SO2.........................................  ppmvd@7% O2...................               5.3               26c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Limits were rounded up to two significant figures.
b Limits represent three times the detection level.
c Limits defaulted to EG limits since NSPS limits were less stringent than EG.

    Comment: One commenter contended that because CAA section 129
unambiguously requires EPA to set floors reflecting the ``average''
emission level achieved by the best sources, setting floors that
instead reflect a UPL for those sources is unlawful. The commenter,
added that by claiming that it can use the UPL for all sources in the
top twelve percent, EPA misreads its authority to consider variability
under the CAA and relevant case law. The commenter explained that,
although EPA may consider variability in estimating an individual
source's actual performance over time, nothing in the CAA or the case
law even suggests that EPA may account for differences in performance
between sources except as section 129 provides, by averaging the
emission levels achieved by the sources in the top twelve percent.
    Response: In assessing sources' performance, EPA may consider
variability both in identifying which performers are ``best'' and in
assessing their level of performance. Sierra Club v. EPA (Brick MACT),
479 F. 3d 875, 881-82 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also Mossville
Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241-42 (D.C. Cir 2004)
(EPA must exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the relevant
factors and available data, to determine the level of emissions control
that has been achieved by the best performing sources considering these
sources' operating variability). The Brick MACT decision indicated that
floors for existing sources must reflect the average emission
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing
sources. The Brick MACT decision also reiterated that EPA may account
for variability in setting floors; however, the Court found that EPA
erred in assessing variability because it relied on data from the worst
performers to estimate best performers' variability. The Court held
that ``EPA may not use emission levels of the worst performers to
estimate variability of the best performers without a demonstrated
relationship between the two.'' 479 F. 3d at 882.
    In determining the MACT floor limits, we first determine the floor,
which, for existing sources, is the emissions limitation achieved in
practice by the average of the top 12 percent of existing sources, or
the level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source
for new sources. In this rule, EPA is using lowest emissions limitation
as the measure of best performance. We then assess variability of the
best performers by using a statistical formula designed to estimate a
MACT floor level based on the average of the best performing sources
using the expected distribution of future compliance tests. We used the
UPL to perform this calculation, as explained below.
    Variability can be accounted for using different statistical
methods. For example, recent standards have used the UL or the UPL to
determine the MACT floor emission limits. A UL is based on the
distribution of the available emission observations (e.g., test runs),
and does not embody a predictive aspect that a UPL does. A prediction
interval (e.g., a UPL) for a future observation is an interval that
will, with a specified degree of confidence, contain the next (or some
other pre-specified) randomly selected observation from a population.
In other words, the prediction interval estimates what future values
will be, based on present or past background samples taken. Given this
definition, the UPL represents the value the mean of three future test
run observations (three-run average) can be expected to fall below,
based on the results of the independent sample of size (n) from the
same population. Therefore, should a future test condition be selected
randomly from any of these sources (i.e., average of three runs), we
can be 99 percent confident that the reported level will fall below a
MACT floor emission limit calculated using a UPL. The UPL is an
appropriate statistical tool to use in determining variability in the
SSI data. For this source category, where there is a limited sampling
of the source category and we do not have test data from all of the SSI
units in the best performing 12% for each subcategory, the predictive
aspect of the UPL calculation is especially important.
    Because the UPL represents the value which we can expect the mean
(i.e., average) of three future observations (3-run average) to fall
below, based upon the results of the independent sample size from the
same population, the UPL reflects average emissions. The UPL is also
consistent with other recent rulemakings.
    Comment: Several commenters asserted that, in setting MACT
standards for existing units, EPA pooled and utilized data from all
available test runs for the best performing units without regard to the
number of data points available for each unit. The commenters added
that, for all pollutants, the number of test runs varies from unit to
unit. One commenter stated that using data this way biases the
statistical results, and ultimately, the standards by over-weighting
the performance of the units that have more data. The commenter
suggested that EPA should employ an alternate methodology which
determines the emissions limitation achieved for each best performing
unit first, and then averages these limitations to determine the least
stringent standard, or MACT floor.
    Response: The SSI emissions database for fluidized bed units
contains data from six units at four facilities. The entities surveyed
were requested to provide recent (within the previous 5 years)
emissions test reports. Most survey recipients provided only the most
recent report. One facility, with three units, provided results of
emissions test conducted for compliance reports spanning a 10-year
period. This facility also uses the most advanced pollution controls on
their fluidized bed units in the subcategory. This facility constitutes
70 percent of the Cd and Pb data, 90 percent of the CO and Hg data, and
75 percent of the HCl data and PM data. As a result, the existing
source MACT floors calculated using the UPL methodology, and all the
test run data from the one facility, effectively result in calculating
more stringent limits more akin to a new source MACT floor than an
existing

source MACT floor, because it is based primarily on only the emissions
performance of the best-performing single source, rather than the
average of the best-performing 12 percent of sources. In order to
adequately incorporate the emissions from the best-performing SSI units
in the fluidized bed subcategory, a weighted UPL was used for
calculating the existing source MACT floors for the final rule. The
weighted UPL is calculated from a weighted mean and weighted variance
as described below.
    There are many different types of weighting procedures. We have
chosen the most straightforward methodology, to base it on the number
of data points (i.e., test runs) from each SSI unit.\12\ This weighting
scheme ensures that no facility in the MACT best performers pool is
over-represented in the computation of the MACT floor. The first step
in weighting procedure is to assign a weighting factor to each test run
by multiplying each observation for source i and run j with a weight
term, wij, as shown in Equation 1 of this preamble:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Heckert, N. A. and Filliben, James J.(2003). ``NIST
Handbook 148: DATAPLOT Reference Manual, Volume I: Commands'',
National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook Series, June
2003. [Available at http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/document.html]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21MR11.014

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:

Mi= Number of observations (i.e., runs) for source i and
N= Number of best performing sources in the MACT pool.

    The second step is to calculate the mean and total variance for the
weighted data from the weight terms using Equations 2 and 3 of this
preamble:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21MR11.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21MR11.016

Where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21MR11.017

is the total number of observations in the MACT best performers
pool.

    When the weights are equal to one, the above equations reduce to
those for un-weighted data, as expected. As shown in Equation 4 of this
preamble, the weighted mean and weighted variance are then used in the
UPL calculation (discussed in the NPRM) instead of the simple (i.e.,
un-weighted) mean and variance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21MR11.018

    For multiple hearth units, there are more emissions data from a
larger number of facilities/units. For example, we have data on Cd and
Pb from 11 facilities with 14 units, Hg from 11 facilities with 18
units. The MACT floor calculations are not skewed by one or two units
or facilities. Consequently, the MACT floor for existing multiple
hearth units does not need to be calculated using a weighted UPL.
    The revisions to the MACT floor methodology are discussed in detail
in the memorandum ``Revised MACT Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge
Incinerator Source Category'' in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
    Comment: One commenter contended that EPA should determine the MACT
floor emission limits to be consistent with EPA's Guidance for Data
Quality Assessment Manual, which holds that it is more likely that
environmental data are distributed log-normally. The commenter
considered it reasonable to believe that environmental emission
distributions are non-normal, since frequency plots typically show many
readings approaching zero and fewer large readings forming an elongated
tail to the right. The commenter concluded that normal distributions
may exist for certain pollutants where the entire dataset is many
standard deviations away from zero, and values are controlled by an air
pollution control process with set points and feedback and control
loops.
    Response: We have reviewed the document referenced and agree with
the commenter that the referenced document shows that environmental
data are more likely to be log-normally distributed than normally
distributed. In the proposed rule, two statistical measures, skewness
and kurtosis, were examined to determine if the data used

to calculate the MACT floor were normally or log-normally distributed.
If both the reported values and the natural-log transformed reported
values had skewness and kurtosis statistics that indicated neither were
normally distributed, the reported dataset was selected as the basis of
the floor to be conservative. If the results of the skewness and
kurtosis hypothesis tests were mixed for the reported values and the
natural log-transformed reported values, the analysis done on the
reported data values was chosen to be conservative.
    Based on ``Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods
for Data Analysis'' EPA/600/R-96/084, July 2000, we have modified our
assumptions when results of the skewness and kurtosis tests do not
clearly show whether a normal or log-normal distribution better
represents the data, or when there are not enough data to complete the
skewness and kurtosis tests. In these cases, we have chosen to use the
log-normal results for the final MACT floor calculation.
    Comment: Some commenters contended that EPA incorrectly presumes
that stack test results account for the full variability of a SSI's
performance. Several commenters stated that emissions from SSI units
are affected not just by control technology but also by other factors
including the contents of the sludge that a unit is burning. Many
commenters urged EPA to determine the MACT floor limits by
incorporating the variability of the sludge contents. The commenters
added that the methodology in developing the proposed standards does
not take into account that Hg, Cd, Pb, HC1 and SO2 emissions
are a function of the sludge content of Hg, Cd, Pb, chlorine and
sulfur. The commenters expressed concern that the limits were based on
test results obtained with sludge containing very low concentration of
metals, chlorides, and sulfur. The commenter explained that if the
sludge burned during an emissions test was not at or near the maximum
constituent concentration level (e.g., due to seasonal variability), a
new source emission limit based on these data could not be achieved
over the full range of expected normal operating conditions confronted
by the best performing source.
    The commenters contended that EPA must consider all available data
(including Part 503 data) for the best performing source and use that
to establish a variability factor applied to the stack test data. The
commenters added that EPA's request for metals data during the stack
test is insufficient to account for the full intra-source variability.
The commenters added that variability for the compounds not regulated
by Part 503 must also be accounted for as well before setting the new
source limit.
    The commenters explained that POTW, and their SSI units, are
statutorily obligated to manage all of the sewage that enters into the
sanitary sewer system, resulting in highly variable and often
unpredictable spikes in concentrations. The commenters continued that
POTW inlet concentrations also vary based on the nature and type of
dischargers. The commenters explained that POTW treat wastewater from
residential, commercial and industrial dischargers in varying degrees,
and pretreatment opportunities also vary because POTW authority to
control discharges into the sewer system is limited and the way that
authority is exercised varies. The commenters also noted that the
nature of sewage entering the POTW changes over time as the character
of a community changes, the age of the population changes, and
commercial and industrial dischargers come and go. The commenters added
that without the use of long-term data to support the level of emission
standards, this variability makes numeric technology-based limits
impractical and infeasible. The commenters also explained that POTW
also face significant regional and seasonal variability that is not
captured by EPA's dataset. The commenters stated that initial high flow
periods in the spring often scour the sewers and dislodge heavier
material that has settled in the sewer system during low-flow periods,
which often results in a spike in metals concentrations (e.g., Hg, Cd,
Pb) in the sewage sludge. The commenters noted that the ICR stack tests
in January and February that were used for the EPA database would not
have captured these events. The commenter also noted that northern
cities that use salt for de-icing roadways experience significant
increases in chlorides during the winter months, and high chloride
concentrations are known to improve the effectiveness of Hg control at
existing wet scrubbers.
    Response: The variability analysis is based on emissions
information gathered from nine different facilities located in nine
different states. The facilities we collected emissions information
from are located in a mix of northern, southern, eastern, and western
states. Each facility has its own unique sludge characteristics from
different residential and commercial populations. We agree that the
emissions data represents a ``point in time''. However, combined
together, they represent sufficient variation in regions, climates and
populations that adequately incorporates variability in wastewater
treatment systems across the U.S. We have also incorporated variability
using the UPL. The variability analysis based on the emissions data
collected adequately characterizes the potential differences in sludge
contents and regional differences. Because we have a mixture of
southern and northern states in the emissions database, we believe that
it also adequately considers differences between cold and warm weather
climates. Additionally, we did not have sufficient information at
proposal to consider if it were appropriate to incorporate variability
based on sludge content. We requested additional information in the
NPRM, but did not receive adequate sampling data from the best-
performing sources.
    Comment: Some commenters claimed that EPA's identification of the
relevant best performing units for both existing and new unit standards
is both unlawful and arbitrary, and EPA may not use sources' control
technology as a proxy for their actual performance unless ``pollution
control technology is the only factor determining emission levels.''
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855. 863 (DC Cir.
2001). The commenters stated that, in Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC Cir 2001) (``CKRC''), the Court considered
Sierra Club's challenge that EPA could not set the floors based solely
on the performance of one method: Add-on technology. The commenters
added that the Court remanded the rule because EPA did not consider all
of the ways facilities control emissions. The commenters stated that
this requirement is consistent with doing a more complete study as
required by section 111 and is antithetical to a methodology based
solely on emission levels since setting the floor in this fashion does
not require EPA to examine all methods of control. The commenters
concluded that EPA's performance data approach in this rule may violate
CKRC because EPA did not check for all methods that sources use to
reduce pollution.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter who alleges that EPA has
not properly identified the best performing SSI units for purposes of
calculating MACT floor limits. As explained above, EPA targeted its
emissions testing requests to units it believed had the lowest
emissions, while accounting for factors such as sludge content and
seasonal variation by selecting units in different geographic areas of
the country.

    EPA further notes that SSI units currently employ non-technology
measures (pollution prevention) to reduce emissions to comply with CWA
regulations at 40 CFR part 503. These regulations establish daily
average concentration limits for Pb, Cd, and other metals in sewage
sludge that is disposed of by incineration. Part 503 also requires that
SSI meet the National Emission Standards for Beryllium and Hg in
subparts C and E, respectively, of 40 CFR part 61. In order to meet the
40 CFR part 503 standards, facilities are already incorporating
management practices and measures to reduce waste and limit the
concentration of pollutants in the sludge sent to SSI units, such as
segregating contaminated and uncontaminated wastes and establishing
discharge limits or pre-treatment standards for non-domestic users
discharging wastewater to POTW. Thus, the facilities from which EPA
received emissions test results are already applying non-technology
measures to reduce emissions.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that if EPA employs the
statistical limit to set MACT floor emission limits, it should use the
99.9 percent limit. The commenter stated that the 99.9 percent UPL
represents a 0.1 percent probability of a failure for individual tests,
or a one percent per unit non-compliance probability per annual
performance test program. The commenter concluded that this value
better encompasses unit emissions variability and represents a
manageable risk to the responsible facility operator.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters. For the final standards,
we maintain the use of 99 percent UPL is appropriate and sufficiently
addresses variability in the emissions information. Our analysis of
variability is explained in detail in the memorandum ``Revised MACT
Floor Analysis for the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Source Category'' in
the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
    Comment: Several commenters opposed an opacity limit of zero
percent because opacity is a subjective measurement and no unit can
meet opacity limits of zero at all times. Another commenter suggested
that control and monitoring of PM is sufficient.
    Response: We agree that a no visible emissions (zero opacity) limit
for combustion processes is impractical for both compliance and
enforcement purposes. We also believe that a measurable opacity may or
may not be indicative of compliance with a PM emissions limit when
applied to multiple sources within the category. That is, an opacity
limit applied to one facility could very readily correspond to a PM
emissions level different than that same opacity limit applied to
another facility and one or both may be emitting above the PM limit.
That opacity limits do not apply very well when wet control devices are
used further confounds the benefit of such regulatory limits. We also
agree that there are both CEMS and site-specific parametric monitoring
approaches applicable to various control devices that can be more
closely aligned with PM control and compliance with the PM emissions
limit than would an opacity limit and opacity monitoring. Instead of
establishing opacity limits that may or may not assure compliance with
PM emissions limits, the final rules include rigorous requirements for
establishing site-specific operating limits derived from the results of
performance testing. The rules also include a requirement that sources
update those enforceable operating limits with each repeated
performance test. Re-establishing operating limits periodically will
assure that the monitoring will continue to indicate compliance with
the PM emissions limits. The rules also provide the source the option
of apply CEMS to monitor directly the pollutant of interest in lieu of
parametric monitoring. We believe that continuous compliance with
operating limits and periodic stack testing to verify the operating
limits plus the CEMS option will ensure that sources demonstrate
continuous compliance with the PM emission limits more effectively than
would periodic or continuous monitoring of a broadly applicable opacity
limit.
Format of the Standards
    Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA develop emission
limits for some pollutants in different units or to provide a control
efficiency alternative. The commenters expressed concern that the use
of concentration limits would not reflect the variability of the unique
sludge characteristics of each SSI unit, and may unfairly penalize
units with very low or very high feed concentrations of certain
pollutants, such as Hg, Cd, or Pb. Some commenters suggested
establishing limits similar to the EPA 503 regulations, which provided
emission limits based on control efficiencies coupled with feed
concentration limits.
    Response: We did not have sufficient data to set alternative
control efficiency standards or standards in other units at proposal.
We requested additional information in the proposal. However,
sufficient data were not provided in response to our request for
alternative formats to be developed.

D. Baseline Emissions

    Comment: Commenters stated that EPA overestimated baseline
emissions because EPA used incorrect air flow rate parameters,
pollution control device efficiencies, sludge feed rates, and operating
hours. Many commenters provided stack test data, emission estimates,
and corrections to the EPA's SSI inventory database. Other commenters
noted that EPA used uncorrected flue gas flow rates and flow rate
factors in combination with pollutant concentrations corrected to seven
percent oxygen.
    Response: We have incorporated corrections to the inventory and
calculation inputs provided by the commenters where applicable. In some
cases, commenters did not provide information sufficient for us to
revise the inventory or calculation inputs for the commenter's
facility. For example, commenters may have provided an average
concentration for a pollutant, but did not provide run-specific
information that would allow us to convert the concentration
information provided to standardized units (7 percent oxygen). Other
commenters may have provided emission rates in pounds per hour, but did
not provide vent gas flow rate, oxygen content, or moisture content to
convert to concentration units. None of the commenters provided test
reports that would have include this information.
    We have also revised the calculation of baseline emissions by
revising the defaults assigned to SSI units where information was not
available. Defaults were necessary to be assigned because, even after
new data were received in comments, a significant number of units did
not have data on sludge capacity, flue gas flow rates, etc. A detailed
discussion of the methodology used to estimate baseline emissions for
the final standards is presented in the memorandum ``Revised Estimation
of Baseline Emissions from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units''(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). The revisions to the inventory and other
corrections resulted in the final rule baseline emissions shown in
Table 9 of this preamble. The table shows a range of emissions for each
pollutant. The lower bound represents an estimation of actual emissions
based on the actual dry sludge feed rates commenters indicated their
units were running. The upper bound represents an estimation of
potential emissions if the sludge feed rate was at the dry sludge
capacity of each unit. We estimated the potential

emissions because the amount of wastewater treated (and sludge
produced) may vary significantly based on changes in population or
sources of wastewater. Facilities have the potential to burn up to
their units permitted capacity although they may not be doing so
currently.

                          Table 9--Estimated Baseline Emissions for Existing SSI Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Range of baseline emissions by
                                                                   subcategory (TPY)             Range of total
                       Pollutant                        --------------------------------------      baseline
                                                                 FB                 MH          emissions (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.....................................................      0.0022-0.0015           0.91-1.2           0.91-1.2
CO.....................................................             73-100       8,400-11,500       8,500-11,600
HCl....................................................            1.6-2.2              26-41              28-43
Hg.....................................................        0.040-0.058          0.85-1.15            0.9-1.2
NOX....................................................            320-480        2,100-2,800        2,400-3,300
Pb.....................................................      0.0056-0.0077            2.4-3.1            2.4-3.1
PCDD/PCDF TEQ \a\......................................    0.00012-0.00016     0.00076-0.0010      0.0009-0.0012
PCDD/PCDF TMB \a\......................................      0.0014-0.0020        0.011-0.015        0.013-0.017
PM.....................................................              25-37            310-410            330-450
SO2....................................................              43-57          660-1,020          700-1,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Baseline emissions are in pounds per year for PCDD/PCDF.

E. Beyond-the-Floor Analysis

    Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA reconsider the
beyond-the-floor Hg limit for MH units because baseline Hg emissions
were overstated and costs for Hg control were understated. Many of the
commenters contended that carbon injection is an unproven technology
for SSI units, and is currently used at only one facility with FB
units. The commenters added that the facility is undergoing significant
issues with the technology.
    Commenters also contended that Hg removal using carbon injection
cannot be accomplished with existing PM controls, such as venturi
scrubbers, and that FFs would be necessary. The commenters added that
the high moisture content in the form of liquid droplets from the
incinerator will plug FFs, and additional equipment may be necessary to
keep the temperature above the dew point, such as an afterburner.
    Response: We have revised the beyond-the-floor analysis to
incorporate changes made to the baseline emissions, new facility
specific data and inputs provided by commenters, and revised control
options. We analyzed several beyond-the-floor controls for the final
rule. First, we evaluated the use of an afterburner for control of CO
at MH units. We then evaluated whether additional control of Hg should
be required at MH units. We have reviewed the commenters concerns
regarding Hg control technologies and agree that applying carbon
injection to existing scrubbers has not been demonstrated to be
effective at removing Hg. For combustion sources that are not SSI, such
as boilers, carbon injection in combination with a FF has proven to be
highly effective in removing Hg. However, for high moisture flue gas
streams, such as emitted from SSI units, the use of FFs is problematic
due to plugging/fouling. In order to use carbon injection with a FF
with high moisture streams, a waste heat boiler, RTO, or afterburner is
necessary to maintain a high enough temperature to keep the stream
above the dew point prior to sending the stream to the FF.
    Therefore, we next evaluated the combination of using an
afterburner, carbon injection, and FF for additional control of Hg at
MH units. Additional equipment may also be necessary to reduce the
temperature of the flue gas to prevent damage to the fabric filter
bags. Sufficient information was not collected to estimate this cost.
Table 10 of this preamble summarizes the cost for existing SSI units to
apply different controls that were analyzed.

 Table 10--Costs Expected for Existing SSI Units To Apply MACT Controls
                                Analyzed
                                 [2008$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Total annualized
        Control analyzed             Total capital    costs  (million ($/
                                   costs (million $)        yr) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--MACT Floor...................                  55                  18
2--MACT Floor + Afterburner for                  155                  46
 MH units.......................
3--MACT Floor + Afterburner and                  490                 138
 Activated carbon injection and
 FF for MH units................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculated using a seven percent discount factor.

    Table 11 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions of
each pollutant for various controls analyzed.

         Table 11--Summary of Emission Reductions for Existing Units To Apply the MACT Controls Analyzed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Emission Reductions for MACT Controls Analyzed (TPY)
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pollutant                                               MACT floor +             MACT floor +
                                              MACT floor           afterburner for MH     afterburner + ACI and
                                                                         units               FF for MH units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd...................................                  0.5-0.6                  0.5-0.6                 0.87-1.1
CO...................................                        0              6,900-9,300              6,900-9,300
HCl..................................                    19-30                    19-30                    19-30
Hg...................................            0.0022-0.0025            0.0022-0.0025                0.67-0.89
NOX..................................                   6.8-16                   6.8-16                   6.8-16
Pb...................................                  1.2-1.5                  1.2-1.5                  2.3-2.9
PCDD/PCDF TEQ........................                        0                        0      0.0000003-0.0000004
PCDD/PCDF TMB........................                        0                        0        0.000005-0.000007
PM...................................                    58-70                    58-70                  300-400
SO2..................................                  430-700                  430-700                  430-700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results provided in Tables 10 and 11 of this preamble were
calculated using data gathered for each source (e.g., emissions, vent
gas flow rates, controls currently used), as well as default values for
emissions, sludge capacity, and vent gas flow rate for sources where
data were unavailable. We estimate that requiring the use of an
afterburner for MH units not already having an afterburner could
require as much as 1,010 million cubic feet of natural gas a year to be
burned, resulting in NOX and CO emissions of 51 and 43 TPY,
respectively. We estimate that applying activated carbon injection with
a FF and an afterburner or RTO to all MH units to control Hg and PCDD/
PCDF would result in total annualized costs of $138 million dollars
(using a discount rate of seven percent) and would achieve Hg
reductions of 0.67-0.89 TPY. The incremental cost-effectiveness of
adding afterburners/RTO, activated carbon injection, and FFs to all MH
units is estimated to be $80,000 to $100,000 per pound of Hg removed.
Costs would increase if equipment necessary to cool the flue gas is
also necessary. Therefore, given these factors, we are not finalizing
any beyond-the-floor requirements for SSI units.
    We also analyzed going beyond-the-floor to require packed bed
scrubbers for additional HCl and SO2 reduction, a wet ESP
for additional PM, Cd and Pb reduction, and SNCR for additional
NOX reduction. We determined that it was not appropriate to
go beyond-the-floor to achieve greater reduction of HCl,
SO2, PM, Cd, Pb, and NOX considering the cost and
secondary impacts incurred. Our beyond-the-floor analyses for the final
standards are documented in the memorandum ``Revised Analysis of Beyond
the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for
Existing SSI Units'' (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).

F. Cost and Economic Impacts

    Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had underestimated the cost
of the proposed rule for the beyond-the-floor option of Hg control as
well as for the MACT floor for other pollutants because it only has
information for less than 12 percent of the SSI units. The commenters
added that EPA used information from these limited sources and applied
it to remaining sources for which they did not have. The commenters
contended that this results inaccurate determinations of which units
could meet the proposed emission limits and which could not. The
commenters contended that EPA overestimated the number of sources that
could meet the proposed standards resulting in a significant
underestimation of controls.
    Some commenters also contended that EPAs choices of controls to
cost for compliance with the proposed standards were inappropriate for
SSI units. Many commenters stated that the high moisture content of
flue gas streams in some applications may mean that FFs would not be an
appropriate control for PM, Cd, or Pb.
    Response: EPA is not prescribing a specific control technology or
method. A source is required to meet the final emissions limits in
these standards, and has the flexibility to use the control method or
technology that is best suited for their individual facility. EPA's
costs are estimated based on technologies we believe may be appropriate
for the sources to meet the emissions limits.
    At proposal, and for the final standards, we estimated costs and
emissions reductions based on the best available information to us. We
acknowledge that the inventory database did not have complete
information for all 204 SSI units. Consequently, we developed defaults
for flue gas flow rate, hours of operation, sludge capacity, and other
inputs for the proposed rule. We have updated our analyses using data
provided by the commenters as summarized in section IV. Summary of
Significant Changes Following Proposal and the memorandum titled,
``Post-Proposal SSI Database Revisions and Data Gap Filling
Methodology'' in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559). However, for a
number of inputs, we are still assigning default values where data were
not available for each SSI. For the final rule, we have correlated some
of the defaults to populations served by the facilities in order to
better estimate costs and emission reductions more specifically to each
facility. Sources will have the best idea of the costs of controls for
their site specific conditions. For some sources, the costs and
emission reductions estimated by EPA may be higher than what the source
estimates, and for others they will be less. EPA's estimates are
estimates based on the best information available to us. We also note
that the MACT floor costs and emission reductions, and determination of
the number of sources estimated to require control, estimated for the
final rule are also based on the revised MACT floor limits.
    For the final standards we have also revised the types of controls
costed to meet the MACT floor limits. For SSI that we estimate will
need further control of PM, Cd, or Pb to meet the MACT floor, we have
costed out wet ESP as a more appropriate PM control for high moisture
streams. We have also costed out SNCR for SSI that we estimate will
need further control of NOX to meet the MACT floor limits.
As at proposal, we have costed out packed scrubbers for SSI that we
estimate will need further control of HCl or SO2. At the
MACT floor level, we do not estimate that any SSI will need to add
control for Hg, PCDD/PCDF, or CO. A detailed discussion of the costs
and emissions reductions estimates for the final

standards is provided in the memorandum ``Revised Cost and Emission
Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control'' in the SSI docket (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
    Comment: Commenters contended that EPA had incorrectly calculated
the costs of the landfilling alternative because it used dry tons of
sewage sludge instead of wet tons. The commenters added that wet tons
is the appropriate basis of the sludge because even after the
dewatering process, the sludge contains 70 to 80 percent moisture. Many
of the commenters provided estimates for landfilling sludge from their
specific unit. The commenters added that because of the error, EPA has
significantly underestimated the impacts from transporting sludge by
truck. Other commenters added that EPA had not evaluated the negative
social impact of hauling sludge to a landfill. Some commenters added
that EPA did not consider the additional costs for specific state
landfilling regulations.
    Several commenters contended that EPA incorrectly estimated the on-
site sludge storage requirements because calculations were not done on
a wet basis. Commenters added that the cost of the storage units would
be significant and would need to include odor control as well as a
settling basin.
    Other commenters expressed concern regarding the availability of
landfills to POTW needing disposal sites. The commenters contended
there was insufficient landfill capacity to handle the influx of sewage
sludge.
    Response: We have revised our costs and impacts of the landfill
alternative based on comments received on the proposal and corrections
made to the analysis. Table 14 of this preamble summarizes the revised
costs and impacts of this alternative if small entities choose to
landfill rather than incinerate sewage sludge. A detailed discussion of
the landfilling alternative analysis is provided in the memorandum
``Revised Cost and Emission Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of
Control'' in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
    Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many sources will
find landfilling an appropriate alternative. The selection of a
management option for sewage sludge is often a local decision that is
based on environmental protection concerns, community needs, geographic
constraints, and economic conditions. Given a full evaluation of these
factors, for some sources, landfilling or land treatment may be a
better management option than incineration.

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

    Comment: Numerous commenters disagreed with EPA's proposed language
requiring facilities to meet the proposed SSI standards ``at all
times'' because it would be difficult to comply with certain proposed
emission limits during startup and shutdown. Many of these commenters
were specifically concerned about not being able to meet the proposed
CO concentration limit upon startup of a SSI because when a heat up
burner system is fired into a cold vessel, the flame tip is quenched
before the combustion is completed creating a small flow of CO. One
commenter contended that EPA is proposing a new source CO standard
without any evidence that it can be achieved during startup, shutdown,
or malfunction. This commenter provided an example of CO data from one
hazardous waste combustor that averaged 2.2 ppmv during normal
operations but averaged 48.6 ppmv during startup, 40.5 ppmv during
shutdown, and 815.5 during malfunctions. The commenters stated that
absolute pollutant levels tend to increase during startup and shutdown
due to incomplete combustion that is unavoidable at lower temperatures,
and noted that the influence of unstable combustion may be more
pronounced during shutdowns as the incinerator combusts the remaining
sewage sludge for 30 minutes or more. The commenters recommended that
EPA account for situations where higher emissions occur during the time
it takes to bring control equipment from startup to steady-state
operations.
    Response: At this time, we are not promulgating a separate emission
standard for the source category that applies during periods of startup
and shutdown. We do not have data that would allow us to set a separate
standard during periods of startup and shutdown. We requested
information in the NPRM. However, no data were provided. Based on the
information available at this time, we believe that SSI units will be
able to meet the emission limits during periods of startup. Units we
have information on use natural gas, landfill gas, or distillate oil to
start the unit and add waste once the unit has reached combustion
temperatures. Emissions from burning natural gas, landfill gas or
distillate fuel oil are expected to generally be lower than from
burning solid wastes. Emissions during periods of shutdown are also
generally lower than emissions during normal operations because the
materials in the incinerator would be almost fully combusted before
shutdown occurs. Furthermore, the approach for establishing MACT floors
for SSI units ranked individual SSI units based on actual performance
for each pollutant and subcategory, with an appropriate accounting of
emissions variability. Because we accounted for emissions variability,
we believe we have adequately addressed any minor variability that may
potentially occur during startup or shutdown.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by
contrast, EPA has determined that malfunctions should not be viewed as
a distinct operating mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at
such times were not needed to be factored into development of CAA
section 129 standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. We
note that continuous compliance is demonstrated using continuous
parametric monitoring, except for CO from new sources. CO CEMS are
required for new source using a 24-hour block average.
    Comment: Some commenters argued that EPA incorrectly claims that
its authority to prescribe unique standards for SSM periods is
constrained by Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). These
commenters stated that EPA has failed to account adequately for
emissions that occur during SSM periods. One commenter contended that
the Sierra Club decision interpreted CAA section 112, not CAA section
129 (which incorporates, by reference, CAA section 111), and pointed
out that this interpretation is not merely a technical distinction. The
commenter pointed out that since 1977, EPA has exempted emissions
during SSM events from compliance with NSPS under CAA section 111
(referenced 40 CFR 60.8(c)). The commenter argued that Congress enacted
the continuous basis language in section 302(k) knowing that EPA`s
emissions standards under section 111 exempted SSM periods, and pointed
out that there is nothing in the legislative history of the 1977
amendments to the CAA that suggests congress intended to overturn that
practice.
    Response: As explained above, EPA believes the reasoning in the DC
Circuit's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA applies equally to section
129. Additionally, EPA explains above the reasons it is not
establishing different emissions standards for periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.

H. Compliance Requirements

    Comment: Several commenters indicated that the proposed operating
parameter ranges for minimum pressure

drop across a wet scrubber, minimum scrubber liquid flow rate, minimum
scrubber liquid pH, and minimum combustion temperature (or minimum
afterburner temperature) would not be achievable. They explained that
these ranges are too narrow and that they will be inconsistent with the
operating standards already required by 40 CFR part 60 subpart O, 40
CFR part 503, and state permits. Two commenters agreed with the
proposed operating parameter ranges.
    Response: The EPA reviewed the information provided by the
commenters and determined that proposed procedure for establishing the
operating ranges (i.e., calculated as the average of three test runs
and as 90 percent of the minimum value recorded during the applicable
performance tests) may be too restrictive on control device operations
in terms of energy or other operating needs. We determined that the
operating limits should be more appropriately based on values recorded
during the performance test runs. The final rule requires that
operating limits be established on a site-specific basis as the minimum
(or maximum, as appropriate) operating parameter value measured during
the performance test. This approach has been incorporated into the
final rule for all operating parameters and will result in achievable
operating ranges that will ensure that the control devices used for
compliance will be operated to achieve continuous compliance with the
emissions limits.
    Comment: Many commenters argued that the proposed operating range
for sludge feed rate would not be achievable, that it results in the
EPA changing the current state-permitted maximum sludge feed rate, and
that it could force SSI units to conduct performance tests at maximum
rated capacity. They explained that the proposed approach fails to take
into account the normal feed condition and rate variation that occur on
a daily and seasonal basis. A few commenters suggested that charging a
SSI at 75 percent to 90 percent of its rated capacity results in a
steadier state of control and more efficient combustion of the sludge.
    Many commenters indicated that the proposed operating range for
sludge moisture content would not be achievable and that EPA does not
need sludge moisture content to determine whether SSI units are in
compliance with their emission limits. They explained that sludge
moisture is very sensitive to the type of dewatering equipment used,
seasonal changes in the sewage or sludge received by a SSI, temperature
changes, the biological systems that treat the sewage, and to
operational changes, and that these changes cannot always be
anticipated and are not always immediately correctable.
    Response: The EPA reviewed its decision at proposal to require that
SSI units maintain the sludge feed rate and sludge moisture content of
the incinerated sludge within specified ranges. We determined that the
operating limit for temperature of the combustion chamber (or
afterburner temperature) is sufficient to ensure good combustion
practice, and that moisture content is not needed to establish that SSI
units are in compliance with their emission limits. If a SSI has a
higher moisture content, the SSI will need to use more fuel to comply
with their operating limit for temperature of the combustion chamber.
We are no longer requiring that SSI units maintain sludge moisture
content within specified ranges. We are also no longer requiring SSI
units to maintain sludge feed rates within specified ranges due to the
seasonal variability at wastewater treatment plants. Sludge feed rate
information is necessary during performance test runs to establish that
SSI units are in compliance with the new requirement that they conduct
performance tests at 85 percent capacity. We are retaining the
requirement to keep daily records of sludge feed rates and moisture
contents, as SSI units should already be keeping records of these
parameters, and this information will be useful in establishing
representative operating limitations for a SSI unit.
    EPA added a requirement that performance tests be conducted at 85
percent of the permitted maximum capacity. This level has been selected
based on the performance test operating information provided by the
commenters and previous EPA standards.
    Comment: A few commenters indicated that the 4-hour rolling
averaging period selected in the proposed rule for determining
compliance with the operating parameters and CO limit was more
burdensome and difficult to achieve. They explained that the
recordkeeping and compliance burden is less if the averaging period for
CEMS and CPMS are both based on a 24-hour block average. They also
explained that the proposed CO limit on a 4-hour rolling average basis
would be unachievable with MH incinerators and difficult to achieve
with FB incinerators.
    Response: The EPA has determined that a 24-hour block averaging
period for compliance with the CO CEMS requirement for new sources will
provide a sufficient indication of compliance and will allow more
flexibility for facilities. Additionally, the proposed CO emission
guidelines limit of 7.4 ppm for existing fluidized bed SSI units has
changed in the final guidelines to 27 ppm, and this change is discussed
in Section IV of this preamble. We have also revised the averaging
periods for all other operating parameters, except scrubber liquid pH,
to be on a 12-hour block average instead of a 4-hour rolling average
basis in order to relate the averaging time for operating limits to the
duration of the performance tests (e.g., a three run test of 4 hour
test runs would equal a 12-hour averaging time). For scrubber liquid
pH, we chose 3-hour averages to be consistent with the performance test
duration for acid gas scrubbers.
    In the final rule, we are also not incorporating the alternative
THC compliance requirement. Section 129 requires that limits be set for
each of the 9 regulated pollutants. Surrogates, such as THC, cannot be
used in place of the regulated pollutants.
    Comment: Many commenters disagreed with the requirement in the
proposed rule for annual testing, and argued that annual testing of
each SSI is not needed to demonstrate compliance, too costly, and
inconsistent with current Title V permits. They also argued that Method
22 compliance testing for fugitive ash emissions is not feasible or
difficult to conduct due to space constraints, and that many FB
incinerators utilize wet ash removal systems that do not require annual
testing. They explained that the cost for emissions testing may be
significantly higher than the proposed cost of $61,000 per unit. They
further explained that Title V permits require facilities to test each
of its SSI units once per 5 years. They pointed out that current
management practices and strict health-based sludge content limits
under the CWA section 405 and the CAA 40 CFR part 503 regulations will
help ensure that SSI units are in compliance with their emission
limits. One commenter pointed out that the proposed compliance schedule
of every 10 to 12 months will essentially shorten the testing year by
one month each year.
    Response: The proposed standards included provisions for less
frequent testing. In the final standards, EPA has revised these
provisions, making it easier for facilities to qualify for less
frequent testing, allowing less frequent testing for more pollutants,
and ensuring that facilities that do less frequent testing are well
below their emission limits. In the final standards,

owners or operators are required to establish that emissions of a given
pollutant are under a specified threshold for two consecutive years,
rather than 3 years as proposed, to qualify for less frequent testing
for that pollutant. We have also extended the option to do less
frequent testing to PCDD/PCDF and fugitive ash emissions testing. The
threshold is 75 percent of the emission limit for each of the nine
regulated pollutants. In order to allow a decrease in testing
frequency, EPA must have assurance that SSI units can meet a more
stringent threshold than the limits. This is particularly necessary
because of the variability in sludge that may occur at wastewater
treatment facilities. Additionally, in the final standards we are also
providing assurance that the SSI unit is being operated properly and
emission limits are being met continuously by requiring stringent
parametric monitoring requirements. Specifically, exceedances of the
minimum or maximum values established during the performance tests are
considered deviations. For fugitive emissions from ash handling, owners
or operators must demonstrate that visible emissions occur no more than
2 percent of the time during each Method 22 1-hour observation period.
This allowance for fugitive ash emissions has been included in the
final standards with a new requirement that all facilities must submit
a monitoring plan at least 60 days before their initial compliance test
to establish that their ash handling system will continuously meet the
visible emissions limit.
    Additionally, to allow facilities more flexibility regarding their
test dates, to ensure that facilities are not forced to test at
intervals less than 12 months, and to ensure that facilities are
testing once per year, we have revised the testing schedule provisions.
In the final standards, performance tests (except for pollutants that
qualify for less frequent testing) must be conducted on a calendar year
basis (no less than nine calendar months and no more than 15 calendar
months following the previous performance test); and facilities must
complete five performance tests per pollutant in each 5-year calendar
period.
    Comment: Many commenters requested that the definition of ``process
change'' be revised to exclude the provision that a process change
include an increase in the allowable wastewater received from an
industrial source. They pointed out that any such increase would
trigger a performance test, as required by the proposed standards, and
that such increases did not warrant a re-test. They explained that
industrial discharges often constitute only a small percentage of total
influent flow (e.g., 3.5 percent, four to eight percent), that such
discharges are sometimes from sources that do not discharge the
pollutants regulated by the proposed NSPS and guidelines (e.g., food
processing facilities), that some merchant SSI facilities regularly
receive variable amounts of sludge from other regional wastewater
treatment plants and POTW, and that it is difficult for impossible to
anticipate some industrial load changes ahead of time. Several
commenters argued that this proposed requirement would be redundant to
the National Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR part 403, which are
incorporated into their SSI's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit, which require them to establish local limits on
industrial discharges to prevent interference with sludge processes,
use, and disposal. The commenters anticipate that they would establish
similar limits to prevent noncompliance with the final emission limits.
A few commenters suggested that the proposed provision for industrial
discharges is vague and open to interpretation.
    Response: The EPA reviewed the definition of ``process change'' and
agrees with the commenters that there are some situations where an
increase in the allowable wastewater received from an industrial source
should not trigger a performance test. We have revised the definition
of ``process change'' to more specifically and clearly identify the
type of process change that will trigger a performance test. The
revised definition identifies a ``process change'' as pollutant-
specific and as including only situations where the SSI has undergone a
significant permit revision. This revision will ensure that facilities
retest whenever they have a significant change in the process that
could trigger higher emissions of a given pollutant.
    Comment: Several commenters requested EPA clarify what equipment
are included as part of the SSI unit. The commenters stated that the
proposed rules do not specify the equipment and without clarification,
a SSI unit could be interpreted inconsistently or over-broadly.
Commenters requested clarification regarding whether the
``modification'' (which refers to an ``SSI unit'') applies to the
multiple hearth or fluid bed ``reactor'' or whether it includes the
entire system including all air emission controls and auxiliary
equipment.
    Response: We agree that the definition of the SSI unit in the
proposed rule was unclear as to what equipment constitutes the SSI
unit. We have revised the definition of SSI unit in the final rule. A
SSI unit means an incineration unit combusting sewage sludge for the
purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage sludge by removing
combustible matter. Sewage sludge incineration unit designs include
fluidized bed and multiple hearth. We have clarified that a SSI unit
also includes, but is not limited to, the sewage sludge feed system,
auxiliary fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas system, waste heat
recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI unit
includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom ash handling
system. The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the truck loading
station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to final disposal.
The SSI unit does not include air pollution control equipment or the
stack.

VI. Impacts of the Final Action

    As discussed in sections IV and V of this preamble, we have made
several revisions to the impacts analyses for the final rules. We have
incorporated revisions to the variability calculation. These revisions
include: incorporating weighted UPL's for existing FB units, selecting
log-normal results when it is not clear that data are normally
distributed, and revising CO limits based on an analysis of the span of
the test. The result of these changes increased UPL values for most
pollutants.
    Additionally, we have incorporated corrections to the inventory and
calculation inputs provided by the commenters where applicable. We have
also revised the calculation of baseline emissions by revising the
defaults assigned to SSI units where information was not available.
These changes resulted in decreasing the baseline emissions for each of
the pollutants. The combination of increase UPL and decreased baseline
emissions resulted in less SSI units estimated to need additional
control to meet the MACT floor limits.
    For the final rules, we also selected the MACT floor level of
control for both subcategories instead of selecting a beyond-the-floor
requirement.
    For the final rules we have also revised the types of controls
costed to meet the MACT floor limits. For SSI that we estimate will
need further control of PM, Cd, or Pb to meet the MACT floor, we have
costed out wet ESP as a more appropriate PM control for high moisture
streams. We have also costed out SNCR for SSI that we estimate will
need further control of NOX to meet the MACT floor limits.
As at proposal, we have costed out packed-bed scrubbers

for SSI that we estimate will need further control of HCl or
SO2.

A. Impacts of the Final Action for Existing Units

1. What are the primary air impacts?
    We have estimated the potential emission reductions that may be
realized through implementation of the final emission limits. As
discussed in section V of this preamble, we have revised the estimation
of baseline emissions and emission reductions to present a range to
show the variability in the emission calculations between estimated
actual and estimated potential sludge feed rates. Table 12 of this
preamble summarizes the emission reductions for MACT compliance for
each pollutant. The analysis is documented in the memorandum ``Revised
Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units'' in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0559).

   Table 12--Projected Emission Reductions for Existing SSI Units Complying With the Proposed Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Range of reductions achieved through
                                                           meeting MACT by subcategory (TPY)     Range of total
                       Pollutant                        --------------------------------------  reductions (TPY)
                                                                 FB                 MH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd.....................................................                  0            0.5-0.6            0.5-0.6
CO.....................................................                  0                  0                  0
HCl....................................................          0.73-0.94              18-29              19-30
Hg.....................................................      0.0005-0.0006      0.0017-0.0019      0.0022-0.0025
NOX....................................................             6.8-16                  0             6.8-16
Pb.....................................................                  0            1.2-1.5            1.2-1.5
PCDD/PCDF TEQ..........................................                  0                  0                  0
PCDD/PCDF TMB..........................................                  0                  0                  0
PM.....................................................                  0              58-70              58-70
SO2....................................................              17-21            420-680            430-700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
    We anticipate affected sources will need to apply additional
controls to meet the proposed emission limits. These controls may
utilize water, such as wet scrubbers, which would need to be treated.
We estimate an annual requirement of 234 million gallons per year of
additional wastewater will be generated as a result of operating
additional controls or increased sorbents.
    The analysis is documented in the memorandum ``Revised Secondary
Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category'' in the SSI
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
3. What are the energy impacts?
    The energy impacts associated with meeting the proposed emission
limits 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; sorbent injection controls would likewise require
electricity to power pumps and motors. We anticipate that an additional
5,420 megawatt-hours per year will be required for the additional and
improved control devices. The analysis is documented in the memorandum
``Revised Secondary Impacts for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source
Category'' in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
4. What are the secondary air impacts?
    For SSI units adding controls to meet the final emission limits, we
anticipate very minor secondary air impacts. The combustion of fuel
needed to generate additional electricity will 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.
5. What are the cost and economic impacts?
    We have estimated compliance costs for all existing units to add
the necessary controls, monitoring equipment, inspections,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to comply with Option 1
(i.e., the selected SSI standards). Based on this analysis, we
anticipate an overall total capital investment of $55 million with an
associated total annualized cost of $18 million, in 2008 dollars (and
using a discount rate of seven percent), as shown in Table 13 of this
preamble. We anticipate that owner/operators will need to install one
or more air pollution control devices for 43 of the 204 affected units
to meet the final emission limits. The analysis is documented in the
memorandum ``Revised Analysis of Beyond the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Floor Controls for Existing SSI Units'' in the SSI
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).

 Table 13--Summary of Costs for Existing SSI If All Entities Comply With
                        Proposed Emission Limits
                           [Millions of 2008$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Annualized cost
              Subcategory                Capital cost     ($million/yr)
                                          ($million)           \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FB....................................            10.1               3.1
MH....................................            45.0              14.7
                                       ---------------------------------
  Total                                           55.0              17.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent.

    Analysis of Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal. At proposal, we
evaluated landfilling as an alternative disposal method. We have
revised our costs and impacts of this alternative based on comments
received on the proposal and corrections made to the analysis. Table 14
of this preamble summarizes the revised costs and impacts of this
alternative if small entities choose to landfill rather than incinerate
sewage sludge. A detailed discussion of the landfilling alternative
analysis is provided in the memorandum ``Revised Cost and Emission
Reduction of the MACT Floor Level of Control'' in the SSI docket (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
    Based on the revised impacts, it is unlikely that many sources will
find landfilling an appropriate alternative. However, the selection of
a management option for sewage sludge is often a local

decision that is based on environmental protection concerns, community
needs, geographic constraints, and economic conditions. Given a full
evaluation of these factors, for some sources, landfilling or land
treatment may be a better management option than incineration.

 Table 14--Summary of Revised Costs for Small Entities that Landfill in
                          Lieu of Incineration
                           [Millions of 2008$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Annualized cost
              Subcategory                Capital cost     ($million/yr)
                                          ($million)           \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FB....................................             278                38
MH....................................             313              42.7
                                       ---------------------------------
  Total                                            591              80.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Calculated using a discount factor of seven percent.

B. Impacts of the Final Action for New Units

    As discussed in the proposal, based on trends of SSI units
constructed and replaced, technical advantages of FB incinerators, and
information provided by the industry on likely units constructed, we
believe that new SSI units constructed are likely to be FB
incinerators.
1. What are the primary air impacts?
    We have estimated the potential emission reductions that may be
realized through implementation of the final emission limits on two new
FB incinerators potentially being constructed in the next 5 years.
Table 15 of this preamble summarizes these emission reductions for MACT
compliance for each pollutant from two new FB incinerators. The
analysis is documented in the memorandum ``Revised Estimation of
Impacts for New Units Constructed Within 5 Years After Promulgation of
the SSI NSPS'' in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).

Table 15--Emission Reductions for Two New SSI Units (i.e., Fluidized Bed
                        Incinerators) Constructed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Emission
                       Pollutant                         reduction (TPY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd....................................................                 0
CDD/CDF, TEQ..........................................      0.0000000033
CDD/CDF, TMB..........................................       0.000000051
CO....................................................              0.26
HCl...................................................                 0
Hg....................................................            0.0026
NOX...................................................                14
Pb....................................................           0.00053
PM....................................................                 0
PM2.5.................................................                 0
SO2...................................................                 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
    We anticipate affected sources would need to apply controls in
addition to what they would have planned to include in the absence of
this rule to meet the final emission limits. These controls may utilize
water, such as wet scrubbers, which would need to be treated. We
estimate an annual requirement of 8.6 million gallons per year of
additional wastewater will be generated as a result of operating
additional controls or increased sorbents for the two new units
expected to come on-line in the next 5 years. The analysis is
documented in the memorandum ``Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts
for the Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category'' in the SSI docket
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
    Likewise, the application of PM controls results in particulate
collected that would require disposal. Furthermore, activated carbon
injection may be used by some sources, which would result in solid
waste needing disposal. The annual amounts of solid waste that will
require disposal are anticipated to be approximately 34 TPY from
activated carbon injection for the two units.
3. What are the energy impacts?
    The energy impacts associated with meeting the final 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. Sorbent injection controls would likewise require
electricity to power pumps and motors. By our estimate, we anticipate
that an additional 300 megawatt-hours per year will be required for the
additional and improved control devices for the two new units modeled
to come on-line in the next 5 years. The analysis is documented in the
memorandum ``Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the Sewage
Sludge Incineration Source Category Analysis of New Units for the
Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category'' in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0559).
4. What are the secondary air impacts?
    For SSI units adding controls to meet the final emission limits, we
anticipate very minor secondary air impacts. The analysis is documented
in the memorandum ``Revised Analysis of Secondary Impacts for the
Sewage Sludge Incineration Source Category.''
5. What are the cost impacts?
    We have estimated compliance costs for new SSI units coming on-line
in the next 5 years. This analysis is based on a model plant, the
assumption that two new units will come on-line and will add the
necessary controls, monitoring equipment, inspections, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements to comply with the final SSI standards.
Based on this analysis, we anticipate an overall total capital
investment of $8 million (2008$) with an associated total annualized
cost of $2 million (2008$ and using a seven percent discount rate).
This analysis assumes that new SSI units constructed are only FB
incinerators.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
EO 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is a ``significant
regulatory action'' because it was likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more based on the proposed standards.
However, the cost of the final standards are no longer likely to have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Despite the
change in costs, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under EOs 12866 and 13563 and any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket for this action. Although EPA prepared a RIA of the potential
costs and benefits associated with the proposed standards we are simply
updating the RIA rather than revising it.
    A RIA was prepared in September of 2010 for the proposed Standards
of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for
Existing Sources: Sewage Sludge Incineration Units. However, based on
the lower costs associated with the selected alternative in this final
action we are providing an update of the RIA rather than completely
revising the RIA. Within this update, we are providing updated costs
and benefits of the controls analyzed and have provided a comparison of
the selected controls with the alternatives.\13\ While the
characteristics of the controls analyzed have changed, we have also
provided a comparison of the costs and benefits of

the proposed controls analyzed with the selected alternative in this
final action. A summary of the differences are presented below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In the RIA, the controls analyzed are referred to as Option
1 (MACT floor), Option 2 (MACT floor, plus afterburner for MH
units), and Option 3 (MACT floor, plus afterburner and activated
carbon injection and fabric filter for MH units).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Costs for the selected controls analyzed for promulgation
are 80% lower and benefits are 81% lower than they were for the
selected controls analyzed for proposal.
     Because the regulated sewage sludge incineration is a
government provided service that does not involve a market, no price,
quantity, or employment impacts were estimated for the proposal RIA.
The economic impact analysis focused on the comparison of control cost
to total governmental revenue. Because the costs are 80% lower for the
selected controls analyzed for promulgation compared to the proposed
controls analyzed, the control costs are expected to be a smaller
portion of government revenues for the selected controls for
promulgation than they were for the proposed controls.
     Because of insufficient information, employment changes
due to the requirements for operating and maintaining control equipment
were not estimated. Also, we did not have the information needed to
estimate any labor changes related to governmental decisions to switch
from incineration to landfilling.
     Monetized benefits are greater than costs for the selected
option by $3 million to $34 million at three percent and $1 million to
$29 million at seven percent. The benefits from reducing exposure to
HAP, direct exposure to NOX and SO2, ecosystem
effects, and visibility impairment have not been monetized, including
reducing 19 tons of HCl, 4 pounds of Hg, 2,400 pounds of Pb, and 1,000
pounds of Cd.

      Net Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and EG
                           [Millions of $2008]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MACT floor (selected)       3% Discount rate      7% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Benefits..........  $21 to $52..........  $19 to $47.
Costs.......................  $18 to $18..........  $18 to $18.
Net Benefits................  $3 to $34...........  $1 to $29.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Monetized Benefits for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and EG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total monetized benefits for
   final controls analyzed      3% Discount rate      7% Discount rate
     (millions of 2008$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT Floor (Selected).......  $21 to $52..........  $19 to $47.
MACT Floor + Afterburner for  $20 to $50..........  $18 to $45.
 MH units.
MACT Floor + Afterburner and  $55 to $140.........  $50 to $130.
 Activated carbon injection
 and fabric filter for MH
 units.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Monetized benefits changes
 for MACT floor (millions of    3% Discount rate      7% Discount rate
           2008$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal (MACT Floor, all     $110 to $270........  $100 to $250.
 comply).
Final (MACT Floor)..........  $21 to $52..........  $19 to $47.
% Change....................  -81%................  -81%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Monetized benefits changes
    for selected controls       3% Discount rate      7% Discount rate
analyzed (millions of 2008$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal (BTF Option 2, all   $110 to $270........  $100 to $250.
 comply).
Final (MACT Floor)..........  $21 to $52..........  $19 to $47.
% Change....................  -81%................  -81%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Costs for Final Sewage Sludge Incinerators NSPS and EG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total costs for final controls analyzed (millions of       3% or 7%
                         2008$)                            Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT Floor (selected)...................................             $18
MACT Floor + Afterburner for MH units...................              46
MACT Floor + Afterburner and activated carbon injection              138
 + fabric filter for MH units...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             3% or 7%
    Costs changes for MACT floor (millions of 2008$)       Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal (MACT Floor, all comply).......................             $63
Final (MACT Floor)......................................             $18
% Change................................................            -71%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost changes for selected controls analyzed (millions of     3% or 7%
                         2008$)                            Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal (BTF Option 2, all comply).....................             $92
Final (MACT Floor)......................................             $18

% Change................................................            -80%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 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 2369.02 for subpart LLLL, and 2403.02
for subpart MMMM.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this rule are based
on the information collection requirements in CAA section 129 and EPA's
NSPS General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A). The recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in the General Provisions are mandatory
pursuant to CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other
than emissions data submitted to EPA pursuant to the information
collection requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) and EPA's implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The requirements in this action result in industry recordkeeping
and reporting burden associated with review of the amendments for all
SSI and initial and annual compliance with the emission limits using
EPA approved emissions test methods. The burden also includes
continuous parameter monitoring and annual inspections of air pollution
control devices that may be used to meet the emission limits. Operators
are required to obtain qualification and complete annual training. New
units are also required to submit a report prior to construction,
including a siting analysis.
    When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them according to
the applicable reporting requirements of Subparts LLLL and MMMM. 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 60.2 (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 annual average burden associated with the emission guidelines
over the first 3 years following promulgation is estimated to be $9.6
million. This includes 39,350 hours at a total annual labor cost of
$2.2 million and total annualized capital/startup and operation and
maintenance costs of $7.4 million per year, associated with the
monitoring requirements, storage of data and reports and photocopying
and postage over the 3-year period of the ICR. 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 is estimated to involve 701 hours at a
total annual labor cost of $40,000. The total annualized capital/
startup costs are estimated at $232,000 per year. This gives a
cumulative annual burden of $272,000 per year for the NSPS. 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 in 40 CFR 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.

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 organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small
entities, a small entity is defined as follows: (1) A small business as
defined by the 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.
    In the proposal, we certified that there would not be a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The economic
analysis conducted at proposal identified 18 small entities none of
which had cost-revenue-ratios greater than one percent. The cost
analysis for the final standards showed a significant decrease (35 to
98 percent) in all costs for 11 of the 18 small entities. The cost-
revenue-ratios were again estimated using the costs for the final rule
and the same revenue estimates used in the proposal screening analysis.
The revenue estimates were obtained using census average per capita
revenue numbers ($1,696 for entities with populations between 10
thousand and 25 thousand and $1,677 for entities with populations
between 25 thousand and 50 thousand) The resulting cost-revenue-ratios
ranged between 0.04% and 0.5. Thus all cost-revenue-ratios were well
below 1%. Therefore, we consider the final rule to

have no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. None of the
18 small entities has cost-revenue-ratios greater than one percent.
Thus, this is not considered to be a significant impact.
    Although the final 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 by allowing optional
CEMS instead of requiring them, allowing information from tests
conducted in recent years to show compliance rather than require all
new testing and allowing reduced testing with continued compliance.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year.
Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 or 205 of UMRA.
    At proposal, EPA prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written
statement that is summarized in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble
(75 FR 63260, October 14, 2010). A copy of the UMRA written statement
can be found in the docket.
    At proposal, the estimated costs were higher than the estimated
costs of the final rule. At proposal, EPA prepared an RIA, including
EPA's assessment of costs and benefits, which is detailed in the
``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units'' in the docket. Based on estimated
compliance costs 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 $55 million ($).
    At proposal, EPA consulted with governmental entities expected to
be affected by the proposed rule, consistent with the intergovernmental
consultation provisions of section 204 of the UMRA. Those consultations
are discussed in section VIII.D of the proposal preamble (75 FR 63260).
    This final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Because this final
rule's requirements apply equally to SSI units owned and/or operated by
governments or SSI units owned and/or operated by private entities,
there would be no requirements that uniquely apply to such government
or impose any disproportionate impacts on them.

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

    During proposal EPA was not aware of any SSI owned or operated by
an Indian tribe or tribal governments, thus, Executive Order 13175 did
not appear to have implications. However as specified in Executive
Order 13175, (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA has attempted to
outreach and discuss possible SSI implications with tribal contacts.
    EPA presented information on the SSI proposal and specifically
solicited additional comment on the proposed action from tribal
contacts in the proposal period via the NTAA conference calls.
    EPA has received coordinated comments from the NTAA; those comments
can be reviewed in the public docket, document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0559-0130.1. Commenters expressed that SSI units located in proximity
to Indian country units, obtaining Title V permits, may trigger tribal
consultation with regard to potential impact from the SSI unit.
Commenters are dismayed, as they believe EPA failed to consult with
Indian tribes regarding the standards and have failed to fully assess
the potential impacts of SSI units on tribal communities. Lastly,
commenters recommended that EPA provide a map overlay that accounts for
both SSI units and tribal lands so tribes can acquire a better
understanding on how they might be affected by such sites and these
standards in general.
    EPA participated on two NTAA conference calls to discuss the rule
development process, first to provide general information on the
development of the SSI standards and second providing more specific
background information on the purpose of the rulemaking, number and
locations of units, and unit types. EPA allowed time for clarifying
questions and requested information if any NTAA members were aware of
any type of incinerator burning sewage sludge in Indian Country. EPA
will provide a map overlay for the SSI docket so that tribes can
acquire a better understanding on how they might be affected by SSI
sites and the standards in general.

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 final action is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology
performance. We note however, that reductions in air emissions by these
facilities will improve air quality, with expected positive impacts for
children's health.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (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: Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units'' through the Enhanced National Standards
Service Network Database managed by the ANSI. We also contacted VCS
organizations, accessed, and searched their data bases.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for
its manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of
the exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable
alternatives to EPA Methods 6, 7. This standard is available from the
ASME, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
    Another VCS, ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), ``Standard Test
Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas
Generated From Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)''
is an acceptable alternative to Method 29 and 30B. EPA has also decided
to use EPA Methods 5, 6, 6C, 7, 7E, 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 22, 23, 26A, 29
and 30B. No VCS were found for EPA Method 9 and 22.
    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 that
meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative
methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures
in EPA reference methods. EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS.
    The search identified other VCS that were potentially applicable
for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the
available standards, EPA determined that candidate VCS (ASME B133.9-
1994 (2001), ISO 9096:1992 (2003), ANSI/ASME PTC PTC-38-1980 (1985),
ASTM D3685/D3685M-98 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.1-M1977, ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-
1981, ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2007), ASTM
D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999), ISO 7934:1998, ISO
11632:1998, ASTM D1608-98 (2003), ISO I1564:1998, CAN/CSA Z223.24-
MI983, CAN/CSA Z223.21-MI978, ASTM D3162-94 (2005), EN 1948-3 (1996),
EN 1911-1,2,3 (1998), ASTM D6735-01, EN 13211:2001, CAN/CSA Z223.26-
MI987) 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, performance specifications, 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 environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice 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 and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income populations. Additionally, the Agency has reviewed this final
rule to determine if there was existing disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. An analysis of
demographic data showed that the average of populations in close
proximity to the sources, and thus most likely to be effected by the
sources, were similar in demographic composition to national averages.
The results of the demographic analysis are presented in ``Review of
Environmental Justice Impacts,'' June 2010, a copy of which is
available in the SSI docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0559).
    This final action establishes national emission standards for new
and existing SSI units. The EPA estimates that there are approximately
204 such units covered by this rule. The final rule will reduce
emissions of many of the listed HAP emitted from this source. This
includes emissions of Cd, HCl, Pb, and Hg. 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 PM2.5 and SO2. Sulfur
dioxide and NOX 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. For additional
information, please refer to the RIA contained in the docket for this
rulemaking. In EPA's July 2010 ``Interim Guidance on Considering
Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action,'' EPA
defines ``environmental justice'' as the fair treatment and 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 help achieve EPA's goal for Environmental Justice (i.e., the
fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people), EPA places
particular emphasis on the public health of and environmental
conditions affecting minority, low-income, and indigenous populations.
In recognizing that these populations frequently bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, EPA works to
protect them from adverse public health and environmental effects of
its programs. EPA looks at the vulnerabilities of these populations
because they have historically been exposed to a combination of
physical, chemical, biological, social, and cultural factors that have
imposed greater environmental burdens on them than those imposed on the
general population.
    To promote meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a
communication and outreach strategy to ensure that interested
communities have access to this final rule, are aware of its content
and have an opportunity to comment during the comment period. During
the comment period, EPA publicized the rulemaking via environmental
newsletters, tribal newsletters, environmental justice listservs, and
the Internet, including the OPEI Rulemaking Gateway Web site (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). EPA will also provide general
rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this important for my community)
for environmental justice community groups and conduct conference calls
with interested communities. In addition, 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.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This 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, part
60 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); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:

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, 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. Part 60 is amended by adding subparts LLLL and MMMM to read as
follows:

Subpart LLLL--Standards of Performance for New Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units

Sec.

Introduction

60.4760 What does this subpart do?
60.4765 When does this subpart become effective?

Applicability and Delegation of Authority

60.4770 Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge incineration
unit?
60.4775 What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit?
60.4780 What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt from this
subpart?
60.4785 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
60.4790 How are these new source performance standards structured?
60.4795 Do all nine components of these new source performance
standards apply at the same time?

Preconstruction Siting Analysis

60.4800 Who must prepare a siting analysis?
60.4805 What is a siting analysis?

Operator Training and Qualification

60.4810 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
60.4815 When must the operator training course be completed?
60.4820 How do I obtain my operator qualification?
60.4825 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
60.4830 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?
60.4835 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not
accessible?
60.4840 What site-specific documentation is required and how often
must it be reviewed by qualified operators and plant personnel?

Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits and
Requirements

60.4845 What emission limits and standards must I meet and by when?
60.4850 What operating limits and requirements must I meet and by
when?
60.4855 How do I establish operating limits if I do not use a wet
scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipitator, or activated
carbon injection, or if I limit emissions in some other manner, to
comply with the emission limits?
60.4860 Do the emission limits, emission standards, and operating
limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
60.4861 How do I establish affirmative defense for exceedance of an
emission limit or standard during malfunction?

Initial Compliance Requirements

60.4865 How and when do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
60.4870 How do I establish my operating limits?
60.4875 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection and make any necessary repairs?
60.4880 How do I develop a site-specific monitoring plan for my
continuous monitoring, bag leak detection, and ash handling systems,
and by what date must I conduct an initial performance evaluation?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

60.4885 How and when do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limits and standards?
60.4890 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with my operating
limits?
60.4895 By what date must I conduct annual air pollution control
device inspections and make any necessary repairs?

Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration Requirements

60.4900 What are the performance testing, monitoring, and
calibration requirements for compliance with the emission limits and
standards?
60.4905 What are the monitoring and calibration requirements for
compliance with my operating limits?

Recordkeeping and Reporting

60.4910 What records must I keep?
60.4915 What reports must I submit?

Title V Operating Permits

60.4920 Am I required to apply for and obtain a Title V operating
permit for my unit?
60.4925 When must I submit a title V permit application for my new
SSI unit?

Definitions

60.4930 What definitions must I know?

Tables

Table 1 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Emission Limits and Standards
for Fluidized Bed New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 2 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Emission Limits and Standards
for New Multiple Hearth Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 3 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Operating Parameters for New
Sewage Sludge Incineration Units
Table 4 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Toxic Equivalency Factors
Table 5 to Subpart LLLL of Part 60--Summary of Reporting
Requirements for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units *COM019*

Introduction

Sec.  60.4760  What does this subpart do?

    This subpart establishes new source performance standards for
sewage sludge incineration (SSI) units. To the extent any requirement
of this subpart is inconsistent with the requirements of subpart A of
this part, the requirements of this subpart will apply.

Sec.  60.4765  When does this subpart become effective?

    This subpart takes effect on September 21, 2011. Some of the
requirements in this subpart apply to planning a SSI unit and must be
completed even before construction is initiated on a SSI unit (i.e.,
the preconstruction requirements in Sec. Sec.  60.4800 and 60.4805).
Other requirements such as the emission limits, emission standards, and
operating limits apply after the SSI unit begins operation.

Applicability and Delegation of Authority

Sec.  60.4770  Does this subpart apply to my sewage sludge incineration
unit?

    Yes, your SSI unit is an affected source if it meets all the
criteria specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
    (a) Your SSI unit is a SSI unit for which construction commenced
after October 14, 2010 or for which modification commenced after
September 21, 2011.
    (b) Your SSI unit is a SSI unit as defined in Sec.  60.4930.
    (c) Your SSI unit is not exempt under Sec.  60.4780.

Sec.  60.4775  What is a new sewage sludge incineration unit?

    (a) A new SSI unit is a SSI unit that meets either of the two
criteria specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) Commenced construction after October 14, 2010.
    (2) Commenced modification after September 21, 2011.
    (b) Physical or operational changes made to your SSI unit to comply
with the emission guidelines in subpart MMMM of this part (Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Times for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration
Units) do not qualify as a modification under this subpart.

Sec.  60.4780  What sewage sludge incineration units are exempt from
this subpart?

    This subpart exempts combustion units that incinerate sewage sludge
and are not located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to
treat domestic sewage sludge. These units may be subject to another
subpart of this part (e.g., subpart CCCC of this part). The owner or
operator of such a combustion unit must notify the Administrator of an
exemption claim under this section.

Sec.  60.4785  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the
Administrator, as defined in Sec.  60.2, or a delegated authority such
as your state, local, or tribal agency. If the Administrator has
delegated authority to your state, local, or tribal agency, then that
agency (as well as the Administrator) has the authority to implement
and enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office
to find out if this subpart is delegated to your state, local, or
tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency, the authorities contained
in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator and
are not transferred to the state, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of
this section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limits and standards
in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart and operating limits established
under Sec.  60.4850.
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting.
    (5) The requirements in Sec.  60.4855.
    (6) The requirements in Sec.  60.4835(b)(2).
    (7) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.
60.8(b).
    (8) Preconstruction siting analysis in Sec.  60.4800 and Sec.
60.4805.

Sec.  60.4790  How are these new source performance standards
structured?

    These new source performance standards contain the nine major

components listed in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section.
    (a) Preconstruction siting analysis.
    (b) Operator training and qualification.
    (c) Emission limits, emission standards, and operating limits.
    (d) Initial compliance requirements.
    (e) Continuous compliance requirements.
    (f) Performance testing, monitoring, and calibration requirements.
    (g) Recordkeeping and reporting.
    (h) Definitions.
    (i) Tables.

Sec.  60.4795  Do all nine components of these new source performance
standards apply at the same time?

    No. You must meet the preconstruction siting analysis requirements
before you commence construction of the SSI unit. The operator training
and qualification, emission limits, emission standards, operating
limits, performance testing, and compliance, monitoring, and most
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are met after the SSI unit
begins operation.

Preconstruction Siting Analysis

Sec.  60.4800  Who must prepare a siting analysis?

    (a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you plan to commence
construction of a SSI unit after October 14, 2010.
    (b) 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
modification of your SSI unit.

Sec.  60.4805  What is a siting analysis?

    (a) The siting analysis must consider air pollution control
alternatives that minimize, on a site-specific basis, to the maximum
extent practicable, potential risks to public health or the
environment, including impacts of the affected SSI unit on ambient air
quality, visibility, soils, and vegetation. In considering such
alternatives, the analysis may consider costs, energy impacts, nonair
environmental impacts, or any other factors related to the
practicability of the alternatives.
    (b) Analyses of your SSI unit's impacts that are prepared to comply
with state, local, or other Federal regulatory requirements may be used
to satisfy the requirements of this section, provided they include the
consideration of air pollution control alternatives specified in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) You must complete and submit the siting requirements of this
section as required under Sec.  60.4915(a)(3) prior to commencing
construction.

Operator Training and Qualification

Sec.  60.4810  What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?

    (a) A SSI unit cannot be operated unless a fully trained and
qualified SSI unit operator is accessible, either at the facility or
can be at the facility within 1 hour. The trained and qualified SSI
unit operator may operate the SSI unit directly or be the direct
supervisor of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit.
If all qualified SSI unit operators are temporarily not accessible, you
must follow the procedures in Sec.  60.4835.
    (b) Operator training and qualification must be obtained through a
state-approved program or by completing the requirements included in
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Training must be obtained by completing an incinerator operator
training course that includes, at a minimum, the three elements
described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section.
    (1) Training on the 10 subjects listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (c)(1)(x) of this section.
    (i) Environmental concerns, including types of emissions.
    (ii) Basic combustion principles, including products of combustion.
    (iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator to be used by
the operator, including proper startup, sewage sludge feeding, and
shutdown procedures.
    (iv) Combustion controls and monitoring.
    (v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and factors
affecting performance (if applicable).
    (vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator and air
pollution control devices.
    (vii) Actions to prevent malfunctions or to prevent conditions that
may lead to malfunctions.
    (viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and handling procedures.
    (ix) Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, including
Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace standards.
    (x) Pollution prevention.
    (2) An examination designed and administered by the state-approved
program.
    (3) Written material covering the training course topics that may
serve as reference material following completion of the course.

Sec.  60.4815  When must the operator training course be completed?

    The operator training course must be completed by the later of the
two dates specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    (a) Six months after your SSI unit startup.
    (b) The date before an employee assumes responsibility for
operating the SSI unit or assumes responsibility for supervising the
operation of the SSI unit.

Sec.  60.4820  How do I obtain my operator qualification?

    (a) You must obtain operator qualification by completing a training
course that satisfies the criteria under Sec.  60.4810(b).
    (b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the training
course is completed and the operator successfully passes the
examination required under Sec.  60.4810(c)(2).

Sec.  60.4825  How do I maintain my operator qualification?

    To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual review or
refresher course covering, at a minimum, the five topics described in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
    (a) Update of regulations.
    (b) Incinerator operation, including startup and shutdown
procedures, sewage sludge feeding, and ash handling.
    (c) Inspection and maintenance.
    (d) Prevention of malfunctions or conditions that may lead to
malfunction.
    (e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by attendees.

Sec.  60.4830  How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?

    You must renew a lapsed operator qualification before you begin
operation of a SSI unit by one of the two methods specified in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
    (a) For a lapse of less than 3 years, you must complete a standard
annual refresher course described in Sec.  60.4825.
    (b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you must repeat the initial
qualification requirements in Sec.  60.4820(a).

Sec.  60.4835  What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not
accessible?

    If a qualified operator is not at the facility and cannot be at the
facility within 1 hour, you must meet the criteria specified in either
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, depending on the length of time
that a qualified operator is not accessible.
    (a) When a qualified operator is not accessible for more than 8
hours, the SSI unit may be operated for less than 2 weeks by other
plant personnel who are familiar with the operation of the SSI unit and
who have completed a review

of the information specified in Sec.  60.4840 within the past 12
months. However, you must record the period when a qualified operator
was not accessible and include this deviation in the annual report as
specified under Sec.  60.4915(d).
    (b) When a qualified operator is not accessible for 2 weeks or
more, you must take the two actions that are described in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
    (1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in writing within 10
days. In the notice, state what caused this deviation, what you are
doing to ensure that a qualified operator is accessible, and when you
anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible.
    (2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 4 weeks
outlining what you are doing to ensure that a qualified operator is
accessible, stating when you anticipate that a qualified operator will
be accessible, and requesting approval from the Administrator to
continue operation of the SSI unit. You must submit the first status
report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of the deviation
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (i) If the Administrator notifies you that your request to continue
operation of the SSI unit is disapproved, the SSI unit may continue
operation for 30 days, and then must cease operation.
    (ii) Operation of the unit may resume if a qualified operator is
accessible as required under Sec.  60.4810(a). You must notify the
Administrator within 5 days of having resumed operations and of having
a qualified operator accessible.

Sec.  60.4840  What site-specific documentation is required and how