[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 121 (Thursday, June 23, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40955-41034]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13687]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 121

June 23, 2016

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 60

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 121 / Thursday, June 23, 2016 / Rules
and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119; FRL-9945-72-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS11

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; notice of final action on reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This action sets forth the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) final decision on the issues for which it granted reconsideration
on January 21, 2015, which pertain to certain aspects of the February
7, 2013, final rule titled ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources:
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units'' (CISWI
rule). The EPA is finalizing proposed actions on these four topics:
Definition of ``continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) data
during startup and shutdown periods;'' particulate matter (PM) limit
for the waste-burning kiln subcategory; fuel variability factor (FVF)
for coal-burning energy recovery units (ERUs); and the definition of
``kiln.'' This action also includes our final decision to deny the
requests for reconsideration of all other issues raised in the
petitions for reconsideration of the 2013 final commercial and
industrial solid waste incineration rule for which we did not grant
reconsideration.

DATES: The amendments in this rule to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD, are
effective June 23, 2016, and to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC, are
effective December 23, 2016. The incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this rule was approved February 7, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action on the
commercial and industrial solid waste incineration rule under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119. All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number for the Docket
Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Dr.
Nabanita Modak Fischer, Fuels and Incineration Group, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (E143-05), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-5572; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does this reconsideration action apply to me?
    B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Summary of Final Amendments
    A. Background Information
    B. Actions We Are Taking
    C. Other Actions We Are Taking
III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
IV. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
    A. Definition of ``CEMS Data During Startup and Shutdown
Periods''
    B. PM Limit for the Waste-Burning Kiln Subcategory
    C. FVF for Coal-Burning Energy Recovery Units
    D. Definition of ``Kiln''
V. Technical Corrections and Clarifications
    A. 2000 CISWI New Source Applicability Clarification for
Incinerators and Air Curtain Incinerators
    B. Typographical Errors and Corrections
    C. Clarifications
VI. Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

Btu British thermal unit
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential business information
Cd Cadmium
CEMS Continuous emissions monitoring systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CPMS Continuous Parameter Monitoring System
dscm Dry standard cubic meter
EG Emission Guidelines
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERU Energy recovery unit
ESP Electrostatic precipitator
FVF Fuel variability factor
HCl Hydrogen chloride
Hg Mercury
ICR Information collection request
MACT Maximum achievable control technology
mg/dscm Milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
mmBtu/hr Million British thermal units per hour
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
NESHAP National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
ng/dscm Nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
NHSM Non-hazardous secondary material(s)
NOX Nitrogen oxides
NSPS New source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Pb Lead
PM Particulate matter (filterable, unless otherwise specified)
ppm Parts per million
ppmv Parts per million by volume
ppmvd Parts per million by dry volume
PS Performance Specification
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
SBA Small Business Administration
SO2 Sulfur dioxide

SSM Startup, shutdown, and malfunction
The Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
TTN Technology Transfer Network
ug/dscm Micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS Voluntary consensus standards
WWW World Wide Web

I. General Information

A. Does this reconsideration action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially affected by the proposed action
are those that operate Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration (CISWI) units. The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and Emission Guidelines (EG), hereinafter referred to as ``standards,''
for CISWI affect the following categories of sources:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of potentially
            Category             NAICS \1\ code     regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industrial or commercial      211, 212, 486  Mining; oil and gas
 facility using a solid waste                     exploration
 incinerator.                                     operations; pipeline
                                                  operators.
                                            221  Utility providers.
                                  321, 322, 337  Manufacturers of wood
                                                  products;
                                                  manufacturers of pulp,
                                                  paper and paperboard;
                                                  manufacturers of
                                                  furniture and related
                                                  products.
                                       325, 326  Manufacturers of
                                                  chemicals and allied
                                                  products;
                                                  manufacturers of
                                                  plastics and rubber
                                                  products.
                                            327  Manufacturers of
                                                  cement; nonmetallic
                                                  mineral product
                                                  manufacturing.
                                       333, 336  Manufacturers of
                                                  machinery;
                                                  manufacturers of
                                                  transportation
                                                  equipment.
                                        423, 44  Merchant wholesalers,
                                                  durable goods; retail
                                                  trade.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industrial Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
final action. To determine whether your facility would be affected by
this final action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 60.2010 of subpart CCCC, 40 CFR 60.2505 of subpart DDDD and 40 CFR
part 241. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
final action to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?

    The docket number for this final action regarding the CISWI NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD) is
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119. In addition to being available in
the docket, an electronic copy of this final action is available on the
World Wide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web.
Following signature, the EPA posted a copy of the proposed action at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/129/ciwi/ciwipg.html. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under the CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) by
August 22, 2016. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to
this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Any
person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to the persons
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and
the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office,
Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Note, under
CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule
may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings
brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.

II. Summary of Final Amendments

A. Background Information

    On March 21, 2011, the EPA promulgated revised NSPS and EG for
CISWI units. Following that action, the Administrator received
petitions for reconsideration that identified certain issues that
warranted further opportunity for public comment. In response to the
petitions, the EPA reconsidered and requested comment on several
provisions of the February 2011 final NSPS and EG for commercial and
industrial solid waste incineration units. The EPA published the
proposed revisions to the NSPS and EG for commercial and industrial
solid waste units on December 23, 2011 (76 FR 80452).
    On February 7, 2013, the EPA promulgated the final reconsidered
NSPS and EG for CISWI units (78 FR 9112). The final rule made some
revisions to the December 2011 proposed reconsideration rule in
response to comments and additional information received. Following
that action, the EPA again received petitions for reconsideration.
These petitions stated certain provisions should be reconsidered and
that the public lacked sufficient opportunity to comment on some of the
provisions contained in the final 2013 CISWI rule. On January 21, 2015,
the EPA reconsidered and requested comment on four provisions of the
2013 final NSPS and EG for CISWI units. Additionally, the EPA proposed
clarifying changes and corrections to the final rule, some of which
were raised in petitions for reconsideration of the 2013 CISWI rule.
The EPA also proposed to amend the final rule by removing the
affirmative defense provision. The EPA continued to evaluate the
remaining issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration of the
February 7, 2013 final CISWI reconsideration based on public comments
received on the January 21, 2015, proposed reconsideration. For a more
detailed background and additional information on how this rule is
related to other CAA combustion rules issued under CAA section 112 and

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) definition of solid
waste, refer to prior notices (76 FR 15704, 78 FR 9112).

B. Actions We Are Taking

    In this document, we are finalizing amendments associated with
certain issues raised by Petitioners in their petitions for
reconsideration on the 2013 CISWI rule. These provisions are: (1)
Definition of ``CEMS data during startup and shutdown periods;'' (2)
particulate matter (PM) limit for the waste-burning kiln subcategory;
(3) fuel variability factor (FVF) for coal-burning energy recovery
units (ERUs); and (4) the definition of ``kiln.'' The final amendments
are summarized as follows:
    1. Definition of ``CEMS data during startup and shutdown periods'':
The EPA is revising the ``CEMS data during startup and shutdown''
definition to be subcategory-specific. For ERUs and waste-burning
kilns, the definitions reflect provisions similar to those of the non-
waste counterpart National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) to CISWI for the type of source (i.e., boilers and
cement kilns). Therefore, ERUs will comply with provisions similar to
those in the major source Boiler NESHAP, and waste-burning kilns will
comply with provisions similar to those in the Portland Cement NESHAP.
For incinerators and small remote incinerators, the proposed definition
(i.e., from a cold start and up to 48 hours for startup and 24 hours or
less for shutdown) will apply.
    2. Particulate matter limit for the waste-burning kiln subcategory:
The EPA has determined that the test averages, instead of the
individual test runs, should be used to establish the standards for new
and existing waste-burning kilns. Based on that approach, the final PM
emission limits for existing kilns is 13.5 mg/dscm and the final PM
emission limit for new kilns is 4.9 mg/dscm.
    3. Fuel variability factor (FVF) for coal-burning energy recovery
units: The EPA is incorporating a fuel variability factor and adopting
as final the emission limits discussed in the proposed rule for cadmium
(Cd), hydrogen chloride (HCl), mercury (Hg), lead (Pb), filterable
particulate matter (PM), and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
Additionally, the EPA has re-evaluated the fuel sulfur data with paired
sulfur dioxide (SO2) data and is incorporating a FVF into
the floor calculations for SO2. The final SO2
limit for existing and new coal ERUs is 850 parts per million by dry
volume (ppmvd).
    4. Definition of ``kiln'': The EPA is finalizing a definition of
``kiln'' that is consistent with that of the Portland Cement NESHAP.
The terms ``in-line raw mill'' and ``in-line coal mill'' are included
in the definition, and, therefore, have been added to the definitions
within the CISWI rule. Furthermore, the EPA is finalizing the proposed
compliance demonstration and ongoing monitoring method for waste-
burning kilns that combine emission streams from the in-line raw mill
and/or the in-line coal mill and exhaust through multiple stacks. The
EPA is also finalizing clarifying language that makes the monitoring
requirements for waste-burning kilns consistent with those in the
Portland Cement NESHAP. Specifically, we are not requiring that CEMS or
PM continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) be installed on
separate alkali bypass or in-line coal mill stacks. Instead, as is the
case with the Portland Cement NESHAP, the results of the initial and
subsequent performance tests for the alkali bypass and in-line coal
mill stacks can be used to determine the combined emissions to
demonstrate compliance with the relevant emissions limit. However,
unlike the Portland Cement NESHAP, the performance test must be
conducted on an annual basis (between 11 and 13 calendar months
following the previous performance test) to keep the testing schedule
for these stacks consistent with the CISWI rule's annual performance
testing requirements.
    Section IV of this preamble discusses these issues in further
detail and presents the revisions necessary to address each issue.
    Additionally, the EPA is clarifying certain applicability
provisions relating to incinerator units and air curtain incinerator
units subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS and is correcting various
typographical errors identified in the rule as published in the CFR.
Section V of this preamble discusses these issues in further detail.
    The EPA is also finalizing the proposed amendments to the final
rule by removing the affirmative defense provision for the reasons set
forth in the proposed rule. See 80 FR 3018, 3025 (January 21, 2015).

C. Other Actions We Are Taking

    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA states that ``[o]nly an objection
to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may
be raised during judicial review. If the person raising an objection
can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise
such objection within such time or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule, the Administrator shall convene a
proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and provide the same
procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been
available at the time the rule was proposed. If the Administrator
refuses to convene such a proceeding, such person may seek review of
such refusal in the United States court of appeals for the appropriate
circuit (as provided in subsection (b)).''
    As to the first procedural criterion for reconsideration, a
petitioner must show why the issue could not have been presented during
the comment period, either because it was impracticable to raise the
issue during that time or because the grounds for the issue arose after
the period for public comment (but within 60 days of publication of the
final action). The EPA is denying the petitions for reconsideration on
a number of issues because this criterion has not been met. In many
cases, the petitions reiterate comments made on the proposed December
2011 rule during the public comment period for that rule. On those
issues, the EPA responded to those comments in the final rule and made
appropriate revisions to the proposed rule after consideration of
public comments received. It is well established that an agency may
refine its proposed approach without providing an additional
opportunity for public comment. See Community Nutrition Institute v.
Block, 749 F.2d at 58 and International Fabricare Institute v. EPA, 972
F.2d 384, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (notice and comment is not intended to
result in ``interminable back-and-forth[,]'' nor is an agency required
to provide additional opportunity to comment on its response to
comments) and Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d
506, 547 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (``notice requirement should not force an
agency endlessly to repropose a rule because of minor changes'').
    In the EPA's view, an objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule only if it provides substantial support for the
argument that the promulgated regulation should be revised. See Union
Oil v. EPA, 821 F.2d 768, 683 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (court declined to
remand rule because petitioners failed to show substantial likelihood
that final rule would have been changed

based on information in petition). See also the EPA's Denial of the
Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act,
75 FR at 49556, 49561 (August 13, 2010). See also 75 FR at 49556,
49560-49563 (August 13, 2010) and 76 FR at 4780, 4786-4788 (January 26,
2011) for additional discussion of the standard for reconsideration
under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).
    This action includes our final decision to deny the requests for
reconsideration with respect to all issues raised in the petitions for
reconsideration of the final 2013 CISWI rule for which we did not grant
reconsideration. These denied requests for reconsideration are
discussed in detail in the ``Reconsideration issues on the 2013 final
rule'' memorandum found in the docket to this rulemaking.

III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

    The EPA did not propose revisions to the definition of ``CEMS data
during startup and shutdown,'' but requested comment and suggestions
for provisions in this definition that would address the transitional
operation period at startup. Based on our review of comments received
and suggestions on provisions, we are finalizing revised subcategory-
specific definitions for ``CEMS data during startup and shutdown'' that
are operationally representative for the subcategory of unit, and more
closely resemble the non-waste burning regulatory definitions of these
periods of operation. This issue, and the rationale for doing so, are
discussed in greater detail in section IV.A. of this preamble.
    Similarly, the EPA did not propose PM emission limits for waste-
burning kilns based on test average data instead of test run data, but
requested comment on the appropriateness of such an approach for this
set of data. Upon consideration of comments, the EPA has determined to
adopt the emission limits based on test average data for PM for the
waste-burning kiln subcategory, and we have discussed our rationale for
this in section IV.B. of this preamble.
    The EPA did not propose but requested comment and additional data
concerning the need for a FVF for coal-fired ERUs. Potential emission
limits based on periods of non-waste combustion and, if applicable, a
FVF for coal ERUs were discussed in the proposal for coal-burning ERUs
for Cd, HCl, Hg, Pb, PM, and NOX. Based on comments and
additional analysis, the EPA is adopting these emission limits and also
incorporating a FVF into the floor calculations for the SO2
emission limit. The EPA did not discuss a FVF for SO2 at
proposal because the sulfur data the EPA had intended to use to develop
the FVF appeared to have only one data point that could be paired with
SO2 emissions test data. It was brought to the EPA's
attention during the comment period, however, that there were in fact
two data points in the sulfur data set that could be paired with
emissions test data. It was not initially clear that the coal samples
dated 4-9 days prior to the emissions test were paired samples.
However, during the comment period, a commenter informed the EPA these
data were paired and the different dates were due to the lag time
between sampling and actual combustion. This clarification enabled the
EPA to determine that sufficient paired data exist for the calculation
of a FVF for SO2, which resulted in a revised SO2
emission limit of 850 ppmvd for new and existing coal ERUs. Consistent
with the January 21, 2015 proposal, the EPA is adopting this revised
emission limit to account for the fuel variability for this subcategory
of CISWI units. Section IV.C of this preamble discusses this issue in
further detail and responds to comments on the issue.
    Additionally, the HCl CEMS requirements for waste-burning kilns not
equipped with acid gas wet or dry scrubbers have been revised in
response to comments and to be more consistent with more recently
promulgated monitoring provisions included in the Portland Cement
NESHAP rule. These revised provisions allow sources to use CEMS
installed and operated according to either Performance Specification 15
or Performance Specification 18 to continuously monitor HCl emissions.
The revised provisions also provide additional clarification and detail
to sources on the procedures to use for calibrating and verifying the
performance of the HCl CEMS.

IV. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

    This section of the preamble summarizes the major comments received
regarding the reconsidered issues and the EPA's responses in support of
this final rule. For other comments not discussed here, refer to the
``Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units: 2015 Reconsideration and
Final Amendments'' in the docket.

A. Definition of ``CEMS Data During Startup and Shutdown Periods''

    Background: In the January 21, 2015, proposal, the EPA requested
comments on the definition of ``CEMS data during startup and shutdown''
that was in the February 2013 final rule. As background, the 2011 CISWI
final rule contained CEMS monitoring requirements for carbon monoxide
(CO) from new sources, including a provision that mandated a 7 percent
oxygen correction. After the 2011 CISWI final rule was published,
petitioners indicated that correcting CO concentration measurements to
7 percent oxygen is problematic during startup and shutdown periods
when the flue gas oxygen content approaches the oxygen content of
ambient air, especially with regard to the ERU subcategory. Oxygen
contents are often maintained relatively close to ambient air during
combustion unit startup and shutdown in order to safely operate the
unit, but, as a result, the corrected CO values during these periods
are artificially inflated due to the oxygen correction calculation.
Petitioners presented data that demonstrated how these inflated data
points drive the 30-day rolling average values beyond the emission
limit.
    To resolve this issue, the EPA determined that the 7 percent oxygen
correction would not be required for CEMS data collected during periods
of startup and shutdown, referred to and defined as ``CEMS data during
startup and shutdown.''
    Based on data submitted for coal-burning ERUs, a new definition of
``CEMS data during startup and shutdown'' was proposed in the December
2011 reconsideration proposal that referred to the data collected
during the first 4 hours of operation of an energy recovery unit
starting up from a cold start and the hour of operation following the
cessation of waste material being fed to the unit during shutdown.
    The EPA received comments on the proposed definition expressing
concern that the time limits included in the definition may not
accurately represent all CISWI unit types. Further, commenters argued
that the same logic should apply for all CEMS-measured emission limits,
not just CO. They explained that, even though CEMS is a compliance
alternative rather than a requirement for most CISWI standards, other
air regulations and permit requirements may require the units to
continue to monitor emissions using CEMS data. Therefore, in the
February 2013 CISWI final rule, the definition was revised to include
all pollutants measured with a CEMS, expanded to include a separate
definition for waste-burning kilns, and revised to remove the 4-hour
and 1-hour time limits in the

definition. Within that definition, the EPA defined the end of the
startup period and the beginning of the shutdown period as the
introduction and cessation of waste fed to the unit, respectively.
Information available for the best performing units described their
typical operation and supported defining the startup and shutdown
periods based on the introduction and cessation of waste being fed to
the units. Furthermore, for the incinerator, small remote incinerator,
and the ERU subcategories, the February 2013 action specified an upper
limit of 48 hours for startup periods and 24 hours for shutdown periods
of CEMS data, consistent with information provided by commenters.
    After the February 2013 CISWI final rule was promulgated, the EPA
received petitions stating that stakeholders did not have the
opportunity to comment on the final definition, especially the clause
that defines the beginning and ending of these periods as the
introduction and cessation, respectively, of waste material being fed
to the combustor. Petitioners argued that, with the inclusion of the
provision ending startup when waste is added to the unit, the end of
startup will occur too early because units that combust waste often
introduce waste before steady state operations to transition from
startup fuel to waste and other primary fuel combustion. For this
reason, the petitioners argued that the EPA should extend the startup
period duration to include the period of time when sources are
transitioning to waste combustion from the startup fuel.
    On January 21, 2015, the EPA requested comment on whether the
definition should be revised to extend the startup period to include
this transitional period of combustor operation. In addition, the EPA
requested that commenters suggest provisions that would ensure adequate
application of the CEMS data during startup and shutdown definition,
such as maximum allowable time limits after introduction of waste, if
the agency were to allow solid waste combustion during startup.
    Comment: Several commenters supported, to a degree, the EPA's
change in the 2013 final rule from the proposed 4-hour and 1-hour time
limits on the definitions of CEMS data during startup and shutdown to
the more subcategory-specific definitions found in the 2013 final rule,
but suggested additional revisions to make the definition more
accurately reflect these periods for certain types of units. Commenters
noted technical reasons during startup that cause corrected emissions
concentrations to possibly show emissions in excess of those occurring
during normal, steady-state operation due to the 7 percent oxygen
correction. These reasons included: (1) Stack oxygen levels approach
ambient levels, inflating oxygen correction factors even though mass
emission rates are low; (2) the combustor has not attained optimal
temperature, turbulence, and residence time conditions, which are key
factors for control of combustion-related emissions; and (3) air
pollution control equipment has not achieved necessary minimum
temperature and/or other operating conditions necessary for effective
steady-state performance on which the standards are based. The
commenters also asserted that, while elevated emissions do occur during
startups, the magnitude and period of elevated emissions will be
actively minimized as required by the ``general duty'' provisions to
minimize emissions at all times including startups and shutdowns.
Additionally, the commenters argued that, for ERUs, at least, unit
operators are economically motivated to minimize the duration of any
startups, because the shorter the startup, the quicker a unit can be
brought online to sell steam and/or connect to the grid and sell power.
Also with respect to ERUs, commenters stated that units firing solid
material on grates or in fluidized beds require more time for the
material to fully ignite and achieve the optimal combustion conditions
than gaseous or liquid-fired units do. The commenters stated that
elevated corrected emission concentrations following initial solid
material firing is an inherent characteristic of ERU subcategories such
as stoker and fluidized bed biomass ERUs. In conclusion, the commenters
recommended that, given the virtually identical technologies used for
both boilers and CISWI ERUs, the EPA should incorporate language in the
CEMS data definition similar to that which it proposed in the major
source and area source Boiler NESHAP rules. One commenter provided
mark-up language reflecting major source boiler language in the ``CEMS
data for startup and shutdown'' definition that would apply
specifically to CISWI ERUs, and a separate definition that could apply
to incinerators and small remote incinerators. For ERUs, the commenter
suggested the following definition, which eliminates the ``cold start''
and ``until waste is fed to the unit'' language, and adds the concept
of tying the CEMS data during startup period to the time that useful
thermal energy is generated.
    The commenter suggested that CEMS data during startup and shutdown
should be defined as follows:
    For energy recovery units: CEMS data collected during the first
hours of operation of a CISWI unit startup including the hours of
operation firing non-waste fuel and the hours following introduction of
waste to the unit until 4 hours after when the ERU makes useful thermal
energy (such as steam or heat) for heating, cooling, and process
purposes, or generates electricity, whichever is earlier, and the hours
of operation following the cessation of waste material being fed to the
CISWI unit during a unit shutdown. For each startup event, the length
of time that CEMS data may be claimed as being CEMS data during startup
must be 48 operating hours or less. For each shutdown event, the length
of time that CEMS data may be claimed as being CEMS data during
shutdown must be 24 operating hours or less.
    As an alternative to the above definition, the commenter suggested
the definition could include the period of time up to 6 hours following
introduction of waste to the unit instead of tying the definition to
``useful thermal energy.'' The commenter noted that this might allow
the definition to be applicable to incinerators and small remote
incinerators.
    Another commenter suggested that the first 48 hours of startup and
the last 24 hours of shutdown for incinerators, small remote
incinerators, and energy recovery units is adequate in most cases. This
commenter stated that any time the feed to a combustion chamber is
modified (e.g., new material added, same material with higher or lower
feed rates), the combustion process is disturbed. The commenter further
stated that the length of time it takes for the combustion process to
re-stabilize depends upon a number of factors (size of the combustion
unit, amount of waste introduced, the Btu content of the waste
introduced, the combustibility of that waste, the operating conditions,
etc.). Therefore, the commenter recommended that the CEMS data during
startup and shutdown are best decided on a site-specific basis and
urged the EPA to allow this as an option.
    With respect to waste-burning kilns, one commenter argued that it
is highly beneficial to have the definitions of startup and shutdown
for kilns in the CISWI rule match the definitions in the Portland
Cement NESHAP. Therefore, the commenter supported having a separate
definition of CEMS data during startup and shutdown that applied to
waste-burning kilns, and that this

definition should also reflect provisions found in the Portland Cement
NESHAP. The commenter provided the following language as a suggestion
on what would be appropriate, and also suggested a corresponding
footnote to clarify that the 7 percent oxygen adjustment need not be
applied during periods of startup and shutdown:
    ``CEMS data during startup and shutdown means the following: (2)
For waste-burning kilns: CEMS data collected during the periods of kiln
operation that do not include normal operations. Startup means the time
from when a shutdown kiln first begins firing fuel until it begins
producing clinker. Startup begins when a shutdown kiln turns on the
induced draft fan and begins firing fuel in the main burner. Startup
ends when feed is being continuously introduced into the kiln for at
least 120 minutes or when the feed rate exceeds 60 percent of the kiln
design limitation rate, whichever occurs first. Shutdown means the
cessation of kiln operation. Shutdown begins when feed to the kiln is
halted and ends when continuous kiln rotation ceases.''
    Response: Based on these comments and the EPA's goal to provide,
where appropriate, consistent regulatory provisions, the EPA has
determined to revise the definition of ``CEMS data during startup and
shutdown'' to be subcategory-specific. For ERUs and waste-burning
kilns, for example, the definition will reflect definitions similar to
those of the non-waste counterpart NESHAP to CISWI for the type of
source. Therefore, the final definition for ERUs will reflect
provisions found in the major source Boiler NESHAP, and the final
definition for waste-burning kilns will reflect provisions similar to
those in the Portland Cement NESHAP. For incinerators and small remote
incinerators, the proposed definition (i.e., from a cold start and up
to 48 hours for startup and 24 hours or less for shutdown) will still
apply. These subcategory-specific definitions provide a consistent
basis for ERUs and kilns that may change applicability periodically so
that owners and operators will have a consistent requirement for
demonstrating compliance regardless of the mode (waste or non-waste)
the unit is being operated in. Furthermore, for incinerators and small
remote incinerators, industry commenters are confident that the full
range of these sources will be able to maintain compliance with these
time allowances that were proposed.
    We note that certain commenters indicate that reasons for changing
the definitions include that the units may have greater emissions
during startup and shutdown and also that pollution control equipment
may not be fully operational during startup. The EPA is not revising
the definitions to allow sources to violate the standard; instead the
change is designed to better reflect the actual operating conditions
during startup and shutdown. The oxygen correction is thus designed to
allow sources to use actual stack oxygen levels during these periods
instead of numbers corrected to 7 percent oxygen.\1\ If sources believe
that, even with the stack oxygen correction, emissions will exceed the
levels of the standard because of incomplete combustion or because air
pollution controls are not fully operational, they must take steps
(e.g., burn clean startup fuel for longer periods) to ensure
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stack oxygen data must still be measured during these
periods, but since a correction to stack oxygen essentially means
multiplying the measured concentration by 1, the concentration value
measured at stack oxygen is used to calculate average
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the subcategory-specific definitions of ``CEMS data during
startup and shutdown'' in this final rule more clearly specify the
beginning and end of startup and shutdown periods for each subcategory
of CISWI unit. However, we realize in doing so that the previous,
separate definitions of ``startup period'' and ``shutdown'' that have
been held over from the 2000 CISWI rule may now cause confusion for
waste-burning kilns and ERUs especially. Because the 2000 CISWI rule
applied to incinerator units (and not ERUs and waste-burning kilns), we
recognize the need to clarify that the ``startup period'' and
``shutdown'' definitions apply only to incinerators and small, remote
incinerators. For this reason, the EPA is revising the definitions of
``startup period'' and ``shutdown'' to clarify that they are intended
to apply only to incinerators and small, remote incinerators.
    Comment: One commenter argued that allowing sources to comply with
emissions standards based on uncorrected emissions measurements would
be unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter explained that the EPA does
not claim that all units will have oxygen levels close to the ambient
air, that any units' oxygen levels will actually be at the level of the
ambient air during these periods, or that any units' oxygen levels will
be at that high level consistently. The commenter suggested that the
EPA should instead consider several other approaches. First, the
commenter suggested that the EPA could require sources to show
compliance during these periods using another method, such as stack
tests. The commenter stated that the EPA recognized that CEMS are a
compliance alternative rather than a requirement for most CISWI
standards. The commenter also argued that the EPA stated it is
maintaining CEMS as a compliance alternative during these periods
because ``other air regulations and permit requirements may require''
CEMS data. However, the commenter argued that the EPA did not state
what these other requirements are, or why the same CEMS problems it has
identified here do not apply to them. The commenter further argued that
even if other regulatory requirements do require sources to maintain
CEMS data, that does not compel the EPA to accept their data as
demonstrative of compliance with the requirements of the performance
standards and emissions guidelines for air pollution from CISWI. The
commenter also suggested that, if the CEMS compliance alternative were
retained, the EPA could require sources to correct their measurements
to the level of oxygen actually present, as measured by an oxygen
analyzer or another method. Finally, the commenter offered as an
alternative that the EPA could develop mass-based limits instead of
concentration-based limits, which do not require oxygen correction. The
commenter concluded that, because the EPA has not even considered these
alternatives, the proposal to allow sources to show compliance based on
measurements it does not dispute will be inaccurate is arbitrary as
well as unlawful.
    Response: As we noted in the proposed rule, the rules generally
require stack emissions testing. These tests can span several hours.
The CISWI rule emission limits were based on data obtained during
normal operations, which is also what the rule requires for conducting
performance testing (see 40 CFR 60.2125(a) and 40 CFR 60.2690(a)). As
has been noted in other comments and in the costing analyses presented
in support of the CISWI rulemaking, the emission testing program is not
trivial in cost and effort. Therefore, adding a requirement for
additional stack testing during startup and shutdown periods, which
seems to be what this commenter suggests, would further add to the
compliance cost of the rule for obtaining data for a small portion of
the source's operations. The EPA does not believe this additional
monitoring is required to assure compliance with the standards.
    As noted before and by some commenters, monitoring by CEMS is an
alternative, and may be useful for sources that are required by permit
or for Acid Rain program requirements (40

CFR part 75) to continually monitor emissions of certain pollutants,
primarily NOX and SO2. The EPA realized that the
interaction of newly applicable CISWI standards to ERUs and waste-
burning kilns may differ from existing requirements for these sources
developed under the Acid Rain program, permit requirements enacted for
state or local conditions, or even under various consent decrees. The
EPA also recognizes that different programs measure and evaluate
emissions for various purposes and in differing formats (e.g., lb/
MMBtu), and therefore disagrees with the commenter's assertions that if
these other programs do not need these provisions, then neither should
CISWI. In fact, the EPA maintains that the reasons other programs may
not require separate definitions is because they already have separate
startup and shutdown requirements in place for the program. For
example, appendix F of 40 CFR part 75 allows sources to calculate a
NOX emission rate using a ``diluent cap'' during periods of
operation (startup and shutdown) where CO2 and O2
are near ambient air levels.\2\ As many commenters have noted, these
``CEMS data during startup and shutdown'' revisions being finalized are
necessary to make attainable the CISWI requirement for the standards to
``apply at all times'' for sources that are otherwise required to
measure emissions using CEMS or that opt to measure emissions
continually. Further, the EPA does acknowledge that there are
instances, such as this one, where consistent regulatory provisions
will make compliance demonstrations easier for affected sources and
implementing agencies while still maintaining the integrity and goals
of the regulation. That is the case here, where multiple programs may
require or allow CEMS data for continuous compliance demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the ``2013 revision of the Part 75 Emissions Policy
Manual'' accessed August 18, 2015 at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documents/monitoring/Final-Part75-Policy-Manual-2013-revised-08-27-13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also suggested that either using CEMS data corrected
to stack oxygen or developing a mass-based standard should be
investigated. In essence, though, the revised provisions allow CEMS
data to be ``corrected to'' stack oxygen levels (that is, the numerator
and denominator of the oxygen correction are equal, so the correction
factor equals 1). Sources must still measure and record concentrations
and stack oxygen levels during these periods, and must keep records of
periods of CEMS data that are being claimed as periods of startup and
shutdown (See 40 CFR 60.2175(p) and 40 CFR 60.2740(o)). As many
commenters have already noted, the oxygen levels fluctuate widely
during startup and shutdown periods, so any basis other than using
stack oxygen levels for correction during this period would run into
the same type of calculation issue that we are attempting to remedy.
Similarly, a mass-based standard for CISWI units would be a significant
departure from the format of the existing standards, further
complicating compliance demonstrations by the facility and assessment
by the implementing agency. In order to develop a calculation-based
approach, the EPA would need to have information on the specific
materials being fed and resultant emissions for each of the best
performing units during startup and shutdown periods. These are data
that we do not have and the commenter did not provide any
recommendations on an approach that the EPA could consider absent these
data. In addition, the EPA did not reopen the specific standards or
form of the standards in the proposed rule, and we decline to establish
mass-based emission standards for that reason as well. We are not
revising the standards, but are revising only the monitoring provisions
of the standards to ensure that CEMS data collected are representative
of actual emissions during startup and shutdown periods and are not
being artificially inflated or influenced due to the 7 percent oxygen
correction. In the revisions, these intervals are clearly defined and
specific to the unit type to ensure this period is reasonable to ensure
safe operation while minimizing emissions.

B. PM Limit for the Waste-Burning Kiln Subcategory

    Background: In the January 21, 2015, proposal, the EPA solicited
comments on the data set used to determine PM limits for new and
existing waste-burning kilns in the February 2013 final rule.
    The March 2011 CISWI final rule promulgated PM emissions limits of
6.2 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) for existing
units, and 2.5 mg/dscm for new units, both corrected to 7 percent
oxygen. In an action parallel to the March 21, 2011, final CISWI rule,
the EPA promulgated a final rule that identifies the standards and
procedures for identifying whether non-hazardous secondary materials
(NHSM) are or are not solid waste when used as fuels or ingredients in
combustion units. The EPA defines the NHSM that are solid waste under
RCRA in the final ``Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials
That Are Solid Waste'' rulemaking. The RCRA definition of solid waste
is integral in defining the CISWI source category. Commercial and
industrial units that combust solid waste are subject to standards
issued pursuant to CAA section 129, rather than to standards issued
pursuant to CAA section 112 that would otherwise be applicable to such
units (e.g., boilers, process heaters and cement kilns). Cement kilns
combusting solid waste are waste-burning kilns subject to CISWI, not
the otherwise applicable Portland Cement NESHAP. Following promulgation
of the 2011 CISWI rule, the EPA again analyzed the materials being
combusted in the entire national inventory of Portland cement kilns in
light of the revisions to the NHSM rule, and made revisions to the
CISWI waste-burning kiln inventory. When kilns were added to the
inventory and their emissions data considered, the resulting NSPS and
EG PM emission limits proposed in the December 2011 reconsideration
were less stringent than those established in the March 2011 CISWI
final rule.
    Following the December 2011 reconsideration proposal, the EPA
learned that one of the kilns in the CISWI inventory was no longer
burning waste, and another kiln that was not thought to be burning
waste materials was doing so. The CISWI waste-burning kiln inventory
was revised during the period between proposal and final to reflect
these changes, and the database updated to include emissions data for
the newly identified unit, as well as some additional test reports
obtained for units within the inventory. The EPA calculated the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) floors after making the
appropriate revisions to the inventory and the new NSPS and EG PM
emission limits were more stringent than those proposed in the December
2011 reconsideration proposal. Table 1 of this preamble tracks the
progression of the waste-burning kiln PM limits from the March 2011
final rule through the February 2013 final rule.
    Throughout the CISWI rulemaking process from March 2011 through
February 2013, the EPA used the same calculation methodology (i.e., the
upper prediction limit calculated from a population of individual test
runs) to establish the emission limits for waste-burning kilns.
However, the data set used in these calculations has changed and grown
over this period of time as the agency has revised the CISWI inventory
based on information submitted to the agency by the regulated

community and new data are submitted. As a result, a petitioner has
suggested that the current PM emission data set for waste-burning kilns
is robust enough to warrant using 3-run emission test averages as the
data population rather than the individual test runs. According to the
commenter, using this approach to calculate emission limits would
result in PM emission limits that are different than those of the
February 2013 CISWI final rule.
    In the context of MACT analyses, as the EPA noted in the January
21, 2015 proposal, emission test averages or individual test run data
can be used to determine emissions variability of best performers. We
also noted that we typically use individual test runs, but for
categories with data from 15 \3\ or more sources, which would provide
at least 45 test runs, we may choose to use test averages. In these
larger data sets, the use of test averages are likely to be
sufficiently representative of long term performance and variability
without the need for use of the individual test runs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 15 test average number discussed in the January 21, 2015
proposal was not a ``bright line'' value used to establish a
possible threshold for when test runs versus test averages may be
selected. Rather, this number was an illustrative number that was
being discussed as an example in internal EPA discussions at the
time the proposal was being written.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the January 21, 2015 proposal, the EPA solicited comment on the
data set used in the February 2013 final rule, as well as whether this
data set warrants a different calculation approach due to its size or
other factors. See the memoranda titled ``Potential Emission Limits
Calculation Analyses for Waste-burning Kilns and Coal ERUs,''
``Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited Data
Sets,'' and ``Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT
Floors'' in the CISWI docket for more details.
    Comment: Two commenters supported the use of emission test averages
to determine emission standards. One commenter strongly believed that
use of test averages is the only valid way to conduct calculations of
upper predictive limit (UPL) or other variability analyses because only
test averages, and not individual test runs, are statistically
independent from one another, as the UPL calculation requires. Both
commenters argued that it is crucial that the UPL calculation reflect
the actual variability of compliance test results for the best
performing kilns that set the floors, and stated that this goal is best
accomplished by using stack test results (which are the average of
three consecutive test runs) in the UPL calculation, rather than using
test runs as individual data points. One commenter noted that the data
set for PM emissions from waste-burning kilns is among the largest for
any source category or pollutant in the CISWI rule, consisting of 24
stack tests (equivalent to 72 individual test runs) for the pool of
three best performers.
    One commenter described control measures that Portland Cement
NESHAP and waste-burning kilns will need to take to meet the 13.5 mg/
dscm limit for existing waste-burning kilns that was discussed, noting
that baghouse equipment will still need to be improved at many kilns to
meet this limit. The commenter also pointed out that the performance of
a baghouse on a kiln is comparable whether it is a Portland Cement
NESHAP kiln or a CISWI kiln. The commenter went on to use this
discussion and data from the Portland Cement NESHAP analyses to support
the 13.5 mg/dscm limit (which equates to 0.075 lb/ton clinker on a
production basis, as compared to the existing kiln PM limit of 0.07 lb/
ton clinker in the Portland Cement NESHAP) and to demonstrate that the
current beyond-the-floor analysis done for the 2013 CISWI final rule is
still applicable despite the new PM emission limit.
    Response: We agree that the data set for PM for existing waste-
burning kilns is sufficiently large to support using stack test
averages, as some commenters have supported. For new sources, the EPA
realizes that there is a smaller number of data points available when
test averages are considered since only the data from the best-
performing source are included in the calculation.\4\ However, as the
EPA has intended within each of the CISWI subcategories, a consistent
approach to the emission limit calculation is used for existing and new
sources within a subcategory (e.g., upper limit for small remote, UPL
for waste-burning kilns). That is, in the case of PM for waste-burning
kilns, the UPL using test averages is being used to calculate both
existing and new source emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Although this data set is smaller than that for existing
sources, the EPA does not consider the new source data set to be a
small or limited data set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that, for this particular data set, there are distinct
advantages to using this approach. One advantage is that there is a
significant amount of test data for the best-performing source. These
runs reflect various fuel and waste material firing conditions for the
best-performing unit. By splitting the data for the best-performing
source into sets of three according to the operational condition (waste
or non-waste), each of the resulting averages is more representative of
the fuel, waste, and operational variability demonstrated by the other
3-run test averages found in the data set for this source and for the
other existing source best performers. In other words, the time
periods--and variability in process inputs and operations these periods
represent--are approximately equal for each data point in the average
data set for existing and new sources. This approach also has the added
benefit of a slightly larger time period of operations being
represented by the data, since there is one additional average that can
be included in the data pool (i.e., no test run data are available, but
the average is).
    We also reviewed the information submitted by the commenters on the
costs and emission improvement requirements existing kilns will need to
undertake to meet the revised emission limits, as well as our own
assessment of control improvements needed, and agree with the
assessment that beyond-the-floor emission standards for waste-burning
kiln PM limits are unwarranted. In our analysis, the same kilns that
would need improvements for the 2013 PM limits still need to add these
improvements to meet the 13.5 mg/dscm standards (as well as the CISWI
limits for Cd and Pb, which are not being revised but are also
controlled by PM control devices). The technology most likely being
used to meet the standards would be fabric filters (baghouses), which
is a physical control technology. Information supplied by the industry
indicate that many cement kilns will require highly efficient fabric
filters to meet the 13.5 mg/dscm standards. Fabric filters do not have
a variable component, such as sorbent injection rates, that can be
varied easily once the system is designed and the filter media
specified. Therefore, unlike other control technologies, the PM removal
efficiency of fabric filters does not depend on other factors in the
process and control device's performance will essentially be the same
regardless of other process inputs. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing
the 13.5 mg/dscm and 4.9 mg/dscm emission limits discussed at proposal
for existing and new waste-burning kilns, respectively, based on the
analysis of emission test average data.
    The calculated PM emission limits using the test averages are
presented in Table 1 of this preamble for comparison. The calculations
used to support the 2015 emission limit values, analyses of impacts and
discussion of beyond-the-floor considerations are available in the
``Revised Emission Limits and Impacts Analyses for Waste-burning Kilns
and

Coal ERUs'' memorandum in the docket to this rulemaking.

  Table 1--Waste-Burning Kiln PM Emission Limits From March 2011 Final Rule Through 2015 Final Reconsideration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2015 Final
                                                    March 2011     December 2011  February  2013     rule test
               Source type (units)                  final rule     proposed rule    final  rule    average-based
                                                                                limits \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Sources (mg/dscm)\1\........................             2.5             8.9             2.2             4.9
Existing Sources (mg/dscm)\1\...................             6.2             9.2             4.6            13.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Corrected to 7 percent oxygen (O2).
\2\ These final limits are the same as those discussed in the January 21, 2015 proposal.

    Comment: One commenter disagreed with the proposed approach of
using stack test average data, arguing that because the EPA's standards
are already set at the floor, and the floor is the minimum stringency
permitted by the CAA, the EPA's proposed change is unlawful at Chevron
step one.\5\ The commenter further argued that the EPA does not give
any statutory reasons for its proposed change, and therefore its
proposal is unreasonable at Chevron step two. NRDC v. EPA, No. 12-1321,
slip op. at 23 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014) (``EPA must `ground its
reasons for action or inaction in the statute.' '') (quoting Util. Air
Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2441 (2014)). The commenter
contended that the only reason the EPA gives in support of this change
is that the data set for kilns is relatively large and so switching to
test averages instead of individual test runs ``is expected to make
very little difference.'' The commenter concluded that the EPA's
proposed change illustrates that the UPL approach is unlawful and
arbitrary because it does not yield reasonable estimates of the
``average emission limitation achieved'' by the best performing units.
An industry commenter asserted that the stack test averages yield
reasonable estimates of the average emission limitation achieved by the
best performing units, and referred to their original comment submittal
to the proposed rule as support. The commenter then repeated that the
EPA should use stack test averages in the UPL calculation whenever
there are sufficient data to support their use. The commenter concluded
that the use of test runs can be justified only when the limited
availability of emissions data demands the use of test runs; this is
not the case in the CISWI PM limit for kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: As discussed earlier, the EPA incorporated considerable
new data and moved kilns from the NESHAP to CISWI between the proposed
and final CISWI reconsideration concluded in 2013. The inclusion of
additional sources and data lead to more stringent standards and the
public was not provided an opportunity to comment on those limits and
the manner of their calclulation. For this reason, parties petitioned
EPA to reconsider those limits consistent with CAA section
307(d)(7)(B), and the EPA granted reconsideration consistent with the
statute to provide the public an opportunity to comment. The EPA
maintains that its actions in response to the changed circumstances
(i.e., new data and sources) and the petitions for reconsideration are
consistent with the statute and, for this reason, we reject the
commenter's argument that EPA has somehow violated the standard setting
provisions of section 112.
    Further, we have determined that the data set for existing waste-
burning kilns for PM is sufficient to address longer-term performance
and variability among the best-performing sources and justifies the use
of test average data. While the data set for new waste-burning kilns is
smaller in count than that of the existing sources, it is not
considered a small data set, and the EPA has concerns about not
treating variability consistently between existing and new source
emission limits within the same subcategory.
    With respect to the commenter's arguments about the UPL calculation
methodology, the EPA did not open the UPL calculation methodology for
reconsideration, so we are not responding to the commenter's arguments
on this issue.

C. FVF for Coal-Burning Energy Recovery Units

    Background: In the January 21, 2015, proposal, the EPA requested
comments and supporting data regarding the need to establish an FVF for
the ERU solids (coal) subcategory. In particular, the EPA requested
comments on using stack test data from coal-only periods of operation
in our emission limit calculations, and whether the EPA should re-
evaluate the NOX emission limit by using the additional CEMS
data provided for the best-performing unit. The preamble to the 2013
final CISWI rule (78 FR 9112, February 7, 2013) explained the
methodology used to establish the final emission limits, which relied
almost exclusively on direct emissions measurements. A petitioner
requested that EPA reconsider the decision not to incorporate fuel
variability into the emission limit calculations for coal-fired ERUs
based on new information.
    Table 2 of this preamble presents a comparison of the 2013 final
rule emission limits for existing coal ERUs and the emission limits
calculated using all data available (i.e., waste and coal-only modes of
operation), FVF calculation techniques, and the additional CEMS data
provided by the petitioner.

Table 2--Existing Coal ERU Emission Limits From February 2013 Final Rule
               and Based on FVF Plus Additional CEMS Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      February 2013      Final emission
                                        final rule        limits using
         Pollutant (units)            emission limit    additional data
                                           \1\            and FVF \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium (Cd) (mg/dscm)............             0.0095         \2\ 0.0017
Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) (ppmv)....                 13             \3\ 58
Mercury (Hg) (mg/dscm)............              0.016          \2\ 0.013
Lead (Pb) (mg/dscm)...............               0.14          \3\ 0.057
Particulate Matter (PM filterable)                160            \2\ 130
 (mg/dscm)........................
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) (ppmv)......                340            \2\ 460
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) (ppmv).......                650                850
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All emission limits are expressed as concentrations corrected to 7
  percent O2.
\2\ Unable to calculate FVF, final emission limit reflects use of
  additional data for coal-only mode of operation.
\3\ Based on maximum ratio in data set to calculate FVF for final
  emission limit. If average ratios were used instead, HCl emission
  limit would be 19 (parts per million by volume) ppmv and Pb would be
  0.047 mg/dscm.

    Comment: Several commenters supported the revision of these
emission limits, claiming that the EPA should account for all sources
of emissions variability. Commenters argued that adjustments for fuel
variability should be based on worst case conditions so that the floors
represent the emission limitations that the best performers can achieve
under the worst foreseeable circumstances. They maintained that
emissions test data only reflect the pollutant content of a unit's
inputs at the time of emissions testing, noting that fuel and solid
waste composition vary over time. As an example, commenters referenced
HCl data submitted for the top performer, noting that if the HCl limit
for existing units remains at 13 ppmv (from the 2013 final CISWI rule),
the best performing unit would fail to meet the limit consistently. The
commenters further expressed their support for basing the FVF on the
maximum ratio of non-paired fuel data with paired fuel data (yielding a
limit of 58 ppmv) as opposed to the average ratio (yielding a limit of
19 ppmv), because the HCl data showed the average-based limit was also
exceeded several times over an 8-year period. In order to make the HCl
limit achievable in practice, the commenters concluded that the EPA
must set the final HCl limit to 58 ppmv.
    One commenter pointed out that the consideration of fuel
variability is of particular importance because a CISWI unit remains a
CISWI unit until it ceases to burn waste for at least 6 months. The
commenter explained that estimating emission levels achieved when a
unit was burning waste and coal does not reflect the level achieved
when combusting only coal. Commenters also called attention to the
boiler and process heater standards, which account for fuel supply
variability, and contended that the EPA should do the same for CIWSI
because ERUs would be subject to the boiler standards if they did not
combust waste in addition to fossil fuels.
    One commenter indicated that the EPA had not properly addressed
fuel variability for the SO2 emission limit. According to
the commenter, previously submitted data showed that the 2013 final
limit of 650 ppmvd would not be high enough to allow the top performer
to comply every day under all operating conditions. In developing the
potential limits presented in the proposed reconsideration, the EPA did
not develop a FVF for SO2 because only one fuel data point
for sulfur was available to be paired with SO2 emissions
data. The commenter explained that even though only one date from the
fuel data matched up with the week of SO2 CEMS data, the lag
time between the fuel sample date and actual combustion in the boiler
is typically 4-9 days, so portions of both the August 14 and August 21,
2009, coal shipments would have been burned during the CEMS period from
August 23 through August 30, 2009. Therefore, the commenter explained,
sulfur data from these two shipments could be paired with the CEMS
data, which would make it appropriate to develop a FVF for
SO2, similar to what was done for HCl.
    Response: The EPA is finalizing the emission limits for Cd, HCl,
Hg, Pb, PM, and NOX that incorporate a FVF and coal-only
mode of operation data and were discussed in the January 21, 2015
proposal. See 80 FR at 3023. In addition, the EPA has determined that
we have sufficient data to incorporate a FVF into the SO2
limit in the same manner as the standards for the other section 129
pollutants above.
    At proposal, the agency explained our rationale for considering
emission limits that incorporate a FVF for fuel-dependent pollutants
(i.e., HCl, Pb, Cd, Hg, and SO2) [See 80 FR at 3022] and
presented the methodology [See Memo titled ``Potential Emission Limits
Calculations Analyses for Waste-burning Kilns and Coal ERUs, December
12, 2014] we would use to do so. We also presented the available data.
In addition, for Cd, HCl, Hg, Pb, PM and NOX, the EPA
identified the emission limits that incorporate a FVF and were derived
from that data and using the proposed methodology. The proposal did not
identify a specific SO2 emission limit that incorporated a
FVF because, as explained in the proposal, at that time, the EPA did
not believe the data from the best performing units included the
information necessary to calculate a FVF for SO2. See 80 FR
at 3022; see also Memo titled ``Potential Emission Limits Calculations
Analyses for Waste-burning Kilns and Coal ERUs, December 12, 2014. The
proposal, however, made clear that the rationale for deciding to
incorporate a FVF into the emission limits for coal-fired ERUs applied
to all fuel-dependent pollutants, including SO2, and the
agency provided the methodology for incorporated a FVF. The comments
received demonstrated that the available SO2 data from the
best performing units--the data in the docket at the time of proposal--
does in fact include the information required to establish a fuel
variability factor. Specifically, the EPA confirms that the data set
includes sufficient paired SO2 data to evaluate the need for
a FVF. Thus, all information necessary to address whether a FVF should
be incorporated into the SO2 standard, and to identify the
specific SO2 emission limit incorporating a FVF was
available in the docket at the time of proposal. Thus, in this final
rule, the EPA has re-evaluated the fuel sulfur data with paired
SO2 data and is incorporating a FVF in the floor
calculations for SO2 using the same methodology that was
discussed in the proposal. The resulting SO2 limit for
existing and new coal ERUs is 850 ppmvd.

    Comment: One commenter did not support the incorporation of FVFs in
determining emission limits, arguing that increasing the floors to
account for variability would be unlawful and arbitrary because the UPL
methodology used to develop the floors already accounts for emissions
variability. According to the commenter, the floors should not be
increased further because CAA section 129 directs that standards should
be no less stringent than the average emissions achieved by the best
performing units. In other words, the commenter explained, a standard
must reflect a reasonable estimate of the actual performance of the
best units.
    The commenter further noted that even if it were lawful to
incorporate a FVF at all, the FVF should be based on the average ratio,
as opposed to the maximum ratio, because the maximum ratio does not
yield a reasonable estimate of the average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing sources, yielding floors less stringent
than the statute permits.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the argument that incorporating a
FVF in these standards overaccounts for variability. Fuel data provided
for the top performing units show that performance for coal-burning
ERUs, based solely on the short-term stack test data available for
these units, does not adequately reflect the sustained performance and
different fuel inputs that are used by the best performing source upon
which the standards were based. As stated in response to similar
comments submitted on the Boiler NESHAP (See EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058-3511,
excerpt 15, page 111), and consistent with the DC Circuit Court ruling,
the EPA is mindful that MACT floors need to reflect achieved
performance of the best-performing units, that HAP (or pollutant, for
CAA section 129 rules such as CISWI) content of process inputs (raw
materials and fuels) should be accounted for in ascertaining the
sources' performance as necessary, and that the EPA cannot consider
costs in ascertaining the level of the MACT floor. See, e.g., Brick
MACT, 479 F. 3d at 880-81, 882-83; NRDC v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1364, 1376
(D.C. Cir. 2007) (``Plywood MACT''); see also Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 3d 855, 861-62 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
(``achievability'' requirement of CAA section 112 (d)(2) cannot
override the requirement that floors be calculated on the basis of what
best performers actually achieved). The EPA is also mindful of the need
to account for sources' variability (both due to control device
performance and variability in inputs) in assessing sources'
performance when developing technology-based standards. See, e.g.,
Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F. 3d 1232, 1242 (D.C.
Cir. 2004); National Lime I, 627 F. 2d 416, 433-34 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In
most cases, the UPL sufficiently accounts for both control device
performance and input variability. However, in this case, a review of
the data for the best-performing coal-burning ERUs indicated that
short-term stack test data alone did not fully account for longer term
emissions performance in this case. While fuels combusted within a
short term 3-hour test would be expected to be fairly consistent in
their contaminant levels, multi-year fuel input data for the best-
performing unit show that Hg, Cl, Pb, and sulfur levels can vary
significantly between the times the best performing unit is combusting
a combination of waste and traditional fuel and the times it is
combusting traditional fuels alone, and that there is variability in
the pollutant content of the traditional fuel alone as well. In light
of this, the EPA believes it is reasonable to incorporate a FVF for
this subcategory of CISWI units to better reflect the performance of
the best performing coal-burning ERUs.
    Regarding the commenter's assertions that the average ratio should
be used instead of the maximum ratio in calculating the FVF, we note
that, unlike situations present in the Boiler NESHAP, the best-
performing units in the coal ERU subcategory (all located at the same
facility) are not burning a variety of fuels. These CISWI ERU units
burn coal, and periodically an industrial waste generated at the
facility. Therefore, there is one fuel and one waste that is input that
will influence emissions. This is not the case for the boiler best-
performers in the Boiler NESHAP solid fuel subcategory, as these
consisted of a ``mix of biomass, coal and other solid fossil fuel''
data (See EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058-3836, August 2012). In the boiler
rulemaking, the EPA was concerned that this heterogeneous mix of best
performer fuel inputs and the use of the maximum ratio would
overestimate fuel variability. However, for the CISWI coal ERUs, we are
dealing with a single fuel type (coal), and the same concern does not
apply. Since CISWI applicability extends for a period beyond the waste-
combustion periods, variability in this one fuel influences emissions
for a significant portion of the best-performers' operations.
Therefore, we have determined that the maximum ratio is appropriate in
this case to fully account for the best-performer's variability in fuel
inputs.
    The FVF accounts for fuel variability between sources using long-
term fuel measurement data that represent inherent natural variations
in fuel usage at the best performing unit over time. The FVF is used in
conjunction with the 99 percent UPL to characterize long-term
variability due to technological controls and fuel characteristics. The
results are MACT floors that reasonably estimate the performance over
time of the best performing sources (there are three identical units at
one facility that are best performers for this subcategory of unit,
with only one additional unit that may be in this subcategory). These
calculations are described in more detail in the ``Revised Emission
Limits and Impacts Analyses for Waste-burning Kilns and Coal ERUs''
memorandum found in the docket to this rulemaking.
    For these reasons, the EPA is adopting the revised emission limits
for coal ERUs discussed in the January 21, 2015, proposal, and the
agency is also incorporating a FVF into the SO2 limit as
discussed above.

D. Definition of ``Kiln''

    Background: In the January 21, 2015, notice, the EPA requested
comment on its proposal to revise the definition of ``kiln'' and
proposal to add definitions of ``in-line raw mill'' and ``in-line coal
mill'' to further clarify the boundaries of the waste-burning kiln.
Because the in-line raw mill and in-line coal mill are part of the
kiln, the kiln emission limits also apply to the exhaust of the in-line
raw mill and in-line coal mill. For more background on this issue, the
EPA discussed at length in the preamble to the proposed Portland Cement
NESHAP a potential regulatory regime to cover situations where a
portion of the kiln exhaust is ducted to the coal mill. See 77 FR
42383-85; see also the regulatory text at 77 FR 42398, 42402-06, 42408-
09.
    For waste-burning kilns, the EPA proposed language in the
definition of ``kiln'' to make it consistent with that of the Portland
Cement NESHAP. The terms ``in-line raw mill'' and ``in-line coal mill''
were proposed to be included in the definition, and, therefore, were
proposed to be added to the definitions within the CISWI rule.
    In addition to the proposed definitional amendments in the January
21, 2015, notice, the EPA proposed a compliance demonstration and
ongoing monitoring method for waste-burning kilns that combine emission
streams from the in-line raw mill and in-line coal mill and exhaust
through multiple stacks. The EPA is finalizing the proposed approach
with some minor revisions to address comments as

discussed below. The final rule will allow sources to measure pollutant
concentrations and flows from each of the stacks (i.e., kiln, alkali
bypass, and in-line coal mill, as applicable) and calculate a flow-
weighted average kiln stack concentration that must be met in order to
be in compliance with the CISWI waste-burning kiln emission limits.
These provisions are modeled upon similar provisions and equations
found in the Portland Cement NESHAP, and should streamline compliance
demonstrations for waste-burning kilns that combine streams prior to
discharge to the atmosphere through one or more stacks. The proposed
calculation method and measurement location options are found in 40 CFR
60.2145 and 40 CFR 60.2710. The EPA requested comment on the
definitional and calculation method changes for demonstrating
compliance for waste-burning kilns that combine streams prior to
discharge to the atmosphere through one or more stacks.
    Comment: Although there were no specific comments on the revised
definition of ``kiln'' or on the addition of the definitions of ``in-
line raw mill'' and ``in-line coal mill,'' one commenter expressed the
need to change monitoring and compliance requirements for alkali bypass
and/or in-line coal mill to be consistent with the Portland Cement
NESHAP. The commenter contended the use of CEMS and the PM CPMS for
either an alkali bypass or an in-line coal mill is unnecessary, as they
represent a relatively minor part of the overall kiln emissions and
their emissions will vary directionally with the main kiln stack
concentrations. Therefore, the commenter suggested that monitoring the
main kiln stack alone can provide an indication of overall emissions
and compliance. The commenter stated that the appropriate monitoring
and compliance requirements have already been addressed in the Portland
Cement NESHAP rule and requested that the EPA adopt a similar approach
for the CISWI standards. The commenter also suggested that the EPA
clarify the level of testing and monitoring that applies to either an
alkali by-pass or an in-line coal mill.
    Response: To provide additional consistency between CISWI and the
Portland Cement NESHAP, the EPA is adding clarifying language in the
final rule that makes the monitoring requirements for waste-burning
kilns consistent with those in the Portland Cement NESHAP.
Specifically, we are not requiring that CEMS or PM CPMS need to be
installed on separate alkali bypass or in-line coal mill stacks.
Instead, as is the case with the Portland Cement NESHAP, the results of
the initial and subsequent performance test for the alkali bypass and
in-line coal mill stacks can be used to determine the combined
emissions to demonstrate compliance with the relevant emissions limit.
However, unlike the Portland Cement NESHAP, the performance test must
be conducted on an annual basis (between 11 and 13 calendar months
following the previous performance test) to keep the testing schedule
for these stacks consistent with the CISWI rule's annual performance
testing requirements.

V. Technical Corrections and Clarifications

    In the January 21, 2015, notice, the EPA proposed to correct minor
typographical errors and clarify provisions of the final rule that may
have been unclear. The EPA is finalizing these corrections, which are
summarized in this section of the preamble. There were some comments
received on these clarifications. These comments, and responses to
them, are found in the ``2013 CISWI Rule Reconsideration Response to
Comments.''

A. 2000 CISWI New Source Applicability Clarification for Incinerators
and Air Curtain Incinerators

    Following promulgation of the February 2013 CISWI final rule, the
EPA received questions regarding the continued applicability of the
2000 CISWI NSPS for units that are subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS as
they are transitioned from the 2000 NSPS to the February 2013 EG with
which they will eventually be required to comply. The 2000 CISWI NSPS
are the same as the 2000 CISWI EG and limited in applicability to the
incinerator subcategory and air curtain incinerators so only these
types of CISWI units being regulated in the February 2013 CISWI final
rules are affected by this applicability issue. The EPA intended,
consistent with the statute and our stated intent (see 76 FR 15711,
March 21, 2011), to continue to regulate these units as ``new'' sources
under the 2000 NSPS, and then regulate them as ``existing'' sources
under the 2013 EG once these units were covered under an approved state
plan or federal plan that implements the February 2013 CISWI final EG.
The language in the February 7, 2013, NSPS at 40 CFR 60.2105 and the
title of Table 1 to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC make the EPA's intent
to do so evident. However, the applicability section in 40 CFR 60.2015
omitted the applicability provisions for incinerators and air curtain
incinerators that are subject to the 2000 CISWI NSPS. In this final
rule, the EPA is finalizing proposed additional language in 40 CFR
60.2015(a) and 40 CFR 60.2105(b) that clarifies that these incinerators
and air curtain incinerators remain ``new'' units regulated under the
2000 NSPS until such time that an approved state plan or federal plan
implements the February 2013 EG for those units, at which time such
units will be subject to the 2013 EG to the extent those limits are
more stringent than the 2000 CISWI NSPS limits, which will continue to
apply if they are more stringent.

B. Typographical Errors and Corrections

    The following items are typographical errors in the final rule that
we are correcting in this final action:
     References in 40 CFR 60.2020(e), 60.2020(f), 60.2555(e),
and 60.2555(f) were changed from ``. . . paragraphs (e)(1) through (3)
. . .'' to ``. . . paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) . . .''.
     Restructured 40 CFR 60.2060 to add paragraph (b) that
clarifies waste management plan submittal timeline for CISWI units that
commence reconstruction or modification after August 7, 2013.
     References in 40 CFR 60.2020(i) and 60.2245 were revised
to include 40 CFR 60.2242 in addition to 40 CFR 60.2245 through 60.2260
(i.e., clarifies that air curtain incinerators burning wood waste,
clean lumber, and/or yard waste must obtain title V permits).
     References in 40 CFR 60.2555(i) and 60.2810 were revised
to include 40 CFR 60.2805 in addition to 40 CFR 60.2810 through 60.2870
(i.e., clarifies that air curtain incinerators burning wood waste,
clean lumber, and/or yard waste must obtain title V permits).
     References in 40 CFR 60.2110(i)(2)(i)(D) and 40 CFR
60.2675(i)(2)(i)(D) were changed from ``. . . paragraphs (i)(2)(i)
through (iv) . . .'' to ``. . . paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(A) through
(i)(2)(i)(C) . . .''.
     Two references in the definitions of terms for Equation 3
in 40 CFR 60.2110(i)(2)(iv) were revised. For the `z' term, ``(2)(a)''
was corrected to ``(2)(i)'', and for the `R' term, ``Equation 3'' was
corrected to ``Equation 2''.
     Two references in the definitions of terms for Equation 3
in 40 CFR 60.2675(i)(2)(iv) were revised. For the `z' term, ``(2)(a)''
was corrected to ``(2)(i)'', and for the `R' term, ``Equation 3'' was
corrected to ``Equation 2''.
     The language in 40 CFR 60.2140(c) and 60.2705(c) were
revised to include the phrase ``commence or recommence

combusting'' to be parallel to the same terminology in 40 CFR
60.2140(b) and 60.2705(b), respectively.
     Extra spaces were removed from 40 CFR 60.2145(v) and
60.2710(v).
     The reference in 40 CFR 60.2145(w)(1) was changed from
``Sec.  60.2675'' to ``Sec.  60.2140''.
     The references in 40 CFR 60.2145(x)(1) were changed from
``. . . Sec.  60.2145(l) and (x)(1)(i) through (iii) . . .'' to ``. . .
paragraphs (l) and (x)(1)(i) through (x)(1)(iii) . . .''
     The references in 40 CFR 60.2710(x)(1) were changed from
``. . .Sec.  60.2710(l) and (x)(1)(i) through (iii). . .'' to ``. . .
paragraphs (l) and (x)(1)(i) through (x)(1)(iii). . .''
     Language in 40 CFR 60.2145(x)(1)(iii), 60.2165(r)(1)(iii),
60.2710(x)(1)(iii) and 60.2730(r)(1)(iii) was revised to clarify the PM
continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) detection limit. The
phrase ``of no greater than'' was changed to ``increments no greater
than''.
     Provisions for PM CPMS in both subparts were revised to
also clarify the output signals from digital monitoring devices and
remove ``lb/Mmbtu'' typographical errors.
     The reference in 40 CFR 60.2165(q)(1) was changed from
``Sec.  60.2675'' to ``Sec.  60.2140''.
     Text in 40 CFR 60.2165(q)(3) was corrected from ``. .
.paragraph (q)(4) or this section . . .'' to ``. . . paragraph (q)(4)
of this section . . .''.
     The title of 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC Table 1 was
revised to clarify that these emission limits apply to incinerators
that were subject to the 2000 CISWI rule provisions.
     The dates in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 40 CFR 60.2535
from the 2000 CISWI rule were omitted in the current CFR version of the
rule, and have been reinserted.
     Added text in 40 CFR 60.2525(b) and 60.2535(b) to clarify
applicability for incinerators and air curtain incinerators that were
reconstructed or modified on or after June 1, 2001, but no later than
August 7, 2013.
     Revised the language of 40 CFR 60.2550(b) to reflect the
August 7, 2013 date for purposes of applicability with 40 CFR part 60,
subpart CCCC.
     The text ``over 10 MMBtu/hr but less than 250 MMBtu/hr
annual average heat input rates'' was added to 40 CFR 60.2730(m) for
clarification and consistency.
     The definition of chemical recovery unit in 40 CFR 60.2265
was revised to be consistent with the definition provided in 40 CFR
60.2875. The following text was added: ``A chemical recovery unit is
not an incinerator, a waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a
small, remote incinerator under this subpart.''
     Clarifying language was added to the HCl row of 40 CFR
part 60, subpart DDDD Table 8. Compliance method text was changed from
``. . . if a wet scrubber is not used'' to ``. . . if a wet scrubber or
dry scrubber is not used.''
     Text in 40 CFR 60.2165(o) was corrected from ``. . . you
must use a continuous automated sampling system . . .'' to ``. . . you
may substitute use of a continuous automated sampling system for the
carbon monoxide annual performance test.''
     Revise the definition of ``Oxygen trim system'' to include
draft controller and to clarify that it is a system that maintains the
desired excess air level over the operating load range.
     Revise the definition of ``Reconstruction'' in both
subparts to reflect the correct criterion that reconstruction begins on
or after August 7, 2013.
     Renumbered equations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD to be
in sequence within the subpart instead of being a continuation with 40
CFR part 60, subpart CCCC.
     Revised paragraphs 40 CFR 60.2030(c), 60.2210(h),
60.2220(d), 60.2235, 60.2770(h), 60.2780(d) and 60.2795 to reflect the
most recent electronic reporting guidance available and to further
clarify reporting requirements.
     Revised paragraphs 40 CFR 60.2145(j)(1) and 60.2710(j)(1)
to reflect the most recent guidance available for HCl CEMS installed
and certified in accordance to Performance Specification 15 or
Performance Specification 18.
     Table footnotes were converted from alphabetical to
numeric format.
     Deleted inadvertent footnote references to the following:
Dioxin/furan TEQ and TMB rows of 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC Table 8;
Dioxin/furan TMB row and Pb row of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD Table
7; Dioxin/furan row of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD Table 8; and
dioxin/furan row of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD Table 9.

C. Clarifications

    Since publication of the February 7, 2013, final CISWI rule, the
EPA has received stakeholder questions and requests for clarification
on certain rule provisions. We are not finalizing any regulatory
language changes for the following items, but are providing some
clarification to these questions. Furthermore, comments received on
these clarifications and responses to these comments are found in the
``Response to Comments on the 2015 CISWI Reconsideration'' document
found in the docket:
     Mass balance as operating limits for units without certain
control devices--A stakeholder has asked for clarification on whether a
mass balance could be used as an operating parameter, and whether this
must be measured as a 30-day rolling average instead of taking a
monthly sample. Furthermore, the stakeholder also asked whether the
material balance allows them to waive annual stack testing. The EPA
clarifies that mass balance operating parameters do not replace annual
stack testing. Stack testing and operating parameters work in tandem to
ensure ongoing compliance with the standards. We do, however, accept
that mass balance could be an allowable operating parameter in cases
where no control device is needed to meet the pollutant's specific
emission limit applicable to the unit, provided the petition for the
operating parameter limits meets the requirements specified in 40 CFR
60.2115 and 40 CFR 60.2680. We also point out that these requirements
also allow any source to request a different averaging time that is
appropriate for the source and operating parameter.
     Clarification on who the ``EPA Administrator'' is and whom
to contact for requests for averaging times, qualifying facility
notifications, etc. We have received questions on how to contact the
Administrator to submit notifications, reports and requests. The
contact information is given in the General Provisions, under 40 CFR
60.4, and has addresses listed by EPA Regional Offices.

VI. Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

    This action finalizes the proposed provisions and makes technical
and clarifying corrections, but does not cause substantive changes to
the impacts on the environment, energy generation and usage, and
economic factors for affected sources from the February 7, 2013, final
CISWI rule (78 FR 9112). The number of sources requiring improved
emission control performance is the same as estimated in the final 2013
rule. While the emission limits have been relaxed slightly for PM in
the waste-burning kilns, the assumed controls required to meet the
final standards are still the same as those estimated for the final
2013 rule. That is, waste-burning kilns that would require additional
controls to meet the final 2013 rule's PM and metals emission limits
will still require those control improvements to meet the limits being
finalized in this action. The main

difference is an increased margin of compliance for these units, as
well as a PM limit that is very consistent with the non-waste burning
(Portland Cement NESHAP) PM emission limits, thereby streamlining
compliance. For the coal-fired ERU subcategory, certain emission limits
are relaxed while others have been made more stringent. The net result
in emissions reductions are negligible, however, and there are no
changes in the control cost estimates for units in this subcategory. As
with the waste-burning kilns, the main difference for the coal ERUs is
that there is a somewhat greater margin of compliance available in the
standards being finalized, and thus, ensuring that the best performing
units may be able to demonstrate sustained compliance with the MACT
standards in multiple modes of operation (waste and non-waste modes).
    Taken together, the revised emission limits being finalized in this
action could result in allowable emission estimates, primarily in PM,
that are greater than those assumed for the 2013 final rule by about
297 tpy. In other words, there could potentially be 297 fewer tpy of PM
emission reductions as a result of this final rule when compared to the
2013 final rule's estimated emission reductions. We have estimated
these emission impacts in the memorandum ``Revised Emission Limits and
Impacts Analyses for Waste-burning Kilns and Coal ERUs'' available in
the docket. We have not revised the regulatory impacts assessment
prepared for the 2013 final rule since the expected emissions control
costs are unchanged and the change in estimated emission reductions are
relatively minor when compared to the 34,771 tpy overall emission
reductions estimated for the February 7, 2013, final rule (See 78 FR
9132).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statues and Executive Orders can
be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR part 60,
subpart CCCC and 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD) and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0664 for subpart CCCC and OMB control number 2060-
0662 for subpart DDDD. This action is believed to result in no changes
to the information collection requirements of the February 2013 final
CISWI rule, so that the information collection estimate of project cost
and hour burden from the final CISWI rule have not been revised.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This final rule will not impose any new
requirements on any entities because it does not impose any additional
regulatory requirements relative to those specified in the February
2013 final CISWI rule. The February 2013 final CISWI rule was certified
as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. We have therefore concluded that this action will have
no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly affect small governments. The action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.

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.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA is not aware of any CISWI in Indian
country or owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. The CISWI
aspects of this rule may, however, invoke minor indirect tribal
implications to the extent that entities generating solid wastes on
tribal lands could be affected. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This action does not involve technical standards.
    This action is not finalizing any new incorporation by reference
material, so therefore this action is not making any amendments to the
incorporations by reference found in 40 CFR 60.17. The incorporation by
reference of this document was already approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51
for Sec.  60.14, effective February 7, 2013. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA
office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more
information).

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income,
or indigenous populations. It does not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment. The final CISWI rule will
reduce emissions of all the listed toxics emitted from this source,
thereby helping to further ensure against any disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-
income, or indigenous populations.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference.

    Dated: May 5, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency is amending title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

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

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

0
2. Part 60 is amended by revising subpart CCCC to read as follows:

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

Sec.

Introduction

60.2000 What does this subpart do?
60.2005 When does this subpart become effective?

Applicability

60.2010 Does this subpart apply to my incineration unit?
60.2015 What is a new incineration unit?
60.2020 What combustion units are exempt from this subpart?
60.2030 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
60.2035 How are these new source performance standards structured?
60.2040 Do all eleven components of these new source performance
standards apply at the same time?

Preconstruction Siting Analysis

60.2045 Who must prepare a siting analysis?
60.2050 What is a siting analysis?

Waste Management Plan

60.2055 What is a waste management plan?
60.2060 When must I submit my waste management plan?
60.2065 What should I include in my waste management plan?

Operator Training and Qualification

60.2070 What are the operator training and qualification
requirements?
60.2075 When must the operator training course be completed?
60.2080 How do I obtain my operator qualification?
60.2085 How do I maintain my operator qualification?
60.2090 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification?
60.2095 What site-specific documentation is required?
60.2100 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not
accessible?

Emission Limitations and Operating Limits

60.2105 What emission limitations must I meet and by when?
60.2110 What operating limits must I meet and by when?
60.2115 What if I do not use a wet scrubber, fabric filter,
activated carbon injection, selective noncatalytic reduction, an
electrostatic precipitator, or a dry scrubber to comply with the
emission limitations?

Performance Testing

60.2125 How do I conduct the initial and annual performance test?
60.2130 How are the performance test data used?

Initial Compliance Requirements

60.2135 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations and establish the operating limits?
60.2140 By what date must I conduct the initial performance test?
60.2141 By what date must I conduct the initial air pollution
control device inspection?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

60.2145 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations and the operating limits?
60.2150 By what date must I conduct the annual performance test?
60.2151 By what date must I conduct the annual air pollution control
device inspection?
60.2155 May I conduct performance testing less often?
60.2160 May I conduct a repeat performance test to establish new
operating limits?

Monitoring

60.2165 What monitoring equipment must I install and what parameters
must I monitor?
60.2170 Is there a minimum amount of monitoring data I must obtain?

Recordkeeping and Reporting

60.2175 What records must I keep?
60.2180 Where and in what format must I keep my records?
60.2185 What reports must I submit?
60.2190 What must I submit prior to commencing construction?
60.2195 What information must I submit prior to initial startup?
60.2200 What information must I submit following my initial
performance test?
60.2205 When must I submit my annual report?
60.2210 What information must I include in my annual report?
60.2215 What else must I report if I have a deviation from the
operating limits or the emission limitations?
60.2220 What must I include in the deviation report?
60.2225 What else must I report if I have a deviation from the
requirement to have a qualified operator accessible?
60.2230 Are there any other notifications or reports that I must
submit?
60.2235 In what form can I submit my reports?
60.2240 Can reporting dates be changed?

Title V Operating Permits

60.2242 Am I required to apply for and obtain a Title V operating
permit for my unit?

Air Curtain Incinerators

60.2245 What is an air curtain incinerator?
60.2250 What are the emission limitations for air curtain
incinerators?
60.2255 How must I monitor opacity for air curtain incinerators?
60.2260 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
air curtain incinerators?

Definitions

60.2265 What definitions must I know?

Tables to Subpart CCCC

Table 1 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for
Incinerators for Which Construction Is Commenced After November 30,
1999, But No Later Than June 4, 2010, or for Which Modification or
Reconstruction Is Commenced on or After June 1, 2001, But No Later Than
August 7, 2013

Table 2 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Operating Limits for Wet Scrubbers

Table 3 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Toxic Equivalency Factors

Table 4 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Summary of Reporting Requirements

Table 5 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for
Incinerators That Commenced Construction After June 4, 2010, or That
Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After August 7, 2013

Table 6 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Energy
Recovery Units That Commenced Construction After June 4, 2010, or That
Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After August 7, 2013

Table 7 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Waste-
burning Kilns That Commenced Construction After June 4, 2010, or
Reconstruction or Modification After August 7, 2013

Table 8 to Subpart CCCC of Part 60--Emission Limitations for Small,
Remote Incinerators That Commenced Construction After June 4, 2010, or
That Commenced Reconstruction or Modification After August 7, 2013

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

Introduction

Sec.  60.2000  What does this subpart do?

    This subpart establishes new source performance standards for
commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units.

Sec.  60.2005  When does this subpart become effective?

    This subpart takes effect on August 7, 2013. Some of the
requirements in this subpart apply to planning the CISWI unit (i.e.,
the preconstruction requirements in Sec. Sec.  60.2045 and 60.2050).
Other requirements such as the emission limitations and operating
limits apply after the CISWI unit begins operation.

Applicability

Sec.  60.2010  Does this subpart apply to my incineration unit?

    Yes, if your incineration unit meets all the requirements specified
in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section:
    (a) Your incineration unit is a new incineration unit as defined in
Sec.  60.2015;
    (b) Your incineration unit is a CISWI unit as defined in Sec.
60.2265; and
    (c) Your incineration unit is not exempt under Sec.  60.2020.

Sec.  60.2015  What is a new incineration unit?

    (a) A new incineration unit is an incineration unit that meets any
of the criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section:
    (1) A CISWI unit that commenced construction after June 4, 2010;
    (2) A CISWI unit that commenced reconstruction or modification
after August 7, 2013; and
    (3) Incinerators and air curtain incinerators, as defined in this
subpart, that commenced construction after November 30, 1999, but no
later than June 4, 2010, or that commenced reconstruction or
modification on or after June 1, 2001, but no later than August 7,
2013, are considered new incineration units and remain subject to the
applicable requirements of this subpart until the units become subject
to the requirements of an approved state plan or federal plan that
implements subpart DDDD of this part (Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
Units).
    (b) This subpart does not affect your CISWI unit if you make
physical or operational changes to your incineration unit primarily to
comply with subpart DDDD of this part (Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
Units). Such changes do not qualify as reconstruction or modification
under this subpart.

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

    This subpart exempts the types of units described in paragraphs
(a), (c) through (i), and (n) of this section, but some units are
required to provide notifications. Air curtain incinerators are exempt
from the requirements in this subpart except for the provisions in
Sec. Sec.  60.2242, 60.2250, and 60.2260.
    (a) Pathological waste incineration units. Incineration units
burning 90 percent or more by weight (on a calendar quarter basis and
excluding the weight of auxiliary fuel and combustion air) of
pathological waste, low-level radioactive waste, and/or
chemotherapeutic waste as defined in Sec.  60.2265 are not subject to
this subpart if you meet the two requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) Notify the Administrator that the unit meets these criteria;
and
    (2) Keep records on a calendar quarter basis of the weight of
pathological waste, low-level radioactive waste, and/or
chemotherapeutic waste burned, and the weight of all other fuels and
wastes burned in the unit.
    (b) [Reserved]
    (c) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration units that are
subject to subpart Ea of this part (Standards of Performance for
Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Eb of this part (Standards of
Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Cb of this
part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Time for Large Municipal
Combustors); subpart AAAA of this part (Standards of Performance for
Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or subpart BBBB of this part
(Emission Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units).
    (d) Medical waste incineration units. Incineration units regulated
under subpart Ec of this part (Standards of Performance for Hospital/
Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators for Which Construction is
Commenced After June 20, 1996) or subpart Ce of this part (Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Times for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators).
    (e) Small power production facilities. Units that meet the three
requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this
section:
    (1) The unit qualifies as a small power-production facility under
section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(17)(C));
    (2) The unit burns homogeneous waste (not including refuse-derived
fuel) to produce electricity;
    (3) You submit documentation to the Administrator notifying the EPA
that the qualifying small power production facility is combusting
homogenous waste; and
    (4) You maintain the records specified in Sec.  60.2175(w).
    (f) Cogeneration facilities. Units that meet the three requirements
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section:
    (1) The unit qualifies as a cogeneration facility under section
3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B));
    (2) The unit burns homogeneous waste (not including refuse-derived
fuel) to produce electricity and steam or other forms of energy used
for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes;
    (3) You submit documentation to the Administrator notifying the
Agency that

the qualifying cogeneration facility is combusting homogenous waste;
and
    (4) You maintain the records specified in Sec.  60.2175(x).
    (g) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units for which you are
required to get a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act.
    (h) Materials recovery units. Units that combust waste for the
primary purpose of recovering metals, such as primary and secondary
smelters.
    (i) Air curtain incinerators. Air curtain incinerators that burn
only the materials listed in paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this
section are only required to meet the requirements under Sec.  60.2242
and under ``Air Curtain Incinerators'' (Sec. Sec.  60.2245 through
60.2260):
    (1) 100 percent wood waste;
    (2) 100 percent clean lumber; and
    (3) 100 percent mixture of only wood waste, clean lumber, and/or
yard waste.
    (j)-(l) [Reserved]
    (m) Sewage treatment plants. Incineration units regulated under
subpart O of this part (Standards of Performance for Sewage Treatment
Plants).
    (n) Sewage sludge incineration units. Incineration units combusting
sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the sewage
sludge by removing combustible matter that are subject to subpart LLLL
of this part (Standards of Performance for New Sewage Sludge
Incineration Units) or subpart MMMM of this part (Emission Guidelines
and Compliance Times for Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units).
    (o) Other solid waste incineration units. Incineration units that
are subject to subpart EEEE of this part (Standards of Performance for
Other Solid Waste Incineration Units for Which Construction is
Commenced After December 9, 2004, or for Which Modification or
Reconstruction is Commenced on or After June 16, 2006) or subpart FFFF
of this part (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Other Solid
Waste Incineration Units That Commenced Construction On or Before
December 9, 2004).

Sec.  60.2030  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a delegated authority such as
your state, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has
delegated authority to your state, local, or tribal agency, then that
agency (as well as EPA) 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 EPA 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 (4) and
(c)(6) through (11) of this section:
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limitations in table 1
of this subpart and operating limits established under Sec.  60.2110;
    (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) [Reserved]
    (6) The requirements in Sec.  60.2115;
    (7) The requirements in Sec.  60.2100(b)(2);
    (8) Approval of alternative opacity emission limits in Sec.
60.2105 under Sec.  60.11(e)(6) through (8);
    (9) Performance test and data reduction waivers under Sec.
60.2125(j), Sec.  60.8(b)(4) and (5);
    (10) Determination of whether a qualifying small power production
facility or cogeneration facility under Sec.  60.2020(e) or (f) is
combusting homogenous waste; and
    (11) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.

Sec.  60.2035  How are these new source performance standards
structured?

    These new source performance standards contain the eleven major
components listed in paragraphs (a) through (k) of this section:
    (a) Preconstruction siting analysis;
    (b) Waste management plan;
    (c) Operator training and qualification;
    (d) Emission limitations and operating limits;
    (e) Performance testing;
    (f) Initial compliance requirements;
    (g) Continuous compliance requirements;
    (h) Monitoring;
    (i) Recordkeeping and reporting;
    (j) Definitions; and
    (k) Tables.

Sec.  60.2040  Do all eleven components of these new source performance
standards apply at the same time?

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

Preconstruction Siting Analysis

Sec.  60.2045  Who must prepare a siting analysis?

    (a) You must prepare a siting analysis if you plan to commence
construction of an incinerator after December 1, 2000.
    (b) You must prepare a siting analysis for CISWI units that
commenced construction after June 4, 2010, or that commenced
reconstruction or modification after August 7, 2013.
    (c) You must prepare a siting analysis if you are required to
submit an initial application for a construction permit under 40 CFR
part 51, subpart I, or 40 CFR part 52, as applicable, for the
reconstruction or modification of your CISWI unit.

Sec.  60.2050  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. 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 CISWI 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.  60.2190(c) prior to commencing
construction.

Waste Management Plan

Sec.  60.2055  What is a waste management plan?

    A waste management plan is a written plan that identifies both the
feasibility and the methods used to reduce or separate certain
components of solid waste from the waste stream in order to reduce or
eliminate toxic emissions from incinerated waste.

Sec.  60.2060  When must I submit my waste management plan?

    (a) You must submit a waste management plan prior to commencing
construction.
    (b) For CISWI units that commence reconstruction or modification
after August 7, 2013, you must submit a waste management plan prior to
the commencement of modification or reconstruction.

Sec.  60.2065  What should I include in my waste management plan?

    A waste management plan must include consideration of the reduction
or separation of waste-stream elements such as paper, cardboard,
plastics, glass, batteries, or metals; or the use of recyclable
materials. The plan must identify any additional waste management
measures and implement those measures the source considers practical
and feasible, considering the effectiveness of waste management
measures already in place, the costs of additional measures, the
emissions reductions expected to be achieved, and any other
environmental or energy impacts they might have.

Operator Training and Qualification

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

    (a) No CISWI unit can be operated unless a fully trained and
qualified CISWI unit operator is accessible, either at the facility or
can be at the facility within 1 hour. The trained and qualified CISWI
unit operator may operate the CISWI unit directly or be the direct
supervisor of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit.
If all qualified CISWI unit operators are temporarily not accessible,
you must follow the procedures in Sec.  60.2100.
    (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 (3) of this section:
    (1) Training on the eleven subjects listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (xi) 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, waste charging, 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 and correct 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; and
    (xi) Waste management practices.
    (2) An examination designed and administered by the instructor.
    (3) Written material covering the training course topics that may
serve as reference material following completion of the course.

Sec.  60.2075  When must the operator training course be completed?

    The operator training course must be completed by the later of the
three dates specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section:
    (a) Six months after your CISWI unit startup;
    (b) December 3, 2001; and
    (c) The date before an employee assumes responsibility for
operating the CISWI unit or assumes responsibility for supervising the
operation of the CISWI unit.

Sec.  60.2080  How do I obtain my operator qualification?

    (a) You must obtain operator qualification by completing a training
course that satisfies the criteria under Sec.  60.2070(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.  60.2070(c)(2).

Sec.  60.2085  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;