec.  60.2265.

0
9. Section 60.2045 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.2045  Who must prepare a siting analysis?

    (a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you plan to commence
construction of an incinerator after December 1, 2000.
    (b) You must prepare a siting analysis for CISWI units that
commenced construction after June 4, 2010, or that commenced
reconstruction or modification after September 21, 2011.
    (c) You must prepare a siting analysis if you are required to
submit an initial application for a construction permit under 40 CFR
part 51, subpart I, or 40 CFR part 52, as applicable, for the
reconstruction or modification of your CISWI unit.

0
10. Section 60.2070 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1)(vii) to
read as follows:

Sec.  60.2070  What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vii) Actions to prevent and correct malfunctions or to prevent
conditions that may lead to malfunctions.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 60.2085 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.2085  How do I maintain my operator qualification?

* * * * *
    (d) Prevention and correction of malfunctions or conditions that
may lead to malfunction.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 60.2105 is revised to read as follows:.

Sec.  60.2105  What emission limitations must I meet and by when?

    (a) You must meet the emission limitations for each CISWI unit,
including bypass stack or vent, specified in table 1 of this subpart or
tables 5 through 8 of this subpart by the applicable date in Sec.
60.2140. You must be in compliance with the emission limitations of
this subpart that apply to you at all times.
    (b) An incinerator unit that commenced construction after November
30, 1999, but no later than June 4, 2010, or that commenced
reconstruction or modification on or after June 1, 2001, but no later
than September 21, 2011 must meet the more stringent emission limit for
the respective pollutant in table 1 of this subpart or table 6 of
subpart DDDD.

0
13. Section 60.2110 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (d) through (g).

Sec.  60.2110  What operating limits must I meet and by when?

    (a) If you use a wet scrubber(s) to comply with the emission
limitations, you must establish operating limits for up to four
operating parameters (as specified in table 2 of this subpart) as
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section during the
initial performance test.
* * * * *
    (2) Minimum pressure drop across the wet particulate matter
scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average pressure
drop across the wet scrubber measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter
emission limitations; or minimum amperage to the fan for the wet
scrubber, which is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average amperage to
the wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter emission
limitations.
    (3) Minimum scrubber liquid flow rate, which is calculated as the
lowest 1-hour average liquid flow rate at the inlet to the wet acid gas
or particulate matter scrubber measured during the most recent
performance test demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission
limitations.
    (4) Minimum scrubber liquor pH, which is calculated as the lowest
1-hour average liquor pH at the inlet to the wet acid gas scrubber
measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating
compliance with the HCl emission limitation.
* * * * *
    (d) If you use an electrostatic precipitator to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the (secondary) voltage and
amperage of the electrostatic precipitator collection plates during the
particulate matter performance test. Calculate the average electric
power value (secondary voltage x secondary current = secondary electric
power) for each test run. The operating limit for the electrostatic
precipitator is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average secondary
electric power measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter emission
limitations.
    (e) If you use activated carbon sorbent injection to comply with
the emission limitations, you must measure the sorbent flow rate during
the performance testing. The operating limit for the carbon sorbent
injection is calculated as the lowest 1-hour average

sorbent flow rate measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the mercury emission limitations.
    (f) If you use selective noncatalytic reduction to comply with the
emission limitations, you must measure the charge rate, the secondary
chamber temperature (if applicable to your CISWI unit), and the reagent
flow rate during the nitrogen oxides performance testing. The operating
limits for the selective noncatalytic reduction are calculated as the
lowest 1-hour average charge rate, secondary chamber temperature, and
reagent flow rate measured during the most recent performance test
demonstrating compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limitations.
    (g) If you do not use a wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitator,
or fabric filter to comply with the emission limitations, and if you do
not determine compliance with your particulate matter emission
limitation with a particulate matter continuous emission monitoring
system, you must maintain opacity to less than or equal to 10 percent
opacity (1-hour block average).

0
14. Section 60.2115 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.2115  What if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric filter,
activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, or an
electrostatic precipitator to comply with the emission limitations?

    If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber, activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction,
fabric filter, or an electrostatic precipitator or limit emissions in
some other manner, including material balances, to comply with the
emission limitations under Sec.  60.2105, you must petition the EPA
Administrator for specific operating limits to be established during
the initial performance test and continuously monitored thereafter. You
must not conduct the initial performance test until after the petition
has been approved by the Administrator. Your petition must include the
five items listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
    (a) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as
additional operating limits.
    (b) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and
emissions of regulated pollutants, identifying how emissions of
regulated pollutants change with changes in these parameters and how
limits on these parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated
pollutants.
    (c) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower
values for these parameters which will establish the operating limits
on these parameters.
    (d) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure
and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well
as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and
instruments.
    (e) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these
parameters.

0
15. Section 60.2120 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.2120  Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of an Emission Limit
During Malfunction.

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
paragraph Sec.  60.2105, you may assert an affirmative defense to a
claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are
caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 60.2. Appropriate penalties
may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving
all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative
defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
    (a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of
evidence that:
    (1) The excess emissions:
    (i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs; and
    (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions; and
    (4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health; and
    (6) All emissions and/or parameter monitoring and systems, as well
as control systems, were kept in operation if at all possible,
consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices; and
    (7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that
were the result of the malfunction.
    (b) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business
days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to
avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within
45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in
Sec.  60.2105 to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an extension of
this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written
request to the Administrator before the expiration of the 45 day
period. Until a request for an extension has been approved by the
Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to
submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the
exceedance.

0
16. Section 60.2125 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c).
0
b. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.2125  How do I conduct the initial and annual performance
test?

* * * * *
    (c) All performance tests must be conducted using the minimum run
duration specified in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of
this subpart.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/furan tetra-through
octa-chlorinated isomer emitted using EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7.
    (2) For each dioxin/furan (tetra-through octa-chlorinated) isomer
measured in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this section, multiply
the isomer concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor
specified in table 3 of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (h) Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 of this part must be
used to determine compliance with the fugitive ash emission limit in
table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart.
    (i) If you have an applicable opacity operating limit, you must
determine compliance with the opacity limit using Method 9 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-4 of this part, based on three 1-hour blocks
consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values, unless you are
required to install a continuous opacity monitoring system, consistent
with Sec. Sec.  60.2145 and 60.2165.

0
17. Section 60.2130 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.2130  How are the performance test data used?

    You use results of performance tests to demonstrate compliance with
the emission limitations in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through
8 of this subpart.

0
18. Section 60.2135 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.2135  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations and establish the operating limits?

    You must conduct a performance test, as required under Sec. Sec.
60.2125 and 60.2105 to determine compliance with the emission
limitations in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this
subpart, to establish compliance with any opacity operating limit in
Sec.  60.2110,and to establish operating limits using the procedures in
Sec. Sec.  60.2110 or 60.2115. The performance test must be conducted
using the test methods listed in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5
through 8 of this subpart and the procedures in Sec.  60.2125. The use
of the bypass stack during a performance test shall invalidate the
performance test. You must conduct a performance evaluation of each
continuous monitoring system within 60 days of installation of the
monitoring system.

0
19. Section 60.2140 is amended by designating the existing text as
paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.2140  By what date must I conduct the initial performance
test?

* * * * *
    (b) If you commence or recommence combusting a solid waste at an
existing combustion unit at any commercial or industrial facility, and
you conducted a test consistent with the provisions of this subpart
while combusting the solid waste within the 6 months preceding the
reintroduction of that solid waste in the combustion chamber, you do
not need to retest until 6 months from the date you reintroduce that
solid waste.
    (c) If you commence combusting or recommence combusting a solid
waste at an existing combustion unit at any commercial or industrial
facility and you have not conducted a performance test consistent with
the provisions of this subpart while combusting the given solid waste
within the 6 months preceding the reintroduction of that solid waste in
the combustion chamber, you must conduct a performance test within 60
days commencing or recommencing solid waste combustion.

0
20. Section 60.2141 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  60.2141  By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection?

    (a) The initial air pollution control device inspection must be
conducted within 60 days after installation of the control device and
the associated CISWI unit reaches the charge rate at which it will
operate, but no later than 180 days after the device's initial startup.
    (b) Within 10 operating days following an air pollution control
device inspection, all necessary repairs must be completed unless the
owner or operator obtains written approval from the state agency
establishing a date whereby all necessary repairs of the designated
facility must be completed.

0
21. Section 60.2145 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.2145  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and the operating limits?

    (a) Compliance with standards.
    (1) The emission standards and operating requirements set forth in
this subpart apply at all times.
    (2) If you cease combusting solid waste, you may opt to remain
subject to the provisions of this subpart. Consistent with the
definition of CISWI unit, you are subject to the requirements of this
subpart at least 6 months following the last date of solid waste
combustion. Solid waste combustion is ceased when solid waste is not in
the combustion chamber (i.e., the solid waste feed to the combustor has
been cut off for a period of time not less than the solid waste
residence time).
    (3) If you cease combusting solid waste, you must be in compliance
with any newly applicable standards on the effective date of the waste-
to-fuel switch. The effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch is a
date selected by you, that must be at least 6 months from the date that
you ceased combusting solid waste, consistent with Sec.  60.2145(a)(2).
Your source must remain in compliance with this subpart until the
effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch.
    (4) If you own or operate an existing commercial or industrial
combustion unit that combusted a fuel or non-waste material, and you
commence or recommence combustion of solid waste, you are subject to
the provisions of this subpart as of the first day you introduce or
reintroduce solid waste to the combustion chamber, and this date
constitutes the effective date of the fuel-to-waste switch. You must
complete all initial compliance demonstrations for any section 112
standards that are applicable to your facility before you commence or
recommence combustion of solid waste. You must provide 30 days prior
notice of the effective date of the waste-to-fuel switch. The
notification must identify:
    (i) The name of the owner or operator of the CISWI unit, the
location of the source, the emissions unit(s) that will cease burning
solid waste, and the date of the notice;
    (ii) The currently applicable subcategory under this subpart, and
any 40 CFR part 63 subpart and subcategory that will be applicable
after you cease combusting solid waste;
    (iii) The fuel(s), non-waste material(s) and solid waste(s) the
CISWI unit is currently combusting and has combusted over the past 6
months, and the fuel(s) or non-waste materials the unit will commence
combusting;
    (iv) The date on which you became subject to the currently
applicable emission limits;
    (v) The date upon which you will cease combusting solid waste, and
the date (if different) that you intend for any new requirements to
become applicable (i.e., the effective date of the waste-to-

fuel switch), consistent with paragraphs (a)(2) and (3)of this section.
    (5) All air pollution control equipment necessary for compliance
with any newly applicable emissions limits which apply as a result of
the cessation or commencement or recommencement of combusting solid
waste must be installed and operational as of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel, or fuel-to-waste switch.
    (6) All monitoring systems necessary for compliance with any newly
applicable monitoring requirements which apply as a result of the
cessation or commencement or recommencement of combusting solid waste
must be installed and operational as of the effective date of the
waste-to-fuel, or fuel-to-waste switch. All calibration and drift
checks must be performed as of the effective date of the waste-to-fuel,
or fuel-to-waste switch. Relative accuracy tests must be performed as
of the performance test deadline for PM CEMS. Relative accuracy testing
for other CEMS need not be repeated if that testing was previously
performed consistent with Clean Air Act section 112 monitoring
requirements or monitoring requirements under this subpart.
    (b) You must conduct an annual performance test for the pollutants
listed in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart
and opacity for each CISWI unit as required under Sec.  60.2125. The
annual performance test must be conducted using the test methods listed
in table 1 of this subpart or tables 5 through 8 of this subpart and
the procedures in Sec.  60.2125. Annual performance tests are not
required if you use continuous emission monitoring systems or
continuous opacity monitoring systems to determine compliance.
    (c) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters
specified in Sec.  60.2110 or established under Sec.  60.2115 and as
specified in Sec.  60.2170. Use three-hour block average values to
determine compliance (except for baghouse leak detection system alarms)
unless a different averaging period is established under Sec.  60.2115.
Operation above the established maximum, below the established minimum,
or outside the allowable range of the operating limits specified in
paragraph (a) of this section constitutes a deviation from your
operating limits established under this subpart, except during
performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission
and operating limits or to establish new operating limits. Operating
limits are confirmed or reestablished during performance tests.
    (d) You must burn only the same types of waste used to establish
operating limits during the performance test.
    (e) For energy recovery units, incinerators, and small remote
units, you must perform an annual visual emissions test for ash
handling.
    (f) For energy recovery units, you must conduct an annual
performance test for opacity (except where particulate matter
continuous emission monitoring system or continuous opacity monitoring
systems are used are used) and the pollutants listed in table 6 of this
subpart.
    (g) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the carbon
monoxide emission limit using a carbon monoxide continuous emission
monitoring system according to the following requirements:
    (1) You must measure emissions according to Sec.  60.13 to
calculate 1-hour arithmetic averages, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
You must demonstrate initial compliance with the carbon monoxide
emissions limit using a 30-day rolling average of these 1-hour
arithmetic average emission concentrations, calculated using Equation
19-19 in section 12.4.1 of EPA Reference Method 19 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7 of this part.
    (2) Operate the carbon monoxide continuous emission monitoring
system in accordance with the requirements of performance specification
4A of appendix B of this part and quality assurance procedure 1 of
appendix F of this part.
    (h) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
or equal to 250 MMBtu/hr and waste-burning kilns, demonstrate
continuous compliance with the particulate matter emissions limit using
a particulate matter continuous emission monitoring system according to
the procedures in Sec.  60.2165(n).
    (i) For energy recovery units with design capacities greater than
or equal to 10 MMBtu/hour, if you have an opacity operating limit, you
must install, operate, certify and maintain a continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS) according to the procedures in Sec.  60.2165.
    (j) For waste-burning kilns, you must conduct an annual performance
test for cadmium, lead, dioxins/furans and hydrogen chloride as listed
in table 7 of this subpart. You must determine compliance with hydrogen
chloride using a hydrogen chloride continuous emission monitoring
system if you do not use an acid gas wet scrubber. You must determine
compliance with nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter using continuous emission monitoring systems. You
must determine compliance with the mercury emissions limit using a
mercury continuous emission monitoring system according to the
following requirements:
    (1) Operate a continuous emission monitoring system in accordance
with performance specification 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B or a
sorbent trap based integrated monitor in accordance with performance
specification 12B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The duration of the
performance test must be a calendar month. For each calendar month in
which the waste-burning kiln operates, hourly mercury concentration
data, and stack gas volumetric flow rate data must be obtained.
    (2) Owners or operators using a mercury continuous emission
monitoring system must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously measuring and recording the mercury mass
emissions rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements of
performance specifications 6 and 12A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and
quality assurance procedure 6 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F.
    (3) The owner or operator of a waste-burning kiln must demonstrate
initial compliance by operating a mercury continuous emission
monitoring system while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is
operating under normal conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line
kiln/raw mill is not operating.
    (k) If you use an air pollution control device to meet the emission
limitations in this subpart, you must conduct an initial and annual
inspection of the air pollution control device. The inspection must
include, at a minimum, the following:
    (1) Inspect air pollution control device(s) for proper operation.
    (2) Develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the
requirements in paragraph (l) of this section. This requirement also
applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for alternative
monitoring parameters under Sec.  60.13(i).
    (l) For each continuous monitoring system required in this section,
you must develop and submit to the EPA Administrator for approval a
site-specific monitoring plan according to the requirements of this
paragraph (l) that addresses paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section.
    (1) You must submit this site-specific monitoring plan at least 60
days before your initial performance evaluation of your continuous
monitoring system.

    (i) Installation of the continuous monitoring system sampling probe
or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected
process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of
the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control
device).
    (ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer
and the data collection and reduction systems.
    (iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
    (iv) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec.  60.11(d).
    (v) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec.  60.13.
    (vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec.  60.7(b), (c), (c)(1), (c)(4),
(d), (e), (f), and (g).
    (2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each continuous
monitoring system in accordance with your site-specific monitoring
plan.
    (3) You must operate and maintain the continuous monitoring system
in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
    (m) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow
monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) and
(m)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Install the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a
position that provides a representative flow.
    (2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of no greater
than 2 percent of the expected process flow rate.
    (3) Minimize the effects of swirling flow or abnormal velocity
distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (4) Conduct a flow monitoring system performance evaluation in
accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each performance
test but no less frequently than annually.
    (n) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a
pressure monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (l) and (n)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure (e.g., PM scrubber pressure
drop).
    (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
    (3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 1.27
centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the
pressure monitoring system operating range, whichever is less.
    (4) Perform checks at least once each process operating day to
ensure pressure measurements are not obstructed (e.g., check for
pressure tap pluggage daily).
    (5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring
system in accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each
performance test but no less frequently than annually.
    (6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the manufacturer's
specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct a performance
evaluation of the pressure monitoring system in accordance with your
monitoring plan and confirm that the pressure monitoring system
continues to meet the performance requirements in your monitoring plan.
Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new pressure
sensor.
    (o) If you have an operating limit that requires a pH monitoring
system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (l) and (o)(1)
through (4) of this section.
    (1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
    (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
    (3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pH monitoring system in
accordance with your monitoring plan at least once each process
operating day.
    (4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a two-point
calibration with one of the two buffer solutions having a pH within 1
of the pH of the operating limit) of the pH monitoring system in
accordance with your monitoring plan at the time of each performance
test but no less frequently than quarterly.