[Federal Register: December 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 241)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 74869-74924]
[DOCID:fr16de05-19]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 60

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156; FRL-8005-5]
RIN 2060-AG31

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating new source performance standards (NSPS)
and emission guidelines for new and existing ``other'' solid waste
incineration units (OSWI). The final rules for OSWI units fulfill the
requirements of sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which
require EPA to promulgate NSPS and emission guidelines for solid waste
incineration units. The final rules, which address only the
incineration of nonhazardous solid wastes, will protect public health
by reducing exposure to air pollution.

DATES: Amendments to Sec.  60.17 are effective February 14, 2006. The
standards for new sources in subpart EEEE of 40 CFR part 60 (sections
60.2880 through 60.2977) are effective June 16, 2006. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the NSPS is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of June 16, 2006. The emission
guidelines for existing sources in subpart FFFF of 40 CFR part 60
(sections 60.2980 through 60.3078) are effective February 14, 2006. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
emission guidelines is approved by the Director of the Federal Register
as of February 14, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in

the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room
B102, 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 EPA Docket
Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Johnson, Combustion Group,
Emission Standards Division (C439-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by the final rules are very small municipal waste combustion (VSMWC)
units and institutional waste incineration (IWI) units. The final OSWI
emission guidelines and NSPS potentially affect the following
categories of sources:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Examples of potentially regulated
                  Category                     NAICS code       SIC code                   entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any State, local, or Tribal government        562213, 92411      4953, 9511  Solid waste combustion units
 using a VSMWC unit as defined in the                                         burning municipal waste collected
 regulations.                                                                 from the general public and from
                                                                              residential, commercial,
                                                                              institutional, and industrial
                                                                              sources.
Institutions using an IWI unit as defined        922, 6111,     9223, 8211,  Correctional institutions, primary
 in the regulations.                              623, 7121            7999   and secondary schools, camps and
                                                                              national parks.
Any Federal government agency using an OSWI             928            9711  Department of Defense (labs,
 unit as defined in the regulations.                                          military bases, munitions
                                                                              facilities).
Any college or university using an OSWI          6113, 6112      8221, 8222  Universities, colleges and
 unit as defined in the regulations.                                          community colleges.
Any church or convent using an OSWI unit as            8131            8661  Churches and convents.
 defined in the regulations.
Any civic or religious organization using              8134            8641  Civic association and fraternal
 an OSWI unit as defined in the regulations.                                  associations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
final rules. To determine whether your facility is regulated by the
final rules, you should examine the applicability criteria in the NSPS
for new sources located at 40 CFR 60.2885 through 60.2888 of subpart
EEEE, and in the emission guidelines for existing sources located at 40
CFR 60.2991 through 60.2994 of subpart FFFF. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of the final rules to a particular entity,
contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
    Docket. The docket number for the final NSPS (40 CFR part 60,
subpart EEEE) and emission guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF) is
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the final rules is available on the WWW through
the Technology Transfer Network Website (TTN Web). Following signature,
EPA will post a copy of the final rules on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
 The TTN provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
the final rules is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by February 14,
2006. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to the final
rules that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under
CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by today's final
action may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides 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.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for

reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] 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.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to the EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration
to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a
copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Director of the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background
II. Summary of the Final Rules
    A. Do the final rules apply to me?
    B. What emission limits must I meet?
    C. What operating limits must I meet?
    D. What are the other requirements?
    E. What are the requirements for air curtain incinerators?
    F. What title V permit requirements must I meet?
III. What are the changes to the rules since proposal?
IV. Significant Issues and Changes-Public Comments
    A. Applicability
    B. Definitions
    C. MACT Floors and Emission Limits
    D. Title V Operating Permits
    E. Testing
    F. Impacts
V. Impacts of the Final Rules
    A. What are the impacts for new units?
    B. What are the impacts for existing units?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    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 and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

    Section 129 of the CAA, entitled ``Solid Waste Combustion,''
requires EPA to develop and adopt NSPS and emission guidelines for
solid waste incineration units pursuant to CAA section 111. Section
111(b) of the CAA requires EPA to establish NSPS for new sources, and
CAA section 111(d) requires EPA to establish procedures for States to
submit plans for implementing emission guidelines for existing sources.
Under CAA section 111, NSPS and emission guidelines must be developed
for new and existing stationary sources that cause or contribute
significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.
    Congress specifically added section 129 to the CAA to address
concerns about emissions from solid waste combustion units. Section
129(a)(1) of the CAA identifies five categories of solid waste
incineration units:
    (1) Units with a capacity of greater than 250 tons per day (tpd)
combusting municipal waste;
    (2) Units with a capacity equal to or less than 250 tpd combusting
municipal waste;
    (3) Units combusting hospital, medical and infectious waste;
    (4) Units combusting commercial or industrial waste; and
    (5) Unspecified ``other categories of solid waste incineration
units.''
    Section 129(g)(1) of the CAA identifies several types of units that
are not solid waste incineration units, including units required to
have a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA); materials recovery facilities; certain qualifying small power
production facilities or qualifying cogeneration facilities which burn
homogeneous waste; and certain air curtain incinerators that meet
opacity limitations established by EPA.
    For each category of incineration unit identified under CAA section
129, EPA must establish numerical emission limits for at least nine
specified pollutants (particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), hydrogen chloride (HC1), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd),
mercury (Hg), and dioxins and dibenzofurans), and for opacity as
appropriate. Section 129 of the CAA provides EPA with the discretion to
establish emission limitations for other pollutants as well. (See CAA
section 129(a)(4).)
    Under CAA section 129, the NSPS and emission guidelines adopted for
solid waste combustion units must reflect the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT). Accordingly, EPA=s standards under CAA
section 129 must ``reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions
of [the listed] air pollutants * * * that the Administrator, taking
into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reductions, and
any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements, determines is achievable for new or existing units in
each category * * *.'' (See CAA section 129(a)(2).) However, the
standards for new units must not be less stringent than the emissions
control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar
unit, and the standards for existing sources must not be less stringent
than the average emissions limitations achieved by the best performing
12 percent of units in the category.
    EPA previously developed regulations for each of the listed
categories of solid waste incineration unit except for the undefined
``other categories of solid waste incineration units.'' Four notices
have been published regarding OSWI regulatory development (58 FR 31358,
June 2, 1993; 58 FR 58498, November 2, 1993; 65 FR 67367, November 9,
2000; 69 FR 71472, December 9, 2004). In the November 9, 2000 notice,
EPA revised the OSWI regulatory schedule to include a November 2005
date for promulgation of final regulations. This deadline was
subsequently incorporated into a consent decree, requiring that EPA
propose regulations for the OSWI source category by November 30, 2004,
and promulgate final rules by November 30, 2005. On December 9, 2004,
EPA proposed NSPS and emission guidelines for OSWI units (69 FR 71472).
EPA received 26 public comment letters from a variety of sources,
consisting mainly of government agencies, environmental organizations,
incinerator manufacturers, and various incinerator owners/operators. By
today's notice EPA promulgates final regulations for ``other'' (or
OSWI) units.

II. Summary of the Final Rules

A. Do the final rules apply to me?

    The final OSWI rules apply to you if you own or operate either of
the following:
    (1) An incineration unit with a capacity less than 35 tpd burning
municipal solid waste (MSW) (as defined in CAA section 129, 40 CFR
60.2977 of subpart EEEE, and 40 CFR 60.3078 of subpart FFFF); or
    (2) An incineration unit located at an institutional facility
burning institutional waste (as defined in 40 CFR 60.2977 of subpart
EEEE and 40 CFR 60.3078 of subpart FFFF) generated at that facility.
    Requirements for air curtain incineration units that would
otherwise be VSMWC or IWI units, but for the fact

that they burn certain materials, are discussed later in this preamble.
If your incineration unit is currently meeting emission limitations and
other requirements of another CAA section 129 regulation (i.e., small
or large municipal waste combustion (MWC) units; hospital, medical,
infectious waste incineration (HMIWI) units; or commercial and
industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) units), the final OSWI
rules do not apply to you. Likewise, if an institutional combustion
unit is covered under the CAA section 112 national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for industrial, commercial, and
institutional boilers and process heaters (boilers NESHAP), it is not
subject to the final OSWI rules. Certain types of combustion units
listed in 40 CFR 60.2887 of subpart EEEE and 40 CFR 60.2993 of subpart
FFFF are also excluded from the final OSWI rules.
    If you began construction of your incineration unit on or before
December 9, 2004, it is considered an existing unit and is subject to
the emission guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF). If you began
construction of your incineration unit after December 9, 2004, it is
considered a new unit and is subject to the NSPS (40 CFR part 60,
subpart EEEE).
    If you began reconstruction or modification of your incineration
unit prior to June 16, 2006, it is considered an existing unit and is
subject to the emission guidelines. Likewise, if you begin
reconstruction or modification of your incineration unit on or after
June 16, 2006, it is considered a new unit and is subject to the NSPS.

B. What emission limits must I meet?

    As the owner or operator of a new OSWI unit, you must meet the
emission limits specified in table 1 of this preamble. You must conduct
an initial performance test to show compliance within 60 days after a
new OSWI unit reaches the charge rate at which it will operate, but no
later than 180 days after the unit's initial startup.
    As the owner or operator of an existing OSWI unit, you must meet
the emission limits specified in table 1 of this preamble within 3
years after the effective date of State plan approval or by a
compliance date to be established when EPA promulgates a Federal plan,
but no later than December 16, 2010. The December 16, 2010 deadline is
set by the statute. (See CAA section 129(f)). Thus, if EPA approves a
State plan in 2009, December 16, 2010 will still be the deadline for
complying. EPA plans to promulgate a Federal plan that will require
compliance by December 16, 2010 in those areas that fail to submit an
approvable State plan.

        Table 1.--Emission Limits for New and Existing OSWI Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        And determine
                               You must meet these    compliance using
    For these pollutants       emission limits \a\   these  methods \b\
                                                             \c\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cd..........................  18 micrograms per     EPA Method 29.
                               dry standard cubic
                               meter ([mu]g/dscm).
CO..........................  40 parts per million  EPA Methods 10, 10A
                               dry volume (ppmdv).   or 10B.
Dioxins/Furans (total mass    33 nanograms per dry  EPA Method 23.
 basis).                       standard cubic
                               meter (ng/dscm).
HCl.........................  15 ppmdv............  EPA Method 26A.
Pb..........................  226 [mu]g/dscm......  EPA Method 29.
Hg..........................  74 [mu]g/dscm.......  EPA Method 29.
Opacity.....................  10%.................  EPA Method 9.
NOX.........................  103 ppmdv...........  EPA Methods 7, 7A,
                                                     7C, 7D, or 7E. \d\
PM..........................  0.013 grains per dry  EPA Method 5 or 29.
                               standard cubic foot
                               (gr/dscf).
SO2.........................  3.1 ppmdv...........  EPA Method 6 or 6C.
                                                     \e\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All emission limits (except opacity) are measured at 7 percent
  oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
\b\ These methods are in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
\c\ Compliance with the CO emission limit is determined on a 12-hour
  rolling average basis using continuous emission monitoring system
  data. Compliance for the other emission limits is determined by stack
  testing.
\d\ ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10 is an acceptable alternative to only
  Methods 7 and 7C.
\e\ ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10 is an acceptable alternative to only
  Method 6.

C. What operating limits must I meet?

    If you use a wet scrubber to comply with the emission limits, you
must establish the maximum and minimum site-specific operating limits
indicated in table 2 of this preamble. You must then operate the OSWI
unit so that the charge rate does not exceed the established maximum
charge rate. You must operate the wet scrubber so that the pressure
drop or amperage, scrubber liquor flow rate, and scrubber liquor pH do
not fall below the minimum established operating limits.

  Table 2.--Operating Limits for New and Existing OSWI Units Using Wet
                                Scrubbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          And monitor
                                  You must establish  continuously using
 For these operating parameters     these operating    these  recording
                                        limits               times
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge rate.....................  Maximum charge      Every hour.
                                   rate.
Pressure drop across the wet      Minimum pressure    Every 15 minutes.
 scrubber, or amperage to the      drop or amperage.
 wet scrubber.
Scrubber liquor flow rate.......  Minimum flow rate.  Every 15 minutes.
Scrubber liquor pH..............  Minimum pH........  Every 15 minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Compliance is determined on a 3-hour rolling average basis, except
  charge rate for batch incinerators, which is determined on a 24-hour
  basis.

    If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet
scrubber to comply with the emission limits, you must petition the EPA
for approval of other site-specific operating limits to be established
during the initial performance test and continuously monitored
thereafter. The information you must include in your petition is
described in 40 CFR 60.2917 of subpart EEEE and 40 CFR 60.3024 of
subpart FFFF.

D. What are the other requirements?

    As the owner or operator of a new or existing OSWI unit, you must
meet the following additional requirements.
    Siting Analysis (new units only):
     Submit a report that evaluates site-specific air pollution
control alternatives that minimize potential risks to public health or
the environment, considering costs, energy impacts, non-air
environmental impacts, or any other factors related to the
practicability of the alternatives.
    Waste Management Plan:
     Submit 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 to reduce or eliminate toxic emissions from
incinerated waste.
    Operator Training and Qualification Requirements:
     Qualify operators or their supervisors (at least one per
facility) by ensuring that they complete an operator training course
and annual review or refresher course.
    Testing Requirements:
     Conduct initial performance tests for Cd, CO, dioxins/
furans, HCl, Pb, Hg, NOX, opacity, PM, and SO2
and establish operating limits (i.e., maximum or minimum values for
operating parameters).
     Conduct annual performance tests for all nine pollutants
and opacity. (An owner or operator may conduct less frequent testing if
the facility demonstrates that it is in compliance with the emission
limits for three consecutive performance tests.)
    Monitoring Requirements:
     Continuously monitor CO emissions.
     If using a wet scrubber to comply with the emission
limits, continuously monitor the following operating parameters: charge
rate, pressure drop across the wet scrubber (or amperage), and scrubber
liquid flow rate and pH.
     If using something other than a wet scrubber to comply
with the emission limits, monitor other operating parameters, as
approved by the EPA.
    Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements:
     Maintain for 5 years records of the initial performance
tests and all subsequent performance tests, operating parameters, any
maintenance, the siting analysis (for new units only), and operator
training and qualification. Each record must be kept on site for at
least 2 years. The records may be kept off site for the remaining 3
years.
     Submit the results of the initial performance tests and
all subsequent performance tests and values for the operating
parameters.
     Submit annual compliance reports and semiannual reports of
any deviations from the emission limits, operating limits, or other
requirements.
     Apply for and obtain a title V operating permit.

E. What are the requirements for air curtain incinerators?

    The final OSWI rules establish opacity limitations for air curtain
incineration units that would otherwise meet the definitions of IWI or
VSMWC units, but burn only:
     100 percent wood wastes;
     100 percent clean lumber;
     100 percent yard waste; or
     100 percent mixture of only wood waste, clean lumber, and/
or yard waste.
    The opacity limit is 10 percent. However, 35 percent opacity is
allowed during startup periods that are within the first 30 minutes of
operation. Air curtain incinerators burning only these materials must
meet the opacity limits and certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, and must apply for and obtain a title V
operating permit.
    Air curtain incinerators burning other institutional waste or
municipal waste must meet the requirements of the final OSWI rules
including all emission limits in table 1 of this preamble and the
associated testing, permitting, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements.

F. What title V permit requirements must I meet?

    All new and existing OSWI units and air curtain incinerators
regulated by the final OSWI rules must apply for and obtain a title V
operating permit. These title V operating permits assure compliance
with all applicable Federal requirements for regulated incineration
units, including all applicable CAA section 129 requirements. (See 40
CFR 70.6(a)(1), 70.2, 71.6(a)(1) and 71.2.)
    The permit application deadline for a CAA section 129 source
applying for a title V operating permit depends on when the source
first becomes subject to the relevant title V permits program. If a
regulated incineration unit is a new unit and is not subject to an
earlier permit application deadline, a complete title V permit
application must be submitted on or before the relevant date below:
    (1) For a unit that commenced operation as a new source on or
before December 16, 2005, a complete title V permit application must be
submitted not later than December 18, 2006; or
    (2) For a unit that does not commence operation as a new source
until after December 16, 2005, a complete title V permit application
must be submitted not later than 12 months after the date the unit
commences operation as a new source. (See CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR
70.5(a)(1)(i) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
    If your incineration unit is an existing unit and is not subject to
an earlier permit application deadline, a complete title V permit
application must be submitted by the earlier of the following dates:
    (1) Twelve months after the effective date of any applicable EPA-
approved CAA section 111(d)/129 plan (i.e., an approved State or Tribal
plan that implements the OSWI emission guidelines);
    (2) Twelve months after the effective date of any applicable
Federal plan; or
    (3) December 16, 2008.
    For any existing incineration unit not subject to an earlier permit
application deadline, the application deadline of 36 months after the
promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF, applies regardless of
whether or when any applicable Federal plan is effective, or whether or
when any applicable CAA section 111(d)/129 plan is approved by EPA and
becomes effective. (See CAA sections 129(e), 503(c), 503(d), and 502(a)
and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
    If your incineration unit is subject to title V as a result of some
triggering requirement(s) other than those mentioned above (for
example, a unit may be a major source or part of a major source), then
you may be required to apply for a title V operating permit for that
unit prior to the deadlines specified above. If more than one
requirement triggers a source's obligation to apply for a title V
operating permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V permit
application is triggered by the requirement which first causes the
source to be subject to title V. (See CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR
70.3(a) and (b), 70.5(a)(1)(i), 71.3(a) and (b), and 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
    For additional background information on the interface between CAA
section 129 and title V, including EPA's interpretation of CAA section
129(e), information on updating existing

title V operating permit applications and reopening existing title V
permits, see the final Federal Plan for Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incinerators, October 3, 2003 (68 FR 57518, 57532), as well as
the ``Summary of Public Comments and Responses'' document in the OSWI
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156).

III. What are the changes to the rules since proposal?

    We made several revisions to the OSWI rules since proposal. As
previously stated, a summary of public comments and EPA's responses to
those comments is located in the docket. The following is a summary of
the most significant changes.
Definitions
     Institutional facility. Replaced the term ``institution,''
as defined at proposal, with the term ``institutional facility'', which
was the term we intended to define. Clarified that the term
``institutional facility'' means land-based facility.
     Institutional waste. Revised the definition of
``institutional waste'' to be clearer and to eliminate redundancy while
maintaining the same meaning as the proposed definition.
     IWI unit and MWC unit. Revised the definitions of
``institutional waste incineration unit'' and ``municipal waste
combustion unit'' by adding ``cyclonic burn barrel'' as another example
of an incinerator design.
     Clean lumber and wood waste. Clarified that the
definitions of ``clean lumber'' and ``wood waste'' exclude wood
products that contain adhesives.
     Administrator and EPA. Revised the definition of
``Administrator'' and added a definition for the term ``EPA'' to
clarify our intent with respect to implementation of the final OSWI
rules. ``Administrator'' now means (1) For approved and effective State
section 111(d)/129 plans, the Director of the State air pollution
control agency, or his or her delegatee; (2) For Federal section
111(d)/129 plans, the Administrator of the EPA, an employee of the EPA,
the Director of the State air pollution control agency, or employee of
the State air pollution control agency to whom the authority has been
delegated by the Administrator of the EPA to perform the specified
task; and (3) For NSPS, the Administrator of the EPA, an employee of
the EPA, the Director of the State air pollution control agency, or
employee of the State air pollution control agency to whom the
authority has been delegated by the Administrator of the EPA to perform
the specified task. ``EPA'' means the Administrator of the EPA or
employee of the EPA that is delegated the authority to perform the
specified task.
     Waste heat recovery. Clarified that ``waste heat
recovery'' occurs outside of the combustion firebox.
Exclusions
     Rural IWI exclusion. Revised the rural IWI exclusion such
that in addition to the proposed requirement that the unit must be more
than 50 miles from the boundary of the nearest Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA), the unit must also be in an area ``where alternative
disposal options are not available or are economically infeasible.''
Also added provisions to require a facility to apply for the rural IWI
exclusion and reapply for this exclusion every 5 years.
     Temporary-use exclusion. Added ice storms and high winds
to the list of example disasters. Clarified that this exclusion
includes air curtain incinerators. Restricted the exclusion to areas
where a local, State, or Federal declaration of emergency or disaster
has been proclaimed. Also revised the exclusion to require all
temporary-use incinerators to submit notification if they will be used
during a period that begins on the date the unit started operation and
lasts more than 8 weeks within the boundaries of the current disaster
area.
     Prohibited goods exclusion. Limited the exclusion to
incinerators ``owned and/or operated by,'' not merely ``used by''
government agencies. Clarified that the exclusion applies only to goods
confiscated by a government agency.
     National security exclusion. Determined that any IWI units
used solely during military training field exercises to destroy
national security materials integral to the field exercises are not
subject to the final OSWI rules. Added a provision to allow other IWI
units to apply for an exclusion if the units are used solely to destroy
national security materials and a reliable alternative to incineration
that would ensure acceptable destruction is not available.
Emission Limits
     Carbon monoxide (CO) limit. Revised the limit from 5 parts
per million by volume (ppmv) to 40 ppmv on a 12-hour rolling average
basis.
     Hydrogen chloride (HCl) limit. Revised the limit from 3.7
ppmv to 15 ppmv.
Testing
     Added procedures to follow when performing Method 26A
tests that will improve accuracy for testing wet scrubber-equipped
incinerators.
     Clarified annual testing requirements for air curtain
incinerators. If an air curtain incinerator has been out of operation
for more than 12 months, it must be tested upon startup.
Technical Corrections and Clarifications
     In addition to the listed revisions, EPA made several
technical revisions to correct cross-referencing and typographical
errors and to improve clarity of the rules.

IV. Significant Issues and Changes--Public Comments

A. Applicability

    We received several comments on the scope and applicability of the
proposed OSWI rules. These comments ranged from very specific ones
dealing with a certain category of units, to more overarching comments
concerning applicability of the OSWI rules in general. The following
paragraphs contain the major discussions regarding applicability;
additional details may be found in the summary of public comments and
responses document in the docket.
1. General Applicability of OSWI Rules
    Two commenters expressed concern that the applicability of the
proposed rules is not broad enough and that too many source categories
are excluded or exempt from regulation. One commenter contended that
EPA's OSWI regulation must include CAA section 129 standards for every
category of solid waste incinerator that is not already regulated under
CAA section 129. The commenter contended that the CAA requires EPA to
set section 129 standards for any facility that combusts any solid
waste, with the exception of facilities specifically exempted under CAA
section 129(g)(1). The commenter made similar comments on most of the
excluded types of units, stating that they should be subject to
regulation under OSWI if they burn any nonhazardous waste. On the other
hand, another commenter expressed support for the rationale regarding
which sources will be regulated as OSWI units. The commenter urged EPA
to avoid any significant changes to this stated rationale.
    The CAA is ambiguous regarding what categories of solid waste
incineration units must be regulated under section 129(a)(1)(E). After
discussing timelines for very specific categories of solid waste
incinerators (e.g., large and small municipal waste

combustors, commercial and industrial waste incinerators, and hospital
and medical waste incinerators), the CAA states only that EPA must
publish a schedule for promulgating standards for ``other categories of
solid waste incineration units.'' The statute does not unambiguously
require, as implied by commenters, that the OSWI standards must apply
to every other possible type of incineration unit burning any type of
solid waste. If Congress had intended such a clear directive, it could
have instructed EPA to regulate ``every'' other solid waste
incineration unit. Yet Congress did not use such unambiguous language,
leaving it to EPA to interpret the CAA in a reasonable manner.
Moreover, the position adopted by commenters would lead to absurd
results. Under their interpretation, a homeowner burning leaves in a
barrel in his or her backyard must be subject to a CAA section 129 rule
because the barrel is a unit combusting solid waste material. Congress
cannot have intended that EPA regulate such sources under section 129,
with all the attendant requirements. The language of section 129
suggests that Congress wanted to focus EPA's attention to specific,
larger incineration units (e.g., MWC units and CISWI units). Under this
commenter's interpretation of section 129, however, EPA would have to
establish MACT floors and emissions standards for dozens of different
types of small incineration units with potentially minimal
emissions.\1\ It takes an enormous effort and use of resources to
develop a MACT floor and write a section 129 standard, and Congress
cannot have meant that EPA would undertake that substantial effort a
multitude of times merely by instructing EPA to address ``other''
categories of solid waste incineration units (assuming EPA even has the
resources to undertake such efforts). Moreover, sources subject to
section 129 standards must obtain title V operating permits and
undertake extensive testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping even if EPA
does not require additional controls under the section 129 standard,
and regardless of the level of emissions from the sources. As noted
elsewhere, EPA estimates that the costs of these requirements alone can
more than quadruple the costs of owning and operating an incinerator.
Again, Congress cannot have intended that every ``incineration'' unit
as defined by the commenter, regardless of its size or its impact on
public health and the environment, would have to shoulder these burdens
merely by referencing an undefined ``other'' category of incineration
units at section 129(a)(1)(E). Thus, the instructions to EPA to
promulgate standards for ``other categories'' of solid waste
incinerators inherently include the authority for EPA to reasonably
delineate those ``other'' categories of solid waste incineration units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Total emissions of the regulated air pollutants from all
units in the two subcategories regulated by the final OSWI rules are
estimated to total only 2,272 tons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, appropriately, the first step in EPA's rulemaking process was
determining what universe of sources will be subject to the
regulations. The statutory provisions of CAA sections 129(a), (g) and
(h) make it clear that EPA must, as a part of the regulatory process,
define which combustion units should be subject to regulation under CAA
section 129 and hence, to which categories of solid waste combustion
units the standards for ``other categories of solid waste incineration
units'' apply. For example, the reference in CAA section 129(g)(1) to a
permit issued under section 3005 of the SWDA, refers to units burning
hazardous solid waste. This effectively limits the scope of EPA's
authority under CAA section 129 to the regulation of solid waste
incineration units that burn nonhazardous solid waste. In determining
the scope of OSWI, EPA collected and analyzed data to identify
potential OSWI units and determined that the regulations should focus
on two categories of waste combustion units that are not regulated
elsewhere: IWI units and VSMWC units. In the proposed rules, we also
clarified that certain types of units are not regulated by the OSWI
rules. Some of these units are specifically excluded by CAA section 129
(e.g. hazardous waste combustion, small power production facilities,
cogeneration facilities burning homogeneous waste). We also clarify
that units are not covered under OSWI if they are already regulated
under other CAA section 129 or CAA section 112 standards (e.g., small
and large MWC, HMIWI, CISWI, boilers, cement kilns). The language of
CAA section 129(h) makes clear the Congressional intent for CAA
regulations under section 129 or section 112 to be mutually exclusive.
Accordingly, sources subject to CAA section 112 standards are not OSWI
units. Absence of regulation under CAA section 112, however, is not
determinative of whether a unit is subject to the final OSWI rules.
    Moreover, we do not agree that the ``small power production
facilities'' or ``qualifying cogeneration facilities'' described in CAA
section 129(g)(1) are the only types of energy recovery facilities that
are properly excluded from the OSWI category. We do not read section
129(g)(1) to establish an exclusive list of excluded sources. (See
National Wildlife Federation v. Gorsuch, 693 F.2d 156, 172
(D.C.Cir.1982) (use of the term ``includes'' allows for additional,
unstated meanings); Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California St. Bd. of
Equalization, 757 F.2d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir.1985), rev'd on different
grounds, 106 S.Ct. 289 (1985) (``includes'' is a term of enlargement,
not of limitation); United States v. Huber, 603 F.2d 387, 394 (2d Cir.
1979), cert. denied, 100 S.Ct. 1312 (1980) (use of the word
``includes,'' rather than a more restrictive term such as ``means,''
indicates that the list is not exhaustive but merely illustrative).)
    As stated earlier, the final OSWI rules regulate IWI and VSMWC
units. However, we determined that some subclasses of OSWI units should
be handled differently due to unusual circumstances (e.g., unique
geographic locations or climatic factors, temporary emergency use) that
would prevent owners or operators of these units from having a feasible
alternative waste disposal method. The availability of technically and
economically feasible waste disposal alternatives is important because,
as stated in the preamble to the proposed rules, CAA section 129 rules
must contain testing, permitting, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. These requirements alone would easily double or
triple the cost of operating a smaller incinerator like those covered
by the final OSWI rules. Therefore, we expect CAA section 129 rules
(even if they did not require air pollution controls) to force many
incinerators to shut down and utilize alternative waste disposal
options. However, for unique subclasses of units where such
alternatives are not available, compliance with a rule would be
infeasible yet shutdown of these units also is not an acceptable
alternative. We excluded certain such subclasses from the final OSWI
rules for the reasons described in the preamble to the proposed rules
and in responses to comments. Of course, EPA and States may still
regulate these subclasses under other provisions of the CAA, as
necessary. (See CAA section 110(a)(2).)
2. Units With Energy Recovery and Other Types of Combustors
    Two commenters questioned the rationale of excluding incinerators
(one commenter specified IWI units) with energy recovery from the
definition of solid waste incinerators, and believe that an incinerator
burning waste should be regulated as a waste

incinerator, no matter how the produced heat is used.
    First, we note that the energy recovery comment applies to IWI
units, as all VSMWC units, with or without energy recovery, are subject
to the final OSWI regulations. Those MWC units that recover energy
serve dual purposes: (1) The disposal of municipal solid waste, and (2)
energy recovery from the combustion of the waste. As a result of these
dual purposes, MWC units are often boilers by design. The inclusion of
a specific definition of ``municipal waste'' in CAA section 129 and
other indications of Congressional intent support EPA's position that
all MWC units should be regulated under section 129 of the CAA
regardless of whether the MWC unit serves another purpose. The
regulatory boundaries established in the rules for the large and small
MWC units are quite clear that MWC units, regardless of their
configuration, are regulated under section 129 of the CAA. Our intent
is to maintain this interpretation in our regulation of VSMWC units
under the final OSWI regulations. In summary, VSMWC units that are
incinerators without energy recovery, incinerators with waste heat
recovery, and boilers are all regulated under the final OSWI rules. See
below for further discussion.
    The regulatory boundaries for IWI units, however, are not clearly
defined by the CAA. As we have discussed, for the IWI subcategory of
OSWI, EPA must define which types of sources should be included in the
subcategory. In the process of developing the OSWI rules, developing
the boilers NESHAP (promulgated at 69 FR 55218, September 13, 2004),
developing rules for area source boilers, promulgating requirements for
electric utility steam generating units (70 FR 28606, May 18, 2005),
and establishing rules applicable to other combustion sources, EPA must
map the regulatory boundaries that identify which units are subject to
section 129.
    The distinction between IWI units and non-IWI combustion units is
not readily apparent. For example, there is general agreement that coal
that is combusted in a boiler is not waste, because coal is commonly
thought of as a fuel. However, there are many other materials that are
burned in institutional boilers for energy recovery. Such materials
could include wood, paper, other biomass, plastics, and other items.
Combustion of such materials, when burned in a boiler with energy
recovery, is addressed under CAA section 112 regulations for boilers.
EPA has determined that for purposes of the IWI subcategory of OSWI
units, the critical consideration in determining whether the unit is
burning institutional waste is the primary function of the combustion
unit; and the primary indicator of function is whether or not a unit is
designed and operated for energy recovery. On one hand, boiler units
are specifically designed to recover the maximum amount of heat from
combustion of a material. The boilers NESHAP covers combustion units at
institutional facilities that burn solid materials and recover heat in
the combustion firebox. Incineration units, on the other hand, are
designed to discard materials by burning them at high temperatures and
leaving as little residue as possible. Although incineration units do
not have energy recovery in the combustion firebox, they may be
followed by waste heat recovery units. Combustion units at
institutional facilities that burn solid materials and do not recover
heat in the combustion firebox, but do recover waste heat from the hot
combustion gases following the combustion firebox, would not be covered
by the boilers NESHAP. Waste heat recovery units are designed to cool
the exhaust gas stream from an incineration unit, and/or recover,
indirectly, the useful heat remaining in the exhaust gas. The presence
of a waste heat recovery unit on the exhaust gas does not change the
fact that the unit combusting the material is primarily an incineration
unit burning waste for disposal purposes. EPA does not consider it
appropriate to regulate such units as boilers. Therefore, we have
determined that IWI units are those units that combust materials with
only waste heat recovery (i.e., heat recovery outside of the combustion
firebox) or without energy recovery.
    Our focus on the primary function of the unit to identify
institutional waste is consistent with the provisions in section 129 of
the CAA that apply to MWC units. In section 129, Congress specifically
defined municipal waste as ``refuse (and refuse-derived fuel) collected
from the general public and from residential, commercial,
institutional, and industrial sources * * *.'' (See 42 U.S.C. section
7429(g)(5).) This definition goes on to list specific materials
included in municipal waste and exclude incineration units combusting
30 percent or less municipal waste from the MWC standards. This
definition of municipal waste provides more specific meaning to the
phrase ``solid waste * * * from the general public'' set forth in
section 129(g)(1) of the CAA. Based on the definition of municipal
waste in section 129(g)(5), EPA has interpreted section 129 to cover
all MWC units, including waste-to-energy facilities that have energy
recovery as part of their integral design. When CAA section 129 was
developed, EPA had already taken steps to promulgate new source
performance standards and emissions guidelines for MWC units under
section 111 of the CAA. Thus, by defining ``municipal waste'' in this
manner in section 129(g)(5), Congress determined that MWC units should
be regulated as under section 129 even if the MWC unit serves another
purpose (e.g., energy recovery). This determination is consistent with
our approach in the final OSWI rules because a primary function of a
MWC unit is waste disposal.
    In contrast, Congress did not define ``other solid waste
incineration unit'' or other types of ``waste.'' Thus, the CAA is
ambiguous regarding whether every unit that burns material for energy
recovery should be regulated under section 129 of the CAA. We have
interpreted the CAA to allow EPA to consider the primary function of
the combustion units in making the determination of whether particular
units should be subject to CAA section 129. For reasons discussed
earlier, this question is harder to answer in the context of
institutional facilities where certain combustion units have been
historically considered boilers, rather than incinerators, based on the
combustion of solid materials commonly regarded as fuels. However, in
the case of municipal waste combustors, there has been little or no
disagreement among industry, government agencies, and environmental
groups on the meaning of MSW and the fact that the section 129 rules
cover all MWC units. Thus, we did not have to address this issue at
length in the MWC rules. (See 69 FR 7394, n.5.)
    One of the commenters also contended that EPA has not proposed
standards for all solid waste combustion technologies. The commenter
listed pyrolysis, thermal oxidation, catalytic cracking, plasma arcs,
catalytic oxidation, flameless thermal oxidizers, and gasification as
technologies that have been used to combust solid waste, despite not
having the name ``incineration.''
    EPA notes that the commenter did not provide any details regarding
these other technologies or the materials that are processed by these
technologies. Some of these types of units may well be covered under
the CAA section 129 final OSWI rules. For example, pyrolysis/combustion
units (two chamber incinerators with a starved air primary chamber
followed by an

afterburner to complete combustion) within the VSMWC and IWI
subcategories are considered OSWI units. In addition, thermal
oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and flameless thermal oxidizers, if
used to combust solid waste, could be subject to the final OSWI rules
or other section 129 rules if they meet the appropriate applicability
requirements. It is important to note, however, that these types of
units often are used to combust uncontained gases (generally from
industrial processes) and are not used to dispose of solid waste. Such
units would not be subject to the final OSWI rules. The other types of
units mentioned by the commenter appear to be either: (1) part of
industrial processes (e.g. catalytic cracking) and are regulated under
CAA section 112 and other standards for the specific industrial
process; (2) noncombustion thermal technologies that operate with an
external heat source (e.g. plasma arc); or (3) technologies that are
specifically designed to prevent combustion reactions, and, instead are
used to produce fuel or chemical feedstocks via controlled chemical
reactions (e.g. gasification). Any of these technologies that are used
to process hazardous waste are excluded from CAA section 129, and any
of these technologies that are regulated as site remediation units
under CAA section 112 are also not subject to section 129.
3. Potential OSWI Subcategories Where No Units Could Be Identified
    One commenter contended that EPA's failure to identify any units
burning manure or livestock bedding, wood waste, or construction and
demolition waste does not excuse EPA from setting emission standards
for such units.
    EPA made significant attempts to identify incinerators in
determining which types of sources to regulate under the final OSWI
rules. As part of the industrial combustion coordinated rulemaking
(ICCR), we sent a questionnaire to nearly 12,000 facilities identified
as having a combustion unit (including boilers, heaters, and
incinerators) burning non-fossil materials. This included every
facility we could identify from Federal and State databases and
stakeholder input. We received responses from the vast majority of
these facilities, although many were no longer operating their
incinerators. These responses provided design and operating information
on over 1,100 combustion units burning wood. However, all of these
sources were either boilers or process heaters with integral energy
recovery that are being addressed under CAA section 112, or commercial
or industrial incineration units that are appropriately regulated under
CISWI. We are not aware of, nor has the commenter provided any
information on, any other wood-fired units remaining for consideration
as potential OSWI units.
    Similarly, a few units were identified that combust agricultural
residues such as bagasse, rice hulls, etc. for the purpose of energy
recovery, and, thus, are all boilers and are being addressed under CAA
section 112. Prior to proposal of the OSWI rules, we updated the ICCR
list of potential OSWI units by searching the latest version of the
national emissions inventory (NEI), which contains the latest data from
State databases and various Federal programs, for incineration units
burning non-fossil materials. We also contacted State agriculture
departments to request information on agricultural incineration;
contacted trade associations; contacted incinerator vendors to
determine what types of incinerators they have been selling and to what
markets; and performed Web searches. After these extensive efforts, we
were not able to locate any incineration units in several potential
subclasses described in the preamble to the proposed rules. This result
is not surprising because vendor contacts and feedback from facilities
that used to operate OSWI units have shown us that the use of
incineration for waste disposal is declining, especially where the
units do not recover energy. Given our prior efforts to identify these
types of units and the trends in incineration, we do not believe that
these types of units currently operate. Furthermore, public commenters
on the proposed rules have not provided specific information on any
such sources. Because we are unable to locate such units and have no
data on them, we are not, and indeed cannot regulate them at this time.
    Public commenters on the proposed rules have not provided any
information demonstrating that there are agricultural waste
incinerators, construction or demolition incinerators, or wood waste
incinerators that are not boilers. EPA cannot set a standard under CAA
section 129 without adequate operating, emissions, and control
technology information for sources within the category. Thus, contrary
to the commenter=s suggestion, EPA could not speculate or estimate and
set a CAA section 129 standard Ajust in case.'' Therefore, because we
are unable to locate any such units and have no data on how such
hypothetical units, if used in the future, may operate, we are not
including agricultural waste, construction or demolition, or wood waste
incinerators as subcategories of OSWI.
4. Rural Institutional Waste Incinerators
    Two commenters suggested that the exemption for rural IWI units is
too broad. One commenter contended that the locations proposed to be
exempted include many areas where solid waste collection and disposal
services are readily available at reasonable cost, and, therefore, the
exemption is not justified. The commenter also contended that this
raises questions regarding environmental justice, as the exemption
implies that economically disadvantaged communities should have worse
air quality standards because they are economically disadvantaged.
Furthermore, the commenter pointed out that U.S. Government facilities
(i.e., Department of Defense) do not have the limited tax base and,
therefore, EPA's reasons for the rural exemption do not apply. Both
commenters recommended that the rural exemption be narrowed further to
include only those areas where landfills or other nonincineration
options are not available or feasible.
    To address commenters' concerns, EPA is narrowing the rural IWI
exclusion to apply only to those IWI units that are more than 50 miles
from the boundary of the nearest MSA and where alternative disposal
options are not available or are economically infeasible. In the final
OSWI rules, there are provisions that specify how a facility may apply
for this exclusion. For existing units, the application must be
submitted to the Administrator at least 1 year before the final
compliance date to ensure that there is adequate time for any
additional dialogue necessary to determine if an exclusion is
warranted, and, if the exclusion is denied, adequate time for the
facility to install controls or otherwise arrange for disposal of their
waste. For new units, the application must be submitted to and approved
by the Administrator prior to initial startup.
    By narrowing the exclusion to include only those areas Awhere
alternative disposal options are not available or are economically
infeasible,'' we have addressed the commenter=s concern that we should
not exempt sources located where waste disposal alternatives are
available at a reasonable cost. Our analysis of remote institutional
waste disposal costs indicates that a 50 mile distance to dispose of
waste is approximately the distance where the costs of operating an
incinerator (without control technology) would equal those of taking
the waste to a landfill, transfer station, or small or

large MWC unit. As such, we believe that 50 miles from a MSA is a
minimum point where institutional facilities would be able to make a
legitimate case that they qualify for the exclusion. To clarify the
geographical criteria, the MSA definitions that will be used as one
component of the exclusion are based upon those found in AUpdated
Statistical Definitions and Their Uses' OMB Bulletin 05-02, February
22, 2005.
    We realize that, over time, population density changes may cause
revisions to the definitions of MSA that would affect the rural status
of a rural IWI unit. Furthermore, there may be situations where
alternative waste disposal options become available such that the unit
may not be able to demonstrate adverse economic impacts of using an
alternative means of disposal or the IWI unit is no longer necessary to
the institutional facility. To address these situations, we are adding
provisions that require sources granted an exclusion as a rural IWI
unit to reapply for the exclusion every 5 years following the date the
exclusion is granted by the Administrator. If the Administrator finds
that the IWI unit no longer qualifies for the exclusion, then the unit
is given 3 years to comply with the requirements of the final OSWI
rules.
    In response to the second issue put forth by the commenter, we
disagree that we are implying that economically disadvantaged
communities should have worse air quality. As we have discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rules, some disposal alternatives to
incineration, such as open burning, are worse for air quality than
incineration. If the rural institutional facility is unable to afford
compliance and there are no other disposal alternatives (e.g.,
landfills, MWC), then the facility may resort to open burning,
littering, or dumping. Open burning presents not only air pollution
problems, but can also lead to an increased likelihood of accidental
fires. Littering and dumping pose problems such as potential
contamination of streams or other water bodies, and attracting vermin
and wild animals, which could contribute to disease transmission. The
facility, in applying for the rural IWI exclusion, must make a case
that suitable alternatives, such as landfilling or hauling waste to a
MWC unit, are not available or are not economically feasible. Although
we discussed concerns about the local tax base for school districts in
the preamble to the proposed rules, it was but one reason for the
exclusion which applies to all rural IWI units, not just those located
at schools. Thus, other institutions (e.g., Federal facilities,
churches) may apply for the exclusion, although we note that certain
institutions with larger budgets may have a harder time showing that
alternative waste disposal options are economically infeasible.
5. Alaskan Exclusion
    Three commenters requested that the exclusion for incinerators in
isolated areas of Alaska be broadened. Two commenters expressed concern
that the proposed rules do not exempt VSMWC units used to combust
municipal-type waste generated at oil-field base operations facilities
and remote camps on Alaskan oil fields.
    EPA stresses that the final OSWI rules apply only to VSMWC and IWI
units, and they provide an exclusion for units used at solid waste
disposal sites in Alaska that are classified as Class II or Class III
municipal solid waste landfills. If the incinerators operated by the
commenters meet the definition of VSMWC units and are used at solid
waste disposal sites in Alaska that are classified as Class II or Class
III municipal solid waste landfills, then they would be excluded from
the final OSWI rules. We have insufficient information about the units
operated by these commenters (e.g., operating at an oil exploration
site or oil-field base camp) to determine if they are VSMWC units, but
they appear to be operated by industrial or commercial entities and
would likely not meet the definitions of a VSMWC or IWI unit in the
final OSWI rules. To be a VSMWC unit under the final OSWI rules, the
incinerator must be burning municipal solid waste collected from
multiple sites. To be an IWI unit under the final OSWI rules, the
incinerator must be located at an institutional facility (i.e., land-
based facility owned and/or operated by an organization having a
governmental, educational, civic, or religious purpose) and be burning
waste generated at that institutional facility. Incinerators at an
industrial or commercial facility that burn only waste generated on
site at that facility are not VSMWC or IWI units. If the commenter's
units are not VSMWC or IWI units, they would not be subject to the
final OSWI rules. We recognize that the final CISWI rules do not
currently cover commercial/industrial-owned/operated incinerators that
burn only municipal-type waste. EPA intends to address regulation of
such combustion units under future revisions to the final CISWI rules.
    A commenter also expressed concern that the proposed definitions of
institution and institutional waste are excessively restrictive and do
not fit the unique situations that arise in Alaska. The commenter gave
examples such as the existence of Aunorganized'' boroughs that have no
local government or tax base.
    EPA's understanding of the local government structure in Alaska is
that there are two types of local government structures: boroughs and
unorganized areas. Boroughs, like counties, are collections of one or
more municipalities joined in a regional government. Unorganized areas
are the non-borough areas where there is either (1) no intermediate
government between the State and the tribal, village, or city council,
and local government is strictly at the municipal level or (2) no
governing body other than the State. We have provided an exclusion for
units used at solid waste disposal sites in Alaska that are classified
as Class II or Class III municipal solid waste landfills. The State of
Alaska does not consider the local government structure in determining
the class of a municipal solid waste landfill or waste disposal site.
The Class II and III determinations are based on the anticipated waste
volume and location of the waste disposal site. Further, the
incinerators that dispose of municipal solid waste Acollected from''
these boroughs and unorganized areas would be VSMWC units, rather than
IWI units, so the commenter's concerns regarding the definitions of
institution and institutional waste with respect to incinerators
serving these local government structures are not relevant.
    We would also like to clarify that an incinerator operated by a
commercial entity that is burning municipal solid waste that is
Acollected from'' multiple residences and any local businesses would be
considered a VSMWC unit subject to OSWI regulation, provided that it
had a capacity of less than 35 tpd of municipal solid waste. This
situation is quite common among the small and large MWC units, as
several municipalities have contracted or partnered with commercial
operators in the construction and operation of their local MWC
facility.
    In summary, the final OSWI rules apply only to VSMWC and IWI units.
As previously described, we have provided an exclusion for units used
at solid waste disposal sites in Alaska that are classified as Class II
or Class III municipal solid waste landfills, as well as an exclusion
for rural IWI units (for IWI located more than 50 miles from the
boundary of the nearest MSA and where alternative disposal options are
not available or are economically infeasible). These exclusions fully
address small OSWI units in remote areas of Alaska that do not have

technically or economically feasible disposal alternatives, so the
concerns raised by the commenters are addressed in the final OSWI
rules.
6. Temporary-Use Incinerators
    Exclusion Requirements. Commenters contended that the proposed
requirements for temporary-use incinerators used in disaster recovery
are too lax and invite abuse. The commenters pointed out that the
Stafford Act, which provides for a State of Emergency or a major
disaster to be declared by a State government or the President of the
U.S., does not contain any provisions for declaring that the State of
Emergency or disaster has ended. As such, under the proposed rules,
these incinerators arguably would be allowed to operate indefinitely
without any restrictions. One of these commenters contended that, under
the proposed rules, operators of portable incinerators could declare
Aemergencies' or Adisasters' at their discretion, and travel from place
to place burning any sort of debris without any pollution controls,
restrictions of location, or public and agency notification
requirements. Another commenter stated that the exemption would allow
an uncontrolled unit to operate for up to 8 weeks without adequate
cause or approval from the proper authority and suggested earlier
notification.
    EPA agrees that incinerator owner/operators should not be allowed
to declare their own Aemergencies' and that was not our intent. We have
adjusted the rules as proposed to exclude temporary-use incinerators
used to combust debris for a limited period of time from most
requirements of these subparts only if they are used in areas that have
been declared a State of Emergency by a State or local government, or
if the President, under the authority of the Stafford Act, has declared
that an emergency or major disaster exists in the area. The inclusion
of local disaster area declarations in this exclusion encompasses those
disasters that severely affect a municipality or county and require the
local government to undertake disaster recovery actions, but where the
economic losses are not large enough or sufficiently widespread to
require extensive State or Federal financial assistance.
    EPA also agrees that some notification and oversight should be
required to avoid temporary-use incinerators being operated
indefinitely in areas that are declared States of Emergency by the
State, local or Federal government. The final rules require that
operators of temporary-use incinerators combusting debris in declared
emergency or disaster areas notify the Administrator if it is necessary
for the units to combust debris within the boundaries of a given
emergency or disaster area for more than 8 weeks from the date the
units began operation, and request permission to continue to operate.
EPA's intent is that if a unit is used during a period that begins on
the date the unit started operation and lasts 8 weeks or less, then
that unit is excluded from the requirements of the final rules. A unit
that operates intermittently for 8 weeks or less over a period longer
than 8 weeks from the date the unit started operation (e.g., over a 12-
week period) does not meet the requirement for exclusion.
    The notification must be submitted in writing by the date 8 weeks
after the temporary-use incinerator begins operating within the
boundaries of the current emergency or disaster area. The notification
must contain the date the incinerator began operation within the
current emergency or disaster area, identification of the disaster or
emergency for which the incinerator is being used, a description of the
types of materials being burned, information on the size and design of
the incinerator, the reasons the incinerator must be operated for more
than 8 weeks, and the additional amount of time for which permission to
operate is requested, including a date for ceasing operation. Upon
submittal of the notification, the temporary-use incinerator
automatically may operate for another 8 weeks (a total of 16 weeks from
the date the unit started operation). At the end of 16 weeks, the
temporary-use incinerator must cease operation or comply with the OSWI
emission limits and other requirements of the final OSWI rules unless
the Administrator has approved the request to continue operation.
    Given these changes, 16 weeks will be the maximum length of time a
temporary-use incinerator can operate in a given area declared a State
of Emergency or major disaster without specific permission to continue
operation from the Administrator. The approval of the request to
continue operating must establish a site-specific date to cease
operation. We have chosen this approach, rather than setting a uniform
maximum amount of time because a case-by-case approval process allows
EPA and States to set the appropriate time limits for the specific
situation.
    We decided that the notification should be provided within 8 weeks
after the start of operation to be consistent with the timing in the
proposed rules for areas that had not been declared emergencies or
major disasters by the State or Federal government. In emergency
situations, quick removal of debris is of utmost importance to maintain
public health and safety, and temporary-use incinerators may be best
suited to dispose of debris. We have elected not to regulate
incinerators used on a short-term basis to recover from an emergency or
disaster under the final OSWI rules, because regulation would hinder
the recovery effort and this impact would outweigh the benefits from
regulation of the units. Recent events in the Gulf States due to
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma have illustrated the importance of
immediate recovery action following a disaster. This proactive
approach, which addresses the terms for use of a temporary-use
incinerator during declared emergencies or disasters, is better than an
approach that requires EPA and others to react during or immediately
after such an emergency or disaster strikes. We also point out that
States and the Federal government have specific procedures that are
followed in declaring an area a State of Emergency or a major disaster
area. Their procedures involve extensive involvement by local, State,
and Federal officials to conduct a preliminary damage assessment,
develop debris removal plans, and coordinate and manage disaster
assistance activities. Further information on the processes can be
found on individual State Web sites and on the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Web site (http://www.fema.gov). Given that

there is already a coordination process and we do not intend to
regulate temporary-use incinerators operated for 8 weeks or less, an
earlier notification requirement in the final OSWI rules is not
necessary or productive.
    Finally, in responding to a separate comment regarding air curtain
incinerators, we reviewed and clarified the exclusions for which air
curtain incinerators may qualify. In doing this review, we realized
that air curtain incinerators were not specifically mentioned in the
exclusion for temporary-use incinerators used in disaster or emergency
recovery efforts. To remedy this, we are clarifying that the temporary-
use incinerators used in disaster or emergency recovery efforts
exclusion includes air-curtain incinerators used for these purposes. We
realize that air curtain incinerators may be particularly useful in
disaster recovery efforts, and intend that they may also qualify for
this particular exclusion.
    Control Feasibility. Another commenter contended that EPA has not

explained why it is infeasible for temporary-use incinerators to
include air pollution controls or how requiring controls would delay
commencement of operation. Therefore, the commenter concluded, EPA has
provided no basis for the assumption that controlling emissions from
temporary-use incinerators would hinder recovery efforts.
    Declared States of Emergency and major disasters are, by
definition, serious events. In emergency situations, quick removal of
debris is of utmost importance to maintain public health and safety.
Depending on the type of emergency and the local situation, there may
be no reasonable and safe alternatives to incineration. Regulation,
under the final OSWI rules, of temporary-use incinerators used for
disaster recovery efforts would discourage use of such incinerators,
potentially hindering recovery efforts and impairing public health and
safety. The emission limits in the final OSWI rules are based on wet
scrubbing for any IWI and VSMWC units other than air curtain
incinerators burning only clean lumber, wood waste, and yard waste. The
annual cost of a wet scrubber and the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting required by the rules (including annualized capital cost of
the scrubber and monitoring equipment, and annual operation and
maintenance (O&M), permitting and reporting costs) may be more than six
times the cost of owning and operating an uncontrolled incinerator.
Even if the final OSWI rules were to require no add-on control of such
incinerators, it is estimated that the annual cost of the testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting required by CAA section 129
could more than quadruple the cost of owning and operating the
incinerator. These sharp increases in regulatory compliance costs
relative to the current cost of incineration would discourage use of
incinerators. Furthermore, as evidenced by the recent recovery efforts
due to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, the water supply, handling
and treatment capabilities required to operate the wet scrubber may be
unavailable for long periods of time in the disaster areas, while the
need for recovery is immediate. In such situations, the incinerator
cannot stand idly by while awaiting ancillary services to operate the
scrubber.
    We also point out that the exclusion for emergency cleanup
activities of short duration is not unique to the final OSWI rules.
Other CAA programs and rules recognize the need to make allowances for
similar situations. For example, the site remediation NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart GGGGG) provide an exclusion for site remediation
activities that are completed within 30 consecutive calendar days. The
preamble for the proposed rule explained that, ``This exemption is
intended to apply to contamination commonly caused by a spill where the
cleanup is initiated soon after the spill event and is of very short
duration (i.e., typically 30 days or less). The purpose of this
exemption is to encourage prompt attention to remediating contaminant
spills and leakages'' (67 FR 49407, June 30, 2002). Similarly, the OSWI
exclusion of temporary-use incinerators encourages prompt clean-up of
debris from emergencies and disasters and excludes only temporary-use
incinerators that operate for a limited period of time within a
declared disaster area.
7. Sewage Sludge Incinerators
    Two commenters were unsure how the proposed rules treat sludge
incinerators. Both commenters requested that EPA clarify if, and how,
commercial and municipal sludge incinerators are addressed by the final
OSWI standards.
    Sewage sludge incinerators (SSI) are a source category that is
being addressed under CAA section 112. As early as April 2000, EPA
indicated that it no longer intended to regulate SSI under section 129
of the CAA:

    The Agency has decided not to regulate sewage sludge
incinerators as a category under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act *
* *. The Agency believes that sewage sludge generated by publicly-
owned treatment works (POTWs) and combusted in SSIs is ``solid
waste.'' However, this sludge is from a municipal source, and not
from ``commercial or industrial establishments or the general
public.'' Therefore, SSIs that combust this sludge are not ``solid
waste incineration units'' and section 129 does not apply to them.
Virtually all of the SSIs that would be candidates for regulation
combust sludge from POTWs, and thus are not covered under Section
129.

(Unified Agenda, 65 FR 23459-01 (April 24, 2000).) In addition, EPA's
intent to regulate these sources under CAA section 112 was made clear
when SSI were included as an additional area source category listed
pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) in the June 26,
2002 Federal Register (67 FR 43113). As discussed previously, source
categories regulated by CAA section 112 may not also be subject to a
CAA section 129 regulation. In previous regulatory activities, EPA was
unable to identify any SSI that were major sources. (See 67 FR 6521,
February 12, 2002.) Therefore, the entire SSI source category consists
of area sources, and will be addressed by the CAA sections 112(c) and
112(k) regulations. Sewage sludge incinerators do not meet the
definitions of IWI or VSMWC units in the final OSWI rules and, thus,
are not regulated as OSWI units.
8. National Security Incineration Units
    In the preamble to the proposed OSWI rules, EPA requested comment
on whether a subclass of IWI units that burn national security
documents should be excluded from the final OSWI regulations. Three
commenters opposed excluding incinerators that burn national security
documents from regulation and contended that EPA did not explain or
justify the reason to exclude these units. However, another commenter
expressed concern that there could be situations in which the only
viable alternative for the destruction of classified materials would be
the use of an OSWI unit. Another commenter requested EPA provide an
exclusion to the final OSWI rules for units used for sanitization of
classified or otherwise sensitive materials by the U.S. Armed Forces,
the Department of Energy, and other similar agencies.
    We have determined that any IWI units used solely during military
training field exercises to destroy national security materials
integral to the field exercises are not subject to the final OSWI
rules. We have determined that an outright exclusion for other IWI
units used to destroy national security materials will not be provided
in the final OSWI rules. However, the final rules contain provisions
such that individual sources may apply for this type of exclusion as
necessary. We understand that mechanical destruction or other
alternatives to incineration are available for most, if not all,
categories of national security materials. Thus, we think that, as a
general matter, few incineration units will meet this exclusion on a
long-term basis. Nonetheless, this exclusion is needed for two reasons.
First, the government could change the acceptable means of disposing of
one or more types of national security materials in the future. Second,
there may be unexpected circumstances when mechanical or other
alternative means of destruction are temporarily unavailable, requiring
the use of backup incineration units during those periods. To be
granted an exclusion, a source/governmental entity must demonstrate
that the unit is used solely to incinerate national security materials
and that a reliable alternative to ensure acceptable destruction of
national security materials is unavailable on either a permanent or

temporary basis. An ``acceptable'' level of destruction is one that
meets applicable regulations, guidelines, or instructions for the
destruction of national security materials. For existing units, the
request must be submitted to the Administrator prior to 1 year before
the final compliance date, and the Administrator will either grant or
deny the request for exclusion. For new units, the request must be
submitted to and approved by the Administrator prior to initial
startup. The final rules contain specific provisions for applying for
this exclusion.
9. Various Other Applicability Issues
    Cyclonic Burn Barrels. One commenter asked if cyclonic burn barrels
are subject to the OSWI regulations. The commenter recommended that EPA
explicitly include these devices as regulated entities subject to all
the requirements of the final OSWI regulations.
    It was our intent to regulate cyclonic burn barrels that meet the
definition of an IWI unit or VSMWC unit under the final OSWI rules. An
IWI unit is a combustion unit, regardless of size, located at an
institutional facility (i.e., land-based facility owned and/or operated
by an organization having a governmental, educational, civic, or
religious purpose) that burns solid waste generated at that
institutional facility. A VSMWC unit is a combustion unit that has the
capacity to burn less than 35 tpd of municipal solid waste collected
from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial sources. We
agree that cyclonic barrel burners are a type of incinerator because
they provide an enclosure (barrel) in which the waste is burned and
include a fan to provide high-velocity air flow and an exhaust outlet,
and we did not exclude them in the proposal. To clarify our intent to
regulate this type of OSWI unit, we are including ``cyclonic burn
barrel'' as another example of an incinerator design in the final
rules' definitions of IWI unit and MWC unit. We would like to note that
the final OSWI rules regulate only IWI and VSMWC units. For example, if
a cyclonic burn barrel is used at a commercial or industrial facility
to burn commercial or industrial solid waste, then it would not be
subject to the final OSWI rules.
    Human Crematories. Two commenters objected to the exemption of
human crematories from the proposed rules. Both commenters argued that
the incineration of human bodies emits significant quantities of
mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. One commenter objected to
EPA's conclusion that human bodies are not solid waste and noted that
EPA defines solid waste under the SWDA as any ``discarded material.''
The definition also clarifies that a material is ``discarded'' if it is
``burned or incinerated.''
    Clean Air Act section 129 regulations deal solely with solid waste
combustion units. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rules, in
considering the nature of human crematories, EPA has determined that
the human body should not be labeled or considered ``solid waste.''
Therefore, human crematories are not solid waste combustion units, and
are not a subcategory of OSWI for regulation.
    We disagree with the commenter's assertions that human bodies are
discarded and that CAA section 129 rules must consider a material to be
``discarded'' if it is ``burned or incinerated.'' The definition of
``discarded'' referred to by the commenter is found in 40 CFR part 261,
which defines ``hazardous waste'' for the purpose of implementing the
hazardous waste program authorized by the SWDA. In defining ``hazardous
waste,'' 40 CFR part 261 also defines ``solid waste'' and elaborates on
the meaning of ``discarded,'' which is a term used in the definition of
solid waste. However, in doing so, 40 CFR part 261 states explicitly in
40 CFR 261.1(b)(1) that this definition of solid waste is only for the
purpose of materials that are hazardous wastes. Much of the complexity
and specificity of the 40 CFR part 261 definitions is needed to assure
that hazardous waste is properly identified, tracked, transported, and
disposed of, and is not inappropriately discarded or abandoned. The 40
CFR part 261 details on the meaning of solid waste and discarded are
not found in solid waste definitions within the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) rules pertaining to nonhazardous wastes (e.g.,
40 CFR part 240 through 40 CFR 259). The regulatory definitions of
``solid waste'' and ``discarded'' found in 40 CFR part 261, therefore,
do not apply to nonhazardous solid wastes. Section 129 of the CAA
regulates only nonhazardous solid wastes. As described in previous
Federal Register notices pertaining to the proposed and final CISWI
rules (64 FR 67104, November 30, 1999 and 65 FR 75342, December 1,
2000) EPA has adopted, under the joint authority of the CAA and RCRA, a
definition of solid waste that is used solely to identify nonhazardous
solid waste for the regulatory programs authorized by CAA section 129,
such as the final CISWI and OSWI rules. The definition of discarded
cited by the commenter is not applicable to CAA section 129 rules.
However, as stated in the preamble to the proposed OSWI rules, if EPA
or States determine in the future that human crematories should be
considered for regulation, they would be addressed under other
authorities.
    Animal Crematories. One commenter expressed support for the
proposed decision to exclude animal crematories as a regulated
subcategory of the proposed OSWI rules and supports the proposed
exclusion of pathological waste incineration units. The commenter
pointed out that the other alternatives to incineration, such as
rendering, burial, composting or feeding of the carcass to exotic
animals does not address the need for disposal of animal carcasses with
an infectious disease. Another commenter contended that animal
crematories are solid waste incineration units that must be regulated
under CAA section 129.
    EPA has not changed our decision to exclude animal crematories and
pathological waste incineration units, based on our analysis of their
emissions and the adverse impacts that would occur if these units were
regulated under the final OSWI rules, as fully described in the
preamble to the proposed rules and in the response to comments
document.
    Additional Possible Subcategories of OSWI Units. In the preamble to
the proposed rules, we requested comment on whether other subclasses of
OSWI units existed and if any special and/or extenuating circumstances
existed that warranted their exclusion from regulation under OSWI. We
received only one communication related to this request.
    The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) informed EPA that they were concerned
that the rules, as proposed, could be interpreted to include
incinerators located on ships. According to the USCG, some of its
largest cutter classes have small shipboard solid waste incinerators
that are used to dispose of solid waste generated aboard ship while the
ship is at sea. The USCG indicated that they believed these
incinerators should not be subject to the final OSWI rules.
    It was never EPA's intent to regulate incinerators aboard USCG
patrol ships or other ships, and EPA's analyses supporting the final
OSWI rules have not included information about shipboard incinerators.
Thus, EPA has not only replaced the definition of ``institution'' with
``institutional facility'' to be consistent with terminology used
elsewhere in the final OSWI rules, but we also have defined

``institutional facility'' to apply to land-based incinerators.
    We note that the use of wet scrubbers on ships raises the question
of whether it is even technically feasible to locate wet scrubbers on
ships (including the availability of fresh water for the scrubber
systems), and, moreover, begs the question of how the ships would then
dispose of the wastewater generated by the scrubbers. If a shipboard
incinerator could not meet the standards, the incinerator would have to
shut down. Yet, many ships have onboard incinerators to dispose of the
solid waste generated on these ships while at sea (e.g., patrolling
U.S. borders), without having to come into port or otherwise change
their route in order to dispose of the solid waste using an alternative
means.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In order to effectively police U.S. borders, help secure
national security and carry out research activities, many of these
ships must have the maximum flexibility to stay at sea as long as is
necessary to accomplish their mission, with a minimum of disruption,
such as having to come into port to dispose of solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Definitions

1. ``Clean Lumber'' and ``Wood Waste'' Definition
    Two commenters suggested that the definitions of ``clean lumber''
and ``wood waste'' found in 40 CFR 60.2977 and 40 CFR 60.3078 should
explicitly exclude manufactured wood products containing adhesives.
Examples of such products include plywood, particle board, flake board,
and oriented-strand board (OSB). One commenter noted that questions
regarding whether manufactured wood products are considered ``clean
lumber'' or ``wood waste'' continue to arise, and recommended that EPA
improve the final rules by specifically excluding these adhesive-
treated wood products from the definitions of ``clean wood'' and ``wood
waste.''
    These definitions are important in the final OSWI rules because
there are reduced requirements for air curtain incinerators that burn
only clean lumber or wood waste. We agree with the commenter, and our
intent was to exclude wood products manufactured with adhesives and
resins from the definitions of ``clean lumber'' and ``wood waste.'' The
proposed definition of ``clean lumber'' excluded wood that has been
painted, stained or pressure-treated; and the proposed definition of
``wood waste'' limited wood waste to ``untreated'' wood and wood
products, but did not specify the meaning of ``untreated.'' Adhesives,
like paints, can contain hazardous pollutants and we did not intend for
air curtain incinerators burning these materials to qualify for the
reduced requirements. To clarify our intent, we have expanded the
second sentence in the definition of clean lumber to state, ``Clean
lumber does not include wood products that have been painted, pigment-
stained, or pressure-treated by compounds such as chromate copper
arsenate, pentachlorophenol, and creosote, or manufactured wood
products that contain adhesives or resins (e.g., plywood, particle
board, flake board, and oriented strand board).'' We have also revised
the definition of ``wood waste'' by adding a fourth item to the list of
items that wood waste does not include: ``(4) Treated wood and treated
wood products, including wood products that have been painted, pigment-
stained, or pressure-treated by compounds such as chromate copper
arsenate, pentachlorophenol, and creosote, or manufactured wood
products that contain adhesives or resins (e.g., plywood, particle
board, flake board, and oriented strand board).''
2. Municipal Solid Waste
    One commenter noted that the definition of MSW in the proposed OSWI
regulations is not the same definition used in previous CAA section 129
regulations (i.e., MWC regulations found in 40 CFR part 60, subparts
Ea, Eb, AAAA, and BBBB). The commenter understands that EPA is using
language from CAA section 129(g)(5) for the definition of MSW, but
disagreed with the proposal's use of ``collected from'' in the
definition of MSW. The commenter noted that units at apartment
complexes or retail stores, or units located at industrial sites
burning office paper are not covered as VSMWC units because of the
``collected from'' language in the proposed OSWI rules, and they are
not covered by the final CISWI rules. The commenter contended that this
would leave a very important type of incinerator unregulated, noting
especially incinerators located at grocery stores.
    We are retaining the proposed definition of ``municipal solid
waste'' in the final OSWI rules to be consistent with CAA section 129,
which defines ``municipal waste'' as ``refuse (and refuse derived fuel)
collected from the general public and from residential, commercial,
institutional, and industrial sources consisting of paper, wood, yard
wastes, food wastes, plastics, leather, rubber and other combustible
materials and non-combustible materials such as metal, glass and rock *
* * .'' To be a VSMWC unit that is subject to the final OSWI rules, a
unit must combust waste that is ``collected from'' multiple
establishments. Under this definition, incinerators owned/operated by
commercial businesses, such as grocery stores or apartments, that burn
waste generated on site rather than collected from multiple
establishments are not considered VSMWC units and are not covered by
the final OSWI rules.
    As the commenter points out, the final CISWI rules (40 CFR part 60,
subparts CCCC and DDDD) currently exclude units burning MSW as defined
in the final large and small MWC rules (40 CFR part 60, subparts Ea,
Eb, AAAA, and BBBB). These other rules do not include the ``collected
from'' language in their definitions of MSW. Therefore, the final CISWI
rules currently exclude some industrial and commercial units that burn
wastes such as paper, cardboard, and food wastes that are generated on
site but are not associated with the manufacturing process. The
commenter is concerned that such units will not be subject to any CAA
section 129 rules. As stated in the preamble to the proposed OSWI rules
(69 FR 71480, December 9, 2004), under the CAA section 129 definition
of ``municipal waste,'' small incinerators that are located at
commercial businesses (such as stores, restaurants and apartments) or
industrial sites are not VSMWC units because they do not burn waste
which has been ``collected from.'' Such units are properly addressed
under the final CISWI rules, because of their location at commercial
and industrial sites. EPA intends to address regulation of such
combustion units under future revisions to the final CISWI rules.

C. MACT Floors and Emission Limits

1. MACT Floors
    New Units. One commenter stated that EPA must base floors on
emission levels achieved by the best controlled unit, not on the
technology that the unit uses or emission levels that EPA deems
achievable with such technology, and contended that EPA did not
consider the effect of waste composition on a unit's performance when
setting the MACT floor for new units. The commenter argues that because
EPA has not demonstrated that medical waste is comparable to the waste
combusted in a VSMWC or IWI unit, EPA has not supported the assumption
that the average performance of a medical waste incinerator equipped
with a wet scrubber is representative of the actual performance of the
best performing VSMWC or IWI unit.
    In the preamble to the proposed rules, we noted that EPA does not
have emissions test data for the OSWI units

in the OSWI inventory. Therefore, we were unable to determine the best
controlled OSWI unit based on OSWI emission levels. However, our OSWI
inventory indicated that only one OSWI unit contained an add-on control
device. This control device is identified as a ``medium efficiency wet
scrubber.'' EPA utilized information on control devices to help
categorize the category of similar units whose actual emissions data
would then be used to set the floor (i.e., the best performing similar
unit, or an incinerator equipped with a medium efficiency wet scrubber
in this case). As we discussed in the preamble to the proposed rules,
we do have emissions test data for HMIWI units, which are similar to
OSWI units. Our emissions data for HMIWI indicates whether the unit is
equipped with a wet scrubber, but does not indicate the efficiency
(e.g., low, medium, or high) for which the scrubber is designed.
Therefore, to develop emission limits that are representative of what a
medium efficiency wet scrubber can achieve, we averaged all emissions
data for HMIWI units equipped with wet scrubbers. In using this
approach, we have also accounted for the variability of emissions
testing for waste combustion units. Any single emission test is merely
a ``snapshot'' of the emission level from the unit. The same unit
tested a month later may have a lower or higher emission rate. Thus,
selecting the best single emission test (the lowest ``snapshot'') does
not reflect the emission limit that is continuously achieved over time.
Taking the average of emission tests from multiple units of similar
design with wet scrubbers accounts for the inherent variability of the
data. By taking the average of all performance data, we have considered
data from wet scrubber-equipped units that are both better than, and
worse than, the proposed emission limits, but should nonetheless be
continuously achieved by a unit equipped with a medium efficiency wet
scrubber. For perspective, we also note that this floor analysis
approach results in limits for most pollutants that are more stringent
than the limits for HMIWI units and large and small MWC units.
    Although the data we used to develop the emission limits are from
HMIWI units, the commenter does not contend that HMIWI and OSWI units
are not similar in size, design, or operation. While the commenter
argues that medical waste may not be comparable to MSW or institutional
waste, they do not provide any data to support their concern or to
demonstrate that emissions from OSWI units are lower than emissions
from HMIWI units with the same control technology. To address these
concerns, we have further considered the compositions of medical waste
and MSW. Both types of waste contain a range of materials including
paper, plastics, metal, glass, food waste, and other materials.
However, within both categories there can be a wide variety of
composition depending on the specific sources that generated the waste,
geographic location, and any separation practices used prior to
combustion. Given the variability within each waste type, we cannot
conclude that incinerating one or the other would result in higher
emissions. We find the wastes to be generally similar in composition
based on the general types of materials contained in the waste and the
very limited data available on the proportions of paper, plastic,
metals, and other materials contained in the waste. Considering the
similarities in combustion unit size, design, operations, and waste
composition, we have determined that the emission levels actually
achieved by HMIWI units equipped with wet scrubbers are an appropriate
basis for setting the MACT floor for new OSWI units. Therefore, in the
absence of emissions data on OSWI units, we have determined that HMIWI
units are a similar source and we plan to continue to use the emission
limits based on the HMIWI data as proposed, with the exception of
revisions to the CO and HCl emission limits that were necessary to
address other comments (discussed later in this section).
    Existing Units. In a comment similar to that for new units, one
commenter stated that floors for existing units do not reflect the
average emission level achieved by the best performing 12 percent of
units in each category or subcategory. The commenter argued that EPA's
MACT floor approach for existing units ignored the effect of waste
input on emissions performance. As an example, the commenter
specifically points out that the lead floor level of 4,300 [mu]g/dscm
would be worse than the actual performance of an OSWI unit burning
waste that did not contain lead, and that EPA has not provided any
reason to believe that these units would burn any waste containing that
level of lead.
    As previously stated, we do not have data on actual emissions from
OSWI units, thus we had to use emissions data from similar, existing
units. EPA utilized information on control devices used at the best
performing 12 percent of existing OSWI units not to set the floor
number itself (as the commenter suggests), but to help characterize the
category of similar units whose actual emissions data would then be
used to set the floor--small, uncontrolled, modular/starved air MWC
units.
    With regard to the commenter's contention that, in determining the
floor, EPA did not consider the effect of waste input on emissions
performance, OSWI units combust diverse and heterogeneous mixtures of
wastes. For example, VSMWC units burn MSW that contains metals
including lead in varying amounts, and materials separation techniques
cannot achieve complete removal of lead or other compounds. In setting
emission limits for large and small MWC units under CAA sections 129
and 111, EPA examined materials separation techniques and proposed
materials separation requirements, but ultimately decided not to
require materials separation prior to combustion. We stated that ``the
variable and heterogeneous nature of municipal solid waste makes
quantification of such emission reductions associated with removal of
various materials technically infeasible'' (56 FR 5496, February 11,
1991). Subsequent revisions of the section 129 large and small MWC
rules in 1995, 1997, and 2000 also did not require materials separation
or use it as the basis for determining the MACT floors. The same waste
variability and materials separation considerations and constraints
that applied in development of the final large and small MWC rules also
apply to the final OSWI rules.
    We acknowledge that there are limited emissions data available for
the floor level of control (i.e., uncontrolled two-chamber incineration
units), but also point out that we have gone beyond the floor in the
selection of emission limits based upon the use of a wet scrubber. From
a practical standpoint, any potential change in the floor emission
levels would not have any effect on the final emission limits selected.
Therefore, we do not see a need to re-evaluate the floor emission
levels used in our prior analysis because it would most likely not lead
us to establish different MACT limits.
    Combined Subcategories. In the preamble to the proposed rules, we
requested comment on whether we should combine the two subcategories
(i.e., IWI and VSMWC) and determine a single MACT floor and emission
limits for new OSWI units. Likewise, we made a similar request
regarding combination of subcategories for existing units. We did not
receive any public comments in response to these requests. We have not
changed the subcategories or approach to determining the MACT floors.

2. Carbon Monoxide
    Two commenters considered the CO emission limit of 5 parts per
million (ppm) (at 7 percent oxygen (O2)) to be
unrealistically low. Another commenter contended that a medium
efficiency wet scrubber cannot reduce CO to 5 ppm, as CO is not water
soluble and water will not affect the concentration.
    We agree with the commenters' assertions that a wet scrubber is not
an effective control device for CO emissions. As we have discussed
previously, we used emissions test data for wet scrubber-equipped HMIWI
units to develop the proposed emission limits for new and existing OSWI
units. As one commenter observed, the CO emission limit for HMIWI is 40
ppmv. The HMIWI emission limit was based on data from CO continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS), and was determined to be the
emission limit continuously achieved on a 12-hour rolling average
basis. However, when we developed the proposed OSWI emission limits, we
used performance test data from HMIWI units instead of CEMS data to
develop CO and other pollutant emission limits. Although this approach
for CO was simple and consistent with the other pollutants, it was not
adequate to address the large quantity of data, including its
variability, that was considered when the HMIWI CO emission limit was
developed. Because CO is the only pollutant for which the final OSWI
rules require CEMS for existing and new units, we are revising the
emission limit to better account for the large volume of data generated
by the CEMS and the amount of inherent variability that occurs when
generating continuous data. The new CO limit is 40 ppmv over a 12-hour
rolling average. This limit is consistent with a previously promulgated
HMIWI emission limit for a source category similar to OSWI, and is also
the lowest CO emission limit of any of the CAA section 129 rules.
3. Hydrochloric Acid
    One commenter believes the proposed HCl standard is unachievable
and should be revised to no lower than 20 ppm because EPA Method 26A
generally is not adequate for demonstrating compliance with an HCl
standard below 20 ppm at sources with wet scrubbers.
    We have considered the commenter's assertion that EPA Method 26A is
not adequate for demonstrating compliance with a HCl standard below 20
ppm when sampling sources with wet scrubbers. Although it is not
evident that there is an outright problem, we now have a more mature
understanding of applicability of EPA Method 26A in certain
environments. Therefore, we acknowledge that a tester may need to take
certain precautions to ensure that there is no bias when sampling
streams with HCl concentrations at or below the 3.7 ppmv emission limit
as proposed. For example, there is the need to precondition the filter
with stack gas because the filter may absorb, adsorb, or react with
some of the HCl in the stack gas resulting in a number biased low.
Water droplets may also affect the results of the test. Additional
procedures may be required to eliminate any droplets within the
sampling train. As we discussed previously, we used test data from wet
scrubber-equipped HMIWI units to develop the proposed emission limits
for OSWI units. Unfortunately, we do not know if the personnel
conducting the HMIWI compliance emission tests that we used to develop
the 3.7 ppmv proposed OSWI emission limit took special precautions to
prevent a low bias when sampling and testing for HCl. To address this
uncertainty in the data and the commenter's concerns, we are amending
the HCl emission limits in the final OSWI rules to 15 ppmv. This is the
same limit contained in the final HMIWI rules, and HMIWI units equipped
with wet scrubbers are demonstrating compliance with a 15 ppmv limit.
    We also note that there were no public comments received on testing
concerns for the 15 ppmv emission limit in the final HMIWI rules.
Although this is higher than the proposed HCl emission limit, it is the
lowest HCl emission limit of any CAA section 129 rule and is clearly
achievable by wet scrubber-equipped units similar to OSWI units. To
ensure that there is no bias in compliance test data, we are including
provisions in the final OSWI rules that require sources to condition
the filter before testing, and use a cyclone and post test purge if
water droplets may be present.

D. Title V Operating Permits

1. Air Curtain Incinerators
    We received a number of comments regarding air curtain incinerators
and the title V operating permit requirements of the proposed OSWI
rules. The majority of these pertained to air curtain incinerators
burning only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste. For instance,
several commenters contended that the requirement for air curtain
incinerators burning only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste to
obtain a title V operating permit is not justified either legally or in
terms of environmental outcome and is inconsistent with previously
promulgated solid waste combustion regulations.
    We disagree with the commenters' conclusions and so noted in our
response to similar comments in the final rule for the CISWI Federal
plan (68 FR 57518, October 3, 2003). During proposal for the CISWI
Federal plan, we clearly stated our interpretation that the CAA
requires permitting under title V for sources subject to rules written
pursuant to CAA sections 129 and 111. As is the case here, commenters
questioned our position on this matter by contending that by not
specifically referring to title V requirements in prior rulemakings, we
were indirectly expressing our position that title V regulations were
not applicable. To the contrary, we knew that 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR
part 71 title V requirements would apply to any rules written under CAA
section 129 or 111 and presumed no additional language was needed in
those rules to convey the need to meet the title V requirements. Given
prior comments to the effect that such presumptions were misplaced, we
responded by first saying that we were specific in the proposal about
the need for title V operating permits for air curtain incinerators
subject to the CISWI Federal plan for the purpose of clarifying that
need. We did so in order to clearly present EPA's view of such sources'
title V obligations, and to answer questions such as those voiced by
the prior commenters due to the absence of such specific language in
the CISWI emission guidelines and NSPS. Those prior comments are
similar to the comments now under discussion. At 68 FR 57527, we stated
that EPA has consistently maintained that operating permits are needed
for air curtain incinerators subject to NSPS and to State plans drafted
pursuant to emission guidelines. However, communications we received
following promulgation of the CISWI emission guidelines and NSPS
pointed to the advisability of specifically clarifying the matter in
the preamble to the CISWI Federal plan and in the final rule itself.
Thus, to facilitate the application of title V to these sources, we
specifically included in the CISWI Federal plan language describing the
need for title V operating permits. To further eliminate any doubt as
to the need for OSWI air curtain incinerators to obtain title V
operating permits, as is the case for all other classes of air curtain
incinerators, we clearly restated that requirement in 40 CFR 60.2994,
subpart FFFF, as proposed.
    Two commenters concluded that the term ``solid waste incineration
unit'' is

defined in CAA section 129(g)(1) to specifically exclude ``air curtain
incinerators provided that such incinerators only burn wood wastes,
yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air curtain incinerators
comply with opacity limitations to be established by the Administrator
by rule.'' As a result, this means that permitting or other
requirements applicable to ``solid waste incineration units'' in CAA
section 129 do not apply to such air curtain incinerators in the same
way that they do not apply to hazardous waste combustors, materials
recovery facilities, and qualifying small power production facilities,
all of which also are specifically excluded from the definition of
``solid waste incineration unit.'' In addition to questioning EPA's use
of authority under CAA section 129 to require title V operating
permits, commenters were cognizant that in the Federal Register notice
promulgating the CISWI Federal plan that we had also expressed an
opinion that section 129 also invokes authority of CAA section 111,
thus triggering the provisions of CAA section 502. Section 502 of the
CAA requires that sources subject to section 111 must obtain title V
operating permits. Commenters expressed a number of opinions about the
interplay of CAA section 502 to the purpose of trying to make a case
that the section 502 provision for exempting classes of nonmajor
sources should be applied in the case of OSWI air curtain incinerators.
    EPA believes that a facility should have a title V operating permit
in order to avail itself of the air curtain incinerator exclusion.
Absent this exclusion and demonstrated compliance with the opacity
limit therein, air curtain incinerators would be ``solid waste
incineration units'' and, therefore, subject to a plethora of
requirements under CAA section 129, including the requirement to obtain
a title V operating permit. The initial step in effectuating the
exemption is for EPA to use available statutory authority to establish
applicable opacity limits. In this case, EPA clearly stated in the
preamble to the proposed OSWI rules (69 FR 71482, December 9, 2004)
that it is relying on the authority of CAA section 129 to establish
these limits. Once EPA has established applicable opacity limits, it
must have a mechanism for tracking compliance with the limit(s) and
with the restrictions on the types of materials the air curtain
incinerator unit in question can burn. The mechanism available through
section 129 is an operating permit issued in accordance with title V of
the CAA. Congress clearly evidenced an intent to require all units
subject to requirements established pursuant to CAA section 129 to
obtain a title V operating permit in enacting section 129(e) of the
CAA, thus it is appropriate for EPA to use such permits to ensure that
units which claim to be entitled to the benefit of the provision in
section 129(g)(1) are in fact so entitled.
    Two commenters requested that EPA acknowledge a distinction between
air curtain incinerators that are ``portable'' and those that are
``stationary.'' One commenter noted that in the States that are using
this approach, the ``portable'' unit is brought to a site and used on
waste material generated on that site and a ``stationary'' unit has
waste material brought to the unit from off site. The commenter
suggested that ``portable'' applications should be subject to a simple
permitting process that is no more complicated than an open burning
permit. The other commenter asked that EPA clarify its position on
whether air curtain incinerators are temporary or stationary sources.
    First, regardless of whether an air curtain incinerator subject to
CAA section 129 is transported from site to site or is used at the same
site on a continuous basis, it is considered a stationary source under
40 CFR part 70 and 40 CFR part 71 and is required to obtain a title V
operating permit. Air curtain incinerators that are transported from
site to site are considered temporary sources as long as their
operations are temporary and they are moved at least once during the
term of their permits. (See 40 CFR 70.6(e) and 40 CFR 71.6(e).)
Temporary-use incinerators (whether they are air curtain incinerators
or other types of incinerators) used in disaster recovery and that meet
the requirements of 40 CFR 60.2969 or 40 CFR 60.3061 are not, however,
required to obtain a title V operating permit. This is because the
exclusion-allowing provisions noted above (or a section 111(d) plan
developed pursuant to them) do not trigger the requirement to apply for
a title V permit. If the requirements in 40 CFR 60.2969 or 40 CFR
60.3061 are met, only temporary-use incinerators that are otherwise
subject to title V permitting would be required to apply for and obtain
a title V permit.
    As to the commenter's concern regarding the process for permitting
air curtain incinerators which are temporary sources, a permitting
authority may issue a single permit to the owner or operator of these
incinerators, thereby authorizing emissions by the same source owner or
operator at multiple temporary locations. (See section 504(e) of the
CAA and 40 CFR 70.6(e) and 40 CFR 71.6(e).) In order to track the
location of temporary sources, the owners or operators of these sources
must notify the relevant permitting authority at least 10 days in
advance of each change in location. For more information regarding the
requirements for temporary sources, see the statutory and regulatory
cites noted above.
    As mentioned earlier, there were a number of comments on air
curtain incinerators and title V operating permits. While the above
discussion covers the majority of the issues regarding these units and
title V requirements, we encourage interested parties to review the
response to comments document for a complete discourse on the title V
comments we received and our response to those comments.
2. Unit Closure and Title V Operating Permits
    One commenter expressed a concern that units planning to close
within the 3 years allowed by the proposed emission guidelines would
potentially have to apply for title V operating permits. The commenter
asked EPA to clarify in the final rules that sources either need to
close by the time their title V permit application is due or that a
title V permit application is not required for sources closing by the
final compliance date.
    The timing of title V permit application deadlines is established
by law (see sections 129(e), 503(c), 503(d), and 502(a) of the CAA). As
such, EPA has no authority to exempt from this requirement sources
planning to close. Sources planning to close after the permit
application deadline may continue operations until the closure deadline
as long as the permit application deadline is met. Sources cannot
legally operate after the initial title V permit application deadline
without having submitted a complete title V application by this
deadline (see CAA section 503(c) and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i),
71.5(a)(1)(i), 70.7(b), and 71.7(b)). Sources planning to close can
explain the procedures and timing associated with their closures in
their title V permit applications. Such an explanation will provide the
permitting authority with much needed information and will allow the
permitting authority to take an anticipated closure into account as it
drafts the source's title V permit.

E. Testing

    One commenter noted that air curtain incinerators normally operate
for a few weeks at any one project site. For these units, the commenter
noted that the proposed rules require an initial test for opacity
within 180 days after the final compliance date and annual tests to be
conducted no more than 12 months following the date of the previous
test. For stationary units or units frequently in operation, this may
be acceptable, but for units that may go months or years between uses
it is not clear when the opacity test would be required. As an
addendum, the commenter also asked who would be responsible for
conducting the test because these units are usually rented.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concern regarding annual testing
requirements for air curtain incinerators that may not be used for
months or years. To address this, we are amending the testing
requirements for air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste,
clean lumber and yard waste to require opacity testing upon startup if
the unit has been unused and out of operation for more than 12 months
following the last opacity test.
    Regarding the commenter's question on testing responsibility if the
unit is rented, we would generally expect the owner (lessor) of the
unit to perform testing and maintain records of compliance testing for
the unit being rented. In this situation, the operator (lessee) is
responsible for obtaining all necessary documentation (e.g.,
performance test data) demonstrating that the unit is in compliance
from the owner (lessor) and maintaining the documentation on site with
the air curtain incinerator. The operator (lessee) in all situations is
responsible for correctly operating the unit, burning only allowable
materials, being aware of all compliance requirements (i.e., testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting), and making sure the unit is
in compliance while operating the unit. However, given the various
arrangements that may exist between owners and operators, different
lengths of time a unit may be operated at a particular site, etc., EPA
and State regulatory and enforcement agencies have discretion to
determine which of the parties is responsible for compliance activities
or noncompliance issues on a case-by-case basis.

F. Impacts

    One commenter contended that EPA's use of national average costs
and ``typical'' units in determining impacts may have overlooked the
impact that the OSWI rules would have on small local governments,
school districts and small nonprofit organizations. The commenter
expressed concern that EPA's certification that the rules, as proposed,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities is not based on an adequate analysis of IWI units
operated by small entities.
    The final OSWI rules provide exclusions for some sources that may
find it unreasonably costly to comply with the rules or utilize
alternative disposal options. These exclusions include such sources as
rural IWI units and incinerators in isolated areas of Alaska. These,
and the other exclusions, should provide relief for many small entities
for which a reasonable disposal alternative is unavailable. For
example, a small, rural school may apply for the rural IWI exclusion if
they are located more than 50 miles from the boundary of the nearest
MSA and can demonstrate that suitable waste disposal alternatives do
not exist or are economically infeasible considering their budget. A
small school located in an urban area will most likely find that
alternative disposal options are readily available, and that they would
incur no additional cost or perhaps a slight savings by shutting down
their waste combustion unit. The exclusions provided should adequately
cover those certain situations where feasible alternatives to
incineration do not exist.
    As for areas where alternatives to incineration do exist, we have
found that the typical cost of incineration is the same as, or greater
than, that of using a landfill or sending waste to a larger MWC (see
tables 5 and 7 of OSWI Unit Control Options and Costs memorandum,
Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156-0012). An additional, more detailed
analysis of over 150 OSWI units was conducted to verify that this is
the case. The analysis used parameters appropriate for each OSWI unit,
including incinerator throughput, distance to nearby landfills, and
landfill tipping fees. The analysis confirmed our initial belief that
in the vast majority of cases an OSWI facility would incur no
additional cost when switching to a landfill. This was also true for
small entities. Information about this analysis is in the docket (see
Impacts of Other Solid Waste Incinerator Rule on Affected Small
Entities, November 2005).
    There are several likely reasons that existing OSWI units have
continued to operate rather than close and use a less expensive waste
disposal method. Some sources may simply be unaware of other viable
waste disposal options and their costs. The attention of other sources
may be focused on their day-to-day operations, of which the
incineration of waste represents a small piece, both with respect to
overall operations and budget. Until an unanticipated event, such as a
significant maintenance or repair expense or, in this instance, new
regulatory requirements, causes a source to focus on the question of
whether to continue to incinerate versus turn to another waste disposal
method, the source may not have a reason to consider whether they are
using the most economical waste disposal method. Moreover, some sources
may not have considered other waste disposal options in lieu of
incineration due to concerns regarding the nature of their waste stream
(e.g., confidentiality or liability concerns).
    As we point out in the preamble to the proposed rules, the OSWI
population has been steadily declining over the past several years, and
this trend would likely continue in the absence of an OSWI regulation.
To ensure that the affected sources were aware of the proposed rules,
EPA sent fact sheets to 361 of the existing OSWI units in our inventory
(we were unable to determine the mailing address for the remaining 11
units in our inventory). The fact sheets explained the proposed
regulations, the anticipated costs and impacts to their facilities, and
how they could submit comments. None of these facilities submitted
comments on the proposed rules and, in fact, about one-third of these
facilities informed us that they no longer own or operate an
incineration unit. In addition to the letters to the existing sources,
we also identified 125 trade organizations and interest groups that
represented potential OSWI owners/operators, such as school system
administrators, private school headmasters, correctional facility
administrators, religious organizations, associations of city and
county governments, etc. and sent them copies of the fact sheet. None
of these interest groups submitted comments on the proposed OSWI rules
or on the cost or other impacts EPA anticipated due to the rules. We
believe that this closure trend in absence of regulation exhibited by