4–20–04 Tuesday Vol. 69 No. 76 Apr. 20, 2004

Pages 21039–21392

VerDate mar 24 2004 21:17 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\20APWS.LOC 20APWS

1 II Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 202–741–6005 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202–741–6005 Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, www.archives.gov. What’s NEW! The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration Federal Register Table of Contents via e-mail authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication Subscribe to FEDREGTOC, to receive the Federal Register Table of established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, Contents in your e-mail every day. the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. If you get the HTML version, you can click directly to any document It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases in the issue. on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. To subscribe, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select: The online edition of the Federal Register www.access.gpo.gov/ Online mailing list archives nara, available through GPO Access, is issued under the authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the FEDREGTOC-L official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 Join or leave the list U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6 a.m. each day Then follow the instructions. the Federal Register is published and includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access User Support Team, call toll free 1-888-293-6498; DC area 202- What’s NEW! 512-1530; fax at 202-512-1262; or via email at [email protected]. Regulations.gov, the award-winning Federal eRulemaking Portal The Support Team is available between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday–Friday, except official holidays. Regulations.gov is the one-stop U.S. Government web site that makes The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper it easy to participate in the regulatory process. edition is $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, for a combined Try this fast and reliable resource to find all rules published in the Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Federal Register that are currently open for public comment. Submit Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal comments to agencies by filling out a simple web form, or use avail- Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $165, plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half able email addresses and web sites. the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to The Regulations.gov e-democracy initiative is brought to you by orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of NARA, GPO, EPA and their eRulemaking partners. a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing Visit the web site at: http://www.regulations.gov less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover. Mail to: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954; or call toll free 1-866- 512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, [email protected]. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 69 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.

.

VerDate mar 24 2004 21:17 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\20APWS.LOC 20APWS

2 III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 76

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

Administration on Aging New Jersey, 21061–21064 See Aging Administration New York, 21064–21065 Outer Continental Shelf activities: Aging Administration Gulf of Mexico; safety zone, 21065–21067 NOTICES Ports and waterways safety: Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Savannah River, GA; regulated navigation area, 21067– Alzheimer’s Disease Demonstration Grants to States 21068 Program, 21115–21116 NOTICES Meetings: Agricultural Marketing Service Towing Safety Advisory Committee, 21148–21149 NOTICES Meetings: Commerce Department Plant Variety Protection Board, 21080 See Industry and Security Bureau Agriculture Department See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration See Agricultural Marketing Service See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Commodity Credit Corporation Commodity Credit Corporation See Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension NOTICES Service Agency information collection activities; proposals, See Farm Service Agency submissions, and approvals, 21080–21081 See Food Safety and Inspection Service See Foreign Agricultural Service Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Meetings; Sunshine Act, 21091 RULES Exportation and importation of animals and animal Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension products: Service Cattle from and : brucellosis NOTICES testing, 21040–21042 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Classical swine fever; disease status change— Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture Advisory and , 21042–21047 Committee, 21081 Plant-related quarantine, domestic: Golden nematode, 21039–21040 Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia Army Department RULES See Engineers Corps Acceptance of gifts, 21059–21061 NOTICES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Meetings: Agency seal, 21058–21059 Armed Forces Epidemiological Board, 21092 U.S. Military Academy, Board of Visitors, 21092 Defense Department See Army Department Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See Engineers Corps See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Meetings: Defense Science Board, 21091 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, National Security Education Board, 21091–21092 submissions, and approvals, 21116–21117 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Employment and Training Administration Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)— NOTICES HIV among persons newly diagnosed; atypical strains, Adjustment assistance: dried blood spots vs. diagnostic sera, 21117–21121 Agilent Technologies, 21161 Agilent Technologies, Inc., 21161–21162 Children and Families Administration Dielectric Communications, 21162 NOTICES Motion Picture Editors Guild, 21162 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: RBX Industries, 21162 Basic Center Program, 21121–21135 Siemens Energy and Automation, Inc., 21162 NAFTA transitional adjustment assistance: Coast Guard Ameriphone, Inc., 21162–21163 RULES Drawbridge operations: Energy Department Florida, 21064 See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

VerDate mar<24>2004 21:28 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\20APCN.SGM 20APCN IV Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Contents

Engineers Corps Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 21093–21094 NOTICES National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 21094 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Northern Natural Gas Co., 21094 Louisiana Coastal Area, LA; near-term ecosystem Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 21094–21095 restoration plan; correction, 21092 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 21095 Transwestern Pipeline Co., 21095 Environmental Protection Agency Wyoming Interstate Co., Ltd, 21095–21096 PROPOSED RULES Air pollutants, hazardous; national emission standards: Federal Reserve System Hazardous waste combustors, 21197–21385 NOTICES Hazardous waste program authorizations: Banks and bank holding companies: Indiana, 21077–21079 Permissible nonbanking activities, 21114 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Federal Trade Commission submissions, and approvals, 21097–21098 PROPOSED RULES Superfund; response and remedial actions, proposed Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act; implementation: settlements, etc.: Disposal of consumer report information and records, Falcon Refinery Site, TX, 21098 21387–21392 Water supply: Public water supply supervision program— Financial Management Service North Carolina, 21098 See Fiscal Service

Executive Office of the President Fiscal Service See Trade Representative, Office of NOTICES Surety companies acceptable on Federal bonds: Farm Credit Administration Platte River Insurance Co., 21192 NOTICES Fish and Wildlife Service Meetings; Sunshine Act, 21098–21099 NOTICES Farm Service Agency Endangered and threatened species: NOTICES Findings on petitions, etc.— Agency information collection activities; proposals, Colorado River cutthroat trout, 21151–21158 submissions, and approvals, 21081–21082 Food Safety and Inspection Service Federal Aviation Administration RULES Recordkeeping and registration requirements, 21047–21049 RULES Airworthiness directives: Foreign Agricultural Service Engine Components Inc. (ECI), 21049–21053 NOTICES Restricted areas, 21053–21055 Trade adjustment assistance; applications, petitions, etc.: PROPOSED RULES Kentucky, freshwater prawn producers, 21082 Air carrier certification and operations: National air tour safety standards; meetings, 21073–21075 General Services Administration NOTICES NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Federal travel: submissions, and approvals, 21179 Per diem— Exemption petitions; summary and disposition, 21179 Various states, 21115 Standard instrument approach procedures, 21180–21181 Health and Human Services Department Federal Communications Commission See Aging Administration NOTICES See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Agency information collection activities; proposals, See Children and Families Administration submissions, and approvals, 21099 See Health Resources and Services Administration Common carrier services: See National Institutes of Health 24 GHz service licenses auction; reserve prices or minimum opening bids, etc., 21099–21110 Health Resources and Services Administration Wireless telecommunications services— NOTICES Automated maritime telecommunications system Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: spectrum; licenses auction, 21110–21114 Competitive and other 2004 FY grant programs mini- preview; comprehensive review and application Federal Energy Regulatory Commission information, 21135–21146 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Homeland Security Department submissions, and approvals, 21092 See Coast Guard Electric rate and corporate regulation filings, 21096 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Housing and Urban Development Department Price Dam Partnership, LTD, 21096–21097 NOTICES Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Agency information collection activities; proposals, Arkansas Western Gas Company, 21093 submissions, and approvals, 21149–21151

VerDate mar<24>2004 21:28 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\20APCN.SGM 20APCN Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Contents V

Industry and Security Bureau National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES RULES Export administration regulations: Motor vehicle safety standards: Commerce Control List— Occupant crash protection— Addition of Aruba, Antilles, East Timor, Safety equipment removal; exemptions from make and Democratic Republic of Congo; update of inoperative prohibition for persons with country names, 21055–21057 disabilities, 21069–21070 NOTICES Interior Department Motor vehicle safety standards; exemption petitions, etc.: See Fish and Wildlife Service Delphi Corp., 21185–21186 See Land Management Bureau Hyundai Motor Company, 21186–21187 See Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office Kia Motor Corp., 21187 Kia Motors America, Inc., et al., 21188–21189 PACCAR, Inc, 21189 Internal Revenue Service Pirelli Tire LLC, 21189–21190 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, National Institutes of Health submissions, and approvals, 21192–21196 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, International Trade Administration submissions, and approvals, 21147 NOTICES Meetings: Antidumping: National Center on Minority Health and Health Bottle-grade polyethylene terephthalate resin from— Disparities, 21147 , , Taiwan and , 21082–21086 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 21147–21148 Countervailing duties: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bottle-grade polyethylene terephthalate resin from— 21148 India, 21086–21088 National Institute of Nursing Research, 21148

International Trade Commission National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES RULES Import investigations: Marine mammals: Pressure sensitive plastic tape from— Commercial fishing operations; incidental taking— , 21159–21160 Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, 21070– Prestressed concrete steel wire strand from— 21072 , 21160 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 21089 Justice Department Fishery conservation and management: NOTICES Northeastern United States fisheries— Privacy Act: Multispecies fishery, 21089–21090 Systems of records, 21160–21161 Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 21090 Labor Department Permits: See Employment and Training Administration Endangered and threatened species, 21090–21091 See Occupational Safety and Health Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission Land Management Bureau NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Meetings: Assessment of debris accumulation on pressurized water Resource Advisory Councils— reactor sump performance, 21166 New Mexico, 21158 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Alternative Dispute Resolution Pilot Program; policies Maritime Administration and procedures development, 21166–21171 NOTICES Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Coastwise trade laws; administrative waivers: Duke Energy Corp., 21165–21166 BLUE MOON, 21181–21182 Union Electric Co., 21166 CONSIGLIRE, 21182 Occupational Safety and Health Administration ELOUISE, 21182–21183 NOTICES EUPHORIA, 21183 Agency information collection activities; proposals, LOAFER’S GLORY, 21183 submissions, and approvals, 21163–21164 SOJOURN, 21184 STV UNICORN, 21184 Office of United States Trade Representative WHISPER, 21184–21185 See Trade Representative, Office of United States National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Personnel Management Office NOTICES RULES Meetings: Federal Employee Student Loan Assistance Act: Fellowships Advisory Panel, 21164–21165 Student loans repayment, 21039

VerDate mar<24>2004 21:28 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\20APCN.SGM 20APCN VI Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Contents

Public Debt Bureau Transportation Department See Fiscal Service See Federal Aviation Administration See Maritime Administration Railroad Retirement Board See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Treasury Department submissions, and approvals, 21171–21172 See Fiscal Service Securities and Exchange Commission See Internal Revenue Service NOTICES RULES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Practice and procedure: submissions, and approvals, 21190–21192 Holding period and disclosure requirements for members’ and employees’ transactions, 21057–21058 NOTICES Veterans Affairs Department Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: RULES National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 21172– Board of Veterans’ Appeals: 21174 Appeals regulations and rules of practice— Pacific Exchange, Inc., 21174–21176 Notice procedures relating to withdrawal of services by a representative, 21068–21069 Social Security Administration PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Medical benefits: Meetings: Waivers; veterans’ debts arising from medical care Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel, copayments, 21075–21077 21176

State Department Separate Parts In This Issue NOTICES Meetings: Cultural Property Advisory Committee, 21176–21177 Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 21197–21385 Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office PROPOSED RULES Part III Permanent program and abandoned mine land reclamation Federal Trade Commission, 21387–21392 plan submissions: Kentucky, 21075 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Reader Aids submissions, and approvals, 21158–21159 Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, Trade Representative, Office of United States and notice of recently enacted public laws. NOTICES Trade Policy Staff Committee: To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents U.S.-Panama free trade negotiations; employment impact LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// review, 21177–21178 listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list U.S.-Thailand free trade negotiations; employment impact archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change review, 21178–21179 settings); then follow the instructions.

VerDate mar<24>2004 21:28 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\20APCN.SGM 20APCN Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Contents VII

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

5 CFR 537...... 21039 7 CFR 301...... 21039 9 CFR 93...... 21040 94...... 21042 98...... 21042 320...... 21047 381...... 21047 14 CFR 39...... 21049 73...... 21053 Proposed Rules: 61...... 21073 91...... 21073 119...... 21073 121...... 21073 135...... 21073 136...... 21073 15 CFR 738...... 21055 740...... 21055 16 CFR Proposed Rules: 682...... 21388 17 CFR 200...... 21057 28 CFR 803...... 21058 804...... 21059 30 CFR Proposed Rules: 917...... 21075 33 CFR 117 (4 documents) ...... 21061, 21062, 21064 147...... 21065 165...... 21067 38 CFR 20...... 21068 Proposed Rules: 17...... 21075 40 CFR Proposed Rules: 63...... 21198 264...... 21198 265...... 21198 266...... 21198 270...... 21198 271 (2 documents) ...... 21077, 21198 49 CFR 595...... 21069 50 CFR 229...... 21070

VerDate mar 24 2004 21:19 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\20APLS.LOC 20APLS 21039

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 76

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 136, November 24, 2003) also contained (2) A total of $60,000 per employee. contains regulatory documents having general an amendment to 5 U.S.C. 5379 to * * * * * applicability and legal effect, most of which increase the maximum amount Federal [FR Doc. 04–8939 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] are keyed to and codified in the Code of agencies are authorized to repay under BILLING CODE 6325–39–P Federal Regulations, which is published under the Federal student loan repayment 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. program from $6,000 to $10,000 for any one employee in a calendar year. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of Waiver of Notice of Proposed new books are listed in the first FEDERAL Rulemaking Animal and Plant Health Inspection REGISTER issue of each week. Service Pursuant to section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5 of the United States Code, I find 7 CFR Part 301 OFFICE OF PERSONNEL that good cause exists for waiving the MANAGEMENT general notice of proposed rulemaking. [Docket No. 03–082–2] Also, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), I 5 CFR Part 537 find that good cause exists for making Golden Nematode; Regulated Area RIN 3206–AK37 this rule effective in less than 30 days. AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health These regulations implement Pub. L. Inspection Service, USDA. 108–123, which became effective on Repayment of Student Loans ACTION: Final rule. November 11, 2003. The waiver of the AGENCY: Office of Personnel requirements for proposed rulemaking SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final Management. and a delay in the effective date are rule, with one change, an interim rule ACTION: Final rule. necessary to ensure timely that amended the golden nematode implementation of the law as intended regulations by adding a field in Steuben SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel by Congress. Management is issuing final regulations County, NY, to the list of generally to implement provisions of the Federal E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review infested regulated areas. In this document, we are making an editorial Employee Student Loan Assistance Act The Office of Management and Budget which increase the maximum amounts change in order to correct a reference in has reviewed this rule in accordance the regulations. The interim rule was Federal agencies are authorized to repay with E.O. 12866. under the Federal student loan necessary to prevent the artificial spread repayment program. Regulatory Flexibility Act of golden nematode to noninfested areas of the United States. DATES: The regulations are effective I certify that these regulations will not DATES: Effective Date: May 20, 2004. April 20, 2004. have a significant economic impact on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: a substantial number of small entities Vedpal Malik, Agriculturalist, Invasive Gene Holson by telephone at (202) 606– because they will apply to only Federal Species and Pest Management, PPQ, 2858; by fax at (202) 606–0824; or by e- agencies and employees. APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, mail at pay-performance- List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 537 Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734– [email protected]. Administrative practice and 6774. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: procedure, Government employees, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Personnel Management Wages. Background (OPM) is issuing final regulations to Office of Personnel Management. implement provisions of the Federal The golden nematode (Globodera Kay Coles James, Employee Student Loan Assistance Act rostochiensis) is a destructive pest of Director. (Pub. L. 108–123, Nov. 11, 2003) which potatoes and other solanaceous plants. increase the maximum amounts Federal I Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR Potatoes cannot be economically grown agencies are authorized to repay under part 537 as follows: on land which contains large numbers the Federal student loan repayment of the nematode. The golden nematode PART 537–REPAYMENT OF STUDENT program. The Act amended 5 U.S.C. has been determined to occur in the LOANS 5379, which provides agencies with the United States only in parts of New York. authority to repay student loans on I 1. The authority citation for part 537 The golden nematode regulations behalf of candidates for Federal jobs or continues to read as follows: (contained in 7 CFR 301.85 through current Federal employees to recruit Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5379. 301.85–10 and referred to below as the and retain highly qualified personnel. regulations) list two entire counties and I 2. In § 537.106, paragraphs (c)(1) and The statutory amendment increases the portions of seven other counties in the (c)(2) are revised to read as follows: limitations on payments authorized by State of New York as regulated areas an agency from $6,000 to $10,000 per § 537.106 Procedures for making loan and restrict the interstate movement of employee in any calendar year and from repayments. regulated articles from those areas. Such $40,000 to a total of $60,000 for any one * * * * * restrictions are necessary to prevent the employee. Subsequently, section 1123 (c) * * * artificial spread of the golden nematode of the National Defense Authorization (1) $10,000 per employee per calendar to noninfested areas of the United Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– year; and States.

VerDate mar<24>2004 18:06 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21040 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

In an interim rule effective and Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of species, including humans. Bovine published in the Federal Register on April, 2004. tuberculosis in infected animals and January 5, 2004 (69 FR 247–249, Docket Kevin Shea, humans manifests itself in lesions of the No. 03–082–1), we amended the Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant lung, lymph nodes, and other body regulations to add a field in Steuben Health Inspection Service. parts, causes weight loss and general County, NY, to the list of generally [FR Doc. 04–8895 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] debilitation, and can be fatal. infested regulated areas. This action was BILLING CODE 3410–34–P Paragraph (a) of § 93.406 includes necessary to prevent the artificial spread procedures for the importation of cattle of golden nematode to noninfested areas from other parts of the world into the of the United States. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE United States. This paragraph details We solicited comments concerning tuberculosis and brucellosis testing and the interim rule for 60 days ending Animal and Plant Health Inspection certification requirements for all cattle March 5, 2004. We did not receive any Service offered for importation from any part of comments. However, after the interim the world, except those intended for rule was published, we noted an 9 CFR Part 93 immediate slaughter. editorial error in the regulations. [Docket No. 99–071–3] On April 20, 2001, we published in Specifically, the regulations at the Federal Register (66 FR 20211– § 301.85(b)(6)(iii) incorrectly reference Cattle From Australia and New 20213, Docket No. 99–071–1) a proposal the location of certain treatment Zealand; Testing Exemptions to amend the regulations by exempting requirements for Irish potatoes cattle from Australia and New Zealand AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health from testing for brucellosis prior to their harvested from a field where golden Inspection Service, USDA. nematode is present. In this final rule, export to the United States, and by ACTION: Final rule. we are correcting that reference. exempting cattle from Australia from testing for tuberculosis prior to their Therefore, for the reasons given in the SUMMARY: We are amending the interim rule and in this document, we regulations regarding the importation of export to the United States. These are adopting the interim rule as a final cattle to exempt cattle imported from proposed changes were based on rule with the change discussed in this Australia and from New Zealand from requests from Australia and New Zealand. In accordance with the document. testing for brucellosis prior to their provisions of 9 CFR part 92 for This final rule also affirms the export to the United States. We have requesting recognition of the animal information contained in the interim determined that the testing of cattle health status of a country or other rule concerning Executive Order 12866 imported from Australia and New region, when Australia and New and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Zealand for brucellosis is not necessary Zealand requested exemption from the Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and to protect livestock in the United States brucellosis testing requirements and the Paperwork Reduction Act. from the disease. This action relieves Australia from the tuberculosis testing Further, for this action, the Office of certain testing requirements for cattle requirements, both countries submitted Management and Budget has waived its imported from Australia and New review under Executive Order 12866. extensive documentation to the Animal Zealand while continuing to protect and Plant Health Inspection Service List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 against the introduction of (APHIS) that included information Agricultural commodities, Plant communicable diseases of cattle into the regarding disease history and control, diseases and pests, Quarantine, United States. livestock demographics and marketing Reporting and recordkeeping EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2004. practices, surveillance, and veterinary requirements, Transportation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. policies and infrastructure. The Anne Goodman, Supervisory Staff I Accordingly, the interim rule information was considered in assessing Officer, Regionalization and Evaluation amending 7 CFR part 301 that was the disease risk of importing live cattle Services Staff, National Center for published at 69 FR 247–249 on January from those two countries under the Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 5, 2004, is adopted as a final rule with conditions of the proposed rule and River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD the following change: documented Australia and New 20737–1231; (301) 734–4356. Zealand’s freedom from the diseases in PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: question. (The information submitted by Australia and New Zealand, along with NOTICES Background the risk assessment, may be obtained I 1. The authority citation for part 301 The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 from the person listed under FOR continues to read as follows: (referred to below as the regulations) FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and may Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772; 7 CFR 2.22, govern the importation into the United be viewed on the Internet at http:// 2.80, and 371.3. States of specified animals and animal www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/reg- Section 301.75–15 also issued under Sec. products to prevent the introduction request.html.) 204, Title II, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. into the United States of various animal Following publication of the proposed 1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75– diseases, including brucellosis and rule, however, we were made aware of 16 also issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. tuberculosis. Brucellosis is a contagious two outbreaks of tuberculosis that had L. 106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 disease affecting animals and humans, occurred in , Australia, after note). caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella. we had completed our risk assessment. In its principal animal hosts, brucellosis In order to take these outbreaks into § 301.85 [Amended] may cause abortion and impaired account, we are conducting an updated I 2. In § 301.85, paragraph (b)(6)(iii) is fertility. Bovine tuberculosis is a assessment of the risk of tuberculosis amended by removing the words contagious, infectious, and from cattle imported from Australia and ‘‘paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(A), (B), or (C)’’ and communicable disease caused by are not making final in this document adding the words paragraph Mycobacterium bovis. It affects cattle, our proposed provisions to exempt (b)(6)(iii)(A), (B), or (C)’’ in their place. bison, deer, elk, goats, and other cattle from Australia from tuberculosis

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21041

testing. We intend to make the results of animals intended for exportation. We countries have safeguards in place to our updated assessment available to the accept the same type of official ensure that animals imported from other public and to allow for public comment certification from Australia and New countries are not affected by the disease. on the results of that assessment. We Zealand that those and other countries New Zealand requires that all live will then address any comments we accept from the United States. cattle intended for export to that receive on the updated assessment in a Therefore, we believe that there is no country have been resident in herds document to be published in the need to conduct testing once the cattle negative for brucellosis for at least 12 Federal Register. In addition to arrive in the United States, and we are months prior to going into pre-export addressing comments we receive on our making no changes based on the isolation at a facility managed by the updated risk assessment in that comment. national veterinary authority of the document, we will address all One commenter stated that the data exporting country. Australia’s comments we received regarding used in the risk assessment for Australia quarantine regulations require that tuberculosis testing in Australia in and New Zealand were from 1988 and imported cattle originate from a herd or response to our April 2001 proposed 1989. The commenter asked whether region recognized as free of brucellosis rule. In this final rule, therefore, we there were more recent data available according to the standards of the World address only those issues raised by regarding disease surveillance in those Organisation for Animal Health (also commenters that concern subjects other countries. known as OIE). than tuberculosis testing in Australia. There have been no reported One commenter recommended We solicited comments concerning diagnoses of brucellosis in Australia and requiring permanent identification of our April 2001 proposal for 60 days New Zealand since the risk assessments cattle coming into the United States, ending June 19, 2001. On June 4, 2001, were completed. particularly breeding animals. we published in the Federal Register One commenter asked whether, in We agree there would be benefits to (66 FR 29921, Docket No. 99–071–2) a assessing the need for the tests to be establishing an identification plan for notice announcing that we would host required or not required, any distinction cattle entering the United States, as well a public hearing in Riverdale, MD, on was made between those cattle that as for domestic cattle, and are in the June 19, 2001, to give the public an would ultimately move into slaughter process of developing such a plan. opportunity for the oral presentation of channels and those that would go into Therefore, for the reasons given in the data, views, and arguments regarding the breeding herd. proposed rule and in this document, we the proposed rule. We received two When we conducted our risk are adopting the proposed rule as a final written comments on the proposal by assessments, no outbreaks of brucellosis rule, with the changes discussed in this the June 19, 2001, close of the comment had been reported in either New document. period and one oral comment at the Zealand or Australia since 1989. (The public hearing. The comments were statement in the risk assessment for Effective Date from representatives of a State animal cattle from Australia indicating the most This is a substantive rule that relieves health commission, an organization of recent outbreak there was in 1990 restrictions and, pursuant to the research councils, and a cattle industry should read ‘‘1989’’ instead.) That provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made association. We discuss the comments information and the other data available effective less than 30 days after below by topic. to us, as discussed in our risk publication in the Federal Register. One commenter said that testing assessment, indicated cattle could be Immediate implementation of this rule requirements for cattle to be imported safely imported into the United States will provide relief to those persons who into the United States should not be without testing for brucellosis. are adversely affected by testing reduced or eliminated until APHIS has Likewise, we would not expect a trading requirements we no longer find independently verified the validity of partner to require that U.S. cattle warranted. Therefore, the Administrator documentation regarding the health of intended for export be tested for a of the Animal and Plant Health the livestock in the exporting region. disease that had not been reported in Inspection Service has determined that We are making no changes based on the United States for more than 10 this rule should be effective upon this comment. We are confident of the years. publication in the Federal Register. validity of brucellosis reporting in One commenter stated there is no way Australia and New Zealand. Brucellosis to guarantee the health status of animals Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory is notifiable in Australia and New shipped through Australia or New Flexibility Act Zealand to the national government Zealand from other countries for export This rule has been reviewed under animal health officials. to the United States. Executive Order 12866. The rule has One commenter requested that, The concern raised by the commenter been determined to be not significant for during quarantine in the United States, is addressed by a number of safeguards. the purposes of Executive Order 12866 cattle from Australia and New Zealand By protocol, we will not consider an and, therefore, has not been reviewed by be tested by APHIS for brucellosis to animal that is moved into Australia or the Office of Management and Budget. verify that the information provided by New Zealand to be part of the national Exempting cattle imports from the exporting governments or entities is herd of the country until 60 days Australia and New Zealand from accurate. following its release from all import brucellosis testing will reduce costs for In considering the import requests quarantine restrictions in those exporters of cattle from these two from Australia and New Zealand, we countries, except that the waiting period countries to the United States. Impacts assessed the legal authority and is 90 days for offspring of animals or for U.S. entities will depend on the veterinary infrastructure and germplasm legally imported into number of cattle exported to the United organization of those countries, and Australia or New Zealand from a region States, the cost savings per animal, and determined them to be effective in not recognized by APHIS as being free what portion of these savings may be recognizing, responding to, and giving of foot-and-mouth disease and passed on to U.S. buyers through lower notice of disease occurrences, and in rinderpest. With regard to the prices. providing reliable certification of the brucellosis status of animals moved into To date, there have been no recorded health status and testing history of Australia or New Zealand, both of those imports of cattle from New Zealand.

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21042 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

Cattle imports by the United States from operations, nearly all of which are small PART 93—IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN Australia have been minimal, as entities. According to the 1997 Census ANIMALS, BIRDS, AND POULTRY, reflected by data for the last 5 years. of Agriculture, over 99 percent of farms AND CERTAIN ANIMAL, BIRD, AND Trade statistics divide cattle into two with cattle sales had annual receipts POULTRY PRODUCTS; groups—purebred and not purebred. that did not exceed $750,000, the small- REQUIREMENTS FOR MEANS OF Purebred cattle imported from Australia entity criterion set by the Small CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING numbered only 17 head in 1998 and 21 Business Administration (SBA). CONTAINERS head in 1999. None were imported in It is unlikely high-valued cattle I 2000, 2001, or 2002. The small numbers imported from Australia would be 1. The authority citation for part 93 imported in 1998 and 1999 represented destined for slaughter. Nonetheless, it is continues to read as follows: only 0.4 percent of U.S. imports of noted that feedlots that could purchase Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301–8317; purebred cattle in those 2 years. the cattle may or may not be small 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 The number of not purebred cattle entities. SBA classifies cattle feedlots as CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. imported from Australia averaged fewer small entities if their annual receipts are I 2. Section 93.406 is amended as than eight animals per year from 1998 not more than $1.5 million. There were follows: through 2002. Given that annual total 95,189 feedlots in the United States in I a. In the introductory text of U.S. imports of not purebred cattle over 2002, about 93,000 (nearly 98 percent) paragraph (a), in the first sentence, the this 5-year period averaged more than of which had capacities of fewer than words ‘‘in paragraph (d) of this section 2.2 million per year, the number that 1,000 head and can be considered small and’’ is added immediately after the came from Australia is negligible. entities. However, the 2 percent of the words ‘‘Except as provided’’. Because the United States has not Nation’s feedlots that have capacities of I b. A new paragraph (d) is added to imported cattle from New Zealand, we at least 1,000 head held 82 percent of all read as follows: do not have comparable statistics for cattle and calves on feed on January 1, that country. 2003. These larger feedlots have average § 93.406 Diagnostic tests. While these numbers are very small, annual receipts of over $9 million, well * * * * * the average value of cattle imported above the small-entity criterion. (d) Testing exemptions. Cattle from from Australia has been much higher In any case, the rule will have little, Australia and New Zealand are exempt than the value of imported cattle if any, impact on U.S. entities, large or from the brucellosis testing generally. For purebred cattle from small. Brucellosis testing exemptions requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this Australia, the average value was $5,082 will result in small cost savings for section. per head, compared to an average value exporters of cattle from Australia or for all purebred cattle imports of $1,051. Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of For not purebred cattle from Australia, New Zealand. The rule is not expected April, 2004. the average value was $3,083 per head, to affect the negligible number of cattle Kevin Shea, compared to an average value for all not imported from Australia or cause cattle Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant purebred cattle imports of $556. to be imported from New Zealand for Health Inspection Service. It is unlikely the number of cattle the first time. [FR Doc. 04–8894 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] imported from Australia will be affected Under these circumstances, the BILLING CODE 3410–34–P by removing testing requirements for Administrator of the Animal and Plant brucellosis. Brucellosis testing costs, Health Inspection Service has assumed to range between $7.50 and determined that this action will not DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE $15 per head including veterinary fees have a significant economic impact on and handling expenses, represent from a substantial number of small entities. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 0.15 percent to 0.30 percent of the value Executive Order 12988 of purebred cattle imported from Australia in 1998 and 1999, and from This proposed rule has been reviewed 9 CFR Parts 94 and 98 under Executive Order 12988, Civil 0.24 percent to 0.49 percent of the value [Docket No. 98–090–7] of not purebred cattle imported from Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts Australia from 1998 through 2002. all State and local laws and regulations RIN 0579–AB03 A small cost savings will be realized that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) Classical Swine Fever Status of France by exporters of Australian cattle for a has no retroactive effect; and (3) does and Spain negligible number of animals, if not require administrative proceedings quantities imported in recent years before parties may file suit in court AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health continue into the future. Cost savings of challenging this rule. Inspection Service, USDA. such small proportion are not expected Paperwork Reduction Act ACTION: Final rule. to affect the number of Australian cattle offered for export to the United States. This final rule contains no SUMMARY: We are amending the Any benefit realized by U.S. buyers of information collection or recordkeeping regulations concerning the importation cattle from Australia will be negligible requirements under the Paperwork of animals and animal products to as well. If cattle are imported from New Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 recognize France and Spain as regions Zealand, impacts of this rule for U.S. et seq.). in which classical swine fever (CSF) is buyers are expected to be similarly List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 93 not known to exist, and from which negligible. breeding swine, swine semen, and pork As a part of the rulemaking process, Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, and pork products may be imported into APHIS evaluates whether regulations Poultry and poultry products, the United States under certain will have a significant economic impact Quarantine, Reporting and conditions, in the absence of restrictions on a substantial number of small recordkeeping requirements. associated with other foreign animal entities. If any entities are affected by I Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR diseases of swine. This rulemaking will this rule, they will likely be U.S. cattle part 93 as follows: ensure that breeding swine, swine

VerDate mar<24>2004 18:06 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21043

semen, and pork and pork products the EU region, and to determine what, Federal Register (68 FR 65869–65871, imported from France or Spain have if any, mitigation measures would be Docket No. 98–090–6) a supplemental originated in one of those countries or necessary. We assessed the likelihood of risk analysis which examined the risk of in any other region recognized by the introducing CSF through the introducing CSF from the importation of Animal and Plant Health Inspection importation of live breeding swine, swine and swine products from those Service as free of CSF and that, prior to swine semen, and pork and pork two Member States. The supplemental export to the United States, such products. We made the risk analysis risk analysis is available on the Internet animals and animal products have not available to the public during the at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/ been commingled with animals and comment period for the proposed rule. reg-request.html.1 For this analysis, we animal products from regions where We solicited comments concerning used the applicable information from CSF exists. our proposed rule for 60 days ending the risk analyses we conducted for the EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2004. August 24, 1999. One of the commenters June 1999 proposed rule and the April expressed concerns with several aspects 2003 final rule, as well as information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. of our risk analysis. Based on the Chip Wells, Senior Staff Veterinarian, made available following the outbreaks, concerns expressed in that comment, Regionalization Evaluation Services and subsequent elimination, of CSF in and as recommended by the Staff, National Center for Import and France and Spain. We concluded that Department’s Office of Risk Assessment the risk of importation of CSF virus in Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road and Cost Benefit Analysis, we revised swine and swine products from France Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; our risk analysis and included a and Spain was low, based on the (301) 734–4356. supplement that presented in more demonstrated ability of these two SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: detail specific information about CSF Member States to effectively contain Background outbreaks in the EU region. The revised CSF outbreaks in domestic swine. risk analysis was titled ‘‘Risk Analysis Recognition of the CSF status of France The Animal and Plant Health for Importation of Classical Swine Fever and Spain as equivalent to that of the Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Virus in Swine and Swine Products other EU Member States or regions Department of Agriculture regulates the from the European Union—December evaluated in the revised risk analysis of importation of animals and animal 2000.’’ December 2000 was, therefore, judged to products to guard against the On April 7, 2003, we published in the be appropriate. introduction of animal diseases into this Federal Register (68 FR 16922–16940, We solicited comments concerning country. The regulations pertaining to Docket No. 98–090–5) a final rule that, our supplemental risk analysis for 60 the importation of animals and animal among other things, amended the days ending January 23, 2004. We products are set forth in the Code of regulations to recognize a smaller region received three comments by that date. Federal Regulations (CFR), title 9, in the EU consisting of Austria, They were from the Government of chapter I, subchapter D (9 CFR parts 91 , Greece, the Netherlands, Spain, a French pork producers’ through 99). , and parts of and Italy association, and the U.S. National Pork On June 25, 1999, we published in the as free of CSF. In the final rule, APHIS Board. Two of the commenters Federal Register (64 FR 34155–34168, did not recognize France, Spain, or expressed concerns about certain Docket No. 98–090–1) a proposal to, Luxembourg as free of CSF, and thus as aspects of the supplemental risk among other things, amend the part of the EU region free of CSF, as we assessment. The comments are regulations regarding the importation of had proposed to do in our June 1999 discussed below by topic. swine and swine products from a proposed rule, because CSF outbreaks One commenter referred to the specifically defined region in the had occurred in domestic swine in each hypothesis that the virus involved in the European Union (EU) consisting of of those Member States after the April 2002 CSF outbreak in France Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, publication of the proposed rule. might have been introduced onto the Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, In our April 2003 final rule, we affected premises by fomites, perhaps Spain, and parts of Germany and Italy. continued to consider all of France, on the clothing or personal vehicle of a (For convenience, we refer to individual Spain, and Luxembourg to be affected visiting farmer from Germany. The countries of this EU region as ‘‘Member with CSF, even though outbreaks in commenter also noted that the United States.’’) In proposing to recognize domestic swine had occurred only in States requires travelers to declare smaller regions within Germany and limited areas of those Member States, whether they have visited agricultural Italy as free of classical swine fever because we had not yet defined the facilities during their international (CSF, which we referred to in the administrative units in those Member travel and recommends procedures for proposed rule as hog cholera), we States that we would use for purposes those who have, such as the disinfection defined the administrative units for of regionalization. When the outbreaks of footwear prior to reentering the purposes of regionalization in those two occurred, France, Spain, and United States. Member States as the kreis for Germany Luxembourg took action to eradicate In our revised risk analysis of and the region for Italy. An CSF. The last affected herds were December 2000, we took into account administrative unit was considered to depopulated in France on April 26, the fact that travelers moving between be the smallest administrative 2002, and in Spain on April 30, 2002. EU Member States are not subject to jurisdiction in the Member State with Because Luxembourg experienced an border restrictions such as those effective oversight of normal animal outbreak in domestic swine in August imposed upon travelers entering or movements into, out of, and within that 2003 and continues to remain under reentering the United States. We jurisdiction, and that, in association restriction by the EU because of CSF in with national authorities, if necessary, feral swine, Luxembourg was not 1 At the bottom of that Web site page, click on has the responsibility for controlling considered for evaluation for CSF-free ‘‘Information previously submitted by Regions animal diseases locally. status at this time. requesting export approval and their supporting documentation.’’ At the next screen, click on the Before developing our proposed rule, Following the elimination of CSF in triangle beside ‘‘European Union—France/Spain/ we prepared a risk analysis to estimate domestic swine in France and Spain, on Swine, swine semen, pork/Classical Swine Fever,’’ the likelihood of introducing CSF from November 24, 2003, we published in the then on the triangle beside ‘‘Response by APHIS.’’

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21044 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

assumed that the EU region would include all of the administrative units pose a significant risk of introducing likely continue to experience occasional affected by the outbreak. CSF into the United States. CSF outbreaks in the future but The commenter also questioned Relevant to this, swine moving concluded that the EU region evaluated France’s strategy for controlling CSF in overland from Eastern Europe into the in the risk analysis had adequate its wild boar population, noting that in EU would be subject to entry surveillance and control programs in zones known to be infected with CSF, requirements at the EU’s eastern borders place to detect and contain them. We all hunting has been prohibited. Based but could then proceed westward to therefore concluded that the risk of on the expectation that the CSF virus Spain without encountering additional importing the CSF virus into the United will develop freely in the wild boar border controls. Therefore, the States via imports of breeding swine, population, this approach seeks to allow possibility that an illegal land shipment pork, pork products, or swine semen natural immunity to develop in the of swine from Eastern Europe may have from the specified EU region under the older animals, while susceptible, young reached Spain should not necessarily be conditions set out in the April 2003 animals die from the disease, thus seen to reflect poorly on Spain’s internal final rule was low. creating an immune population to act as surveillance or movement control The commenter also discussed our a barrier to further CSF spread. The programs. In fact, Spain has actively use of the commune (municipality) as approach differs significantly from that prosecuted cases of illegal swine the administrative unit to be employed of Germany and Luxembourg, both of movement within the country and for regionalization purposes in France. which encourage hunting to eliminate imposed stiff penalties as a deterrent to The commune is the smallest infected animals and use vaccine baits future illegal movement. To ensure administrative unit described in the to establish immunity in the wild boar compliance with EU standards, the assessment and, according to the population. It was suggested by the European Commission (EC) approves commenter, falls under ‘‘only indirect commenter that with no other country and lists border inspection posts in the supervision’’ of the Prefect for the using the French strategy for controlling Annex of Commission Decision 2001/ department (a larger administrative unit CSF in wild boars, we have no historical 881/EC. Furthermore the EC regularly roughly equivalent to several U.S. comparison to determine its likelihood inspects (at least once every 3 years) the counties or a U.S. State) under which it of success. infrastructure, equipment, and working is subsumed. Within each department French officials have been aware for practices of the border inspection posts. The same commenter also referred to there is a Direction Departementale des many years of the risk of the CSF virus Spain’s requirement that new, large Services Veterinaires which serves spreading from infected wild boars to under the direct authority of the Prefect swine facilities be constructed at least 1 domestic swine. France conducts and is responsible for the km from existing large swine facilities. serological surveillance of both wild implementation and enforcement of It is noted by the commenter that the boars and domestic swine in high-risk animal health regulations at the Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y areas. Our 2003 supplemental risk department level. Although the specific Alimentacion, which is the Spanish assessment found that adequate question that the commenter was asking equivalent of the U.S. Department of surveillance programs are in place to was not entirely clear, the commenter Agriculture, intends to extend the detect CSF and to allow for appropriate seemed to be expressing a concern over requirement to existing holdings as responses to ensure that disease spread France’s ability to manage and control well, but that compliance with the is limited. disease at the commune level. present requirement is not discussed in As noted earlier, in our June 1999 The same commenter also discussed the supplemental risk assessment. In the proposed rule, we explained the criteria concerns raised by a CSF outbreak that December 2000 risk assessment, APHIS we use for designating administrative occurred in Spain during the period had determined that CSF spread was units for the purpose of regionalization. from June 2001 to May 2002. Spanish more likely in regions with high swine An administrative unit is the smallest officials believe that the virus might density compared to regions with low administrative jurisdiction that has have entered the country through the swine density, so information on effective oversight of normal animal illegal importation from Eastern Europe producers’ compliance with the existing movements into, out of, and within that of commercial swine for fattening in 1-km requirement could be helpful in jurisdiction, and that, in association Spain. According to the commenter, evaluating the risks of CSF transmission with national authorities, if necessary, while there have been some controls to U.S. swine posed by imports from has the responsibility for controlling instituted for the local movement of Spain. The commenter also noted that animal disease locally. In France, this swine within Spain, no evidence is the 1-km requirement appears only to unit is a commune. During its February provided in the supplemental risk apply to ‘‘large’’ swine farms. APHIS’s 2003 site visit, the APHIS team had the assessment that Spain has instituted 2000 risk assessment did not opportunity to observe the functions of additional controls to prevent future differentiate specifically between the the veterinary authorities at the central, illegal swine importation. risk of CSF transmission associated with regional, and commune levels. Live swine imported into the EU from large farms and that associated with Veterinary surveillance and control third countries are required to be small farms but focused on the risk activities at all these levels appeared to accompanied by an official health associated with overall swine density. be effective. APHIS concluded that certificate issued by the exporting Our 2003 supplemental risk France is able to manage and control country and are subject to inspection at assessment evaluated Spain’s ability to CSF at the commune level and that, for border posts upon entry into the EU. detect, control, and eradicate CSF under the purposes of regionalization, the Spain does not have a land border with the regulations existing at the time. We appropriate administrative unit is the third (i.e., non-EU) countries and is not judged Spain to be equivalent in these commune. directly involved in land border control. areas to the other EU Member States or An outbreak of CSF, however, would Consideration of imports from third regions covered under the December not necessarily be limited to a single countries was included in the previous 2000 revised risk assessment. We view administrative unit. If the zones affected evaluations upon which APHIS based the 1-km distance requirement as a in an outbreak cross administrative its determination that imports from useful mitigation of the risks of CSF borders, the restricted area would designated EU Member States did not transmission posed by high swine

VerDate mar<24>2004 18:06 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21045

density. Requiring a distance of 1 km imported into the United States under categorizes such businesses as small between holdings can help limit spread certain conditions. entities if they do not have more than of the disease from an infected holding. 100 employees.4 We do not know the Effective Date The commenter also expressed size distribution of meat wholesalers, concern over our intention to use the This is a substantive rule that relieves but the 1997 Economic Census (the most comarca as the administrative unit for restrictions and, pursuant to the recent available) indicates that the regionalization purposes. Spain is provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made average number of employees per comprised of 17 autonomous regions, effective less than 30 days after establishment that year was 14.5 each with its own government. The publication in the Federal Register. If a country has had a history of prior autonomous regions are further divided This rule recognizes France and Spain exports of a commodity to the United into provinces, which are comprised of as regions in which CSF does not exist. States, we can turn to that record as an local administrative units called Although restrictions on the importation indicator of import levels that may comarcas. The commenter noted that if of animals and animal products from result from reinstated access to U.S. swine in a comarca were found to be France and Spain may continue because markets. However, APHIS has never positive for CSF, a request could of our concerns about other diseases and before recognized France or Spain as a potentially be made to exclude simply about the movement of products within region in which CSF is not known to that single comarca from the regions the EU prior to export to the United exist. Imports of swine and swine declared free of the disease. States, a number of restrictions due to products from these two EU Member In Spain, APHIS considers the CSF are no longer warranted for imports States have, therefore, been rare.6 In smallest administrative jurisdiction that from these two Member States. order to assess the possible economic has effective oversight of normal animal Therefore, the Administrator of the impacts of this final rule, we must look movements into, out of, and within that Animal and Plant Health Inspection to the swine and swine product exports jurisdiction, and that, in association Service has determined that this rule of France and Spain to other countries with national authorities, if necessary, should be effective upon publication in during a recent year and compare those has the responsibility for controlling the Federal Register. exports to U.S. production and import animal disease locally, to be a comarca. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory levels and patterns. All of the following Our evaluation led us to conclude that Flexibility Act data are for calendar year 2000, and are the necessary veterinary structures exist This rule has been reviewed under considered representative in terms of at the comarca level to allow for the U.S. swine and swine product import implementation of an effective CSF Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for patterns. control plan. France and Spain have been able to The Government of Spain, while the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by carry on trade in swine and swine expressing its satisfaction with the products with other countries, as well as findings of the supplemental risk the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule recognizes France and the rest of the EU, even though they assessment, requested the inclusion in have not been recognized as CSF-free by the text of a more specific description of Spain as free of CSF and allows the APHIS. France and Spain exported the term comarca in order to clarify that importation into the United States of 283,000 head and 1,359,000 head of live the term refers to those geographic pork, pork products, live breeding swine, respectively, to other EU divisions established for animal health swine, and swine semen from France members in 2000, but neither Member purposes. It is our view, however, that and Spain under certain conditions. State exported any live swine outside the description of comarca contained in U.S. entities that may be affected by the EU.7 U.S. imports of live swine that the supplemental risk assessment was this final rule are swine and pork year, which amounted to over 5.7 consistent with our usual practice and producers and pork product million head, all entered from ,8 was adequate for the purposes of that wholesalers. The Small Business document. Administration (SBA) defines small hog except for 602 head from . As noted earlier, in our supplemental and pig farms as those earning not more Regarding pork, France and Spain risk analysis of November 2003, we than $750,000 in annual receipts.2 The exported 366,000 metric tons (MTs) and concluded that the risk of importation of National Agricultural Statistics Service, 4 CSF virus in swine and swine products on the other hand, determines the size NAICS 424420, Packaged frozen food merchant of hog farms based on hog inventories. wholesalers, and NAICS 424470, Meat and meat from France and Spain was low, based product merchant wholesalers. on the demonstrated ability of these two Our analysis has determined that only 5 As reported in the 1997 Economic Census of the Member States to effectively contain those swine operations with inventories U.S. Census Bureau, there were 3,557 meat and CSF outbreaks in domestic swine. In well in excess of 3,000 animals would meat product wholesale establishments that had a total of 50,256 paid employees. this final rule, therefore, we are likely earn more than $750,000 in yearly sales.3 Since over 95 percent of U.S. 6 According to U.S. Bureau of Census data, as recognizing the CSF status of France reported by the World Trade Atlas, over the 10-year and Spain as equivalent to that of the swine operations hold inventories of period 1994–2003, there were no imports of live other EU Member States or regions fewer than 2,000 head, it is clear that swine or swine products from Spain into the United most U.S. swine and pork producers fit States. During this same period, live swine were evaluated in the revised risk analysis of imported from France in 2 of the 10 years: 72 head December 2000. Specifically, we are the SBA’s definition of small entities. Likewise, pork product wholesalers in 1994 (valued at $118,000, 0.16 percent of U.S. adding France and Spain to the lists of swine imports), and 239 head in 1995 ($378,000, CSF-free regions in §§ 94.9 and 94.10. are also mainly small entities. The SBA 0.27 percent of imports). Very small amounts of We are also incorporating France and pork were also imported from France in 2 of the 10 2 North American Industrial Classification System years: In 1995 (valued at $161,786, 0.4 percent of Spain into the larger CSF-free EU region (NAICS) 112210, Hog and pig farming. U.S. pork imports) and in 1997 ($21,678, a designated in § 94.23 as a region from 3 Assuming about a 6-month production cycle, negligible share of imports). which pork, pork products, and live one inventory unit would roughly represent two 7 Live swine and pork export data for France and breeding swine may be imported into annual sale units. An average price of $102 per Spain are from FAS, GAIN Reports #FR0061 and head (230 pounds selling weight, at $44.30 per cwt, #SP1035. the United States under certain the average of hog prices in 2001), implies a gross 8 U.S. live swine and pork import data are from conditions and in § 98.38 as a region revenue of $204 per head of inventory, yielding U.S. Census Bureau, as reported by the World Trade from which swine semen may be $750,000/$204 per head = 3,676 head. Atlas.

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21046 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

345,000 MTs, respectively, to other EU requirements under the Paperwork I 3. In § 94.10, paragraph (a) is revised members. France and Spain also Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 to read as follows: exported 220,000 MTs and 19,000 MTs et seq.). of pork, respectively, to countries § 94.10 Swine from regions where List of Subjects classical swine fever exists. outside the EU. It is reasonable to assume that a portion of these exports, 9 CFR Part 94 (a) Classical swine fever is known to in particular, of the exports to countries exist in all regions of the world except Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Australia; Canada; ; England; outside the EU, may be diverted to the Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry United States upon publication of this ; Finland; Iceland; Isle of Man; the and poultry products, Reporting and Mexican States of Baja California, Baja rule. A principal deciding factor would recordkeeping requirements. California Sur, Chihuahua, and Sinaloa; be U.S. prices relative to those in other New Zealand; Northern Ireland; world markets. However, U.S. import 9 CFR Part 98 Norway; the Republic of Ireland; patterns suggest that it is unlikely that Animal diseases, Imports. Scotland; Sweden; Trust Territory of the any diversions will have a major effect I Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR Pacific Islands; Wales; and a single on U.S. entities. Canada has been our parts 94 and 98 as follows: region in the European Union consisting major foreign supplier of pork, of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany providing 85 percent of imports in 2000. PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND- (except for the Kreis Uckermark in the Denmark, a distant second, supplied 13 MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL Land of Brandenburg; the Kreis percent that same year. Thus, all other PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE Oldenberg, the Kreis Soltau- countries exporting pork to the United DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, Fallingbostel, and the Kreis Vechta in States in 2000 supplied only 2 percent CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, AND the Land of Lower Saxony; the Kreis of U.S. imports. BOVINE SPONGIFORM Heinsberg and the Kreis Warendorf in Total commercial production of pork ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED the Land of Northrhine-Westphalia; the in the United States in 2000 was about AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 8.6 million MTs.9 Total pork imports in Kreis Bernkastel-Wittlich, the Kreis I 2000, which amounted to about 321,000 1. The authority citation for part 94 is Bitburg-Pru¨ m, the Kreis MTs, represented 3.7 percent of U.S. revised to read as follows: Donnersbergkreis, the Kreis Rhein- production. The 2 percent of pork Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and Hunsru¨ che, the Kreis Su¨ dliche imports not supplied by Canada or 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 Weinstrasse, and the Kreis Trier- Denmark represented about 0.07 percent U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. Saarburg in the Land of Rhineland of U.S. production. Even if sizable I 2. In § 94.9, paragraph (a) is revised to Palatinate; and the Kreis Altmarkkreis shares of pork exports by France or read as follows: in the Land of Saxony-Anhalt), Greece, Spain were to be sent to the United Italy (except for the Regions of Emilia- § 94.9 Pork and pork products from Romagna, Piemonte, and Sardegna), the States as a result of this final rule, the regions where classical swine fever exists. impact for U.S. entities would be small. Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. No It is unlikely that this rule will result (a) Classical swine fever is known to swine that are moved from or transit any in swine or swine product imports from exist in all regions of the world except region where classical swine fever is France or Spain of any consequence, Australia; Canada; Denmark; England; known to exist may be imported into the based on these representative statistics Fiji; Finland; Iceland; Isle of Man; the United States, except for wild swine from 2000. We conclude that while the Mexican States of Baja California, Baja imported into the United States in majority of U.S. enterprises that may be California Sur, Chihuahua, and Sinaloa; accordance with paragraph (b) of this affected by swine and swine product New Zealand; Northern Ireland; section. imports from those two Member States Norway; the Republic of Ireland; * * * * * are small entities, impacts will be Scotland; Sweden; Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; Wales; and a single § 94.23 [Amended] minor. I Under these circumstances, the region in the European Union consisting 4. In § 94.23, the introductory text is Administrator of the Animal and Plant of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany amended by adding the word ‘‘France,’’ Health Inspection Service has (except for the Kreis Uckermark in the after the word ‘‘Belgium,’’ and by determined that this action will not Land of Brandenburg; the Kreis removing the words ‘‘and Portugal’’ and have a significant economic impact on Oldenberg, the Kreis Soltau- adding the words ‘‘Portugal, and Spain’’ a substantial number of small entities. Fallingbostel, and the Kreis Vechta in in their place. the Land of Lower Saxony; the Kreis Executive Order 12988 Heinsberg and the Kreis Warendorf in PART 98—IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMAL EMBRYOS AND ANIMAL This final rule has been reviewed the Land of Northrhine-Westphalia; the SEMEN under Executive Order 12988, Civil Kreis Bernkastel-Wittlich, the Kreis Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts Bitburg-Pru¨ m, the Kreis I 5. The authority citation for part 98 all State and local laws and regulations Donnersbergkreis, the Kreis Rhein- continues to read as follows: Hunsru¨ che, the Kreis Su¨ dliche that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301–8317; has no retroactive effect; and (3) does Weinstrasse, and the Kreis Trier- Saarburg in the Land of Rhineland 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 not require administrative proceedings CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. before parties may file suit in court Palatinate; and the Kreis Altmarkkreis challenging this rule. in the Land of Saxony-Anhalt), Greece, § 98.38 [Amended] Italy (except for the Regions of Emilia- I 6. In § 98.38, the introductory text is Paperwork Reduction Act Romagna, Piemonte, and Sardegna), the amended by adding the word ‘‘France,’’ This final rule contains no new Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain.10 after the word ‘‘Belgium,’’ and by information collection or recordkeeping * * * * * removing the words ‘‘and Portugal’’ and

9 Agricultural Statistics 2003, Table 7–66, 10See also other provisions of this part and parts title for other prohibitions and restrictions upon converted from million pounds. 93, 95, and 96 of this chapter and part 327 of this importation of swine and swine products.

VerDate mar<24>2004 18:06 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21047

adding the words ‘‘Portugal, and Spain’’ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June retail store, the warehouse is a private in their place. 25, 2003, FSIS published a document warehouse and is not required to Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of that announced the need for certain register with FSIS. However, if the April, 2004 . businesses to complete a new warehouse stores any meat or poultry Kevin Shea, registration form that the Agency had products that are not owned by the developed, and that explained the retail store that owns the warehouse, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. importance of compliance with that warehouse would be considered a recordkeeping and registration public warehouse and would be [FR Doc. 04–8893 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] requirements in the Federal meat and required to register with FSIS. For BILLING CODE 3410–34–P poultry products inspection regulations example, if a retail store has consigned (68 FR 37730). meat or poultry products to a hotel, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE As explained in that document, the restaurant, institution, or other retailer, Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and and the product is stored in the Food Safety and Inspection Service Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) warehouse owned by the retail store, the prohibit any person, firm, or corporation warehouse is functioning as a public 9 CFR Part 320 and 381 from engaging in commerce as a meat or warehouse, because the retail store no poultry products broker, renderer, longer owns the products, and would be [Docket No. 01–034E] animal food manufacturer, wholesaler of required to register. any carcasses, or parts or products of the As explained in the June 25, 2003, Need To Complete New Registration carcasses of livestock (that is, cattle, document, registration information, Form sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or along with business records, is critical AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection other equines) or poultry, or public in any FSIS investigation related to Service, USDA. warehouseman storing any such articles public health, food safety, or ACTION: Extension of date by which in or for commerce, or from buying, misbranding of meat or poultry products businesses required to register with selling, or transporting, or importing (68 FR 37730). Registration information FSIS must do so. any dead, dying, disabled or diseased and business records are crucial in livestock or poultry or parts of the tracing sources of foodborne disease SUMMARY: The Food Safety and carcasses of livestock or poultry that associated with consumption of meat or Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing died otherwise than by slaughter, unless poultry products and in tracing the that all parties required to register with they have registered their business as sources of contamination of meat or the Agency, including those that are required by the regulations, 9 CFR 320.5 poultry products. Registration currently registered, have until May 24, and 381.179 (see section 203 of the information and business records are 2004, to file the new registration form FMIA (21 U.S.C. 643) and section 11(c) also crucial in preventing the spread of that the Agency has developed. On June of the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 460(c)). Sections disease associated with the 25, 2003, FSIS announced that it had 320.5(c) and 381.179(c) of 9 CFR consumption of meat or poultry developed the new registration form, provide that the registration products. and that all businesses required to requirements do not apply to persons According to §§ 320.5(a) and register with FSIS were to submit the that conduct any of the businesses listed 381.179(a) of the regulations, parties form by March 22, 2004. FSIS is above only at an official establishment. required to register with FSIS must do extending the deadline for submitting Therefore, official establishments are so by filing a form with the Agency. the new registration form because it was not required to register with FSIS. These regulations require parties to not available at the time FSIS projected Following publication of the June 25, register within 90 days after they begin that it would be available. This 2003, document, a retail association to engage in any of the businesses that document addresses issues that have contacted FSIS and asked whether require them to register. Sections arisen concerning the registration retailers are required to register with 320.5(b) and 381.179(b) of the requirement. FSIS, and whether warehouses and regulations require that, whenever any distribution centers owned by retail change is made in the registrant’s name, DATES: All parties required to register stores are required to register with FSIS. business address, or any trade or with FSIS, including those currently The Agency advises that retail stores business name under which it conducts registered, must complete the new that sell meat or poultry products to its business, the registrant must report registration form and submit it to FSIS household consumers only are not such change in writing to the by May 24, 2004. required to register with FSIS. However, Administrator within 15 days after ADDRESSES: The new registration form if they sell meat or poultry products to making the change. (FSIS Form 5020–1) is available over the hotels, restaurants, institutions, or other As explained in the June 25, 2003, Internet at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ retailers, they are wholesalers of such document, FSIS has developed a new fsisforms. To obtain a copy of the products and thus are subject to the registration form. Because the form asks registration form, parties may also write registration requirement. for certain information that was not to USDA, FSIS, Program Evaluation, With regard to warehouses and to included on the previous form, Enforcement and Review (PEER), distribution centers that store product including an e-mail address, phone Evaluation and Enforcement Division and thus function as warehouses, the number, and subsidiaries’ hours of (EED), 300 West End Court Building, statutes and regulations require that operation, all parties required to 1255 22nd Street, NW., Room 300, public warehouses register with FSIS register, including those that are Washington, DC 20250–3700. but do not require that private currently registered, need to complete FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. warehouses register. Whether a the new form and submit it to FSIS. Arshad Hussain, Division Director, Data warehouse is considered public or Parties must submit the form to FSIS by Analysis and Statistical Support Staff, private turns on several factors. If a May 24, 2004. Food Safety and Inspection Service, warehouse is owned by a retail store FSIS previously announced that U.S. Department of Agriculture (202) and stores only meat and poultry parties were required to submit the form 720–3219. products that are the property of that by March 22, 2004. FSIS is extending

VerDate mar<24>2004 18:06 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21048 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

the deadline for submitting the new both a trace back and a trace forward in whether this increased enforcement by registration form to FSIS because the the event of a food emergency. Finally, FSIS would cause time delays and form did not become available when the commenter recommended that FSIS potential increases in costs at port of FSIS projected it would. The Office of work with the Animal and Plant Health entry for exporters who endeavor to Management and Budget (OMB) Inspection Service (APHIS) to assure comply with registration requirements. reviewed information collection that the strongest possible cattle The government also wanted associated with the registration form in identification system is in place so that assurance that that country’s export accordance with the Paperwork animals can be traced back to their establishments would be allowed to Reduction Act. On February 20, 2004, source as quickly as possible. maintain rendering facilities associated the Office of Management and Budget FSIS believes that existing registration with their slaughtering premises and (OMB) approved information collection and recordkeeping requirements are asked specific questions concerning the associated with the new registration adequate to conduct both a trace back registration of the country’s rendering form (OMB control No. 0583–0218). and a trace forward in the event of a facilities. The government also asked The registration form (FSIS Form food emergency. With regard to a cattle whether transport companies and other 5020–1) can be obtained over the identification system, on December 30, handlers of dead, dying, diseased, or Internet at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ 2003, Agriculture Secretary Veneman disabled stock, other than the final fsisforms. announced that USDA will begin handler (or exporter) of the product To obtain the form, parties can also implementation of a verifiable system of need to comply with FSIS registration write to USDA, FSIS, Program national animal identification. and recordkeeping requirements. Evaluation, Enforcement and Review The consumer organization also Even though FSIS has developed a (PEER), Evaluation and Enforcement recommended additional measures, new registration form that requires that Division (EED), 300 West End Court other than those concerning registration parties provide certain information that Building, 1255 22nd Street, NW., Room and recordkeeping, that FSIS should was not required on the previous form, 300, Washington, DC 20250–3700. The take to assure that the public is FSIS did not impose any substantive form will also be available from FSIS protected if Bovine Spongiform new registration requirements or any personnel that visit businesses required Encephalopathy (BSE) is ever new recordkeeping requirements in the to register. Once parties complete the discovered in the U.S. The commenter June 25, 2003, document. The form, they should mail it to USDA, stated that the additional measures requirement that U.S. companies submit FSIS, Program Evaluation, Enforcement could include designation of certain the new registration form will not result and Review (PEER), Evaluation and tissues from all downer cattle and cattle in a trade barrier. Enforcement Division (EED), 300 West over 24 months as Specified Risk For companies in foreign countries to End Court Building, 1255 22nd Street, Material (SRM) and banning vertebral be eligible to export to the U.S. product NW., Room 300, Washington, DC columns and other potentially from livestock covered by the FMIA, the 20250–3700 (the same address as for infectious tissues in advanced meat foreign country must have requirements obtaining forms) or fax it to Director, recovery (AMR) systems. equivalent to those in the Federal Meat Evaluation and Enforcement Division On January 12, 2004, FSIS published Inspection Act and the Federal meat (EED) at (202) 418–8941. three interim final rules in response to inspection regulations that apply to FSIS intends to issue instructions to the discovery of a BSE-positive cow in establishments preparing product for FSIS personnel concerning the this country. These rules include export to the U.S. (§ 327.2). Therefore, registration requirement. provisions that are consistent with the the government that commented should consumer organization’s comments (69 have existing registration and Comments FR 1862, 1874, and 1885). recordkeeping requirements that are FSIS received two comments in The government of the foreign equivalent to those in the FMIA and response to the June 25, 2003, document country wanted assurances that Federal meat inspection regulations on recordkeeping and registration, one registration and recordkeeping measures with which businesses in that country from a consumer organization and one applied to products exported to the must comply. The June 25, 2003, from the government of a foreign United States are not more trade statement did not affect the equivalency country that is eligible to export to the restrictive than necessary to meet requirements in § 327.2 or the meat United States (U.S.) product from objectives; are based on sound risk inspection requirements of the foreign livestock covered by the FMIA. assessments that address real risks; country. The consumer group stated that FSIS focus on outcomes rather than should require additional registration prescribing specific measures to achieve Additional Public Notification information, such as the specific types them; allow for the application of Public awareness of all segments of of animals slaughtered and animal equivalence in achieving objectives; and rulemaking and policy development is products processed, transported, or avoid arbitrary or unjustifiable important. Consequently, in an effort to handled; whether the registrant operates differences in the level of protection better ensure that the public and in on a seasonal basis, and if so, the hours applied in different situations. That particular that minorities, women, and of operation; whether the types of government also wanted assurances that persons with disabilities are aware of animals slaughtered, processed or the increased enforcement of this notice, FSIS will announce it on- transported change depending on the registration and recordkeeping line through the FSIS Web page located season; and the name and telephone requirements and changes to current at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. number of a contact person in the event registration data will meet the U.S FSIS also will make copies of this of an emergency, particularly during Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Federal Register publication available non-working hours. This commenter agreement and the U.S. Technical through the FSIS Constituent Update, also recommended that FSIS re-examine Barriers to Trade agreement. In addition, which is used to provide information the existing regulatory recordkeeping the government asked for clarification regarding FSIS policies, procedures, requirements to assure that the type and on the timing of FSIS’s increased regulations, Federal Register notices, form of the records required to be kept enforcement of registration and FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other would be sufficient for FSIS to conduct recordkeeping requirements and asked types of information that could affect or

VerDate mar<24>2004 18:06 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21049

would be of interest to our constituents • By e-mail: 9-ane- ECi MSB S.I. No. 04–1, Revision 1, and stakeholders. The update is [email protected]. dated March 11, 2004, that describe communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail You can get the service information procedures for identifying, inspecting, subscription service consisting of referenced in this AD from Engine and replacing affected cylinders. industry, trade, and farm groups, Components, Inc., 9503 Middlex, San Differences Between This AD and the consumer interest groups, allied health Antonio, TX 78217; Phone (210) 820– Service Information professionals, scientific professionals, 8100; fax (210) 820–3103. and other individuals who have You may examine the AD docket at RAM Aircraft MSB MSB2003–02, requested to be included. The update is the FAA, New England Region, Office of dated August 8, 2003, requires replacing also available on the FSIS Web page. the Regional Counsel, 12 New England only the No. 6 cylinder, ECi P/N Through Listserv and the web page, Executive Park, Burlington, MA. AEC631397, on RAM Series III, IV, and FSIS is able to provide information to a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred VII engines. ECi MSB S.I. No. 04–1, much broader, more diverse audience. Stellar, Branch Manager, Special Revision 1, dated March 11, 2004, requires identifying the suspect Done in Washington, DC, on April 15, Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft 2004. Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort cylinders on TCM models 520 and 550 engines and inspecting them for cracks. Linda M. Swacina, Worth, TX 76193; telephone (817) 222– 5199; fax (817) 222–5785. This AD requires replacing all cylinders, Deputy Administrator. ECi P/N AEC631397, on all RAM Series SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 04–8948 Filed 4–15–04; 4:15 pm] On III, IV, and VII engines; a\nd all TCM BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P February 1, 2003, we received a report model 520, and 550 series engines. of an ECi cylinder head, part number (P/ N) AEC65385, that separated from the FAA’s Determination and Requirements DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION barrel at the head-to-barrel junction. of This AD Since that report, we have received The unsafe condition described Federal Aviation Administration reports of 27 additional ECi cylinder previously is likely to exist or develop heads that had the same condition. We on other RAM Series III, IV, and VII 14 CFR Part 39 also received reports of six cylinder engines; and TCM model 520, and 550 heads that had a crack between the 9th series engines of the same type design. [Docket No. 2004–NE–07–AD; Amendment and 10th head fin from the head-to- 39–13579; AD 2004–08–10] We are issuing this AD to prevent loss barrel junction. All of the reported of engine power due to cracks in the RIN 2120–AA64 separations and cracks were located cylinder head and possible engine between the ninth and tenth head fin failure caused by separation of a Airworthiness Directives; Engine from the head-to-barrel junction. All of cylinder head. This AD requires: Components Incorporated (ECi) the cracks started on the exhaust side of • Performing a check to identify Reciprocating Engine Cylinders the head. The ECi cylinder head, P/N cylinders, ECi P/N AEC631397, S/Ns AEC65385, is part of ECi cylinder, P/N AGENCY: Federal Aviation 1044 through 7708, within 50 hours AEC631397. RAM Series III, IV, and VII Administration (FAA), DOT. time-in-service after the effective date of reciprocating engines are the primary this AD. and ACTION: Final rule; request for users of these cylinders. The RAM series • If a cylinder has an affected P/N comments. engines are TCM TSIO–520–NB, –VB, and SN, replacing the cylinder before SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new and –WB engines that are modified by further flight if it was not inspected at airworthiness directive (AD) for supplemental type certificate (STC) ECi. Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) SE4327SW, STC SE09104SC, or STC SE09261SC for operation at 325 HP or FAA’s Determination of the Effective models 520 and 550 series engines with Date certain ECi cylinders installed. This AD greater. In addition, we approved the requires replacing certain serial- engine cylinders, ECi P/N AEC631397 Since an unsafe condition exists that numbered (SN) cylinders supplied by for use on TCM models 520 and 550 requires the immediate adoption of this ECi before further flight. This AD results series reciprocating engines under a AD, we have found that notice and from reports of 34 failures of cylinder Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA). opportunity for public comment before heads marketed by ECi. We are issuing The Airmotive Engine Division of ECi issuing this AD are impracticable, and this AD to prevent loss of engine power holds the PMA. ECi markets the parts as that good cause exists for making this due to cracks in the cylinder head and ECi parts. amendment effective in less than 30 days. possible engine failure caused by Results of Manufacturer’s Investigation separation of a cylinder head. An investigation by ECi revealed that Comments Invited DATES: This AD becomes effective May cylinder heads, P/N AEC65385, This AD is a final rule that involves 5, 2004. manufactured between September 1, requirements affecting flight safety and We must receive any comments on 2002, and May 12, 2003, SNs 1044 was not preceded by notice and an this AD by June 21, 2004. through 7708, are susceptible to an over- opportunity for public comment; ADDRESSES: Use one of the following hardened condition, which reduces the however, we invite you to submit any addresses to submit comments on this fatigue strength of the cylinder. It also written relevant data, views, or AD: increases the chance that the cylinder arguments regarding this AD. Send your • By mail: The Federal Aviation will crack. comments to an address listed under Administration (FAA), New England ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘AD Docket No. Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Relevant Service Information 2004–NE–07–AD’’ in the subject line of Attention: Rules Docket No. 2004–NE– We reviewed and approved the your comments. If you want us to 07–AD, 12 New England Executive Park, technical contents of RAM Aircraft acknowledge receipt of your mailed Burlington, MA 01803–5299. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) comments, send us a self-addressed, • By fax: (781) 238–7055. MSB2003–02, dated August 8, 2003, and stamped postcard with the docket

VerDate mar<24>2004 18:06 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21050 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

number written on it; we will date- Adoption of the Amendment TABLE 1.—LIST OF AIRPLANES THAT stamp your postcard and mail it back to I Accordingly, under the authority USE THE AFFECTED ENGINES—Con- you. We specifically invite comments delegated to me by the Administrator, tinued on the overall regulatory, economic, the Federal Aviation Administration environmental, and energy aspects of amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Airplane manufacturer and the rule that might suggest a need to model Engine model Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: modify it. If a person contacts us 58TC ...... TSIO–520–WB verbally, and that contact relates to a PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS substantive part of this AD, we will BEECHCRAFT BONANZA: DIRECTIVES A36 ...... IO–550–B summarize the contact and place the E33A ...... IO–520–BA I summary in the docket. We will 1. The authority citation for part 39 E33A ...... IO–520–BB consider all comments received by the continues to read as follows: E33B ...... IO–520–B closing date and may amend the AD in Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. F33 ...... IO–520–BB light of those comments. F33A ...... IO–520–B We are reviewing the writing style we § 39.13 [Amended] F33A ...... IO–520–BA currently use in regulatory documents. I 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding F33A ...... IO–520–BB the following new airworthiness S35 ...... IO–520–B We are interested in your comments on ST35 ...... TSIO–520–D whether the style of this document is directive: V35 ...... IO–520–BB clear, and your suggestions to improve 2004–08–10 Engine Components V35A ...... IO–520–B the clarity of our communications with Incorporated (ECi): Amendment 39– V35A–TC ...... TSIO–520–D you. You can get more information 13579. Docket No. 2004–NE–07–AD. V35B ...... IO–520–B about plain language at http:// V35B ...... IO–520–BA Effective Date www.faa.gov/language and http:// V35B ...... IO–520–BB www.plainlanguage.gov. (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) A36 ...... IO–520–B becomes effective May 5, 2004. A36 ...... IO–520–BA Examining the AD Docket A36 ...... IO–520–BB Affected ADs A36–TC ...... TSIO–520–UB You may examine the AD Docket (b) None. BEECHCRAFT DEBO- IO–520–B (including any comments and service Applicability NAIR: C33A. information), by appointment, between VIKING 300 ...... IO–520–A 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday (c) This AD applies to Teledyne IO–520–D Continental Motors (TCM) TSIO–520–NB, IO–520–K through Friday, except Federal holidays. –VB, and –WB engines that are modified by See ADDRESSES for the location. BONNAIRE 185 ...... IO–520–D supplemental type certificate (STC) BONNAIRE 188 CONVER- IO–520–D Regulatory Findings SE4327SW, STC SE09104SC, or STC SION. SE09261SC for operation at 325 HP or BURNS BA42 ...... IO–520–D We have determined that this AD will greater, (the so-called RAM TSIO–520–NB, CESSNA: not have federalism implications under –VB, or –WB Series III, IV, and VII SUPER SKYLANE A, B, IO–520–A Executive Order 13132. This AD will reciprocating engines; and Teledyne C, D, E. Continental Motors (TCM) model 520 and not have a substantial direct effect on TURBO SUPER TSIO–520–C 550 series reciprocating engines with certain SKYLANE. the States, on the relationship between ECi reciprocating engine cylinders, part the national Government and the States, SKYWAGON A185 E,F .. IO–520–D number (P/N) AEC631397, installed. These SKYWAGON A185FII .... IO–520–D or on the distribution of power and engines are installed on, but not limited to AG SPRAYER 188–300 IO–520–D responsibilities among the various the airplanes listed in the following Table 1: A188–230 ...... IO–520–D levels of government. AG TRUCK (A 188B) IO–520–D For the reasons discussed above, I TABLE 1.—LIST OF AIRPLANES THAT –300. certify that the regulation: USE THE AFFECTED ENGINES AG HUSKEY (A 188C) TSIO–520–T –310. ‘‘ 1. Is not a significant regulatory Airplane manufacturer and AG WAGON (A 188B) ... IO–520–D action’’ under Executive Order 12866; model Engine model SUPER SKYWAGON IO–520–A 2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the U206, A. DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures AERFER/AERMECCHI GTSIO–520–C U206B, C, D, E, F ...... IO–520–F (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and AM, 3. TURBO SKYWAGON IO–520–C AERO COMMANDER: TU206 A. 3. Will not have a significant 200D ...... IO–520–A TU206B, C, D, E, F ...... TSIO–520–C economic impact, positive or negative, 500A COLEMILL CON- IO–520–E STATIONAIR U206 ...... IO–520–F on a substantial number of small entities VERSION. TU206 ...... TIOS–520–C under the criteria of the Regulatory 685 ...... GTSIO–520–K U206FII–300 ...... IO–520–F Flexibility Act. AISA: F20, PEGASO ...... IO–520–K U206G–300 ...... IO–520–F AMBROSIN MF–151 ...... IO–520–F U206GII–300 ...... IO–520–L We prepared a summary of the costs AVIONES PIHAO ...... IO–520–D TU206G–310 ...... TSIO–520–M to comply with this AD and placed it in BEAGLE (U.K.): B206S ..... GTSIO–520–C SUPER SKYLANE IO–520–A the AD Docket. You may get a copy of BEECHCRAFT BARON: P206A. this summary by sending a request to us C55 ...... IO–520–CB, –C P206B, C, D, E ...... IO–520–A at the address listed under ADDRESSES. D55 ...... IO–520–CB, –C TURBO P 206 A, B, C, TSIO–520–C Include ‘‘AD Docket No. 2004–NE–07– E55 ...... IO–520–CB, –C D, E. AD’’ in your request. 58 ...... IO–520–CB SKYWAGON 207 ...... IO–520–F 58P ...... TSIO–520–LB TURBO 207 ...... TSIO–520–G List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 58P ...... TSIO–520–L STATIONAIR 207A, IO–520–F 58P ...... TSIO–520–WB 207AII. Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 58TC ...... TSIO–520–LB STATIONAIR 8, 811 ...... IO–520–F safety, Safety. 58TC ...... TSIO–520–L T–STATIONAIR 811 ...... TSIO–520–M

VerDate mar<24>2004 18:06 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21051

TABLE 1.—LIST OF AIRPLANES THAT TABLE 1.—LIST OF AIRPLANES THAT Unsafe Condition USE THE AFFECTED ENGINES—Con- USE THE AFFECTED ENGINES—Con- (d) This AD results from reports of 34 tinued tinued failures of ECi cylinder head. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of engine power due Airplane manufacturer and to cracks in the cylinder head and possible Airplane manufacturer and Engine model Engine model model model engine failure caused by separation of a cylinder head. 210 CENTURION D, E, IO–520–A EXECUTIVE SKYNIGHT TSIO–520–B F, G, H. D, E, F. Compliance 210 CENTURION J ...... IO–520–J 335 ...... TSIO–520–EB (e) You are responsible for having the 340 ...... TSIO–520–K 210 CENTURION K, L, IO–520–L actions required by this AD performed within M, N, R. 340A ...... TSIO–520–NB, –N the compliance times specified unless the 210 CENTURION TSIO–520–C actions have already been done. TURBO. 401 A, 401 B ...... TSIO–520–E 402 A, 402 B ...... TSIO–520–E 210 CENTURION TSIO–520–H Identifying Suspect Cylinders 402C ...... TSIO–520–VB TURBO. 404 TITAN ...... GTSIO–520–M (f) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) 210 CENTURION TSIO–520–H 411, 411A ...... GTSIO–520–C after the effective date of this AD, identify, TURBO K, L. 414 ...... TSIO–520–J and if necessary replace cylinders, ECi P/N TURBO 210 J, K, L ...... TSIO–520–H 414, 414 A ...... TSIO–520–NB, AEC631397 as follows: TURBO 210 MII, NII ...... TSIO–520–R –N (1) Identify the cylinder serial number (SN) TURBO 210R ...... TSIO–520–R 421A ...... GTSIO–520–D as follows: PRESSURIZED CENTU- TSIO–520–P 421B ...... GTSIO–520–H RION P210N. 421C ...... GTSIO–520–L (i) Determine the SN of the cylinder by PRESSURIZED CENTU- TSIO–520–AF 421C ...... GTSIO–520–N looking in the engine records or by RION P210NII. JANOX JAVILON ...... IO–520–B inspecting the cylinder for a SN on the intake PRESSURIZED CENTU- TSIO–520–CE NAVION: port boss (see Figure 1) or on the flat area RION P210R. RANGEMASTER IO–520–B next to the head to barrel junction (see Figure T303 CRUSADER ...... TSIO–520–AE MODEL H. 2). Disregard any dash numbers that might T303 CRUSADER ...... LTSIO–520–AE RANGEMASTER IO–520–BA follow the four digit SN. 310R ...... IO–520–MB MODEL H. 310R ...... IO–520–M PIPER: MALIBU ...... TSIO–520–BE : TURBO 310 P, Q ...... TSIO–520–B HERON IO–520–E TURBO 310 R ...... TSIO–520–BB WINDECKER EAGLE .... IO–520–C TURBO 310 R ...... TSIO–520–B

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 ER20AP04.002 21052 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) If the SN is 1043 or lower, or if it is (i) Remove the rocker box cover from the (iii) If the casting has AEC65385, and an 7709 or higher, no further action is required. cylinder. ‘‘O’’ under the ECi logo, the cylinder is P/N (2) If the cylinder SN is 1044 through 7708, (ii) Look at the left-front cylinder casting. AEC631397. See Figure 3. do the following:

(iv) If the cylinder is not ECi P/N (3) If the cylinder is ECi P/N AEC631397, (i) Look at the flange of the rocker box. AEC631397, no further action is required. do the following:

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 ER20AP04.003 ER20AP04.004 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21053

(ii) If there is a letter ‘‘A,’’ ‘‘B,’’ or ‘‘X’’ stamped on the flange of the rocker box, no further action is required. See Figure 4.

(iii) If there is no letter ‘‘A,’’ ‘‘B,’’ or ‘‘X’’ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION fulfilling their training requirements for stamped on the flange of the rocker box, high altitude release bombing. replace the cylinder before further flight. Federal Aviation Administration DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, June Alternative Methods of Compliance 10, 2004. 14 CFR Part 73 (g) The Manager, Special Certification FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office, has the authority to approve [Docket No. FAA–2003–16438; Airspace Steve Rohring, Airspace and Rules, alternative methods of compliance for this Docket No. 03–ASW–02] Office of System Operations and Safety, ATO–R, Federal Aviation AD if requested using the procedures found RIN 2120–AA66 in 14 CFR 39.19. Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; Material Incorporated by Reference Modification of Restricted Areas 3801A, 3801B, and 3801C, Camp telephone: (202) 267–8783. (h) None. Claiborne, LA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Related Information AGENCY: Federal Aviation Background (i) ECi Mandatory Service Bulletin S.I. No. Administration (FAA), DOT. On January 6, 2004, the FAA 04–1, revision 1, dated March 11, 2004, also ACTION: Final rule. proposed to revise R–3801A, R–3801B, pertains to this subject of this AD. and R–3801C, Camp Claiborne, LA, and Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on SUMMARY: This action revises Restricted change the controlling agency to assist April 9, 2004. Area’s 3801A (R–3801A), 3801B (R– the USAF in meeting new USAF Francis A. Favara, 3801B), and 3801C (R–3801C), Camp training requirements for high altitude Claiborne, LA. This action responds to Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller release bombing (69 FR 552). Interested Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. a request from the United States Air parties were invited to participate in Force (USAF) to eliminate the area this rulemaking proceeding by [FR Doc. 04–8877 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] currently designated as R–3801A; submitting written comments on this BILLING CODE 4910–13–P expand the vertical limits of the areas proposal to the FAA. In response to the currently designated as R–3801B and R– proposal, the FAA received two 3801C; and reconfigure R–3801B and R– comments. The comments and our 3801C into a new R–3801A, R–3801B, responses are discussed below. and R–3801C. Additionally, this action In response to the proposal, the changes the controlling agency for R– Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 3801A, B, and C from the FAA, Houston (AOPA) supports the elimination of the Air Route Traffic Control Center current R–3801A, but expressed concern (ARTCC) to the U.S. Army, Fort Polk that raising the ceiling of R–3801B and Approach Control. The FAA is taking R–3801C would reduce the availability this action to assist the USAF in of Federal Airway 212 (V–212) for use

VerDate mar<24>2004 18:06 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 ER20AP04.005 21054 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

by non-participating aircraft. We higher altitudes than are currently List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 acknowledge AOPA’s concern; however, available within the existing airspace Airspace, Navigation (air), Prohibited we believe that raising the ceiling of R– areas. Additionally, the USAF has Areas, and Restricted Areas. 3801B and R–3801C will have minimal requested that the FAA take action to impact on aircraft operations because R– change the controlling agency of R– The Adoption of the Amendment 3801C will only be activated when the 3801A, R–3801B, and R–3801C from the I In consideration of the foregoing, the Warrior 1 High and Low MOAs are FAA, Houston ARTCC to the U.S. Army, Federal Aviation Administration will active. Currently, we route non- Fort Polk Approach Control. amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows: participating aircraft around the Warrior Section 73.38 of part 73 of the Federal 1 High and Low MOAs when they are Aviation Regulations was republished PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE active. V–212 also passes through the in FAA Order 7400.8L dated October 7, Warrior 1 High and Low MOAs, which 2003. I 1. The authority citation for part 73 are adjacent to and much larger than R– The FAA has determined that this continues to read as follows: 3801B and R–3801C. Any additional proposed regulation only involves an Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, vectors around the new R–3801B and R– established body of technical 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 3801C should have a minimal impact. regulations for which frequent and 1963 Comp., p. 389. Another commenter expressed routine amendments are necessary to § 73.38 (Amended) concern regarding changing the keep them operationally current. controlling agency to the U.S. Army, Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) I 2. § 73.38 is amended as follows: Fort Polk Approach Control because the Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ * * * * * altitudes of the revised R–3801B and R– under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not R–3801A Camp Claiborne, LA 3801C will extend above the current a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT (Amended) ceiling (10,000 feet MSL) of the Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 delegated Fort Polk Approach Control FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) By removing the current boundaries, area. We agree with this commenter that does not warrant preparation of a designated altitudes, and controlling some of the altitudes in question are regulatory evaluation as the anticipated agency, and substituting the following: above the approach control delegated impact is so minimal. Since this is a Boundaries. Beginning at lat. airspace. However, coincidental with routine matter that will only affect air 31°11′46″ N., long. 92°30′16″ W.; to lat. this action there will be new agreements traffic procedures and air navigation, it 31°05′16″ N., long. 92°34′51″ W.; to lat. between Houston ARTCC and Fort Polk is certified that this rule, when 31°13′56″ N., long. 92°49′46″ W.; to lat. Approach Control, delegating the promulgated, will not have a significant 31°18′01″ N., long. 92°46′31″ W.; to lat. control of the altitudes/airspace economic impact on a substantial 31°15′16″ N., long. 92°41′46″ W.; to lat. contained in the new R–3801B and R– 31°17′11″ N., long. 92°40′11″ W.; to the 3801C to the Fort Polk Approach number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. point of beginning. Control when the restricted areas are Designated altitudes. Surface to, but active. Environmental Review not including, 10,000 feet MSL. The Rule The USAF analyzed the potential Controlling agency. U.S. Army, Fort As a result of new USAF training environmental impacts of the proposed Polk Approach Control. requirements, the FAA is amending action in an Environmental Assessment * * * * * Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 (EA) dated December 2000. Based on the EA, the Air Force concludes that the R–3801B Camp Claiborne, LA CFR) part 73 (part 73) by revising R– (Amended) 3801A, R–3801B, and R–3801C at Camp proposed action will not produce Claiborne, LA. This amendment significant impacts, either by itself or By removing the current boundaries, responds to a USAF request that the through cumulative effects of past, designated altitudes, and controlling FAA take action to eliminate the area present, or reasonably foreseeable agency and substituting the following: currently designated as R–3801A, which actions. Further, the Air Force Boundaries. Beginning at lat. is to become the new Claiborne Military determined that the proposed action 31°11′46″ N., long. 92°30′16″ W.; to lat. Operations Area by a separate but does not require preparation of an 31°05′16″ N., long. 92°34′51″ W.; to lat. concurrent, non-rulemaking action. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 31°13′56″ N., long. 92°49′46″ W.; to lat. amendment also responds to a USAF The Air Force issued a Finding of No 31°18′01″ N., long. 92°46′31″ W.; to lat. request to expand the vertical limits of Significant Impact (FONSI) dated May 31°15′16″ N., long. 92°41′46″ W.; to lat. the areas currently designated as R– 9, 2001. 31°17′11″ N., long. 92°40′11″ W.; to the 3801B and R–3801C from 14,000 feet The FAA has conducted an point of beginning. MSL to FL 230 and reconfigure R–3801B independent review of the Air Force’s Designated altitudes. 10,000 feet MSL and R–3801C into a new R–3801A, R– EA in accordance with FAA Order to, but not including, FL 180. 3801B, and R–3801C. The overall lateral 1050.1D and the FAA/DOD Controlling agency. U.S. Army, Fort boundaries of the new R–3801A, R– Memorandum of Understanding of 1998 Polk Approach Control. 3801B, and R–3801C are the same as the regarding Special Use Airspace Actions. * * * * * overall boundaries of the current R– After careful review and thorough 3801B and R–3801C. The altitude consideration of the proposal, the FAA R–3801C Camp Claiborne, LA structure for the revised airspace areas has determined that the Federal action (Amended) are from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL is consistent with existing national By removing the current boundaries, to FL180 for R–3801B; and FL180 to environmental policies and objectives as designated altitudes, and controlling FL230 for R–3801C. The additional set forth in Section 101(a) of the agency and substituting the following: airspace is required to fulfill new USAF National Environmental Policies Act of Boundaries. Beginning at lat. training requirements. Specifically, the 1969 (NEPA) and that it will not 31°11′46″ N., long. 92°30′16″ W.; to lat. new training requirements call for significantly effect the quality of the 31°05′16″ N., long. 92°34′51″ W.; to lat. practicing the release of bombs from human environment. 31°13′56″ N., long. 92°49′46″ W.; to lat.

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21055

31°18′01″ N., long. 92°46′31″ W.; to lat. as distinct from the Netherlands for Western Samoa, and Yugoslavia (Serbia 31°15′16″ N., long. 92°41′46″ W.; to lat. export control purposes. The EAR now and Montenegro), Federal Republic of. 31°17′11″ N., long. 92°40′11″ W.; to the list two countries with ‘‘Congo’’ in their 3. In § 740.7 of the EAR, Aruba, Congo point of beginning. names: the Republic of the Congo, the (Democratic Republic of the), East Designated altitudes. FL 180 to FL capital city of which is Brazzaville, and Timor, and Netherlands Antilles are 230. the Democratic Republic of the Congo, added under Computer Tier 1 for Controlling agency. U.S. Army, Fort the capital city of which is Kinshasa. License Exception CTP purposes. Polk Approach Control. This segregation of Aruba and Bahamas (The), Congo (Republic of the), * * * * * Netherlands Antilles from the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Netherlands is not meant as a departure Samoa replace Bahamas, Congo, St. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 14, Vincent and Grenadines, and Western 2004. from current export control policy as to the treatment of dependencies. The EAR Samoa, respectively, under Computer Reginald C. Matthews, will continue to treat territories, Tier 1. Zaire is removed from the Manager, Airspace and Rules. possessions or departments of foreign Computer Tier 1 category. Serbia and [FR Doc. 04–8922 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] countries as having the same licensing Montenegro replaces Federal Republic BILLING CODE 4910–13–P requirements as their sovereigns on the of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) Commerce Country Chart when such under Computer Tier 3. territories, possessions or departments Although the Export Administration DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE are not separately listed on the Act expired on August 20, 2001, Commerce Country Chart. Executive Order 13222 of August 17, Bureau of Industry and Security This final rule also updates references 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 to certain countries in the EAR to reflect (2002)), as extended by the Notice of 15 CFR Parts 738 and 740 their officially recognized names, August 7, 2003 (68 FR 47833, August [Docket No. 040330104–4104–01] including Macedonia (the Former 11, 2003), continues the Regulations in Yugoslav Republic of), Micronesia effect under the International RIN 0694–AC83 (Federated States of), Saint Vincent and Emergency Economic Powers Act. the Grenadines, Samoa, Serbia and Addition of Aruba, Netherlands Rulemaking Requirements Montenegro, and Antigua and Barbuda. Antilles, East Timor, and Democratic Specifically, this rule amends the EAR 1. This final rule has been determined Republic of the Congo, and Update of as follows: to be not significant for purposes of E.O. Country Names, in the Export 1. In Supplement No. 1 to part 738 of 12866. Administration Regulations the EAR, Aruba, Congo (Democratic 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Republic of the), East Timor, and Security, Commerce. Netherlands Antilles are added to the to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply ACTION: Final rule. Commerce Country Chart. As noted on the Chart, licensing requirements for with a collection of information, subject SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and exports and reexports to Aruba, Congo to the requirements of the Paperwork Security (BIS) is amending the Export (Democratic Republic of the), East Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 Administration Regulations (EAR) to Timor and Netherlands Antilles are et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of update the Country Chart to add East imposed, as applicable, on items subject information displays a currently valid Timor and the Democratic Republic of to the EAR controlled for the following Office of Management and Budget the Congo, to establish separate export reasons: Chemical and biological (OMB) Control Number. This rule licensing requirements for Aruba and weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, involves a collection of information Netherlands Antilles, and to update national security, missile technology, subject to the PRA. This collection has references to certain countries to reflect regional stability, and crime control. been approved by the Office of their officially recognized names. These controls reflect the status of these Management and Budget under control DATES: This rule is effective April 20, countries with respect to membership in number 0694–0088, ‘‘Multi-Purpose 2004. multilateral regimes or in NATO. Zaire Application,’’ which carries a burden is deleted from the Commerce Country hour estimate of which carries a burden FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chart. In order to reflect officially hour estimate of 58 minutes for a Bernie Kritzer, Office of Strategic Trade recognized country names, Congo manual or electronic submission. Send and Foreign Policy Controls, Bureau of (Republic of the), Macedonia (Former comments regarding these burden Export Administration, Telephone: Yugoslav Republic of), Micronesia estimates or any other aspect of these (202) 482–4196. (Federated States of), Saint Vincent and collections of information, including SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final the Grenadines, Samoa, and Serbia and suggestions for reducing the burden, to rule adds East Timor, Democratic Montenegro replace Congo, FYROM David Rostker, OMB, by e-mail to Republic of the Congo, Aruba and (Macedonia), Micronesia, St. Vincent, [email protected], or by fax Netherlands Antilles as separate entries Western Samoa, and Yugoslavia (Serbia to (202) 395–7285; and to the Regulatory on the Commerce Country Chart in and Montenegro), Federal Republic of, Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Supplement No. 1 to part 738 of the respectively. Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. EAR for export licensing purposes. East 2. In Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of Box 273, Washington, DC 20044. Timor attained independence from the EAR, Aruba, Congo (Democratic 3. This rule does not contain policies Indonesia on May 20, 2002. Democratic Republic of the), East Timor, and with Federalism implications as this Republic of the Congo became the Netherlands Antilles are added to term is defined under Executive Order successor nation to Zaire in 1997. Aruba Country Group B. Zaire is removed from 13132. and the Netherlands Antilles, although Country Group B. Antigua and Barbuda, 4. The provisions of the dependencies of the Netherlands, Congo (Republic of the), Samoa, and Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. maintain their own separate export Serbia and Montenegro replace, 553) requiring notice of proposed control systems and therefore are treated respectively, Antigua, Barbuda, Congo, rulemaking, the opportunity for public

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21056 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

participation, and a delay in effective List of Subjects 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. date, are inapplicable because this 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 15 CFR Part 738 regulation involves a military and Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 7, 2003, 3 foreign affairs function of the United Exports, Foreign trade. CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 328. States (Sec. 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, 15 CFR Parts 740 I no other law requires that a notice of 2. Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 is proposed rulemaking and an Administrative practice and amended by: opportunity for public comment be procedure, Exports, Foreign trade, I a. Adding ‘‘Aruba’’, ‘‘Congo given for this final rule. Because a Reporting and record keeping (Democratic Republic of the)’’, ‘‘East notice of proposed rulemaking and an requirements. Timor’’, and ‘‘Netherlands Antilles’’ in opportunity for public comment are not I Accordingly, parts 738 and 740 of the alphabetical order as set forth below; Export Administration Regulations (15 required to be given for this rule under I b. Revising ‘‘Congo’’, ‘‘FYROM CFR parts 730–799) are amended as 5 U.S.C. 553 or by any other law, the (Macedonia)’’, ‘‘Micronesia’’, ‘‘St. follows: analytical requirements of the Vincent and Grenadines’’, ‘‘Western Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 Samoa’’, and ‘‘Yugoslavia (Serbia and et seq.) are not applicable. PART 738—[AMENDED] Therefore, this regulation is issued in Montenegro), Federal Republic of’’ to I 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR read ‘‘Congo (Republic of the)’’, final form. Although there is no formal part 738 continues to read as follows: comment period, public comments on ‘‘Macedonia (The Former Yugoslav this regulation are welcome on a Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 Republic of)’’, ‘‘Micronesia (Federated continuing basis. Comments should be U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. States of)’’, ‘‘Saint Vincent and the 7430(e); 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. Grenadines’’, ‘‘Samoa’’, and ‘‘Serbia and submitted to Matthew Blaskovich, 287c; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Montenegro’’, respectively and placing 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 them in approprate alphabetical order; Industry and Security, Department of U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 46 U.S.C. app. Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, 466c; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; Sec. 901–911, Pub. L. and DC 20044. 106–387; Sec 221, Pub. L. 107–56; E.O. I c. Removing ‘‘Zaire.’’ SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO PART 738—COMMERCE COUNTRY CHART [Reason for control]

Fire- arms Chemical & biological Nuclear non- Missile con- weapons proliferation National security tech Regional stability vention Crime control Anti-terrorism CB CB CB NP NP NS NS MT RS RS FC CC CC CC AT AT Countries 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 2

Aruba ...... X X ...... X ...... X X X X X ...... X ...... X ......

******* Congo (Democratic Republic of the) X X ...... X ...... X X X X X ...... X ...... X ......

******* East Timor...... X X ...... X ...... X X X X X ...... X ...... X ......

******* Netherlands Antilles...... X X ...... X ...... X X X X X ...... X ...... X ......

*******

PART 740—[AMENDED] I d. ‘‘Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, I b. ‘‘ Vietnam, Yemen, and Federal Nicaragua, Niger’’ to read ‘‘Nepal, Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and I 3. The authority citation for 15 CFR Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, New Montenegro)’’ to read ‘‘Vietnam, and part 740 continues to read as follows: Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger’’; Yemen.’’ I e. ‘‘St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 I U.S.C. 1701 et seq .; Sec. 901–911, Pub. L. Grenadines, Sao Tome & Principe, San 6. Supplement No. 1 to part 740, 106–387; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, Marino, Senegal, Seychelles’’ to read Country Group B, is amended by: 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, ‘‘St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the I a. Adding, in alphabetical order, 3 CFR,2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August Grenadines, Sao Tome & Principe, ‘‘Antigua and Barbuda’’, ‘‘Aruba’’, 7, 2003, 3 CFR Comp., p. 328. Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, ‘‘Congo (Democratic Republic of the)’’, I 4. Section 740.7, paragraph (c) (1), is Seychelles’’; ‘‘Congo (Republic of the)’’, ‘‘East Timor’’, amended by revising the following I f. ‘‘ Venezuela, Western Sahara, ‘‘Netherlands Antilles’’, ‘‘Samoa’’, phrases: Western Samoa’’ to read ‘‘ Venezuela, ‘‘Serbia and Montenegro’’ to Country I a. ‘‘Argentina, Australia, Austria, Western Sahara’’; and Group B; Bahamas’’ to read ‘‘Argentina, Aruba, I g. ‘‘Zaire, Zambia, and Zimbabwe’’ to I b. Removing ‘‘Antigua’’, ‘‘Barbuda’’, Australia, Austria, Bahamas (The)’’; read ‘‘Zambia, and Zimbabwe’’. ‘‘Congo’’, ‘‘Western Samoa’’, ‘‘Yugoslavia I ‘‘ b. , Congo, Costa Rica, Cote (Serbia and Montenegro), Federal ‘‘ I 5. Section 740.7, paragraph (d) (1), is d’Ivoire’’ to read Colombia, Congo Republic of’’ and ‘‘Zaire’’ from Country amended by revising the following (Democratic Republic of the), Congo Group B; (Republic of the), Costa Rica, Cote phrases: I d’Ivoire’’; I a. ‘‘Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, c. Revising the phrase ‘‘Bahamas’’ to I c. ‘‘Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Saudi Arabia’’ to read ‘‘Oman, Pakistan, read ‘‘The Bahamas’’; Salvador’’ to read ‘‘Dominican Republic, Qatar, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, I d. Revising the phrase ‘‘Macedonia, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador’’; Saudi Arabia’’; and the Former Yugoslav Republic of’’ to

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21057

read ‘‘Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav was revised to permit employees, other companies. This 30-day holding period Republic of’’; and than Commissioners and SES members will not apply to money market fund I e. Revising the phrase ‘‘Saint Vincent’’ in the Division of Investment shares, which are already fully to read ‘‘Saint Vincent and the Management, to purchase such exempted from the six-month holding Grenadines’’. securities. The rule was further revised period. Dated: April 12, 2004. in 1988 to allow employees to transfer Third, the Commission is increasing Peter Lichtenbaum, funds within a family of registered its reporting requirements for members investment companies without regard to Assistant Secretary, for Export and employees. The Commission’s rule Administration. the holding period previously currently requires, with limited established by the rule. In 1995, the rule [FR Doc. 04–8807 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] exceptions, that members and was again amended to allow BILLING CODE 3510–33–P employees report every acquisition or Commissioners and SES members in the sale of any security.5 One of the Division of Investment Management and exceptions applies to mutual fund the Office of Compliance Inspections transactions occurring after the initial SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE and Examinations to purchase purchase has been reported.6 The COMMISSION diversified mutual funds. In light of Commission is amending this exception recent developments regarding trading 17 CFR Part 200 to require members and employees to practices in the investment company report every purchase or sale of [Release No. 34–49562] industry, and in furtherance of the investment company shares, other than Commission’s tradition of imposing money market fund shares. With respect Revision of Rule Concerning Holding stringent trading limitations on its to money market fund shares, Period and Disclosure Requirements employees, the Commission is Commission members and employees for Members’ and Employees’ amending the rule to ensure that its will be required to report the initial Investment Company Transactions employees’ trading practices continue to purchase and final sale of such shares. adhere to the highest possible standards AGENCY: Securities and Exchange The Commission has determined that of ethical conduct. Commission. First, the Commission is updating the these amendments to its rule regulating ACTION: Final rule. definition of money market fund 1 to member and employee securities comport with the language used by the holdings and transactions relate solely SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Division of Investment Management in to the agency’s organization, procedure Commission is amending its rule other contexts. or practice. Therefore, the provisions of covering member and employee Second, the Commission is modifying the Administrative Procedure Act securities transactions. The amended current exceptions to its six-month regarding notice and comment are not 7 rule updates the definition of money holding period for certain types of applicable. It follows that the market fund; removes the exception to securities. The Commission’s rule requirements of the Regulatory 8 the six-month holding period for shares provides that ‘‘no member or employee Flexibility Act do not apply. These rule of a unit investment trust having a term shall effect or cause to be effected any amendments also impose no new of less than six months; requires transaction in a security except for bona collection of information under the 9 Commission members and employees to fide investment purposes. Therefore, all Paperwork Reduction Act. hold investment company shares for a securities purchased by a member or Statutory Basis minimum of 30 days before they are employee must be held for a minimum permitted to transfer those assets to of six months.’’ 2 The rule contains six The amendments to the Commission’s another registered investment company exceptions to the six-month holding rule are adopted pursuant to section within the same family of registered period requirement. One of the 23(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of investment companies; and requires exceptions provides that the holding 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78w(a); section 19(a) of Commission members and employees to period is not applicable to ‘‘shares of a the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. report every purchase or sale of unit investment trust having a term of 77s(a); section 20(a) of the Public Utility investment company shares, other than less than six months.’’ 3 The Holding Company Act of 1935, 15 money market fund shares. Commission is removing this exception U.S.C. 79t(a); section 319 of the Trust DATES: Effective Date: May 20, 2004. from the rule. Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Another exception provides that the 77sss(a); section 38(a) of the Investment William Lenox, Assistant Ethics six-month holding period is not Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80a– Counsel, or Richard Connor, Assistant applicable to ‘‘the transferring of funds 37(a); and section 211(a) of the Ethics Counsel, Office of the General within a family of registered investment Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 Counsel, at (202) 942–0970, 450 Fifth companies.’’ 4 The Commission is U.S.C. 80b–11(a). Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549– amending this exception to provide that List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 200 0303. the six-month holding period is not applicable to the transferring of funds SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Conflict of interests. that have been held as shares in a Securities and Exchange Commission registered investment company for a I In accordance with the foregoing, (‘‘Commission’’) is amending 17 CFR minimum of 30 days to another Title 17 Chapter II of the Code of 200.735–5, its rule covering members’ registered company within the same Federal Regulations is amended as and employees’ securities transactions. family of registered investment follows: This rule was adopted as part of the Commission’s Conduct Regulation in 1 Footenote 17 following 17 CFR 200.735– 5 17 CFR 200.735–5(m)(2). 1953. Until 1980, the rule prohibited 5(b)(1)(ii). 6 17 CFR 200.735–5(m)(3). Commissioners and all employees from 2 17 CFR 200.735–5(b)(1). 7 5 U.S.C. 553(b). purchasing securities of registered 3 17 CFR 200.735–5(b)(1)(v). 8 5 U.S.C. 601–612. investment companies. In 1980, the rule 4 17 CFR 200.735–5(b)(1)(vi). 9 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21058 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

PART 200—ORGANIZATION; COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER will not necessarily receive a response CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE in the Federal Register. INFORMATION AND REQUESTS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Executive Order 12866 Subpart M—Regulation Concerning 28 CFR Part 803 This rule has been determined to be significant under Executive Order 12866 Conduct of Members and Employees [CSOSA–0007–F] and Former Members and Employees and has been reviewed by the Office of of the Commission RIN 3225–AA05 Management and Budget. Agency Seal Executive Order 13132 I 1. The authority citation for subpart M continues to read as follows: AGENCY: Court Services and Offender This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77s, 78w, 79t, 77sss, Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia. relationship between the national 80a–37, 80b–11; E.O. 11222, 3 CFR, 1964– government and the States, or on ACTION: 1965 Comp.; 5 CFR 735.104 unless otherwise Final rule. distribution of power and noted. SUMMARY: The Court Services and responsibilities among the various I 2. Section 200.735–5 is amended by: Offender Supervision Agency for the levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, I a. Revising footnote 17 appearing in District of Columbia (CSOSA or Agency) the Director of CSOSA had determined paragraph (b)(1)(ii); is adopting regulations on the use of its official seal and the official seal for the that this rule does not have sufficient I b. Adding at the end of paragraph District of Columbia Pretrial Services federalism implications to warrant the (b)(1)(iv) the word ‘‘or’’; Agency (PSA or Agency), an preparation of a Federalism Assessment. I c. Removing paragraph (b)(1)(v); independent entity within CSOSA. Use Regulatory Flexibility Act I by any person or organization may be d. Redesignating paragraph (b)(1)(vi) The Director of CSOSA, in accordance as paragraph (b)(1)(v); made only with CSOSA’s or PSA’s prior written approval. Wrongful use of an with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 I e. Revising newly redesignated official seal is subject to administrative U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this rule paragraph (b)(1)(v); and action and/or criminal penalty. and by approving it certifies that this rule will not have a significant I f. Revising paragraph (m)(3). EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 2004. economic impact upon a substantial The revisions read as follows. ADDRESSES: Office of the General number of small entities. This rule Counsel, CSOSA, Room 1253, 633 § 200.735–5 Securities transactions. pertains to agency management, and its Indiana Avenue, NW., Washington, DC economic impact is limited to the * * * * * 20004. agency’s appropriated funds. (b)(1) * * * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (ii) * * * Nanovic, Records Manager (telephone: (202) 220–5359; e-mail: This rule will not result in the 17 For purposes of this section a money [email protected]. expenditure by State, local and tribal market fund is defined as a registered open- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CSOSA is governments, in the aggregate, or by the end fund that complies with § 270.2a–7 of private sector, of $100,000,000 or more this chapter. adopting regulations (28 CFR 803) on the use of its official seal and the official in any one year, and it will not * * * * * seal for PSA, an independent entity significantly or uniquely affect small (v) The transferring of funds that have within CSOSA. governments. Therefore, the Director of been held as shares in a registered CSOSA and PSA have each developed CSOSA has determined that no actions investment company for a minimum of a seal which signifies the are necessary under the provisions of 30 days to another registered investment authoritativeness of the item or the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of company within the same family of document to which it is affixed as an 1995. registered investment companies. This official endorsement of the Agency. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 30-day holding period does not apply to seals are to be used for official Agency Fairness Act of 1996 money market fund shares, which are business or as approved under CSOSA’s This rule is not a major rule as exempted from the six-month holding regulations. defined by section 804 of the Small period by paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this Matters of Regulatory Procedure Business Regulatory Enforcement section. Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not * * * * * Administrative Procedure Act result in an annual effect on the (m)(1) * * * A proposed rule on this subject was economy of $1000,000,000 or more; a published in the Federal Register on major increase in costs or prices; or (3) Members and employees shall April 22, 2003 (68 FR 19770). The significant adverse effects on report only the initial purchase and Agency received no comment on this competition, employment, investment, final sale of shares in a money market proposed rule. Accordingly, the Agency productivity, innovation, or on the fund. is adopting the proposed rule as final ability of United States-based * * * * * without change. companies to compete with foreign- Dated: April 14, 2004. Any interested person, however, who based companies in domestic and By the Commission. wishes to submit further comments on export markets. the rule may do so by writing or e- Margaret H. McFarland, mailing the agency at the addresses Plain Language Instructions Deputy Secretary. given above in the ADDRESSES and FOR We want to make CSOSA’s [FR Doc. 04–8890 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTcaptions. documents easy to read and understand. BILLING CODE 8010–01–P These comments will be considered but If you have suggestions on how to

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21059

improve the clarity of these regulations, Accountability, and Justice’’ and gold knowingly using or possessing with write, e-mail, or call Roy Nanovic at the laurel branches, with gold edges bearing fraudulent intent an altered Agency seal address or telephone number given the inscription ‘‘DISTRICT OF or reproduction is punishable under 28 above in the ADDRESSES and FOR COLUMBIA PRETRIAL SERVICES U.S.C. 506. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT captions. AGENCY’’; letters in gold. A (d) Any person using the Agency seal reproduction of the Agency seal in black List of Subjects in CFR Part 803 or reproduction in a manner and white appears as follows. inconsistent with the provisions of this Probation and parole, Seals and part is subject to the provisions of 18 insignia. U.S.C. 1017, which states penalties for Paul A. Quander, Jr. the wrongful use of an Agency seal, and Director. other provisions of law as applicable. I Accordingly, we amend chapter VIII, [FR Doc. 04–8914 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Title 28 of the Code of Federal BILLING CODE 3129–01–M Regulations by adding part 803 as set forth below. COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER PART 803—AGENCY SEAL SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Sec. 803.1 Description. § 803.2 Authority to affix seal. 28 CFR Part 804 803.2 Authority to affix seal. The Director of CSOSA or PSA (as 803.3 Use of the seal. appropriate) and the Director’s [CSOSA–0008–F] Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; Pub. L. 105–33, designees are authorized to affix the RIN 3225–AA06 111 Stat. 251, 712 (D.C. Code 24–1232, 24– Agency seal (including replicas and 1233). reproductions) to appropriate Acceptance of Gifts § 803.1 Description. documents, certifications, and other AGENCY: Court Services and Offender (a) The Agency seal of the Court materials of all purposes authorized by this part. Supervision Agency for the District of Services and Offender Supervision Columbia. Agency for the District of Columbia § 803.3 Use of the seal. ACTION: Final rule. (CSOSA or Agency) is described as (a) The Agency seal is used by Agency follows: General George Washington’s staff for official agency business as SUMMARY: The Court Services and coat of arms in red and white bounded approved by the appropriate Director or Offender Supervision Agency for the by an outline of the District of Columbia designee. District of Columbia (CSOSA) is and superimposed upon a blue field (b) Use of the Agency seal by any adopting regulations on the acceptance together with the dome of the United person or organization outside of the or use of gifts by itself and by the States Capitol building in gold; Agency may be made only with the District of Columbia Pretrial Services encircled by a banner with the words appropriate prior written approval. Agency (PSA), an independent entity ‘‘Community, Accountability, and (1) Any request for such use must be within CSOSA. In accordance with Justice’’ and gold laurel branches, with made in writing to the Office of the specific statutory authority, CSOSA and gold edges bearing the inscription General Counsel, Court Services and PSA may accept and use gifts in the ‘‘COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER Offender Supervision Agency for the form of in-kind contributions of space SUPERVISION AGENCY’’ above three District of Columbia, 633 Indiana and hospitality for the purpose of stars at either side of the words Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, supporting offender and defendant ‘‘DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’’ in smaller and must specify, in detail, the exact programs and of equipment and letters in the base; letters and stars in use to be made. Any permission granted vocational training services to educate gold. A reproduction of the Agency seal by the appropriate Director or designee and train offenders and defendants. in black and white appears as follows. applies only to the specific use for These regulations delegate authority to which it was granted and is not to be the Director of PSA with respect to gifts construed as permission for any other supporting defendant programs and use. vocational training services, establish (2) The decision whether to grant procedures for the public to follow such a request is made on a case-by-case when offering a gift, establish criteria for basis, with consideration of all relevant accepting and using gifts, and establish factors, which may include: the benefit procedures for audit and public or cost to the government of granting the inspection of records pertaining to the request; the unintended appearance of acceptance and use of gifts. These endorsement or authentication by the regulations are intended to enhance Agency; the potential for misuse; the CSOSA’s and PSA’s ability to provide (b) The Agency seal of the District of effect upon Agency security; the appropriate treatment and support Columbia Pretrial Services Agency (PSA reputability of the use; the extent of the services that can assist defendants and or Agency) is described as follows: control by the Agency over the ultimate offenders in reintegrating into the General George Washington’s coat of use; and the extent of control by the community. arms in red and white bounded by an Agency over distribution of any outline of the District of Columbia and products or publications bearing the DATES: Effective Date: May 20, 2004. superimposed upon a blue field together Agency seal. ADDRESSES: Office of the General with the dome of the United States (c) Falsely making, forging, Counsel, CSOSA, Room 1253, 633 Capitol building in gold; encircled by a counterfeiting, mutilating, or altering Indiana Avenue, NW., Washington, DC banner with the words ‘‘Community, the Agency seal or reproduction, or 20004.

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 ER20AP04.000 ER20AP04.001 21060 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy Executive Order 13132 List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 804 Nanovic, Records Manager (telephone: Authority delegations (Government (202) 220–5359; e-mail: This rule will not have substantial agencies), Government property, [email protected]). direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national Probation and parole. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CSOSA is government and the States, or on Paul A. Quander, Jr., adopting regulations (28 CFR part 804) distribution of power and Director. on the acceptance or use of gifts by itself responsibilities among the various and by PSA, an independent entity levels of government. Therefore, in I Accordingly, we amend chapter VIII, within CSOSA. accordance with Executive Order 13132, Title 28 of the Code of Federal Generally speaking, federal agencies the Director of CSOSA has determined Regulations by adding a new part 804 as are prohibited from accepting or that this rule does not have sufficient set forth below. soliciting gifts, donations, contributions, federalism implications to warrant the PART 804—ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS and similar items from the public. preparation of a Federalism Assessment. CSOSA’s Director, however, has been Sec. granted specific authority by Congress Regulatory Flexibility Act 804.1 Purpose. 804.2 Delegation of authority. to accept and use gifts in the form of in- The Director of CSOSA, in accordance kind contributions of space and 804.3 Restrictions. with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 hospitality to support offender and 804.4 Submission and approval. U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this rule defendant programs and to enable the 804.5 Audit and public inspection. and by approving it certifies that this Agency to provide vocational training Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; Public Law 107– services to educate and train offenders rule will not have a significant 96, 115 Stat. 923, 931. economic impact upon a substantial and defendants (District of Columbia § 804.1 Purpose. Appropriations Act of 2002, Public Law number of small entities. This rule 107–96, 115 Stat. 923, 931). pertains to agency management, and its By statute, the Director of the Court economic impact is limited to the Services and Offender Supervision These implementing regulations agency’s appropriated funds. Agency (CSOSA or Agency) is delegate authority to the Director of PSA authorized to accept and use gifts in the with respect to gifts supporting Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 form of in-kind contributions of space defendant programs and vocational and hospitality to support offender and training services. The regulations also This rule will not result in the defendant programs, and of equipment establish procedures for the public to expenditure by State, local and tribal and vocational training services to follow when offering a gift, criteria for governments, in the aggregate, or by the educate and train offenders and accepting and using gifts, and private sector, of $100,000,000 or more defendants. The purpose of this part is procedures for audit and public in any one year, and it will not to: inspection of records pertaining to the significantly or uniquely affect small acceptance and use of gifts. In governments. Therefore, the Director of (a) Inform the public of the establishing such procedures, CSOSA CSOSA has determined that no actions procedures to follow when offering a seeks to ensure that Agency employees are necessary under the provisions of gift; may process requests for donations and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of (b) Establish criteria for accepting and remain in compliance with the general 1995. using gifts; federal prohibition on solicitation of (c) Establish procedures for audit and gifts. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement public inspection of records pertaining Fairness Act of 1996 to the acceptance and use of gifts; and Matters of Regulatory Procedure This rule is not a major rule as (d) Delegate gift acceptance authority Administrative Procedure Act defined by section 804 of the Small to the Director of the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA or Agency). A proposed rule on this subject was Business Regulatory Enforcement published in the Federal Register on Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not § 804.2 Delegation of authority. result in an annual effect on the April 22, 2003 (68 FR 19771). The The Director of CSOSA hereby economy of $100,000,000 or more; a Agency received no comment on this delegates to the Director of PSA the major increase in costs or prices; or proposed rule. Accordingly, the Agency authority to accept and use gifts in the significant adverse effects on is adopting the proposed rule as final form of in-kind contributions of space competition, employment, investment, without change. and hospitality to support defendant Any interested person, however, who productivity, innovation, or on the programs, and of equipment and wishes to submit further comments on ability of United States-based vocational training services to educate the rule may do so by writing or e- companies to compete with foreign- and train defendants in accordance with mailing the agency at the addresses based companies in domestic and the requirements of this part. This given above in the ADDRESSES and FOR export markets. delegation of authority may not be FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT captions. Plain Language Instructions further delegated. These comments will be considered but will not necessarily receive a response We want to make CSOSA’s § 804.3 Restrictions. in the Federal Register. documents easy to read and understand. (a) The Agency is not authorized to If you have suggestions on how to accept gifts of money, stock, bonds, Executive Order 12866 improve the clarity of these regulations, personal or real property, or devises or This rule has been determined to be write, e-mail, or call Roy Nanovic at the bequests of such items, except as significant under Executive Order 12866 address or telephone number given provided in this part. and has been reviewed by the Office of above in the ADDRESSES and FOR (b) Agency employees may not solicit Management and Budget. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT captions. any type of gift to the Agency.

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21061

§ 804.4 Submission and approval. (ii) Acceptance of the gift is otherwise the same address between 8 a.m. and 4 (a) Offender programs and equipment unlawful or would create the p.m., Monday through Friday, except and vocational training services. (1) Any appearance of impropriety; Federal Holidays. The Commander person or organization wishing to (iii) Acceptance of the gift would (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District donate as a gift in-kind contributions of obligate the Agency to an unbudgeted maintains the public docket for this space or hospitality to support offender expenditure of funds; or deviation. Comments and material programs, or equipment or vocational (iv) Operation of the program, received from the public, as well as training services to educate and train equipment, or vocational training documents indicated in this preamble as offenders may submit the following services would not be practicable. being available in the docket, will information in writing to the Agency’s become part of this docket and will be Ethics Officer in the Office of the § 804.5 Audit and public inspection. available for inspection or copying at General Counsel: (a) Records regarding the acceptance the above address. (i) The name of the person or and use of gifts shall be made available organization offering the gift; for Federal Government audit. Request for Comments (ii) A description of the gift; (b) Public inspection of records We encourage you to participate in (iii) The estimated value of the gift; regarding the acceptance and use of gifts evaluating this test schedule by (iv) Any restrictions on the gift placed shall be afforded through Freedom of submitting comments and related by the donor; and Information Act requests (see 28 CFR material. If you do so, please include (v) A signed statement that the gift is part 802). unsolicited. your name and address, identify the (2) The Director, after consultation [FR Doc. 04–8915 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] docket number for this deviation with the Agency’s Ethics Officer, shall BILLING CODE 3129–01–P CGD05–04–071, indicate the specific determine whether to accept or reject section of this document to which each the gift. comment applies, and give the reason (3) CSOSA staff shall advise the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND for each comment. Please submit all person offering the gift of the Agency’s SECURITY comments and related material in an determination, including, if applicable, unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by the reason for rejection. Reasons for Coast Guard 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you rejecting a gift include findings that: would like to know they reached us, (i) There is a conflict of interest in 33 CFR Part 117 please enclose a stamped, self-addressed accepting the gift; postcard or envelope. We will consider (ii) Acceptance of the gift is otherwise [CGD05–04–071] all comments and material received unlawful or would create the RIN 1625–AA09 during the comment period. appearance of impropriety; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (iii) Acceptance of the gift would Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Waverly W. Gregory Jr., Bridge obligate the Agency to an unbudgeted Manasquan River, NJ expenditure of funds; or Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard (iv) Operation of the program, AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. District, at (757) 398–6222. equipment, or vocational training ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective services would not be practicable. from regulations and request for on July 11, 2003, the bridge owner, the (b) Defendant programs and comments. New Jersey Department of equipment and vocational training Transportation, was officially permitted services. (1) Any person or organization SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast to operate the Route 70 Bridge across wishing to donate as a gift in-kind Guard District, has issued a temporary Manasquan River with new regulations. contributions of space or hospitality to deviation from the drawbridge operation The new operating regulations listed at support defendant programs, or regulations to test an alternate 33 CFR 117.727 allows the draw of the equipment or vocational training drawbridge operation regulation for the bridge to open on signal on the hour, services to educate and train defendants Route 70 Bridge across Manasquan except that from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. may submit the following information River, mile 3.4, at Riviera Beach, New Monday through Friday and from 11 in writing to the Agency’s Ethics Officer Jersey. Under this temporary 90-day p.m. to 7 a.m., every day the draw need in the Office of the General Counsel: deviation, the draw of the bridge will not be open. (i) The name of the person or open on signal on the hour, except that Based on comments received on the organization offering the gift; from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through new operating regulations of the bridge (ii) A description of the gift; Friday and from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. every and in an effort to facilitate vessel and (iii) The estimated value of the gift; day the draw need not be opened. The (iv) Any restrictions on the gift placed vehicular traffic while providing for the purpose of this temporary deviation is reasonable needs of navigation, the by the donor; and to test an alternate drawbridge operation (v) A signed statement that the gift is District Commander has offered a test schedule for 90 days and solicit period to reexamine the rush hour unsolicited. comments from the public. (2) The General Counsel shall forward closure periods during the forthcoming the request to PSA’s Director with a DATES: This deviation is effective from recreational boating season. The new recommendation whether to accept or May 1, 2004, through July 29, 2004. proposal will test a new rush hour reject the gift. Comments must reach the Coast Guard period from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Monday (3) PSA staff shall advise the person on or before August 31, 2004. through Friday, except Federal holidays, offering the gift of the Agency’s ADDRESSES: You may mail comments as opposed to the current 4 p.m. to 7 determination, including the reason for and related material to Commander p.m. regulatory hours. Therefore, the rejection. Reasons for rejecting a gift (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal last drawbridge opening for vessels include findings that: Building, 4th Floor, 431 Crawford before the rush hour will occur at 4 p.m. (i) There is a conflict of interest in Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704– and first opening following the rush accepting the gift; 5004, or they may be hand delivered to hour will be at 7 p.m.

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21062 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

Under this 90-day temporary Regulatory History paragraph (a)(1)(iv), stated the horn deviation, effective from May 1, 2004 On November 25, 2003, we published would sound, ‘‘twice’’ followed by ‘‘five through July 29, 2004, the Route 70 a notice of proposed rulemaking repeated blasts’’. NJDOT also indicated that before Bridge across Manasquan shall open on (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Operation closing a draw span to vessels, 33 CFR signal on the hour, except that from 5 Regulations; Mantua Creek, New Jersey’’ 117.15(a)(5) requires the acknowledging p.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday in the Federal Register (68 FR 66062). signal as five short blasts of the horn in and from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., every day We received two letters commenting on rapid succession. The proposed rule, in the draw need not be opened. the proposed rule. No public hearing paragraph (a)(1)(v), stated that the horn This deviation from the operating was requested nor held. regulations is authorized under 33 CFR would sound ‘‘twice’’ then ‘‘two horn 117.43. Background and Purpose blasts’’. The Coast Guard considers these Dated: April 12, 2004. CONRAIL, who owns and operates changes proposed to be more reliable this movable (swing-type) bridge, Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., and the final rule was changed to reflect requested changes to the operating Chief, Bridge Branch, Fifth Coast Guard these procedures. District. procedure for the drawbridge located at [FR Doc. 04–8865 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] mile 1.4 across Mantua Creek, in Regulatory Evaluation BILLING CODE 4910–15–P Paulsboro, New Jersey. Currently, 33 This rule is not a ‘‘significant CFR 117.729(a) requires the bridge to regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of open on signal except, that from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND December 1 through March 1, the draw Planning and Review, and does not SECURITY must open on signal at all times upon require an assessment of potential costs four hours notice. and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Coast Guard CONRAIL installed a new Order. The Office of Management and Programmable Logic Controller and Budget has not reviewed it under that 33 CFR Part 117 associated mechanical, electrical and Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the signal apparatus on the CONRAIL regulatory policies and procedures of [CGD05–03–121] Railroad Bridge over Mantua Creek in the Department of Homeland Security Paulsboro, New Jersey. This rule allows (DHS). We reached this conclusion RIN 1625–AA09 a radio-controlled system to operate the based on the fact that this final rule for opening and closing of the swing span the CONRAIL Railroad Bridge will Drawbridge Operation Regulation: from the cab of the locomotive. From provide for greater flow of vessel traffic Mantua Creek, NJ March through November, the swing than the current regulations for the bridge will normally be left in the fully drawbridge. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. opened position displaying flashing Under the current regulations, the ACTION: Final rule. green channel lights indicating that CONRAIL Railroad Bridge remains vessels may pass through. At all other closed and opens after proper signal SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing times, the draw of the CONRAIL from March 1 through November 30. the operating regulations for the Railroad Bridge need only open on Consolidated Rail Corporation The final rule will require the bridge to signal if at least four hours notice is remain in the open position during this (CONRAIL) Railroad Bridge across given by calling (856) 231–2393. Mantua Creek at mile 1.4, in Paulsboro, period, permitting vessels to pass freely. New Jersey. The final rule for the Discussion of Comments and Changes The bridge will close only for train crossings and bridge maintenance. This CONRAIL Railroad Bridge will increase The Coast Guard received two vessel openings and eliminate the need final rule will provide for the reasonable comments on the NPRM. The first needs of navigation. for a bridge tender by allowing the comment, from CONRAIL, noted that bridge to be operated by a train when the bridge is seated and locked Small Entities crewmember. The final rule will down to vessels, the channel traffic Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act provide for the reasonable needs of lights will continue to flash red. The (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered navigation. proposed rule, in paragraph (a) (1)(iv), whether this rule would have a DATES: This rule is effective May 20, stated that the channel traffic lights significant economic impact on a 2004. ‘‘will extinguish’’. substantial number of small entities. The second comment, from New The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises ADDRESSES: Comments and material Jersey Department of Transportation small businesses, not-for-profit received from the public, as well as (NJDOT), had expressed concerns that documents indicated in this preamble as organizations that are independently the method of signaling proposed by owned and operated and are not being available in the docket, are part of CONRAIL for the opening and closing of docket CGD05–03–121 and are available dominant in their fields, and the span might cause boater confusion governmental jurisdictions with for inspection or copying at Commander and reduce safety. The NJDOT operates (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal populations of less than 50,000. the upstream Route 44 Bridge at mile The Coast Guard certifies under 5 Building, 4th Floor, 431 Crawford 2.7 across Mantua Creek in Paulsboro, U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704–5004 and uses the standard signaling for a significant economic impact on a between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday drawbridges delineated in 33 CFR substantial number of small entities. through Friday, except Federal holidays. 117.15. NJDOT correctly indicated that, This final rule will not have a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: at 33 CFR 117.15(a)(4), the sound signal significant economic impact on a Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge for a horn to acknowledge that the substantial number of small entities for Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard drawbridge is about to open for vessels the following reasons. The final rule District, at (757) 398–6222. is one prolonged blast followed by a will provide for the CONRAIL Railroad SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: short blast. The proposed rule, in Bridge to remain in the open position

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21063

from March through November, Children from Environmental Health I 2. Amend § 117.729 by revising allowing the free flow of vessel traffic. Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not paragraph (a) to read as follows: The bridge would only close for the an economically significant rule and passage of trains and maintenance. would not create an environmental risk § 117.729 Mantua Creek. to health or risk to safety that might (a) The draw of the CONRAIL Assistance for Small Entities disproportionately affect children. Railroad Bridge, mile 1.4 at Paulsboro, Under section 213(a) of the Small shall operate as follows: Business Regulatory Enforcement Indian Tribal Governments (1) From March through November, Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), This rule does not have tribal the draw shall be left in the open we offered to assist small entities in implications under Executive Order position to vessels and will only be understanding the rule so that they 13175, Consultation and Coordination closed for the passage of trains and to could better evaluate its effects on them with Indian Tribal Governments, perform periodic maintenance and participate in the rulemaking because it does not have a substantial authorized in accordance with subpart process. In our notice of proposed direct effect on one or more Indian A of this part. rulemaking, we provided a point of tribes, on the relationship between the (i) Trains shall be controlled so that contact to small entities who could Federal Government and Indian tribes, any delay in opening of the draw shall answer questions concerning proposed or on the distribution of power and not exceed ten minutes except as provisions or option for compliance. responsibilities between the Federal provided in § 117.31(b). Government and Indian tribes. (ii) Before the bridge closes for any Collection of Information reason, an on-site train crewmember This rule calls for no new collection Energy Effects will observe the waterway for of information under the Paperwork We have analyzed this rule under approaching craft, which will be Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– Executive Order 13211, Actions allowed to pass. An on-site train 3520). Concerning Regulations That crewmember will then operate the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, bridge by radiophone. The bridge shall Federalism Distribution, or Use. We have only be closed if an on-site train A rule has implications for federalism determined that it is not a ‘‘significant crewmember’s visual inspection shows under Executive Order 13132, energy action’’ under that order because that the channel is clear and there are Federalism, if it has a substantial direct it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ no vessels transiting in the area. effect on State or local governments and under Executive Order 12866 and is not (iii) While the CONRAIL Railroad would either preempt State law or likely to have a significant adverse effect Bridge is moving from the full open to impose a substantial direct cost of on the supply, distribution, or use of the full closed position, an on-site train compliance on them. We have analyzed energy. It has not been designated by the crewmember will maintain constant this rule under that Order and have Administrator of the Office of surveillance of the navigational channel determined that it does not have Information and Regulatory Affairs as a to ensure no conflict with maritime implications for federalism. significant energy action. Therefore, it traffic exists. In the event of failure or Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not require a Statement of Energy obstruction, the on-site train Effects under Executive Order 13211. crewmember will stop the bridge and The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act return the bridge to the open position. of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Environment (iv) During closing of the span, the Federal agencies to assess the effects of We have considered the channel traffic lights will flash red, the their discretionary regulatory actions. In environmental impact of this rule and horn will sound five short blasts, and an particular, the Act addresses actions concluded that under figure 2–1, audio voice warning device will that may result in the expenditure by a paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant announce bridge movement, and the State, local, or tribal government, in the Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is bridge will close. When the bridge is aggregate, or by the private sector of categorically excluded from further seated and locked down to vessels, the $100,000,000 or more in any one year. environmental documentation. The final channel traffic lights will continue to Though this rule will not result in such rule only involves the operation of an flash red. When the rail traffic has an expenditure, we do discuss the existing drawbridge and will not have cleared the swing span, the horn will effects of this rule elsewhere in this any impact on the environment. A sound one prolonged blast followed by preamble. ‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’ one short blast to signal the draw of the Taking of Private Property is available in the docket where CONRAIL Railroad Bridge is about to This rule will not affect a taking of indicated under ADDRESSES. return to its full open position to private property or otherwise have vessels. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 (v) During open span movement, the taking implications under Executive Bridges. channel traffic lights will flash red, the Order 12630, Governmental Actions and I For the reasons discussed in the horn will sound one prolonged blast Interference with Constitutionally preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 followed by one short blast, then a Protected Property Rights. CFR part 117 as follows: pause, and an audio voice warning will Civil Justice Reform announce bridge movement until the PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE bridge is in the full open position. In the This rule meets applicable standards OPERATION REGULATIONS in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive full open position, the channel traffic Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to I 1. The authority citation for part 117 lights will flash green. minimize litigation, eliminate continues to read as follows: (2) From December to February, the ambiguity, and reduce burden. draw may be left in the closed position Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of and opened on signal if at least four Protection of Children Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g); § 117.255 also issued under hours notice is given by telephone at We have analyzed this rule under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat. (856) 231–2393. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 5039. * * * * *

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21064 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: April 13, 2004. holidays, from 7:45 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. 5 p.m., the bridges will only open at 7 Sally Brice-O’Hara, and from 3:30 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., the a.m., 8:30 a.m., 10 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 1 Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, draw need open only at 8:45 a.m., 4:30 p.m., 2:30 p.m., 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. At all Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. p.m., and 5:15 p.m., and from 9:30 a.m. other times, the bridges shall open on [FR Doc. 04–8864 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] to 3:30 p.m., the draw need open only signal, except Monday through Friday, BILLING CODE 4910–15–P on the quarter-hour and three-quarter except Federal holidays, from 7:45 a.m. hour. to 9:45 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 5:45 On March 2, 2004, the bridge owner, p.m., the draw need open only at 8:45 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Florida Department of Transportation, a.m., 4:30 p.m., and 5:15 p.m., and, from SECURITY requested a deviation from the current 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., the draw need operating regulations to allow the owner open only on the quarter-hour and Coast Guard and operator to close the bridge during three-quarter hour. certain times. On March 10, 2004, a Dated: April 9, 2004. 33 CFR Part 117 meeting was held to determine an operating schedule for both the Greg Shapley, [CGD07–04–039] temporary bridge and the new bridge Chief, Bridge Administration, Seventh Coast Guard District. Drawbridge Operation Regulations; that would not unreasonably restrict [FR Doc. 04–8863 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Royal Park (SR 704) Bridge, Atlantic navigation and allow for workers’ safety Intracoastal Waterway Mile 1022.6, during alignment of the new bridge. On BILLING CODE 4910–15–P Palm Beach, FL April 2, 2004, this office received a revised schedule. Based on this AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. paperwork, the following operating DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation schedule has been approved: from regulations. From April 15 to April 20, 2004 the bridge will remain closed to navigation Coast Guard SUMMARY: The Commander, Seventh from 7:01 a.m. to 12:59 p.m. and 2:01 Coast Guard District, has approved a p.m. to 5:59 p.m. daily. From April 21 33 CFR Part 117 temporary deviation from the to May 16, 2004, from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. [CGD01–04–023] regulations governing the operation of daily, the bridge will only open at 7 the Royal Park (SR 704) Bridge across a.m., 8:30 a.m., 10 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 1 Drawbridge Operation Regulations: the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile p.m., 2:30 p.m., 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. On Newtown Creek, Dutch Kills, English 1022.6, Palm Beach, Florida. This May 17, 2004, the bridge will remain Kills, and Their Tributaries, NY deviation allows for bridge closures closed to navigation from 9 a.m. to 5 AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. during certain times due to bridge p.m. From May 18 to May 22, 2004, the alignment of the new spans. bridge will remain closed to navigation ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. DATES: This deviation is effective from from 7:01 a.m. to 12:59 p.m. and 2:01 7 a.m. on April 15, 2004, until 5 p.m. p.m. to 5:59 p.m. daily. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast on May 29, 2004. From May 24 to May 29, 2004, from Guard District, has issued a temporary 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily, the bridge will ADDRESSES: Material received from the deviation from the drawbridge operation only open at 7 a.m., 8:30 a.m., 10 a.m., public, as well as documents indicated regulations for the Metropolitan Avenue 11:30 a.m., 1 p.m., 2:30 p.m., 4 p.m. and in this preamble as being available in Bridge, mile 3.4, across English Kills at 5 p.m. This deviation is necessary to the docket [CGD07–04–039] will New York City, New York. Under this ensure workers’ safety during the become part of this docket and will be temporary deviation the bridge may alignment of the bridge. The available for inspection or copying at remain closed from 7 a.m. on April 26, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard Commander (obr), Seventh Coast Guard 2004 through 4 p.m. on May 1, 2004, District has granted a temporary District, 909 SE. 1st Avenue, Miami, and from 7 a.m. on June 9, 2004 through deviation from the operating Florida 33131–3050 between 7:30 a.m. 4 p.m. on June 12, 2004, to facilitate requirements listed in 33 CFR and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, necessary bridge maintenance. 117.261(v) to complete the alignment of except Federal Holidays. the new bridge leafs. Under this DATES: This deviation is effective from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. deviation, both the temporary Royal April 26, 2004 through June 12, 2004. Barry Dragon, Project Officer, Seventh Park Bridge and the new Royal Park FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch at bridge (SR 704), Atlantic Intracoastal Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard (305) 415–6744. Waterway mile 1022.6, Palm Beach, District, at (212) 668–7069. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Royal Florida, shall remain closed to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New Palm (SR 704) Bridge across the Atlantic navigation from April 15 to April 20, York City Department of Transportation Intracoastal Waterway, mile 1022.6, 2004, from 7:01 a.m. to 12:59 p.m. and (NYCDOT) Metropolitan Avenue Bridge Palm Beach, Florida, is a new double- 2:01 p.m. to 5:59 p.m. daily. From April has a vertical clearance in the closed leaf bascule bridge with a vertical 21 to May 16, 2004, from 7 a.m. to 5 position of 10 feet at mean high water clearance of 25 feet above mean high p.m., the bridges will only open at 7 and 15 feet at mean low water. The water (MHW) measured at the fenders in a.m., 8:30 a.m., 10 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 1 existing drawbridge operation the closed position with a horizontal p.m., 2:30 p.m., 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. On regulations are listed at 33 CFR clearance of 125 feet. The current May 17, 2004, the bridges will remain 117.801(e). operating regulation in 33 CFR closed to navigation from 9 a.m. to 5 NYCDOT, requested a temporary 117.261(v) requires that the Royal Park p.m. From May 18 to May 22, 2004, the deviation from the drawbridge operation (SR 704) Bridge, mile 1022.6 at Palm bridges shall remain closed to regulations to facilitate repairs to the Beach, shall open on signal, except that navigation from 7:01 a.m. to 12:59 p.m. electrical controls at the bridge. The from October 1 through May 31, and 2:01 p.m. to 5:59 p.m. daily. From bridge must remain in the closed Monday through Friday, except Federal May 24 to May 29, 2004, from 7 a.m. to position to perform these repairs.

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21065

Under this temporary deviation the between 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday activity around the site of the facility NYCDOT Metropolitan Avenue Bridge through Friday, except Federal holidays. and the safety concerns for construction may remain in the closed position from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: personnel, the personnel on board the 7 a.m. on April 26, 2004 through 4 p.m. Lieutenant (LT) Kevin Lynn, Project facility after it is completed, and the on May 1, 2004 and from 7 a.m. on June Manager for Eighth Coast Guard District environment. Shell indicated that the 9, 2004 through 4 p.m. on June 12, 2004. Commander, Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., location, production level, and This deviation from the operating 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA personnel levels on board the facility regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 70130, telephone (504) 589–6271. make it highly likely that any allision 117.35, and will be performed with all SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: with the facility during and after due speed in order to return the bridge construction would result in a to normal operation as soon as possible. Regulatory History catastrophic event. Dated: April 7, 2004. On January 20, 2004, we published a The Coast Guard has evaluated Shell’s information and concerns against Eighth John L. Grenier, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ‘‘Safety Zone; Outer Continental Coast Guard District criteria developed Captain, U.S. Coast Guard , Acting to determine if an Outer Continental Commander, First Coast Guard District. Shelf Facility in the Gulf of Mexico for Shelf facility qualifies for a safety zone. [FR Doc. 04–8862 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Mississippi Canyon 474’’ in the Federal Register (69 FR 2694). We received one Several factors were considered to BILLING CODE 4910–15–P comment on the proposed rule. No determine the necessity of a safety zone public hearing was requested, and none for the Na Kika FDS construction site and for a safety zone to remain in effect DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND was held. after the facility is completed: (1) The SECURITY Background and Purpose construction site is located Coast Guard The Coast Guard is establishing a approximately 46 nautical miles east- safety zone around a petroleum and gas southeast of the South Pass (Mississippi 33 CFR Part 147 production facility in the Gulf of River) to Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Mexico: Na Kika Floating Oil and Gas Channel Fairway and Southwest Pass [CGD08–03–039] Development System (FDS), Mississippi (Mississippi River) to South Pass RIN 1625–AA78 Canyon 474 ‘‘A’’ (MC 474 ‘‘A’’), located (Mississippi River) Safety Fairway, (2) at position 28°31′14.86″ N, 88°17′19.69″ the facility will have a high daily Safety Zone; Outer Continental Shelf W. The safety zone will be in effect production capacity of petroleum oil Facility in the Gulf of Mexico for while the facility is being constructed and gas; (3) the facility will be manned; Mississippi Canyon 474 and after the construction is completed. (4) the facility will be a semi- This safety zone is in the deepwater submersible; and (5) the semi- AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. area of the Gulf of Mexico. For the submersible will be moored by a 16-line ACTION: Final rule. purposes of this regulation it is permanent mooring system. considered to be in waters of 304.8 SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is We conclude that the risk of allision meters (1,000 feet) or greater depth establishing a safety zone around a to the facility and the potential for loss extending to the limits of the Exclusive petroleum and gas production facility in of life and damage to the environment Economic Zone (EEZ) contiguous to the Mississippi Canyon 474 ‘‘A’’ of the resulting from such an accident during territorial sea of the United States and Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of and following the construction of Na extending to a distance up to 200 Mexico while the facility is being Kika FDS warrants the establishment of nautical miles from the baseline from constructed and after the construction is this safety zone. The regulation will which the breadth of the sea is completed. The construction site and significantly reduce the threat of measured. Navigation in the area of the facility need to be protected from allisions, oil spills and natural gas safety zone consists of large commercial vessels operating outside the normal releases and increases the safety of life, shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise property, and the environment in the shipping channels and fairways, and ships, tugs with tows and the occasional placing a safety zone around this area Gulf of Mexico. This regulation is issued recreational vessel. The deepwater area pursuant to 14 U.S.C. 85 and 43 U.S.C. will significantly reduce the threat of of the Gulf of Mexico also includes an allisions, oil spills and releases of 1333 as set out in the authority citation extensive system of fairways. The for 33 CFR part 147. natural gas. This rule prohibits all fairways nearest the safety zone include vessels from entering or remaining in the South Pass (Mississippi River) to Discussion of Comment and Changes the specified area around the facility’s Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Channel We received one comment endorsing location except for attending vessels, Fairway and Southwest Pass the proposed safety zone. The Coast vessels under 100 feet in length overall (Mississippi River) to South Pass Guard has made no changes to the not engaged in towing, or vessels (Mississippi River) Safety Fairway. provisions of this regulation. authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard Significant amounts of vessel traffic Regulatory Evaluation District Commander. occur in or near the various fairways in DATES: This final rule is effective May the deepwater area. This rule is not a ‘‘significant 20, 2004. Shell Exploration and Production regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of ADDRESSES: Comments and material Company, hereafter referred to as Executive Order 12866 and does not received from the public, as well as ‘‘Shell’’ requested that the Coast Guard require an assessment of potential costs documents indicated in this preamble as establish a safety zone in the Gulf of and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that being available in the docket, are part of Mexico around the Na Kika FDS Order. The Office of Management and docket [CGD08–03–039] and are construction site and for the zone to Budget has not reviewed it under that available for inspection or copying at remain in effect after construction is Order. It is not significant under the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard completed. regulatory policies and procedures of District (m), Hale Boggs Federal Bldg., The request for the safety zone was the Department of Homeland Security 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA, made due to the high level of shipping (DHS).

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21066 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

We expect the economic impact of annually and rates each agency’s direct effect on one or more Indian this rule to be so minimal that a full responsiveness to small business. If you tribes, on the relationship between the regulatory evaluation under the wish to comment on actions by Federal Government and Indian tribes, regulatory policies and procedures of employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– or on the distribution of power and DHS is unnecessary. The impacts on 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). responsibilities between the Federal routine navigation are expected to be Government and Indian tribes. minimal because the safety zone will Collection of Information not overlap any of the safety fairways This rule calls for no new collection Energy Effects within the Gulf of Mexico. of information under the Paperwork We have analyzed this rule under Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– Executive Order 13211, Actions Small Entities 3520). Concerning Regulations That Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Federalism (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered Distribution, or Use. We have whether this rule will have a significant A rule has implications for federalism determined that it is not a ‘‘significant economic impact on a substantial under Executive Order 13132, energy action’’ under that Order because number of small entities. The term Federalism, if it has a substantial direct it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small effect on State or local governments and under Executive Order 12866 and is not businesses, not-for-profit organizations would either preempt State law or likely to have a significant adverse effect that are independently owned and impose a substantial direct cost of on the supply, distribution, or use of operated and are not dominant in their compliance on them. We have analyzed energy. The Administrator of the Office fields, and governmental jurisdictions this rule under that Order and have of Information and Regulatory Affairs with populations of less than 50,000. determined that it does not have has not designated it as a significant The Coast Guard certifies under 5 implications for federalism. energy action. Therefore, it does not U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have Unfunded Mandates Reform Act require a Statement of Energy Effects a significant economic impact on a under Executive Order 13211. substantial number of small entities. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Since the construction site for the Na of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Environment Kika is located far offshore, few Federal agencies to assess the effects of We have analyzed this rule under privately owned fishing vessels and their discretionary regulatory actions. In Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, recreational boats/yachts operate in the particular, the Act addresses actions which guides the Coast Guard in area. This rule will not impact an that may result in the expenditure by a complying with the National attending vessel or vessels less than 100 State, local, or tribal government, in the Environmental Policy Act of 1969 feet in length overall not engaged in aggregate, or by the private sector of (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and towing. Alternate routes are available $100,000,000 or more in any one year. have concluded that there are no factors for all other vessels impacted by this Though this rule will not result in such in this case that would limit the use of rule. Use of an alternate route may cause expenditure, we discuss the effects of categorical exclusion under section a vessel to incur a delay of four to ten this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this minutes in arriving at their destinations Taking of Private Property rule is categorically excluded, under depending on how fast the vessel is figure 2–1 paragraph (34)(g), of the traveling. Therefore, the Coast Guard This rule will not effect a taking of instruction, from further environmental expects the impact of this regulation on private property or otherwise have documentation because this rule is not small entities to be minimal. taking implications under Executive expected to result in any significant If you think that your business, Order 12630, Governmental Actions and environmental impact as described in organization, or governmental Interference with Constitutionally NEPA. jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity Protected Property Rights. A final ‘‘Environmental Analysis and that this rule would have a Civil Justice Reform Check List’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical significant economic impact on it, Exclusion Determination’’ are available please submit a comment (see This rule meets applicable standards in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive ADDRESSES. qualifies and to what degree this rule Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to would economically affect it. minimize litigation, eliminate List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147 ambiguity, and reduce burden. Assistance for Small Entities Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water). Under section 213(a) of the Small Protection of Children I For the reasons discussed in the Business Regulatory Enforcement We have analyzed this rule under preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), Executive Order 13045, Protection of CFR part 147 as follows: we offered to assist small entities in Children from Environmental Health understanding this rule so that they can Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not PART 147—SAFETY ZONES better evaluate its effects on them and an economically significant rule and participate in the rulemaking. does not create an environmental risk to I 1. The authority citation for part 147 Small businesses may send comments health or risk to safety that may continues to read as follows: on the actions of Federal employees disproportionately affect children. Authority: 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; who enforce, or otherwise determine Indian Tribal Governments Department of Homeland Security Delegation compliance with Federal regulations to No. 0170.1. the Small Business and Agriculture This rule does not have tribal I 2. Add § 147.833 to read as follows: Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman implications under Executive Order and the Regional Small Business 13175, Consultation and Coordination § 147.833 Na Kika FDS Safety Zone. Regulatory Fairness Boards. The with Indian Tribal Governments, (a) Description. Na Kika FDS, Ombudsman evaluates these actions because it does not have a substantial Mississippi Canyon 474 ‘‘A’’ (MC 474

VerDate mar<24>2004 18:06 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21067

‘‘A’’), located at position 28°31′14.86″ N, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Order. The Office of Management and 88°17′19.69″ W. The area within 500 Lieutenant Commander Lawrence Budget has not reviewed it under that meters (1640.4 feet) from each point on Greene, Marine Safety Office Savannah; Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the the structure’s outer edge is a safety phone (912) 652–4353, extension 205. regulatory policies and procedures of zone. These coordinates are based upon SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the Department of Homeland Security [NAD 83]. (DHS). (b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or Regulatory Information remain in this safety zone except the On November 19, 2003, we published Small Entities following: (1) An attending vessel; a notice of proposed rulemaking Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (2) A vessel under 100 feet in length (NPRM) entitled Regulated Navigation (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered overall not engaged in towing; or Area: Savannah River, Savannah GA, in whether this rule would have a (3) A vessel authorized by the the Federal Register (68 FR 65227). We significant economic impact on a Commander, Eighth Coast Guard received no public comments on the substantial number of small entities. District. proposed rule. No public hearing was The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises Dated: April 5, 2004. requested, and none was held. No other small businesses, not-for-profit R.F. Duncan, documents were published as part of organizations that are independently Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, this rulemaking. owned and operated and are not Eighth Coast Guard District. Background and Purpose dominant in their fields, and [FR Doc. 04–8866 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] governmental jurisdictions with The port of Savannah currently populations of less than 50,000. BILLING CODE 4910–15–P receives LNG tankships, ranging from The Coast Guard certifies under 5 two to eight vessels per month, at the U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Southern LNG Elba Island facility. The a significant economic impact on a SECURITY Coast Guard currently has a regulated substantial number of small entities. navigation area (RNA) in effect for LNG Delays for inbound and outbound traffic Coast Guard tankship transits. The existing due to LNG transits will be minimized regulation restricts vessel movement through this change and through pre- 33 CFR Part 165 and extends from Fort Jackson, which is transit conferences between the pilots upriver from the Elba Island LNG and the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. [CGD07–03–147] facility, down the length of the The RNA requirements under this final RIN 1625–AA11 Savannah River and offshore to the rule are less burdensome for smaller Savannah River Channel Entrance Sea vessels, which are more likely to be Regulated Navigation Area; Savannah Buoy (67 FR 46865). After over two small entities. River, Savannah, GA years of experience with LNG tankship transits on the Savannah River, the Assistance for Small Entities AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Coast Guard is changing the existing Under section 213(a) of the Small ACTION: Final rule. regulation in order to allow vessels of Business Regulatory Enforcement SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending 1600 gross tons or greater to enter the Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), the regulated navigation area on the RNA during LNG tankship transits, we offered to assist small entities in Savannah River to improve vessel traffic provided they come no closer than 2 understanding the rule so that they flow during Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) nautical miles to the transiting LNG could better evaluate its effects on them tankship transits. This change will tankship. Vessels less than 1600 gross and participate in the rulemaking allow all vessels greater than 1600 gross tons will still be permitted to transit the process. tons to transit the area during LNG RNA during LNG tankship transits Small businesses may send comments tankship transits, provided they come provided they maintain a safe distance on the actions of Federal employees no closer than 2 nautical miles to the from transiting LNG tankships. This rule who enforce, or otherwise determine LNG vessel without specific will reduce port congestion during LNG compliance with, Federal regulations to authorization from the Captain of the transits and decrease delays to vessels, the Small Business and Agriculture Port. This amendment will improve the facilities and terminals on the Savannah Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman flow of vessel traffic on the Savannah River. A safe distance of two nautical and the Regional Small Business River during LNG transits while still miles for vessels 1600 gross tons and Regulatory Fairness Boards. The providing for the safety of vessels on the greater is necessary to protect the safety Ombudsman evaluates these actions navigable waterways. of life and property on the navigable annually and rates each agency’s DATES: This rule is effective May 20, waters from hazards associated with responsiveness to small business. If you 2004. LNG activities. wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– Discussion of Comments and Changes ADDRESSES: Comments and material 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). received from the public, as well as No comments were received and no documents indicated in this preamble as changes were made in the proposed Collection of Information being available in the docket, are part of amendment to the Regulated Navigation This rule calls for no new collection docket [CGD07–03–147] and are Area. of information under the Paperwork available for inspection or copying at Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– Regulatory Evaluation Coast Guard Marine Safety Office 3520). Savannah, Juliette Gordon Low Federal This rule is not a ‘‘significant Building, Suite 1017, 100 W. regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Federalism Oglethorpe, Savannah, Georgia 31401, Executive Order 12866, Regulatory A rule has implications for federalism between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Planning and Review, and does not under Executive Order 13132, Monday through Friday, except Federal require an assessment of potential costs Federalism, if it has a substantial holidays. and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that direct effect on State or local

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21068 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

governments and would either preempt energy action’’ under that order, because Dated: March 28, 2004. State law or impose a substantial direct it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ H.E. Johnson, cost of compliance on them. We have under Executive Order 12866 and is not Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, analyzed this rule under that Order and likely to have a significant adverse effect Seventh Coast Guard District. have determined that it does not have on the supply, distribution, or use of [FR Doc. 04–8867 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] implications for federalism. No energy. The Administrator of the Office BILLING CODE 4910–15–P comments were submitted regarding of Information and Regulatory Affairs this section. has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not Unfunded Mandates Reform Act DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS require a Statement of Energy Effects AFFAIRS The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act under Executive Order 13211. of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 38 CFR Part 20 Federal agencies to assess the effects of Environment their discretionary regulatory actions. In We have analyzed this rule under RIN 2900–AL45 particular, the Act addresses actions Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, Board of Veterans’ Appeals: Rules of that may result in the expenditure by a which guides the Coast Guard in Practice—Notice Procedures Relating State, local, or tribal government, in the complying with the National to Withdrawal of Services by a aggregate, or by the private sector of Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Representative $100,000,000 or more in any one year. (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and Though this rule will not result in such have concluded that there are no factors AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. an expenditure, we do discuss the in this case that would limit the use of ACTION: Final rule. effects of this rule elsewhere in this a categorical exclusion under section preamble. 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this SUMMARY: This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Taking of Private Property rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals Rules of This rule will not effect a taking of Instruction, from further environmental Practice to simplify notice procedures private property or otherwise have documentation. Under figure 2–1, relating to withdrawal of services by a taking implications under Executive paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an representative after certification of an Order 12630, Governmental Actions and ‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’ appeal. We believe that these simplified Interference with Constitutionally and a ‘‘Categorical Exclusion notice procedures are adequate for Protected Property Rights. Determination’’ are not required for this establishing proof of service. Civil Justice Reform rule. DATES: Effective Date: May 20, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: This rule meets applicable standards List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Steven L. Keller, Senior Deputy Vice in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation Chairman, Board of Veterans’ Appeals, Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to (water), Reporting and recordkeeping Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 minimize litigation, eliminate requirements, Waterways. Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC ambiguity, and reduce burden. I For the reasons set out in the 20420 (202–565–5978). In a document Protection of Children preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 published in the Federal Register on We have analyzed this rule under CFR part 165 as follows: June 3, 2003 (68 FR 33040), we Executive Order 13045, Protection of proposed amending Rule 608(b)(2) (38 Children from Environmental Health PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION CFR 20.608(b)(2)) to provide that, in Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS cases involving a motion to withdraw an economically significant rule and services by a representative after I 1. The authority citation for part 165 certification of an appeal, proof of does not create an environmental risk to continues to read as follows: health or risk to safety that may service will be accomplished by filing a disproportionately affect children. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. statement with the Board of Veterans’ Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR Appeals (Board) certifying that the Indian Tribal Governments 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. motion has been sent by first-class mail, 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of postage prepaid, to the appellant or that This rule does not have tribal Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. implications under Executive Order the response has been sent by first-class 13175, Consultation and Coordination I 2. In § 165.756, paragraph (d)(1)(i) is mail, postage prepaid, to the with Indian Tribal Governments, revised to read as follows: representative, as applicable. The because it does not have a substantial previous practice required mailing the § 165.756 Regulated Navigation Area; motion, and any response to that direct effect on one or more Indian Savannah River, Georgia. tribes, on the relationship between the motion, by certified mail. The purpose * * * * * Federal Government and Indian tribes, of this amendment is to shorten the time or on the distribution of power and (d) * * * before the motion is ripe for responsibilities between the Federal (1) * * * determination by the Board, expediting Government and Indian tribes. (i) Except for a vessel that is moored the possibility of a transition, if at a marina, wharf, or pier, and remains appropriate, to a new representative. Energy Effects moored, no vessel 1600 gross tons or We asked interested parties to submit We have analyzed this rule under greater may approach within two comments on or before August 4, 2003. Executive Order 13211, Actions nautical miles of a LNG tankship that is We received no comments. Based on the Concerning Regulations That underway within the RNA without the rationale noted above and as set forth in Significantly Affect Energy Supply, permission of the Captain of the Port the proposed rule, we are adopting the Distribution, or Use. We have (COTP). proposed rule as a final rule without determined that it is not a ‘‘significant * * * * * change.

VerDate mar<24>2004 18:06 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21069

Executive Order 12866 § 20.608 [Amended] You may send mail to both of these I officials at the National Highway Traffic The Office of Management and Budget 2. Section 20.608, paragraph (b)(2) is Safety Administration, 400 Seventh has reviewed this document under amended by: I Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Executive Order 12866. A. In the third sentence, removing ‘‘permitted.’’ and adding, in its place, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Unfunded Mandates ‘‘permitted, and a signed statement Background The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act certifying that a copy of the motion was of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid, The regulation that is subject to this agencies prepare an assessment of to the appellant, setting forth the correction is 49 CFR Part 595 subpart C, anticipated costs and benefits before address to which the copy was mailed.’’ Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate I B. Removing the sixth and seventh developing any rule that may result in People with Disabilities. On February sentences. an expenditure by State, local, or tribal 27, 2001, NHTSA issued a final rule I C. In the eighth sentence, removing governments, in the aggregate, or by the establishing a limited exemption from a ‘‘motion.’’ and adding, in its place, private sector, of $100 million or more statutory provision that prohibits ‘‘motion and must include a signed in any given year. This final rule would specified types of commercial entities statement certifying that a copy of the have no such effect on State, local, or from either removing safety equipment response was sent by first-class mail, tribal governments, or the private sector. or features installed on motor vehicles postage prepaid, to the representative, pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle Paperwork Reduction Act setting forth the address to which the safety standards or altering the copy was mailed.’’ The Secretary hereby certifies that equipment or features so as to adversely I D. Removing the ninth and tenth affect their performance (66 FR 12638). this final rule contains no new sentences. collection of information under the The exemption allows repair businesses Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. [FR Doc. 04–8880 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] to modify certain types of federally- 3501–3521). BILLING CODE 8320–01–P required safety equipment and features when passenger motor vehicles are Regulatory Flexibility Act modified for use by persons with The Secretary hereby certifies that DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION disabilities. this regulatory amendment will not Need for Correction have a significant economic impact on National Highway Traffic Safety As published, the February 2001 final a substantial number of small entities as Administration rule contained an error that needs they are defined in the Regulatory correction. Included in the list of Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 49 CFR Part 595 Federal standards that qualify for this This rule merely concerns requirements [Docket No. NHTSA–04–17536] limited exemption is Federal Motor for proof of service of motions for Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. withdrawal of services by a Retrofit On-Off Switches for Air Bags; 202, Head restraints. However, § 595.7, representative after certification of an Vehicle Modifications To Requirements for vehicle modifications appeal before the Board, and for proof Accommodate People With Disabilities to accommodate people with of service of responses to such motions. AGENCY: National Highway Traffic disabilities, erroneously cites S3(b)(1) Moreover, such motions and responses Safety Administration (NHTSA), and S3(b)(2) of FMVSS No. 202, which are events that occur in only a minor Department of Transportation (DOT). do not exist. This correction amends proportion of the cases before the Board. § 595.7(c)(9) to cite S4.3(b)(1) and Any economic impact on small entities ACTION: Correcting amendment. S4.3(b)(2) of FMVSS No. 202. would be minimal. Therefore, pursuant SUMMARY: This document corrects the to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is regulation governing vehicle Correction of Publication exempt from the initial and final modifications made to accommodate List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595 regulatory flexibility analysis people with disabilities. requirements of sections 603 and 604. Imports, Motor vehicle safety, DATES: The effective date of this final Reporting and recordkeeping List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 20 rule is April 20, 2004. Petitions for requirements. reconsideration must be submitted so Administrative practice and they are received by the agency June 4, I In consideration of the foregoing, procedure, Claims, Attorneys, Lawyers, 2004. NHTSA is amending 49 CFR part 595 as Legal services, Procedural rules, ADDRESSES: follows: Veterans. Petitions for reconsideration must be identified by the Docket PART 595—[AMENDED] Approved: March 18, 2004. Number in the title to this document Anthony J. Principi, and submitted to: Administrator, I 1. The authority citation for part 595 Secretary of Veterans Affairs. National Highway Traffic Safety continues to read as follows: I For the reasons set out in the Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, preamble, 38 CFR part 20 is amended as Washington, DC 20590. 30117, 30122, and 30166; delegation of set forth below: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For authority at 49 CFR 1.50. technical and other non-legal issues, I 2. In § 595.7, paragraph (c)(9) is PART 20—BOARD OF VETERANS’ you may call Ms. Gayle Dalrymple of revised to read as follows: APPEALS: RULES OF PRACTICE the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at (202) 366–5559. § 595.7 Requirements for vehicle I 1. The authority citation for part 20 For legal issues, you may call Mr. modifications to accommodate people with continues to read as follows: Chris Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel disabilities. Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and as noted in (Telephone: (202) 366–2992) (Fax: (202) * * * * * specific sections. 366–3820). (c) * * *

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21070 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

(9) S4.3(b)(1) and (2) of 49 CFR Electronic Access personnel trained in whale 571.202, in any case in which the Several of the background documents identification, scientific research survey driver’s head restraint must be modified for the ALWTRP and the take reduction personnel, whale watch operators and to accommodate a driver with a planning process can be downloaded naturalists, and mariners trained in disability. from the ALWTRP web site at http:// whale species identification through * * * * * www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/. disentanglement training or some other training program deemed adequate by Issued on: April 9, 2004. Background NMFS. A reliable report would be a Roger A. Saul, The ALWTRP was developed credible right whale sighting. Director, Office of Crashworthiness On April 9, 2004, NMFS Aerial Standards. pursuant to section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to Survey Team reported a sighting of nine [FR Doc. 04–8932 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] ° reduce the incidental mortality and right whales in the proximity of 42 ′ ° ′ BILLING CODE 4910–59–P serious injury of three endangered 10.6 N lat. and 68 52.4 W long. This species of whales (right, fin, and position lies east of Boston, MA. Thus, humpback) as well as to provide NMFS has received a reliable report DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE conservation benefits to a fourth non- from a qualified individual of the endangered species (minke) due to requisite right whale density to trigger National Oceanic and Atmospheric incidental interaction with commercial the DAM provisions of the ALWTRP. Administration fishing activities. The ALWTRP, Once a DAM zone is triggered, NMFS implemented through regulations determines whether to impose 50 CFR Part 229 codified at 50 CFR 229.32, relies on a restrictions on fishing and/or fishing combination of fishing gear gear in the zone. This determination is [Docket No.; I.D. 041404A] modifications and time/area closures to based on the following factors, reduce the risk of whales becoming including but not limited to: the Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental location of the DAM zone with respect to Commercial Fishing Operations; entangled in commercial fishing gear (and potentially suffering serious injury to other fishery closure areas, weather Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction conditions as they relate to the safety of Plan (ALWTRP) or mortality as a result). On January 9, 2002, NMFS published human life at sea, the type and amount of gear already present in the area, and AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the final rule to implement the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and ALWTRP’s DAM program (67 FR 1133). a review of recent right whale Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), On August 26, 2003, NMFS amended entanglement and mortality data. NMFS has reviewed the factors and Commerce. the regulations by publishing a final management options noted above rule, which specifically identified gear ACTION: Temporary rule. relative to the DAM under modifications that may be allowed in a consideration. As a result of this review, SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator DAM zone (68 FR 51195). The DAM NMFS prohibits lobster trap/pot and for Fisheries (AA), NOAA, announces program provides specific authority for anchored gillnet gear in this area during temporary restrictions consistent with NMFS to restrict temporarily on an the restricted period unless it is the requirements of the ALWTRP’s expedited basis the use of lobster trap/ modified in the manner described in implementing regulations. These pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear in this temporary rule. In April, the DAM regulations apply to lobster trap/pot and areas north of 40° N. lat. to protect right zone is bounded by the following anchored gillnet fishermen in an area whales. Under the DAM program, coordinates: totaling approximately 1,347 square NMFS may: (1) require the removal of ° ′ ° ′ 2 2 42 30 N, 69 20 W (NW Corner) nautical miles (nm ) (4,620 km ) east of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet 42°30′N, 68°21′W Boston, MA through April 30, 2004. The fishing gear for a 15–day period; (2) 41°52′N, 68°21′W purpose of this action is to provide allow lobster trap/pot and anchored 42°10′N, 68°31′W protection to an aggregation of North gillnet fishing within a DAM zone with 41°50′N, 69°20′W Atlantic right whales (right whales). gear modifications determined by NMFS On May 1, when the restrictions on DATES: Effective beginning at 0001 hours to sufficiently reduce the risk of anchored gillnet and lobster trap/pot April 22, 2004, through 2400 hours entanglement; and/or (3) issue an alert fishing gear become effective in the April 30, 2004. to fishermen requesting the voluntary SAM East area, the DAM zone is ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed and removal of all lobster trap/pot and completely subsumed by SAM East and final Dynamic Area Management (DAM) anchored gillnet gear for a 15–day the anchored gillnet and lobster rules, Environmental Assessments period and asking fishermen not to set fishermen with gear in the DAM zone (EAs), Atlantic Large Whale Take any additional gear in the DAM zone must comply with the requirements for Reduction Team (ALWTRT) meeting during the 15–day period. fishing in SAM East. summaries, and progress reports on A DAM zone is triggered when NMFS In addition to those gear implementation of the ALWTRP may receives a reliable report from a modifications currently implemented also be obtained by writing Diane qualified individual of three or more under the ALWTRP at 50 CFR 229.32, right whales sighted within an area (75 the following gear modifications are Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast Region, 2 2 One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA nm (139 km )) such that right whale required in the DAM zone. If the 01930. density is equal to or greater than 0.04 requirements and exceptions for gear right whales per nm2 (1.85 km2). A modification in the DAM zone, as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: qualified individual is an individual described below, differ from other Diane Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast ascertained by NMFS to be reasonably ALWTRP requirements for any Region, 978–281–9328 x6503; or Kristy able, through training or experience, to overlapping areas and times, then the Long, NMFS, Office of Protected identify a right whale. Such individuals more restrictive requirements will apply Resources, 301–713–1401. include, but are not limited to, NMFS in the DAM zone. Special note for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: staff, U.S. Coast Guard and Navy gillnet fisherman: In April, this DAM

VerDate mar<24>2004 14:49 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 21071

zone overlaps the Northeast The restrictions will be in effect trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear as multispecies’ Rolling Closure Area II. beginning at 0001 hours April 22, 2004, such procedures would be This DAM action does not supersede through 2400 hours April 30, 2004, impracticable. Northeast multispecies closures found unless terminated sooner by NMFS For the same reasons, the AA finds at 50 CFR 648.81. through another notification in the that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good Federal Register. cause exists to waive the 30-day delay Lobster Trap/Pot Gear The restrictions will be announced to in effective date. If NMFS were to delay Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot state officials, fishermen, ALWTRT for 30 days the effective date of this gear within the portion of the Offshore members, and other interested parties action, the aggregated right whales Lobster Waters Area that overlap with through e-mail, phone contact, NOAA would be vulnerable to entanglement, the DAM zone are required to utilize all website, and other appropriate media which could cause serious injury and of the following gear modifications immediately upon filing with the mortality. Additionally, right whales while the DAM zone is in effect: Federal Register. would likely move to another location 1. Groundlines must be made of either between the time NMFS approved the sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Classification action creating the DAM restricted zone Floating groundlines are prohibited; In accordance with section 118(f)(9) of and the time it went into effect, thereby 2. All buoy lines must be made of the MMPA, the Assistant Administrator rendering the action obsolete and either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, (AA) for Fisheries has determined that ineffective. Nevertheless, NMFS except the bottom portion of the line, this action is necessary to implement a recognizes the need for fishermen to which may be a section of floating line take reduction plan to protect North have time to either modify or remove (if not to exceed one-third the overall Atlantic right whales. not in compliance with the required length of the buoy line; This action falls within the scope of restrictions) their gear from a DAM zone 3. Fishermen are allowed to use two alternatives and impacts analyzed in the once one is approved. Thus, NMFS buoy lines per trawl; and Final EAs prepared for the ALWTRP’s makes this action effective 2 days after 4. A weak link with a maximum DAM program. Further analysis under the date of publication of this action in breaking strength of 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) the Federal Register. NMFS will also the National Environmental Policy Act must be placed at all buoys. endeavor to provide notice of this action is not required. Anchored Gillnet Gear to fishermen through other means as NMFS provided prior notice and an soon as the AA approves it, thereby Fishermen utilizing anchored gillnet opportunity for public comment on the providing approximately 3 additional gear within the portion of the Other regulations establishing the criteria and days of notice while the Office of the Northeast Gillnet Waters that overlap procedures for implementing a DAM Federal Register processes the with the DAM zone are required to zone. Providing prior notice and document for publication. utilize all the following gear opportunity for comment on this action, NMFS determined that the regulations modifications while the DAM zone is in pursuant to those regulations, would be establishing the DAM program and effect: impracticable because it would prevent actions such as this one taken pursuant 1. Groundlines must be made of either NMFS from executing its functions to to those regulations are consistent to the sinking or neutrally buoyant line. protect and reduce serious injury and maximum extent practicable with the Floating groundlines are prohibited; mortality of endangered right whales. enforceable policies of the approved 2. All buoy lines must be made of The regulations establishing the DAM coastal management program of the U.S. either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, program are designed to enable the Atlantic coastal states. This except the bottom portion of the line, agency to help protect unexpected determination was submitted for review which may be a section of floating line concentrations of right whales. In order by the responsible state agencies under not to exceed one-third the overall to meet the goals of the DAM program, section 307 of the Coastal Zone length of the buoy line; the agency needs to be able to create a Management Act. Following state 3. Fishermen are allowed to use two DAM zone and implement restrictions review of the regulations creating the buoy lines per string; on fishing gear as soon as possible once DAM program, no state disagreed with 4. Each net panel must have a total of the criteria are triggered and NMFS NMFS’ conclusion that the DAM five weak links with a maximum determines that a DAM restricted zone program is consistent to the maximum breaking strength of 1,100 lb (498.8 kg). is appropriate. If NMFS were to provide extent practicable with the enforceable Net panels are typically 50 fathoms prior notice and an opportunity for policies of the approved coastal (91.4 m) in length, but the weak link public comment upon the creation of a management program for that state. requirements would apply to all DAM restricted zone, the aggregated The DAM program under which variations in panel size. These weak right whales would be vulnerable to NMFS is taking this action contains links must include three floatline weak entanglement which could result in policies with federalism implications links. The placement of the weak links serious injury and mortality. warranting preparation of a federalism on the floatline must be: one at the Additionally, the right whales would assessment under Executive Order center of the net panel and one each as most likely move on to another location 13132. Accordingly, in October 2001 close as possible to each of the bridle before NMFS could implement the and March 2003, the Assistant Secretary ends of the net panel. The remaining restrictions designed to protect them, for Intergovernmental and Legislative two weak links must be placed in the thereby rendering the action obsolete. Affairs, DOC, provided notice of the center of each of the up and down lines Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. DAM program and its amendments to at the panel ends; and 553(b)(B), the AA finds that good cause the appropriate elected officials in states 5. All anchored gillnets, regardless of exists to waive prior notice and an to be affected by actions taken pursuant the number of net panels, must be opportunity to comment on this action to the DAM program. Federalism issues securely anchored with the holding to implement a DAM restricted zone to raised by state officials were addressed power of at least a 22–lb (10.0–kg) reduce the risk of entanglement of in the final rules implementing the Danforth-style anchor at each end of the endangered right whales in commercial DAM program. A copy of the federalism net string. lobster Summary Impact Statement for the final

VerDate mar<24>2004 18:06 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21072 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

rules is available upon request see significant under Executive Order Dated: April 14, 2004. (ADDRESSES). 12866. John Oliver, The rule implementing the DAM Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. and 50 Deputy Assistant Administrator for program has been determined to be not CFR 229.32(g)(3) Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 04–8916 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

VerDate mar<24>2004 18:06 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM 20APR1 21073

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 76

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 20590–0001. You must identify the 1,000 persons participated in the public contains notices to the public of the proposed docket number FAA–1998–4521 at the meeting on the Internet. Members of the issuance of rules and regulations. The beginning of your comments, and you public, aviation organizations, and some purpose of these notices is to give interested should submit two copies of your persons an opportunity to participate in the members of Congress have asked us to rule making prior to the adoption of the final comments. hold traditional public meetings, in rules. You may also submit comments addition to the public meeting we held through the Internet to http://dms/ on the Internet. dot.gov. You may review the public DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION docket containing comments to these Public Meetings proposed regulations in person in the Federal Aviation Administration Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 We have carefully considered the p.m., Monday through Friday, except requests for traditional public meetings. 14 CFR Parts 61, 91, 119, 121, 135, and Federal holidays. The Dockets Office is The public meeting on the Internet was 136 on the plaza level at the Department of an effort to allow broad participation Transportation building at the address throughout the country. It accomplished [Docket No. FAA–1998–4521; Notice No. 04– this. The participation in the public 06] above. Also, you may review public dockets on the Internet at http:// meeting on the Internet significantly RIN 2120–AF07 dms.dot.gov. exceeded the participation we would expect to achieve at a typical face to face FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If National Air Tour Safety Standards public meeting. Approximately 1,000 you wish to speak at the public persons registered and many of them AGENCY: Federal Aviation meetings or if you have questions about Administration (FAA), DOT. the public meetings please contact: actively participated. Many who participated through the Internet were ACTION: Notice of public meetings and Mark Lawyer, Office of Rulemaking, extension of the comment period. Federal Aviation Administration, 800 located in widely dispersed small Independence Avenue, SW., communities throughout the country. SUMMARY: On October 22, 2003, the FAA Washington, DC 20591, Telephone: Many of these persons would not have published a notice of proposed 202–493–4531, Fax: (202) 267–5075, been able to participate in a traditional rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes Email: [email protected]. public meeting because of the time and regulations to govern commercial air If you have specific questions expense of traveling to a fixed location. tours throughout the United States. We pertaining to the Notice of Proposed It would be impractical to conduct a are announcing two public meetings Rulemaking, please contact: Alberta public meeting in every community in and are extending the comment period Brown, Air Transportation Division, America where someone could be for the proposed rule. The public Flight Standards Service, AFS–200, affected by the proposed rule. meetings and additional time for the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Those who participated in the public public to comment will help us consider Independence Avenue, SW., meeting on the Internet provided us the concerns of those who may be most Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) with much useful information about the affected by the proposed rule. 267–8166 ext. 78321, Email: industry and many suggestions that will DATES: The comment period for Notice [email protected]. help us develop a rule that will promote No. 03–10, published on October 22, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: safety without imposing unnecessary 2003 at 68 FR 60572, is extended until burdens on the industry. We have also June 18, 2004. The FAA will hold Background public meetings in Washington, DC on received positive comments about our We published a notice of proposed efforts to broaden participation through May 11, 2004 and in Las Vegas, Nevada rulemaking on October 22, 2003 (68 FR on May 21, 2004. use of the Internet. Many of you, 60572) that proposes to regulate however, including aviation ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at commercial air tours throughout the organizations and some members of the following locations: United States. The notice provided a 90- Congress, have asked us to also hold May 11—Holiday Inn on the Hill, 415 day comment period that was to end on some face to face public meetings to New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, January 20, 2004. We received DC 20001. significant response to this NPRM, allow you an opportunity to express May 21—Clark County Government including numerous requests to extend your concerns directly to an FAA Center, Commission Chambers, 500 the comment period and to conduct representative. We agree that this is South Grand Central Parkway, Las public meetings. On January 16, 2004, appropriate because of the strong Vegas, Nevada 89155. we published a notice to extend the interest in this proposed rule. You may continue to submit written comment period an additional 90 days Where and When we Will Hold Public comments to the docket, whether or not to April 19, 2004 (69 FR 2529). On Meetings you participate in the public meetings. February 10, 2004, we published a Address your comments to the Docket notice of public meeting on the Internet We will hold public meetings at the Management System, U.S. Department (69 FR 6218). We held a public meeting following locations, dates, and times: of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 on the Internet from February 23, 2004 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC through March 5, 2004. Approximately

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:18 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM 20APP1 21074 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

City Date Time Location

Washington, DC ...... May 11, 2004 ...... Registration, 8:30 a.m.–9 a.m., meeting be- Holiday Inn on the Hill, 415 New Jersey Av- gins 9 a.m. enue, NW., Washington, DC 20001. Las Vegas, Nevada ...... May 21, 2004 ...... Session One: Registration, 8:30 a.m.–9 Clark County Government Center, Commis- a.m., meeting begins 9 a.m. sion Chambers, 500 South Grand Central Session Two: Registration, 6 p.m.–6:30 Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada 89155. p.m., meeting begins 6:30 p.m.

Participation at the Public Meetings 5. We will try to accommodate all the industry. We also welcome We will explain the purpose and speakers; therefore, it may be necessary comments that will help us develop a background of the NPRM at the to limit the time available for an rule that will promote safety without beginning of each public meeting. individual or group. The meetings may imposing unnecessary burdens on the be accelerated to enable adjournment in industry. Some of you have already If you wish to present oral statements less than the time scheduled. Once all provided useful suggestions. We at the meeting, you must contact the speakers have been called upon and all welcome further suggestions. FAA no later than Tuesday, May 4, 2004 attendees have had an opportunity to In addition to other information you for the May 11, 2004 meeting in comment, the meetings will adjourn. may wish to provide, responses to the Washington, DC and no later than 6. We can make sign and oral following questions, either from Friday, May 14 for the May 21, 2004 interpretation available at the meetings, individual companies or data collected meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada. You as well as an assistive listening device, from industry groups, would give us should submit requests to participate to if requested 10 calendar days before information that may help us develop a Mark Lawyer as listed above in the each meeting. final rule: section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 7. We will arrange to have a court • Do you fly air tours under the 25- CONTACT. You should include a reporter record the meetings. A mile exception found in 14 CFR summary of any oral comments you transcript of the meetings and all 119.1(e)(2)? wish to present and an estimate of how material accepted by the panel during • How many air tour flight hours do much time you need. Requests that we the meetings will be included in the you fly each year? receive after the dates shown above will public docket, unless protected from • How many air tours do you fly? be scheduled if time is available; disclosure. Each person interested in • How much revenue do you collect however, the name of those individuals purchasing a copy of the transcript and what are your direct and indirect may not appear on the written agenda. should contact the court reporter costs per air tour or per year? We will prepare an agenda of speakers. directly. We will provide this • How many aircraft and what makes This agenda will be available at each information at each meeting. and models do you use to provide air meeting. To accommodate as many 8. We will review and consider all tours? speakers as possible, the amount of time information presented at the public • What percent of your aviation allocated to each speaker may be less meetings. Position papers or materials business is comprised of air tours? than the amount of time requested. If presenting views or information related • What are the sources of your other you need audiovisual equipment, please to the NPRM may be accepted at the aviation revenues? let us know at least 7 days before the discretion of the presiding officer. • How many pilots do you employ in meeting where you will use the Please provide 10 copies of all material air tours? equipment. that you present at the public meetings • If the pilots also fly for other Public Meeting Procedures so we will have copies for the panel purposes, what percentage of their time members. You may provide additional is spent flying air tours? 1. There will be no admission fee or copies for the audience at your • Do you conduct air tours over other charge to attend or to participate discretion. national parks? in the public meetings. The meetings 9. Statements made by members of the • What percent of your annual air will be open to all persons who have panel are intended to facilitate tour flight hours are conducted over requested in advance to present discussions of the issues or clarify national parks? statements or who register during the issues. We will consider all comments • What percent of your total revenues registration period on the day of the made at the public meetings before we are attributable to air tours? meetings, subject to the availability of make a final decision on any final rule. • If the 25-mile exception is space in the meeting room. 10. The meetings are designed to withdrawn, would you apply for a part 2. Representatives of the FAA will solicit public views and further 121 or 135 certificate? conduct the public meetings. A panel of information that is relevant to the • If you could no longer provide air experts will be present to briefly NPRM. Therefore, we will conduct the tours, how would that affect your summarize the NPRM and receive meeting in an informal and business? information presented by participants. nonadversarial manner. • Are there ways we could achieve The FAA chairperson will explain the results intended by the proposed procedural rules specific to the meetings The Purpose of the Public Meetings and rule that would impose fewer burdens at the beginning of each meeting. What We Need From You on the industry? 3. Participants must limit their The purpose of the public meetings is • The NTSB has recommended that presentations and submissions of data to to obtain information from you that we we eliminate the 25-mile exception and the issues of the NPRM. do not already have. Some of you have establish a database of air tour 4. One purpose of the meetings is to said in comments that we do not have operators. Are there other approaches provide a forum to present information complete information on the air tour we could take that would achieve an that is not currently available to the industry. We welcome information that equivalent level of safety and impose FAA. will give us a better understanding of fewer burdens on the industry?

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:18 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM 20APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21075

If you are unable to participate in the regulations issued by the Secretary (administrative record no. KY–1614). In public meetings, you may continue to pursuant to the Act’’ (See 30 U.S.C. the letter, Kentucky stated that the comment in the docket. 1253(a)(1) and (7)). On the basis of these regulations had not yet been criteria, the Secretary of the Interior promulgated at the state level, and were Extension of the Comment Period conditionally approved the Kentucky in fact under reconsideration. For these We are extending the comment period program on May 18, 1982. You can find reasons, we are treating Kentucky’s to June 18, 2004, to allow you background information on the request as a withdrawal of the proposed opportunity to comment further after Kentucky program, including the amendment, and are accepting that the public meetings. Secretary’s findings, the disposition of withdrawal. comments, and conditions of approval Issued in Washington, DC on April 15, III. Disposition of Comments 2004. of the Kentucky program in the May 18, Anthony F. Fazio, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 21434). Public Comments You can also find later actions Director, Office of Rulemaking. We received five public comments on concerning Kentucky’s program and [FR Doc. 04–8965 Filed 4–15–04; 4:32 pm] the proposed rule, as well as a copy of program amendments at 30 CFR 917.11, BILLING CODE 4910–13–P a recommendation of the Kentucky 917.12, 917.13, 917.15, 917.16, and 917.17. Environmental Quality Commission. Of these, four of the commenters, and the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR II. Submission of the Proposed Kentucky Environmental Quality Amendment Commission, urged that the proposed Office of Surface Mining Reclamation By letter dated September 30, 2003, program amendment not be approved. and Enforcement Kentucky sent us a proposed The other commenter indicated its amendment to its program (KY–246, approval of the proposal. Because OSM 30 CFR Part 917 administrative record no. KY–1601) is discontinuing its consideration of the [KY–246–FOR] under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). proposed State program amendment, we Kentucky proposed to revise its consider the substance of these Kentucky Regulatory Program definition of ‘‘affected area’’ as it relates comments moot at this time and thus to public roads at 405 Kentucky not ripe for discussion. AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Administrative Regulations (KAR) Federal Agency Comments Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 7:001, 8:001, 10:001, 12:001, 16:001, Interior. 18:001, 20:001, and 24:001. The revision We did not receive any Federal ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. specifies that the affected area will Agency comments on this proposed State program amendment. SUMMARY: We, OSM, are announcing the include every road used for the withdrawal of proposed regulatory purposes of access to, or for hauling coal Dated: April 1, 2004. changes to the Kentucky regulatory to or from, surface coal mining and Brent Wahlquist, program (the ‘‘Kentucky program’) under reclamation operations, unless the road Regional Director, Appalachian Regional ‘‘ the Surface Mining Control and is a state, county, or public road and Coordinating Center. Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the the road is in existence as of the date of [FR Doc. 04–8842 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] the submittal of the preliminary Act). Kentucky had proposed to amend BILLING CODE 4310–05–P its definition of ‘‘affected area,’’ with application under 405 KAR 8:010 respect to roads, but subsequently Section 4.’’ This would replace the current language, which Kentucky decided to withdraw the proposed proposed to delete, that includes every DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS changes from further consideration as a road in the affected area except those: AFFAIRS State program amendment. designated as a public road pursuant to 38 CFR Part 17 EFFECTIVE DATES: April 20, 2004. jurisdictional laws where the road is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill located; maintained with public funds RIN 2900–AK29 Kovacic, Director, Lexington Field and constructed in a similar manner to Office, Telephone (859) 260–8400, e- other public roads of the same Waivers mail: [email protected]. classification in the area; and, those AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: with substantial public use. ACTION: Proposed rule. I. Background on the Kentucky Program We announced receipt of the II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment proposed amendment in the November SUMMARY: This document proposes to III. Disposition of Comments 20, 2003, Federal Register (68 FR amend VA’s medical regulations to give 65424). Fiscal Officers at VA medical facilities I. Background on the Kentucky In the same document, we opened the Program the authority to waive veterans’ debts public comment period and provided an arising from the medical care Section 503(a) of the Act permits a opportunity for a public hearing or copayments. These proposed changes State to assume primacy for the meeting on the submission. We did not codify an existing 1995 delegation of regulation of surface coal mining and hold a public hearing or meeting authority to Fiscal Officers from the reclamation operations on non-Federal because no one requested one. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs; the and non-Indian lands within its borders public comment period ended on purpose of this 1995 delegation was to by demonstrating that its program December 22, 2003. On February 9, increase the efficiency of the waiver includes, among other things, ‘‘a State 2004, we received a letter from processing. law which provides for the regulation of Kentucky requesting that we suspend surface coal mining and reclamation rulemaking on its September 30, 2003, DATES: Comments must be received on operations in accordance with the submittal concerning Kentucky’s or before June 21, 2004.. requirements of the Act * * *; and definition of ‘‘affected area,’’ as it relates ADDRESSES: Written comments may be rules and regulations consistent with to the permitting of roads submitted by: mail or hand-delivery to

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:18 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM 20APP1 21076 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Director, Regulations Management significant economic impact on a and recordkeeping requirements, (00REG1), Department of Veterans substantial number of small entities as Scholarships and fellowships, Travel Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room they are defined in the Regulatory and transportation expenses, Veterans. 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. The Approved: February 20, 2004. (202) 273–9026; e-mail to provisions of the proposed rule would Anthony J. Principi, [email protected]; or, through not impose a significant economic Secretary of Veterans Affairs. http://www.Regulations.gov. Comments impact on any entities since VA billing should indicate that they are submitted would not constitute a significant For the reasons set out in the in response to ‘‘RIN 2900-AK29.’’ All portion of any insurance company’s preamble, 38 CFR part 17 is proposed to comments received will be available for business. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 be amended as set forth below: public inspection in the Office of U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is PART 17—MEDICAL Regulation Policy and Management, exempt from the initial and final Room 1063B, between the hours of 8 regulatory flexibility analyses 1. The authority citation for part 17 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through requirements of sections 603 and 604. continues to read as follows: Friday (except holidays). Please call Executive Order 12866 Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, unless (202) 273–9515 for an appointment. otherwise noted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: This document has been reviewed by 2. Section 17.105 is amended by: Tony Guagliardo, Deputy Director the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order 12866. A. In paragraph (a), removing Policy Development, Chief Business ‘‘§ 17.101(a)’’ and adding, in its place, Office (16), Veterans Health Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance ‘‘§ 17.102’’. Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue, Numbers B. Redesignating paragraph (c) as (d). NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 254– The Catalog of Federal Domestic C. Adding a new paragraph (c). 0320. (This is not a toll-free telephone Assistance numbers for the programs D. Adding the OMB information number.) affected by this document are 64.005, collection approval number SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By law, 64.007, 64.008, 64.009, 64.010, 64.011, parenthetical at the end of the section. many veterans who receive medical care 64.012, 64.013, 64.014, 64.015, 64.016, The additions read as follows: at VA facilities must agree to pay 64.018, 64.019, 64.022, 64.024, and 17.105 Waivers copayments for their care. There are 64.025. different copayments for inpatient * * * * * hospital care, outpatient medical Paperwork Reduction Act (c) Of charges for copayments. If the services, medications, and extended Although this document contains debt represents charges for outpatient care services. In the past, veterans with provisions constituting a collection of medical care, inpatient hospital care, debts arising from failure to pay these information in 38 CFR 17.105 (c) medication or extended care services copayments could request VA referencing VA Form 5655, under the copayments made under §§ 17.108, Committees on Waivers and provision of the Paperwork Reduction 17.110 or 17.111 of this section, the Compromises to waive the debts. The Act (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), no new or claimant must request a waiver by Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) proposed revised collections of submitting VA Form 5655 (Financial operates these Committees. Due to the information are associated with this Status Report) to a Fiscal Officer at a VA volume of waiver requests, VBA and the proposed rule. The Office of medical facility where all or part of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Management and Budget has approved debt was incurred. The claimant must agreed that the authority to waive these this information collection in VA Form submit this form within the time period debts should be delegated to Fiscal 5655 under control number 2900–0165. provided in § 1.963(b) of this chapter Officers at VA medical facilities. As a and may request a hearing under result, in 1995, the Secretary of Veterans Unfunded Mandates § 1.966(a) of this chapter. The Fiscal Affairs delegated the authority to waive The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Officer may extend the time period for these debts to VHA Fiscal Officers. This requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies submitting a claim if the Chairperson of proposed regulatory change would prepare an assessment of anticipated the Committee on Waivers and codify this delegation in VA regulations. costs and benefits before developing any Compromises could do so under It would also specify the form that rule that may result in an expenditure § 1.963(b) of this chapter. The Fiscal veterans must complete and submit to by State, local, or tribal governments, in Officer will apply the standard ‘‘equity VA to request this type of waiver. the aggregate, or by the private sector, of and good conscience’’ in accordance Finally, it would also correct $100 million or more in any given year. with §§ 1.965 and 1.966(a) of this inadvertent citation errors overlooked in This rule will have no such effect on chapter, and may waive all or part of the an earlier recodification of part 17 and State, local, or tribal governments, or the claimant’s debts. A decision by the make other changes for clarification. private sector. Fiscal Officer under this provision is Requests for and decisions regarding final (except that the decision may be List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 waivers under this proposal will be reversed or modified based on new and subject to the applicable regulations Administrative practice and material evidence, fraud, a change in governing the Committees on Waivers procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, law or interpretation of law, or clear and and Compromises. This means that Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug unmistakable error shown by the Fiscal Officers will waive a debt if they abuse, Foreign relations, Government evidence in the file at the time of the determine that collection of the debt contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant prior decision as provided in § 1.969 of would be against equity and good programs-veterans, Health care, Health this chapter) and may be appealed in conscience. facilities, Health professions, Health accordance with 38 CFR parts 19 and records, Homeless, Medical and dental 20. Regulatory Flexibility Act schools, Medical devices, Medical * * * * * The Secretary hereby certifies that research, Mental health programs, (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, 1722A, this proposed rule would not have a Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting 1724)

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:18 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM 20APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21077

(The Office of Management and Budget has that is equivalent to, consistent with, • take enforcement actions regardless approved the information collection and no less stringent than the Federal of whether the State has taken its own requirements in this section under control program. As the Federal program actions number 2900–0165.) changes, States must change their This action does not impose [FR Doc. 04–8881 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] programs and ask EPA to authorize the additional requirements on the BILLING CODE 8320–01–P changes. Changes to State programs may regulated community because the be necessary when Federal or State regulations for which Indiana is being statutory or regulatory authority is authorized by today’s action are already ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION modified or when certain other changes effective, and are not changed by today’s AGENCY occur. Most commonly, States must action. change their programs because of D. What Happens If EPA Receives 40 CFR Part 271 changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, Comments That Oppose This Action? [FRL–7649–9] 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will address all Indiana: Final Authorization of State B. What Decisions Have We Made in public comments in a later Federal Hazardous Waste Management This Rule? Register. You may not have another Program Revision We conclude that Indiana’s opportunity to comment. If you want to AGENCY: Environmental Protection application to revise its authorized comment on this authorization, you Agency (EPA). program meets all of the statutory and must do so at this time. ACTION: Proposed rule. regulatory requirements established by E. What Has Indiana Previously Been RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant Authorized for? SUMMARY: Indiana has applied to EPA Indiana Final authorization to operate for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program with the Indiana initially received Final its hazardous waste program under the changes described in the authorization authorization on January 31, 1986, Resource Conservation and Recovery application. Indiana has responsibility effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3955) Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that for permitting Treatment, Storage, and to implement the RCRA hazardous these changes satisfy all requirements Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its waste management program. We granted needed to qualify for Final borders (except in Indian Country) and authorization for changes to their authorization, and is proposing to for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program on October 31, 1986, effective authorize the State’s changes through program described in its revised December 31, 1986 (51 FR 39752); this proposed final action. program application, subject to the January 5, 1988, effective January 19, DATES: Written comments must be limitations of the Hazardous and Solid 1988 (53 FR 128); July 13, 1989, received on or before May 20, 2004. Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). effective September 11, 1989 (54 FR 29557); July 23, 1991, effective ADDRESSES: Send written comments to New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal September 23, 1991 (56 FR 33717); July Gary Westefer, Indiana Regulatory 24, 1991, effective September 23, 1991 Specialist, DM–7J, 77 West Jackson regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in (56 FR 33866); July 29, 1991, effective Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. September 27, 1991 (56 FR 35831); July Please refer to Docket Number IN authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, 30, 1991, effective September 30, 1991 ARA19. We must receive your (56 FR 36010); August 20, 1996, comments by May 20, 2004. You can EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Indiana, including effective October 21, 1996 (61 FR view and copy Indiana’s application 43018); September 1, 1999, effective from 9 am to 4 pm at the following issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so. November 30, 1999 (64 FR 47692), addresses: Indiana Department of January 4, 2001 effective January 4, 2001 Environmental Management, 100 North C. What Is the Effect of Today’s (66 FR 733), and December 6, 2001 Senate, Indianapolis, Indiana, (mailing Authorization Decision? effective December 6, 2001 (66 FR address P.O. Box 6015, Indianapolis, 63331). Indiana 46206) contact Lynn West (317) This decision means that a facility in 232–3593, or Steve Mojonnier (317) Indiana subject to RCRA will now have F. What Changes Are We Authorizing 233–1655; and EPA Region 5, contact to comply with the authorized State With Today’s Action? Gary Westefer at the following address. requirements (listed in section F of this action) instead of the equivalent Federal On March 26, 2003, Indiana FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary requirements in order to comply with submitted a final complete program Westefer, Indiana Regulatory Specialist, revision application, seeking U.S. EPA Region 5, DM–7J, 77 West RCRA. Indiana has enforcement responsibilities under its State authorization of their changes in Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We 60604, (312) 886–7450. hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its now make a final decision, subject to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: authority under RCRA sections 3007, receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Indiana’s hazardous A. Why Are Revisions to State 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to: waste program revision satisfies all of Programs Necessary? the requirements necessary to qualify • States which have received final Do inspections, and require for Final authorization. Therefore, we authorization from EPA under RCRA monitoring, tests, analyses or reports propose to grant Indiana Final section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must • enforce RCRA requirements and authorization for the following program maintain a hazardous waste program suspend or revoke permits changes:

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:18 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM 20APP1 21078 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Federal Register date and page Description of Federal Requirement (include checklist #, if relevant) (and/or RCRA stat- Analogous State Authority utory authority)

Mineral Processing Secondary Materials Exclusion Checklist 167D ...... May 26, 1998, 63 329 IAC 3.1–6–1; 3.1–6–2(2). Effective FR 28556. May 4, 2001. Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV: Treatment Standards For Wood Preserving May 11, 1999, 64 329 IAC 3.1–6–1; 3.1–6–2(2); 3.1–7–1; Wastes, Treatment Standards for Metal Wastes, Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizers, FR 25408. 3.1–12–1; 3.1–12–2(5), (7). Effective Carbamate treatment Standards, and K088 Treatment Standards Checklist May 4, 2001. 179. Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Oil and Grease and May 14, 1999, 64 329 IAC 3.1–1–7; Effective May 4, Non-Polar Material Under the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conserva- FR 26315. 2001. tion and Recovery Act Checklist 180. Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste July 6, 1999, 64 FR 329 IAC 3.1–4–1; 3.1–4–1(b); 3.1–6–1; Program; Hazardous Waste Lamps Checklist 181. 36466. 3.1–9–1; 3.1–9–2(1); 3.1–10–1; 3.1– 10–2(1),(2)(3); 3.1–12–1; 3.1–12– 2(4); 3.1–13–1; 3.1–13–2(1),(2)(3); 3.1–13–3 through 3.1–13–17; 3.1– 16–1; 3.1–16–2(a)(1); 3.1–16– 2(a)(4); 3.1–16–2(a)(5); 3.1–16– 2(a)(8); 3.1–16–2(b). Effective May 4, 2001. NESHAPS: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste September 30, 329 IAC 3.1–4–1; 3.1–4–1(b); 3.1–6–1; Combustors Checklist 182 as amended Checklist 182.1. 1999, 64 FR 3.1–9–1; 3.1–10–1; 3.1–11–1; 3.1– 52827; Novem- 13–1. Effective May 4, 2001. ber 19, 1999 64 FR 63209. Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV; Final Rule Promulgating Treatment Stand- October 20, 1999, 329 IAC 3.1–6–1; 3.1–6–2(17); 3.1–7– ards for Metal Wastes and Mineral Processing Wastes; Mineral Processing 64 FR 56469. 1; 3.1–12–1. Effective May 4, 2001. Secondary Materials and Bevill Exclusion Issues; Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soils, and Exclusion of Recycled Wood Preserving Wastewaters; Technical Correction Checklist 183. 180 Day Accumulation Time Under RCRA for Waste Water Treatment Sludges March 8, 2000, 65 329 IAC 3.1–7–1. Effective May 4, from the Metal Finishing Industry Checklist 184. FR 12378. 2001. Organobromine Production Wastes; Identification and Listing of Hazardous March 17, 2000, 65 329 IAC 3.1–6–1; 3.1–6– Waste; Land Disposal Restrictions; Listing of CERCLA Hazardous Sub- FR 14472. 2(17),(18),(19); 3.1–12–1; 3.1–12– stances, Reportable Quantities Checklist 185. 2(10). Effective May 4, 2001. Organobromine Production Wastes; Petroleum Refining Wastes; Identification June 8, 2000, 65 329 IAC 3.1–6–1; 3.1–12–1. Effective and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Land Disposal Restrictions; Final Rule and FR 36365. May 4, 2001. Correcting Amendments Checklist 187. NESHAPS: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Com- July 10, 2000, 65 329 IAC 3.1–6–1; 3.1–9–1;3.1–13–1. bustors; Final Rule, Technical Correction Checklist 188 as amended Checklist FR 42292; May Effective July 3, 2002. 188.1. 14, 2001, 66 FR 24270. Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous November 8, 2000, 329 IAC 3.1–6–1; 3.1–6–2(17); 3.1–6– Waste; Chlorinated Alphatics Production Wastes; Land Disposal Restrictions 65 FR 67068. 219),(20); 3.1–12–1. Effective July 3, for Newly Identified Wastes; CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designation and 2002. Reportable Quantities Checklist 189. Deferral of Phase IV Standards for PCBs as a Constituent Subject to Treatment December 26, 329 IAC 3.1–12–1. Effective July 3, in Soil Checklist 190. 2000, 65 FR 2002. 81373. Storage, Treatment, Transportation, and Disposal of Mixed Waste Checklist 191 May 16, 2001, 66 329 IAC 3.1–11–1. Effective July 3, FR 27218. 2002. Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) Revisions to the Mixture and De- May 16, 2001, 66 329 IAC 3.1–6–1. Effective July 3, rived-From Rules Checklist 192A. FR 27266. 2002. Land Disposal Restrictions Correction Checklist 192B ...... May 16, 2001, 66 329 IAC 3.1–12–1. Effective July 3, FR 27266. 2002. Change of Official EPA Mailing Address; Additional Technical Amendments and June 28, 2001, 66 329 IAC 3.1–1–7. Effective July 3, Corrections Checklist 193. FR 34374. 2002.

G. Where Are the Revised State Rules H. Who Handles Permits After the new permits or new portions of permits Different From the Federal Rules? Authorization Takes Effect? for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of this Indiana has excluded the non- Indiana will issue permits for all the authorization. EPA will continue to delegable Federal requirements at 40 provisions for which it is authorized implement and issue permits for HSWA CFR 268.5, 268.6, 268.42(b), 268.44, and and will administer the permits it requirements for which Indiana is not 270.3 in their Incorporation by issues. EPA will continue to administer yet authorized. Reference at 3.1–12–2 and 3.1–13–2(4). any RCRA hazardous waste permits or EPA will continue to implement those portions of permits which we issued requirements. prior to the effective date of this authorization until they expire or are terminated. We will not issue any more

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:18 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM 20APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21079

I. How Does Today’s Action Affect imposed by State law. Accordingly, I authorization application, to require the Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in certify that this action will not have a use of any particular voluntary Indiana? significant economic impact on a consensus standard in place of another Indiana is not authorized to carry out substantial number of small entities standard that otherwise satisfies the its hazardous waste program in ‘‘Indian under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 requirements of RCRA. Thus, the Country’’, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action requirements of section 12(d) of the Indian Country includes: authorizes pre-existing requirements National Technology Transfer and 1. All lands within the exterior under State law and does not impose Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. boundaries of Indian reservations any additional enforceable duty beyond 272 note) do not apply. This rule does within or abutting the State of Indiana; that required by State law, it does not not include environmental justice issues 2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. contain any unfunded mandate or that require consideration under for an Indian tribe; and significantly or uniquely affect small Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 3. Any other land, whether on or off governments, as described in the February 16, 1994). As required by an Indian reservation that qualifies as Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 Indian Country. Therefore, this action (Public Law 104–4). For the same FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing has no effect on Indian Country. EPA reason, this action also does not this rule, EPA has taken the necessary retains the authority to implement and significantly or uniquely affect the steps to eliminate drafting errors and administer the RCRA program in Indian communities of Tribal governments, as ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, Country. However, at this time, there is specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 and provide a clear legal standard for no Indian Country within the State of FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This affected conduct. EPA has complied Indiana. action will not have substantial direct with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR effects on the States, on the relationship 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the J. What Is Codification and Is EPA between the national government and takings implications of the rule in Codifying Indiana’s Hazardous Waste the States, or on the distribution of accordance with the Attorney General’s Program as Authorized in This Rule? power and responsibilities among the Supplemental Guidelines for the Codification is the process of placing various levels of government, as Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of the State’s statutes and regulations that specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 Unanticipated Takings issued under the comprise the State’s authorized FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it executive order. hazardous waste program into the Code merely authorizes State requirements as This rule does not impose an of Federal Regulations. We do this by part of the State RCRA hazardous waste information collection burden under the referencing the authorized State rules in program without altering the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 40 CFR part 272. Indiana’s rules, up to relationship or the distribution of power Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). and including those revised January 4, and responsibilities established by 2001, have previously been codified RCRA. This action also is not subject to List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 through the incorporation-by-reference Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, Environmental protection, effective December 24, 2001 (66 FR April 23, 1997), because it is not Administrative practice and procedure, 53728, October 24, 2001). We reserve economically significant and it does not Confidential business information, the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, make decisions based on environmental Hazardous materials transportation, subpart P for the codification of health or safety risks. This action is not Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Indiana’s program changes until a later subject to Executive Order 13211, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, date. ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Reporting and recordkeeping Significantly Affect Energy Supply, requirements. K. Administrative Requirements Distribution or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May The Office of Management and Budget Authority: This action is issued under the 22, 2001) because it is not a significant authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and has exempted this action from the regulatory action under Executive Order 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as requirements of Executive Order 12866 12866. amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b). (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA therefore this action is not subject to grants a State’s application for Dated: March 30, 2004. review by OMB. This action authorizes authorization as long as the State meets Bharat Mathur, State requirements for the purpose of the criteria required by RCRA. It would Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. RCRA section 3006 and imposes no thus be inconsistent with applicable law [FR Doc. 04–8910 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] additional requirements beyond those for EPA, when it reviews a State BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:18 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM 20APP1 21080

Notices Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 76

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Plant Variety Protection Office, (5) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE contains documents other than rules or status of the migration of the existing proposed rules that are applicable to the database, (6) E-business plans, (7) Commodity Credit Corporation public. Notices of hearings and investigations, process improvement (Six Sigma) plan, committee meetings, agency decisions and Request for Extension of a Currently and (8) other related topics. rulings, delegations of authority, filing of Approved Information Collection: petitions and applications and agency Upon entering the George Washington Application for Payment of Amounts statements of organization and functions are Carver Center, visitors should inform Due Persons Who Have Died, examples of documents appearing in this security personnel that they are section. Disappeared or Have Been Declared attending the PVP Advisory Board Incompetent Meeting. Identification will be required AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, to be admitted to the building. Security DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE USDA. personnel will direct visitors to the ACTION: Agricultural Marketing Service registration table located outside of Notice and request for comments. [Docket No. ST04–05] Room 4–2223. Registration upon arrival is necessary for all participants. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Plant Variety Protection Board; Open If you require accommodations, such Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this Meeting as sign language interpreter, please notice announces the intention of the contact the person listed under FOR Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, request the extension of a currently USDA. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The meeting will be recorded, and approved information collection. This ACTION: Notice of meeting. information about obtaining a transcript information collection is used by CCC to document or determine whether heirs or SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the will be provided at the meeting. beneficiaries of a producer are entitled schedule and proposed agenda of a Dated: April 15, 2004. forthcoming meeting of the Plant to receive payments earned by a Variety Protection Board. Kenneth C. Clayton, producer who dies, disappears, or is Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing declared incompetent before receiving DATES: May 26, 2004, 8:30 a.m. to 5 Service. payments or other disbursements. p.m., open to the public. DATES: Comments on this notice must be AGENDA ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in received on or before June 21, 2004 to the United States Department of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Board be assured consideration. Agriculture George Washington Carver Meeting, USDA, George Washington Carver ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: Center, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Center, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville, Contact David Tidwell, Agricultural Beltsville, Maryland. Written comments Maryland Program Specialist, Production, may be submitted before or after the Emergencies, and Compliance Division, meeting to the contact person identified May 26, 2004 USDA, FSA, STOP 0517, 1400 herein at: 1301 Baltimore Blvd., Room 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Independence Avenue, SW., 400 National Agricultural Library Call to Order Washington, DC 20250-0517, telephone Building, Beltsville, MD 20705–2351. Introductions (202) 720–4542. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Opening Remarks SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Commissioner Paul M. Zankowski, Adoption of Agenda Title: Application for Payment of Plant Variety Protection Office, Science Adoption of March 2003 Board Meeting Amounts Due Persons Who Have Died, Minutes and Technology Program, United States Disappeared, or Have Been Declared Appeals to the Secretary of Agriculture Department of Agriculture, Telephone Incompetent. number (301) 504–5518 or fax (301) FY 2003 Accomplishment Report OMB Control Number: 0560–0026. 504–5291. PVPO Financial update Expiration Date: September 30, 2004. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant PVP Quality Assurance Program Update Type of Request: Extension of a to the provisions of section 10(a) of the PVP Office Relocation Discussion currently approved information Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. Database Migration Update collection. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C. App.), this notice is E-business Update and Plans Abstract: Persons desiring to claim given regarding a Plant Variety Update on Business Process Improvement payment due a person who has died, Protection Advisory Board meeting. The (Six Sigma) Plan disappeared, or has been declared board is constituted under section 7 of Topics brought forward by Board Members incompetent must do so on Form FSA– the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 Future Program Activities Meeting Summary 325, ‘‘Application for Payment of Adjourn U.S.C. 2327). Amounts Due Persons Who Have Died, The proposed agenda for the meeting [FR Doc. 04–8897 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Disappeared, or Have Been Declared will include discussions of: (1) The BILLING CODE 3410–02–P Incompetent’’. This information is used accomplishments of the Plant Variety by FSA county office employees to Protection Office, (2) the financial status document the relationship of heirs or of the Plant Variety Protection Office, beneficiaries and determine the order of (3) review of the quality assurance precedence for disbursing payments to program, (4) potential relocation of the heirs or beneficiaries of the person who

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21081

has died, disappeared, or been declared DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE pressing individual issues, identified by incompetent. the Office of the Secretary, related to the Office of the Under Secretary, Information is obtained only when a application of biotechnology in Research, Education, and Economics producer eligible to receive a payment agriculture. The AC21 was first appointed in or disbursement dies, disappears, or is Notice of Appointment to the Advisory February 2003 and at the time half of declared incompetent, and Committee on Biotechnology and 21st the appointments were for a one-year documentation is needed to determine if Century Agriculture term and half for a two-year term. Due any heirs or beneficiaries are entitled to to the staggered appointments, the terms AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service. receive such payments or for 9 of the 18 members expired on disbursements. ACTION: Notice of appointment to the February 12, 2004. Members of the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology Estimate of Burden: Public reporting AC21 may be reappointed by the and 21st Century Agriculture. burden for this collection of information Secretary of Agriculture but no member 1 may serve more than six consecutive is estimated to average .5 hours ( ⁄2 SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of hour) per response. Agriculture announces members years. Members serve without pay, but with reimbursement of travel expenses Respondents: Individual producers. appointed to fill 9 vacancies on the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and per diem for attendance at AC21 Estimated Number of Respondents: and 21st Century Agriculture, in and subcommittee functions for those 2,000. accordance with the Federal Advisory committee members who require Estimated Number of Responses per Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. Those assistance in order to attend the Respondent: 1. appointed are as follows: Daryl Buss, meetings. Estimated Total Annual Burden on Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine, Dated: April 13, 2004. Respondents: 1,000. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Rodney J. Brown, Leon Corzine, Farmer/President, LPC Deputy Under Secretary, Research, Proposed topics for comment include: Farms, Assumption, IL; Carole Cramer, Education, and Economics. (a) Whether the collection of Professor, Department of Plant [FR Doc. 04–8847 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] information is necessary for the proper Pathology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, BILLING CODE 3410–09–P performance of the functions of the VA; Michael Dykes, Vice President, agency, including whether the Government Affairs, Monsanto information will have practical utility; Company, St. Louis, MO; Carol Tucker DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate Foreman, Director, Food Policy of burden including the validity of the Institute, Consumer Federation of Farm Service Agency methodology and assumptions used; (c) America; Randal Giroux, Scientific Request for Revision and Extension of ways to enhance the quality, utility and Lead, Corporate Agricultural a Currently Approved Information clarity of the information collected; or Biotechnology, Cargill, Inc., Wayzata, Collection; Total Quality Systems (d) ways to minimize the burden of the MN; Margaret Mellon, Director, Food Audit Program collection of the information on those and Environment Program, Union of who are to respond, including through Concerned Scientists, Washington, DC; AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA. the use of appropriate automated, Ronald Olson, Vice President, Grain ACTION: Notice and request for electronic, mechanical, or other Division, General Mills, Minneapolis, comments. technological collection techniques or MN; and Jerome Slocum, Farmer/ SUMMARY: In accordance with the other forms of information technology. President, North Mississippi Grain Company, Coldwater, MS. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this Comments should be sent to the Desk notice announces the intention of the Officer for Agriculture, Office of DATES: Appointments by the Secretary are for a two-year term, effective Farm Service Agency (FSA) to request a Information and Regulatory Affairs, revision and extension of an Office of Management and Budget, February 13, 2004 until February 12, 2006. information collection currently in Washington, DC 20503 and to David effect with respect to the Total Quality Tidwell, Agricultural Program FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Systems Audit (TQSA) program. This Specialist, Production, Emergencies, Michael Schechtman, Designated information collection allows FSA to and Compliance Division, USDA, FSA, Federal Official, Office of the Deputy determine compliance with the TQSA STOP 0517, 1400 Independence Secretary, USDA, 202B Jamie L. Whitten standards. The TQSA program was Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250– Federal Building, 12th and implemented to ensure that FSA 0517, (202) 720–4542. Independence Avenue, SW., commodity purchases meet customer Copies of the information collection Washington, DC 20250; Telephone (202) requirements and needs. Suppliers of 720–3817; Fax (202) 690–4265; E-mail may be obtained from David Tidwell, at commodities covered by the TQSA [email protected]. the above address. program have had to meet quality SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The control and food safety standards to Signed at Washington, DC, on April 12, members of the committee cover a broad assure the quality of the end product 2004. range of agricultural disciplines and being purchased by FSA. Verle E. Lanier, interests. The duties of the committee DATES: Comments on this notice must be Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity are solely advisory. The Advisory received on or before June 21, 2004, to Credit Corporation. Committee on Biotechnology and 21st be assured consideration. [FR Doc. 04–8845 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Century Agriculture (AC21) is charged ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: BILLING CODE 3410–05–P with examining the long-term impacts Contact Howard Froehlich, Chief, of biotechnology on the U.S. food and USDA, Farm Service Agency, agriculture system and USDA, and Warehouse and Inventory Division, providing guidance to USDA on Program Development Branch, STOP

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21082 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

0553, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Officer for Agriculture, Office of DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Washington, DC 20250-0553, (202) 720– Information and Regulatory Affairs, 7398; e-mail Office of Management and Budget, International Trade Administration _ Howard [email protected]. Washington, DC 20503, and to Howard [A–533–841, A–560–817,A–583–840, A–549– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Froehlich at the address listed above. 823] Title: Total Quality Systems Audit All comments will become a matter of Program. public record. Notice of Initiation of Antidumping OMB Control Number: 0560–0214. Duty Investigations:Bottle–Grade Signed at Washington, DC, on April 12, Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Expiration Date: October 31, 2004. 2004. Type of Request: Revision and Resin from India,Indonesia, Taiwan, Verle E. Lanier, extension of a currently approved and Thailand Administrator, Farm Service Agency. information collection. AGENCY: Import Administration, Abstract: The information collected [FR Doc. 04–8846 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] International TradeAdministration, under OMB Control Number 0560-0214, BILLING CODE 3410–05–P Department of Commerce. as identified above, allows FSA to ACTION: Initiation of Antidumping administer the TQSA program. The DutyInvestigations. forms approved by this information DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE collection are used by TQSA auditors, EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2004. Foreign Agricultural Service employed by FSA, or supplier FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: representatives to secure and record Charles Riggle at (202) 482–0650 or information about the supplier’s facility, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Amber Musser at (202) 482–1777, AD/ audit information, and to submit CVD Enforcement Office 5, Group II, corrective action plans to Import Administration, International AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service, nonconformances previously found. The Trade Administration, U.S. Department USDA. information collected is necessary to of Commerce, 14th Street and provide those charged with purchasing ACTION: Notice. Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, FSA commodities a basis to determine DC 20230. whether the supplier’s quality The Administrator, Foreign SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: management system meets applicable Agricultural Service (FAS), today Initiation of Investigations TQSA standards for contract bidding denied a petition filed by a group of eligibility and to monitor the capability freshwater prawn producers from The Petition of the quality management system once Kentucky for trade adjustment On March 24, 2004, the U.S. approved supplier status is achieved. assistance (TAA) that was filed on Department of Commerce (the The information collected allows FSA to February 23, 2004. Department) received a petition filed in bill suppliers for the amount of hours proper form by the United States PET TQSA auditors spent auditing supplier’s FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Resin Producers Coalition (the quality management system. Jean-Louis Pajot, Coordinator, Trade petitioner). The Department received Estimate of Burden: Public reporting Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, supplemental information from the burden for this information collection is FAS, USDA, (202) 720–2916, e-mail: petitioner on April 5, 2004. estimated to average 30 minutes per [email protected]. In accordance with section 732(b)(1) response. of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended Respondents: Commodity suppliers SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Upon (the Act), the petitioner alleges that participating in the TQSA program. investigation, the Administrator imports of polyethylene terephthalate Estimated Number of Respondents: determined that the price information resin (bottle–grade PET resin) from 200. provided in the petition could not be India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand Estimated Number of Responses per validated. Thus Kentucky prawn prices are, or are likely to be, sold in the Respondent: 2. could not be verified to have declined United States at less than fair value Estimated Total Annual Burden on by more than 20 percent during the within the meaning of section 731 of the Respondents: 400 hours. January–December 2002 marketing year, Act, and that imports from India, Proposed topics for comment include: compared to the previous 5-year Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand are (a) Whether the continued collection of average, a condition required for materially injuring, or are threatening to information is necessary for the proper certifying a petition for TAA. materially injure, an industry in the performance of the functions of the United States. agency, including whether the Dated: April 9, 2004. The Department finds that the information will have practical utility; A. Ellen Terpstra, petitioner filed the petition on behalf of (b) the accuracy of FSA’s estimate of Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service. the domestic industry because it is an burden including the validity of the [FR Doc. 04–8892 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] interested party as defined in section methodology and assumptions used; (c) BILLING CODE 3410–10–P 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has enhancing the quality, utility, and demonstrated sufficient industry clarity of the information collected; or support with respect to each of the (d) minimizing the burden of the antidumping investigations that it is collection of the information on those requesting the Department to initiate. who are to respond, including through See infra, ‘‘Determination of Industry the use of appropriate automated, Support for the Petition.’’ electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or Periods of Investigation other forms of information technology. The anticipated period of Comments should be sent to the Desk investigation (POI) for these

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21083

investigations is January 1, 2003, Determination of Industry Support for most similar in characteristics and uses through December 31, 2003. See section the Petition with, the article subject to an 351.204(b)(1) of the Department’s Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the regulations (Antidumping Duties; that a petition be filed on behalf of the reference point from which the Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) domestic like product analysis begins is 27296, 27385 (May 19, 1997)). of the Act provides that the ‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to Scope of Investigations Department’s industry support determination, which is to be made be investigated, which normally will be The merchandise covered by each of before the initiation of the the scope as defined in the petition. these investigations is bottle–grade investigations, be based on whether a In this case, the petition covers a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin, minimum percentage of the relevant single class or kind of merchandise, defined as having an intrinsic viscosity industry supports the petition. A bottle–grade PET resin, as defined in the of at least 0.68 deciliters per gram but petition satisfies this requirement if the ‘‘Scope of Investigations’’ section above. not more than 0.86 deciliters per gram. domestic producers or workers who The petitioner does not offer a The scope includes bottle–grade PET support the petition account for (1) at definition of domestic like product resin that contains various additives least 25 percent of the total production distinct from the scope of the introduced in the manufacturing of the domestic like product; and (2) investigations. Further, based on our process. The scope does not include more than 50 percent of the production analysis of the information presented to post–consumer recycle (PCR) or post– of the domestic like product produced the Department by the petitioner, we industrial recycle (PIR) PET resin; by that portion of the industry have determined that there is a single however, included in the scope is any expressing support for, or opposition to, domestic like product, which is bottle–grade PET resin blend of virgin the petition. Moreover, section consistent with the definition of the PET bottle–grade resin and recycled 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if ‘‘Scope of the Investigations’’ section PET (RPET). Waste and scrap PET is the petition does not establish support above, and have analyzed industry outside the scope of the investigations. of domestic producers or workers support in terms of this domestic like Fiber–grade PET resin, which has an accounting for more than 50 percent of product. intrinsic viscosity of less than 0.68 The Department has determined that the total production of the domestic like deciliters per gram, is also outside the the petitioner has established industry product, the Department shall either scope of the investigations. support representing over 50 percent of poll the industry or rely on other The merchandise subject to these total production of the domestic like information in order to determine if investigations is properly classified product. See Antidumping Duty under subheading 3907.60.0010 of the there is support for the petition. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines Initiation Checklist: Bottle–Grade Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin United States (HTSUS); however, domestic like product. Thus, to from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and merchandise classified under HTSUS determine whether a petition has the Thailand (Initiation Checklist) (April 13, subheading 3907.60.0050 that otherwise requisite industry support, the statute 2004), on file in the Central Records meets the written description of the directs the Department to look to Unit, Room B–099 of the Department of scope is also subject to these producers and workers who produce the Commerce. Thus, no polling of the investigations. Although the HTSUS domestic like product. The U.S. domestic industry by the Department subheadings are provided for International Trade Commission (ITC), pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(D) of the convenience and customs purposes, the which is responsible for determining Act is required. In addition, the written description of the merchandise whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has Department received no opposition to under investigation is dispositive. the petition from domestic producers of During our review of the petition, we been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in the like product. Therefore, the discussed the scope with the petitioner petitioner and domestic producers who to ensure that it is an accurate reflection order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply support the petition account for at least of the products for which the domestic 25 percent of the total production of the industry is seeking relief. As discussed the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section domestic like product, and the in the preamble to the Department’s requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) regulations (Antidumping Duties; 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to of the Act are met. Furthermore, the Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR petitioner and domestic producers who 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department’s support the petition account for more setting aside a period for parties to raise determination is subject to limitations of than 50 percent of the production of the issues regarding product coverage. The time and information. Although this domestic like product produced by that Department encourages all parties to may result in different definitions of the portion of the industry expressing submit such comments within 20 like product, such differences do not support for or opposition to the petition. calendar days of publication of this render the decision of either agency Thus, the requirements of section notice. Comments should be addressed contrary to law.1 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also are met. to Import Administration’s Central Section 771(10) of the Act defines the Accordingly, we determine that the Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. domestic like product as ‘‘a product petition is filed on behalf of the Department of Commerce, 14th Street which is like, or in the absence of like, domestic industry within the meaning and Constitution Avenue, NW, of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See Washington, DC 20230. The period of 1 See USEC, Inc., v. United States, 132 F. Supp. Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. scope consultations is intended to 2d 1,8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., provide the Department with ample v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (CIT Export Price and Normal Value opportunity to consider all comments 1988). See also High Information Content Flat Panel The following are descriptions of the Displays and Display Glass from Japan: Final and consult with parties prior to the Determination; Rescission of Investigation and allegations of sales at less than fair value issuance of the preliminary Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380- upon which the Department based its determinations. 81 (July 16, 1991). decision to initiate these investigations.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21084 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

The sources of data for the deductions Indonesia for the POI. The petitioner calculated COM based on its own and adjustments relating to U.S. and derived such values from import production experience, adjusted for home market prices, and constructed statistics under the HTSUS subheading known differences between costs value (CV), are discussed in greater 3907.60.0010. The petitioner did not incurred to produce bottle–grade PET detail in the Initiation Checklist. The make any adjustments to the AUVs. resin in the United States and Taiwan petitioner stated it was unable to obtain Normal Value using publicly available data. To information regarding specific sales or calculate SG&A and interest, the offers for sale of subject merchandise in Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) petitioner relied upon amounts reported Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand or in and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner by a Taiwanese PET resin producer in any third country. Therefore for these based NV for sales in Indonesia on CV. its 2002 financial statements. The three countries, the petitioner based The petitioner calculated CV using the petitioner did not include packing costs, normal value (NV) on CV. See Petition same cost of manufacture (COM), as it was assumed that most home at 17–18. Should the need arise to use selling, general and administrative market shipments are made in bulk in any of this information as facts available (SG&A) and interest expense figures an unpacked condition. under section 776 of the Act in our used to compute the cost of production Consistent with section 773(e)(2) of preliminary or final determinations, we (COP). the Act, the petitioner included in CV may re–examine the information and According to section 773(b)(3) of the an amount for profit. For profit, the revise the margin calculations, if Act, COP consists of COM, SG&A petitioner relied upon amounts reported appropriate. expenses, financial expenses, and by the same Taiwanese PET resin packing expenses. The petitioner producer in its 2002 financial India calculated COM based on its own statements. In addition, the petitioner Export Price production experience, adjusted for added export packing costs to CV. known differences between costs The estimated dumping margin for The petitioner based export price (EP) incurred to produce bottle–grade PET subject merchandise from Taiwan, on average unit values (AUVs) of bottle– resin in the United States and Indonesia based on a comparison of EP and NV grade PET resin imports from India for using publicly available data. To based on CV, is 37.35 percent. the POI. The petitioner derived such calculate SG&A and interest, the values from import statistics under the petitioner relied upon amounts reported Thailand HTSUS subheading 3907.60.0010. The by an Indonesian PET resin producer in Export Price petitioner did not make any adjustments its 2001 financial statements, which to the AUVs. were the most recent available. The The petitioner based EP on AUVs of Normal Value petitioner did not include packing costs, bottle–grade PET resin imports from as it was assumed that most home Thailand for the POI. The petitioner With respect to NV, the petitioner market shipments are made in bulk in derived such values from import calculated an average home market an unpacked condition. statistics under the HTSUS subheading price for bottle–grade PET resin based Consistent with section 773(e)(2) of 3907.60.0010. The petitioner did not on information obtained from Reliance the Act, the petitioner included in CV make any adjustments to the AUVs. Industries’ website. Reliance Industries’ an amount for profit. For profit, the Normal Value price information was considered a petitioner relied upon amounts reported reasonable surrogate for all Indian by the same Indonesian bottle-grade Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) producers as it is India’s largest bottle– PET resin producer in its 2001 financial and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner grade PET resin producer. statements. In addition, the petitioner based NV for sales in Thailand on CV. The petitioner calculated NV using a added export packing costs to CV. The petitioner calculated CV using the home market price quoted in Indian The estimated dumping margin for same COM, SG&A and interest expense Rupees per kilogram and converted to subject merchandise from Indonesia, figures used to compute the COP. U.S. cents per pound. NV was adjusted based on a comparison of EP and NV According to section 773(b)(3) of the for export packing costs based on the based on CV, is 27.61 percent. Act, COP consists of COM, SG&A assumption that export shipments to the expenses, financial expenses, and United States were made in bulk Taiwan packing expenses. The petitioner containers. NV was not adjusted for Export Price calculated COM based on its own home market packing costs, as it was The petitioner based EP on AUVs of production experience, adjusted for assumed that home market shipments bottle–grade PET resin imports from known differences between costs were made in bulk in an unpacked Taiwan for the POI. The petitioner incurred to produce bottle–grade PET condition. In addition, NV was not derived such values from import resin in the United States and Thailand adjusted for home market freight costs, statistics under the HTSUS subheading using publicly available data. To as it was assumed that the published 3907.60.0010. The petitioner did not calculate SG&A and interest, the selling prices on Reliance Industries make any adjustments to the AUVs. petitioner relied upon amounts reported web page are ex–factory. See Initiation in an Indian PET resin producer’s 2003 Checklist for details. Normal Value financial statements. We revised the The estimated dumping margin for Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) petitioner’s SG&A and financial expense subject merchandise from India, based and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner rates calculation by using average SG&A on a comparison of EP and NV based on based NV for sales in Taiwan on CV. and financial expense rates from the the average home market price The petitioner calculated CV using the financial statements for two companies described above, is 35.51 percent. same COM, SG&A and interest expense located in Thailand which are involved Indonesia figures used to compute the COP. in industry sectors comparable to the According to section 773(b)(3) of the bottle–grade PET resin industry. The Export Price Act, COP consists of COM, SG&A SG&A and financial expense ratios were The petitioner based EP on AUVs of expenses, financial expenses, and based on the financial statements of bottle–grade PET resin imports from packing expenses. The petitioner these two companies that were provided

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21085

by the petitioner as an alternative to period. Section 351.206(h) of the 1998) (determination of critical using the Indian company’s financial Department’s regulations defines circumstances may be made any time statements. The petitioner did not ‘‘massive imports’’ as imports that have after initiation). In addition, we are include packing costs, as it was increased by at least 15 percent over the considering the petitioner’s request to assumed that most home market imports during an immediately obtain information from CBP for shipments are made in bulk in an preceding period of comparable monitoring purposes, and will inform unpacked condition. See Initiation duration. Section 351.206(i) of the interested parties of our determination Checklist at Attachment V for details. regulations states that ‘‘relatively short as soon as practicable. Consistent with section 773(e)(2) of period’’ will normally be defined as the the Act, the petitioner included in CV period beginning on the date the Allegations and Evidence of Material an amount for profit. For profit, the proceeding begins and ending at least Injury and Causation petitioner relied upon amounts reported three months later. To date, the The petitioner alleges that the U.S. in an Indian PET resin producer’s 2003 petitioner has not demonstrated that the industry producing the domestic like financial statements. We revised the ‘‘ requirement of massive imports . . . product is being materially injured, or is petitioner’s CV profit rate calculation by over a relatively short period’’ has been threatened with material injury, by using an average profit rate from the met. reason of the cumulated imports from financial statements of two companies The petitioner alleges that importers India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand located in Thailand which are involved knew, or should have known, that of the subject merchandise sold at less in industry sectors comparable to the bottle–grade PET resin was being sold at than NV. bottle–grade PET resin industry. The less than its fair value. Specifically, the financial statements of the two Thai petitioner alleges margins, as adjusted The petitioner contends that the companies were provided by the by the Department, of between 27.61 industry’s injured condition is evident petitioner as an alternative to using the and 41.28 percent, a level high enough in lost sales and customers, in the Indian company’s financial statements. to impute importer knowledge that declining trends in prices, profits, and In addition, the petitioner added export merchandise was being sold at less than domestic market share, and in its packing costs to CV. See Initiation its fair value. Additionally, the reduced ability to reinvest and pursue Checklist at Attachment V for details. petitioner references the European research and development activities. The estimated dumping margin for Council Regulation (EC) No. 2604/2000 The allegations of injury and causation subject merchandise from Thailand, of 27 November 2000, which imposes a are supported by relevant evidence based on a comparison of EP and NV definitive antidumping duty and including U.S. import data, affidavits based on CV, is 41.28 percent. collects definitively the provisional supporting claims of lost sales and duty imposed on imports of bottle– declining revenues, and pricing Fair Value Comparisons grade PET resin from India, Indonesia, information. The petitioner also alleges Based on the data provided by the , the Republic of Korea, the imminent threat of further material petitioner, there is reason to believe that Taiwan, and Thailand, to establish a injury based on the likely increases in imports of bottle–grade PET resin from history of dumping. foreign production volume of bottle– India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand The petitioner requests that, pursuant grade PET resin, the likelihood of are being, or are likely to be, sold at less to section 732(e) of the Act, the substantially increased imports, and the than fair value. Department request U.S. Customs and prices of these imports having the likely Border Protection (CBP) to compile Critical Circumstances effect of depressing or suppressing information on an expedited basis domestic prices. In its submission, the petitioner regarding entries of subject The Department has assessed the claims that, following the initiation of merchandise. We note that section allegations and supporting evidence this case, there is a reasonable basis to 732(e) of the Act states that when there regarding material injury, causation, and believe or suspect that critical is a reasonable basis to believe or threat of material injury, and has circumstances will exist with regard to suspect (1) there is a history of dumping determined that these allegations are imports of bottle–grade PET resin from in the United States or elsewhere of the properly supported by accurate and India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand. subject merchandise, or (2) the person adequate evidence and meet the Section 733(e)(1) of the Act states by whom, or for whose account, the statutory requirements for initiation. See that, if a petitioner alleges critical merchandise was imported knew, or circumstances, the Department will find should have known, that the exporter the Initiation Checklist at Attachment that such circumstances exist, at any was selling the subject merchandise at IV. time after the date of initiation, when less than its fair value, the Department Initiation of Antidumping there is a reasonable basis to believe or may request the Commissioner of Investigations suspect that, under subparagraph (A)(i), Customs to compile information on an there is a history of dumping and expedited basis regarding entries of the Based upon our examination of the material injury by reason of dumped subject merchandise. petition, we have found that it meets the imports in the United States or As noted above, the petitioner has not requirements of section 732 of the Act. elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or met the criteria for a finding of critical See the Initiation Checklist. Therefore, (ii) the person by whom, or for whose circumstances. Therefore, at this time, we are initiating antidumping duty account, the merchandise was imported we have no reasonable basis to believe investigations to determine whether knew or should have known that the or suspect that critical circumstances imports of bottle–grade PET resin from exporter was selling the subject exist. However, the petitioner can India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand merchandise at less than its fair value resubmit its request for a finding of are being, or are likely to be, sold in the and that there was likely to be material critical circumstances and, if the criteria United States at less than fair value. injury by reason of such sales, and, for such a finding are met, we will issue Unless this deadline is extended, we under subparagraph (B), there have been a critical circumstances finding at the will make our preliminary massive imports of the subject earliest possible date. See Policy determinations no later than 140 days merchandise over a relatively short Bulletin 98/4, 63 FR 55364 (October 15, after the date of these initiations.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21086 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Distribution of Copies of the Petition Initiation of Investigations Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the The Petition United States (HTSUS); however, In accordance with section merchandise classified under HTSUS 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the On March 24, 2004, the U.S. subheading 3907.60.0050 that otherwise public version of the petition has been Department of Commerce (the meets the written description of the provided to the representatives of the Department) received a countervailing scope is also subject to these governments of India, Indonesia, duty petition filed in proper form by the investigations. Although the HTSUS Taiwan, and Thailand. We will attempt United States PET Resin Producers subheadings are provided for to provide a copy of the public version Coalition (‘‘Petitioner’’). The Department convenience and customs purposes, the of the petition to each exporter named received supplemental information to written description of the merchandise in the petition, as provided for under 19 the petition from the petitioner on April under investigation is dispositive. CFR 351.203(c)(2). 5, 2004. In accordance with section During our review of the petition, we 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as discussed the scope with the petitioner ITC Notification amended (the Act), petitioner alleges to ensure that it is an accurate reflection We have notified the ITC of our that producers or exporters of bottle– of the products for which the domestic initiations as required by section 732(d) grade PET resin in India and Thailand industry is seeking relief. As discussed of the Act. receive countervailable subsidies within in the preamble to the Department’s the meaning of section 701 of the Act, regulations (Antidumping Duties; Preliminary Determinations by the ITC and that imports from India and Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR Thailand are materially injuring, or are 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are The ITC will determine no later than threatening material injury to, an setting aside a period for parties to raise May 10, 2004, whether there is a industry in the United States. issues regarding product coverage. The reasonable indication that imports of The Department finds that the Department encourages all parties to bottle–grade PET resin from India, petitioner filed the petition on behalf of submit such comments within 20 Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand are the domestic industry because it is an calendar days of publication of this causing material injury, or threatening interested party as defined in section notice. Comments should be addressed to cause material injury, to a U.S. 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has to Import Administration’s Central industry. A negative ITC determination demonstrated sufficient industry Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. for any country will result in the support with respect to the Department of Commerce, 14th Street investigation being terminated with countervailing duty investigations that and Constitution Avenue, NW, respect to that country; otherwise, these it is requesting the Department to Washington, DC 20230. The period of investigations will proceed according to initiate. See infra, ‘‘Determination of scope consultations is intended to statutory and regulatory time limits. Industry Support for the Petition.’’ provide the Department with ample This notice is issued and published opportunity to consider all comments pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Period of Investigation and consult with parties prior to the Dated: April 13, 2004. The anticipated period of issuance of the preliminary Jeffrey May, investigation (POI) for both determinations. investigations is January 1, 2003 Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Consultations Administration. through December 31, 2003. See section In accordance with Article 13.1 of the [FR Doc. 04–8938 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] 351.204(b)(2) of the Department’s regulations (Antidumping Duties; Agreement on Subsidies and BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR Countervailing Measures and section 27296, 27385 (May 19, 1997)). 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, we held separate consultations regarding this DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Scope of Investigations petition with the Government of India International Trade Administration The merchandise covered by each of (‘‘GOI’’) and the Government of these investigations is bottle–grade Thailand on April 7, 2004. See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin, Memorandum to the File from Douglas Duty Investigations: Bottle–Grade defined as having an intrinsic viscosity Kirby: Consultations with the Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) of at least 0.68 deciliters per gram but Government of India Regarding the Resin from India (C–533–842) and not more than 0.86 deciliters per gram. Countervailing Duty Petition on PET Thailand (C–549–824) The scope includes bottle–grade PET Resin, dated April 9, 2004; see also resin that contains various additives Memorandum to the File from Christian AGENCY: Import Administration, introduced in the manufacturing Hughes: Consultations with the International Trade Administration, process. The scope does not include Government of Thailand Regarding the Department of Commerce. post–consumer recycle (PCR) or post– Countervailing Duty Petition on PET industrial recycle (PIR) PET resin; Resin, dated April 8, 2004. Following EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2004. however, included in the scope is any consultations, the GOI provided FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: bottle–grade PET resin blend of virgin information to support its statements at Douglas Kirby (India) or Christian PET bottle–grade resin and recycled consultations regarding several of the Hughes (Thailand) at (202) 482–3782 or PET (RPET). Waste and scrap PET is GOI programs alleged by the petitioner. (202) 482–0190 respectively, Office of outside the scope of the investigations. This information was placed in the AD/CVD Enforcement VII, Import Fiber–grade PET resin, which has an record and provided to petitioner. See Administration, International Trade intrinsic viscosity of less than 0.68 Memorandum to the File from Dana Administration, U.S. Department of deciliters per gram, is also outside the Mermelstein, ‘‘Petition for the Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution scope of the investigations. Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The merchandise subject to these Bottle–Grade Polyethylene investigations is properly classified Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: under subheading 3907.60.0010 of the Information Submitted by the

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21087

Government of India,’’ April 12, 2004, render the decision of either agency Thus, the requirements of section on file in the Import Administration contrary to the law.1 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also are met. Central Records Unit , Room B–099 of Section 771(10) of the Act defines the Accordingly, we determine that the the Department of Commerce Building. domestic like product as ‘‘a product petition is filed on behalf of the The Department’s consideration of this which is like, or in the absence of like, domestic industry within the meaning information is fully discussed in the most similar in characteristics and uses of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See India Countervailing Duty Investigation with, the article subject to an CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment Initiation Checklist: Bottle–Grade investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the II; see also Thailand CVD Initiation Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin reference point from which the Checklist, at Attachment II, on file in the from India (April 13, 2004) (India CVD domestic like product analysis begins is Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of Initiation Checklist). ‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ the Department of Commerce. i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to Injury Test Determination of Industry Support for be investigated, which normally will be the Petition the scope as defined in the petition. Both India and Thailand are Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires In this case, the petition covers a ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Countries’’ that a petition be filed on behalf of the single class or kind of merchandise, within the meaning of section 701(b) of domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) bottle–grade PET resin, as defined in the the Act. Therefore, section 701(a)(2) of the Act provides that the ‘‘Scope of Investigations’’ section, above. applies to each investigation. Department’s industry support The petitioner does not offer a Accordingly, the ITC must determine determination, which is to be made definition of domestic like product whether imports of the subject before the initiation of the distinct from the scope of the merchandise from India and Thailand investigations, be based on whether a investigations. Further, based on our are materially injuring, or are minimum percentage of the relevant analysis of the information presented to threatening material injury to, an industry supports the petition. A the Department by the petitioner, we industry in the United States. petition satisfies this requirement if the have determined that there is a single Allegations of Subsidies domestic producers or workers who domestic like product, also bottle–grade PET resin, which is consistent with the Section 702(b) of the Act requires the support the petition account for (1) at Department to initiate a countervailing least 25 percent of the total production definition in the ‘‘Scope of Investigations’’ section above and have duty proceeding whenever an interested of the domestic like product; and (2) party files a petition, on behalf of an more than 50 percent of the production analyzed industry support in terms of this domestic like product. industry, that; (1) alleges the elements of the domestic like product produced necessary for an imposition of a duty by that portion of the industry The Department has determined that the petitioner has established industry under section 701(a), and (2) is expressing support for, or opposition to, accompanied by information reasonably the petition. Moreover, section support representing over 50 percent of total production of the domestic like available to petitioner supporting the 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if allegations. the petition does not establish support product. See India CVD Initiation of domestic producers or workers Checklist; see also Countervailing Duty India Investigation Initiation Checklist: accounting for more than 50 percent of We are initiating an investigation of Bottle–Grade Polyethylene the total production of the domestic like the following programs alleged in the Terephthalate (PET) Resin from product, the Department shall either petition to have provided Thailand (Thailand CVD Initiation poll the industry or rely on other countervailable subsidies to Checklist) (April 13, 2004). Thus, no information in order to determine if manufacturers, producers and exporters polling of the domestic industry by the there is support for the petition. of the subject merchandise in India (a Department pursuant to section Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines full description of each program is 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act is required. In the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a provided in the India CVD Initiation addition, the Department received no domestic like product. Thus, to Checklist): determine whether a petition has the opposition to the petition from domestic 1. The Duty Entitlement Passbook requisite industry support, the statute producers of the like product. Therefore, Scheme (DEPS)/ Post–Export Credits directs the Department to look to the petitioner and the domestic 2. Pre–Shipment and Post–Shipment producers and workers who produce the producers who support the petition Export Financing domestic like product. The U.S. account for at least 25 percent of the 3. Export Promotion Capital Goods International Trade Commission (ITC), total production of the domestic like Scheme (EPCGS) which is responsible for determining product, and the requirements of section 4. Income Tax Exemption Scheme whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. (Sections 10A, 10B, and 80 HHC) been injured, must also determine what Furthermore, the petitioner and the 5. Exemption of Export Credit from constitutes a domestic like product in domestic producers who support the Interest Taxes order to define the industry. While both petition account for more than 50 6. Export Processing Zones/Export– the Department and the ITC must apply percent of the production of the Oriented Units Program the same statutory definition regarding domestic like product produced by that 7. Market Development Assistance the domestic like product (section portion of the industry expressing (MDA) support for or opposition to the petition. 8. Status Certificate Program 771(10) of the Act), they do so for 9. Loan Guarantees from the GOI different purposes and pursuant to 1 See USEC, Inc., v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 10. State of Maharashtra Program: separate and distinct authority. In 2d 1,8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., Industrial Policy 2001 addition, the Department’s v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (CIT 11. State of Gujurat Program: Sales– determination is subject to limitations of 1988). See also High Information Content Flat Panel Tax Incentive Scheme time and information. Although this Displays and Display Glass from Japan: Final Determination; Rescission of Investigation and 12. State of West Bengal Program: may result in different definitions of the Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380- New Economic Policy on Industrial like product, such differences do not 81 (July 16, 1991). Development

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21088 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Thailand time after initiation, there is a properly supported by accurate and We are initiating an investigation of reasonable basis to believe or suspect adequate evidence and meet the the following programs alleged in the that the alleged countervailable statutory requirements for initiation. See petition to have provided subsidies are inconsistent with the India CVD Initiation Checklist; see also countervailable subsidies to Subsidies Agreement, the Department Thailand CVD Initiation Checklist. may request the Commissioner of manufacturers, producers and exporters Initiation of Countervailing Duty of the subject merchandise in Thailand Customs to compile such information on an expedited basis. The petitioner Investigations (a full description of each program is alleges that certain programs listed in provided in the Thailand CVD Initiation the petition with respect to both India Based on our examination of the Checklist): and Thailand constitute export petition on bottle–grade PET resin, and 1. Section 28 of the Investment subsidies, which would be inconsistent petitioner’s responses to our requests for Promotion Act: Exemption from with the Subsidies Agreement. supplemental information clarifying the Payment of Import Duties on Machinery As noted above, the petitioner has not petition, we have found that the petition 2. Section 30 of the Investment met the criteria for a finding of critical meets the requirements of section 702(b) Promotion Act: Reduction of Import circumstances. Therefore, at this time, of the Act. Therefore, in accordance Duties on Raw or Essential Materials we have no reasonable basis to believe with section 702(b) of the Act, we are 3. Section 31 of the Investment or suspect that critical circumstances initiating two countervailing duty Promotion Act: Income Tax Exemptions exist. However, the petitioner can investigations to determine whether 4. Section 35 of the Investment resubmit its request for a finding of Promotion Act: Special Rights and manufacturers, producers, or exporters critical circumstances and, if the criteria of bottle–grade PET resin from India and Benefits Granted to Promoted Activities for such a finding are met, we will issue Located in Investment Promotion Zones from Thailand receive countervailable a critical circumstances finding at the subsidies. Unless the deadline is Critical Circumstances Allegation earliest possible date. See Policy extended, we will make our preliminary Bulletin 98/4, 63 FR 55364 (October 15, In the petition, the petitioner claims determinations no later than 65 days 1998) (determination of critical after the date of this initiation. that, following the initiation of these circumstances may be made any time countervailing duty investigations, there after initiation). In addition, we are Distribution of Copies of the Petition is a reasonable basis to believe or considering the petitioner’s request to suspect that critical circumstances will obtain information from CBP for In accordance with section exist with regard to imports of bottle– monitoring purposes, and will inform 702(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the grade PET resin from India and interested parties of our determination public version of each petition has been Thailand. as soon as practicable. provided to the representatives of the Section 703(e)(1) of the Act states governments of India and Thailand. We Allegations and Evidence of Material that, if a petitioner alleges critical will attempt to provide a copy of the circumstances, the Department will find Injury and Causation public version of the petition to each that such critical circumstances exist, at The petitioner alleges that the U.S. known exporter as provided for under any time after the date of initiation, industry producing the domestic like 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). when there is a reasonable basis to product is being materially injured, or is believe or suspect that, under paragraph threatened with material injury, by ITC Notification (A), the alleged countervailable reason of subsidized imports from India subsidies are inconsistent with the and Thailand of the subject We have notified the ITC of our Subsidies Agreement, and that, under merchandise. initiations, as required by section 702(d) paragraph (B), there have been massive The petitioner contends that the of the Act. imports of the subject merchandise over industry’s injured condition is evident Preliminary Determination by the ITC a relatively short period of time. Section in lost sales and customers, in the 351.206(h) of the Department’s declining trends in prices, profits, and The ITC will determine no later than regulations defines ‘‘massive imports’’ as domestic market share, and in its May 10, 2004, whether there is a imports that have increased by at least reduced ability to reinvest and pursue reasonable indication that imports of by 15 percent over the imports during research and development activities. bottle–grade PET resin from India and an immediately preceding period of The allegations of injury and causation Thailand are materially injuring, or comparable duration. Section 351.206(i) are supported by relevant evidence threatening material injury to, a U.S. of the regulations states that the including U.S. import data, affidavits industry. A negative ITC determination ‘‘relatively short period’’ will normally supporting claims of lost sales and will result in these investigations being be defined as the period beginning on declining revenues, and pricing terminated; otherwise, these the date the proceeding begins and information. The petitioner also alleges investigations will proceed according to ending at least three months later. To the imminent threat of further material date, the petitioner has not injury based on the likely increases in statutory and regulatory time limits. demonstrated that the requirement of foreign production volume of bottle– This notice is issued and published ‘‘massive imports . . . over a relatively grade PET resin, the likelihood of pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. short period’’ has been met. substantially increased imports, and the Dated: April 13, 2004. The petitioner requests that, pursuant prices of these imports having the likely Jeffrey May, to section 702(e) of the Act, the effect of depressing or suppressing Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Department request U.S. Customs and domestic prices. Administration. Border Protection (CBP) to compile The Department has assessed the [FR Doc. 04–8937 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] information on an expedited basis allegations and supporting evidence regarding entries of subject regarding material injury and causation BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S merchandise. We note that section and threat of material injury, and has 702(e) of the Act states that if, at any determined that these allegations are

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21089

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE requires daily electronic reporting of all ACTION: Notice of partial approval of a fish purchased (including fish received) fishery management plan amendment. National Oceanic and Atmospheric by federally permitted dealers who are Administration determined to be large dealers, while SUMMARY: NMFS announces that Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies [I.D. 121803D] delaying the daily reporting requirement for all small dealers who initially will Fishery Management Plan (Amendment Fisheries of the Northeastern United be required to report electronically on a 13) has been partially approved by States; Recordkeeping and Reporting weekly basis. Also, it eliminates dealer NMFS, acting on behalf of the Secretary Requirements; Regulatory Amendment reporting via the Interactive Voice of Commerce. Amendment 13 was to Modify Seafood Dealer Reporting Response (IVR) system; implements a developed by the New England Fishery Requirements trip identifier requirement for dealers; Management Council (Council) to end requires dealers to report the disposition overfishing and rebuild NE multispecies AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries of purchased fish; and modifies the (groundfish) stocks managed under the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and dealer reporting requirements for the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries to Fishery Conservation and Management Commerce. make them consistent with the Act, and to make other changes in the ACTION: Notification of clearance of requirements of other fisheries. Details management of the groundfish fishery. collection-of-information requirements. concerning the justification for and The intent of this announcement is to development of the regulatory inform the public of the partial approval SUMMARY: NMFS announces the amendment and the implementing of Amendment 13 and of the availability clearance by the Office of Management regulations were provided in the of the Record of Decision (ROD) for and Budget (OMB) of collection-of- preambles to the proposed rule (69 FR Amendment 13 in compliance with the information requirements for a 2870, January 21, 2004) and the final National Environmental Policy Act regulatory amendment to modify the rule (69 FR 13482, March 23, 2004) and (NEPA). reporting and recordkeeping regulations are not repeated here. DATES: Amendment 13 was partially for federally permitted seafood dealers In the March 23, 2004, final rule, approved on March 18, 2004. participating in the summer flounder, NMFS indicated that it would inform FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: scup, black sea bass, Atlantic sea the affected public through a follow-up Thomas Warren, Fishery Policy Analyst, scallop, Northeast (NE) multispecies, notification announcing OMB’s 978–281–9347, fax: 978–281–9135; monkfish, Atlantic mackerel, squid, clearance of the collection-of- email: [email protected]. butterfish, Atlantic surfclam, ocean information requirements related to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS quahog, Atlantic herring, Atlantic deep- § 648.7(a), (d), (e), and (f) of that rule. sea red crab, tilefish, Atlantic bluefish, intends to comply with a Court-ordered On April 14, 2004, OMB cleared the implementation of Amendment 13 skates, and/or spiny dogfish fisheries in collection-of-information requirements the NE Region, whereby permitted through publication of a final rule in the under OMB control numbers 0648–0018 Federal Register by May 1, 2004. dealers must report all purchases of fish and 0648–0229. The intent of the via electronic means. The purpose of A proposed rule to implement notification is to inform the public of Amendment 13 published in the this notification is to announce to the the OMB clearance of these public that OMB has cleared the Federal Register on January 29, 2004 requirements that become effective on (69 FR 4362), with public comment collection-of-information requirements May 1, 2004. for that action. ending on February 27, 2004. A total of Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 4,941 comments were received on ADDRESSES: Any comments regarding Dated: April 14, 2004. Amendment 13. A summary of the burden-hour estimates for collection-of- comments received and NMFS’s Alan D. Risenhoover, information requirements contained in responses will be published in the final this final rule should be sent to Patricia Acting Director, Office of Sustainable rule. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, On March 18, 2004, NMFS approved Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, One [FR Doc. E4–884 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] all measures in Amendment 13 with the Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, BILLING CODE 3510–22–S exception of the following proposed and by e-mail to measures, which have been [email protected], or by fax disapproved: 1) The Closed Area (CA) II DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE to (202) 395–7285. Haddock Special Access Program (SAP) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: National Oceanic and Atmospheric and the CA I Hook Gear Haddock SAP; Michael Pentony, Senior Fishery Policy Administration 2) the prohibition on surfclam and Analyst, (978)281–9283, fax (978)281– ocean quahog dredge gear in NE 9135, email [email protected]. [I.D. 122203A] multispecies closed areas (the result of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March this disapproval is that such gear will be 23, 2004 (69 FR 13482), NMFS RIN 0648–AN17 allowed in the groundfish closure published a final rule to implement Magnuson-Stevens Fishery portion of the Nantucket Lightship measures contained in a regulatory Conservation and Management Act Closed Area, the Western Gulf of Maine amendment to modify the reporting and Provisions; Fisheries of the (WGOM) Closure Area, and the Cashes recordkeeping regulations for federally Northeastern United States; Northeast Ledge Closure Area); 3) the exemption permitted seafood dealers. Section (NE) Multispecies Fishery; Amendment for shrimp trawl gear in the WGOM 648.7(a), (d), (e), and (f) of that final rule 13 Closure Area; 4) the abbreviated process contains collection-of-information to implement SAPs; 5) the Georges Bank requirements that apply to any seafood AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Cod Trip Limit Program; and 6) the dealer that is permitted under § 648.6. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and removal of the Flexible Area Action The March 23, 2004, final rule, which Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), System. A full explanation of the becomes effective on May 1, 2004, Commerce. reasons for disapproval will be included

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21090 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

in the final rule implementing Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Council action during this meeting. Amendment 13. Management Council, 300 S. New Council action will be restricted to those NMFS is under a Court-ordered Street, Dover, DE 19904; telephone: 302- issues specifically listed in this notice deadline to implement Amendment 13 674-2331. and any issues arising after publication by May 1, 2004. The Consolidated FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of this notice that require emergency Appropriations Act of 2004 (Division H, Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, action under section 305(c) of the Section 105), however, prohibited Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the NMFS from expending funds to Council; telephone: 302–674–2331, ext. public has been notified of the Council’s implement the Amendment during this 19. intent to take final actions to address fiscal year. However, on April 13, 2004, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tuesday, such emergencies. President Bush signed into law H.R. May 4, 2004, 12 noon to 1 p.m. – The Special Accommodations 2584, which contains a provision Fisheries Issues Focus Committee will These meetings are physically repealing Section 105 of division H of meet. accessible to people with disabilities. the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. – The Research Set- Requests for sign language 2004, thus enabling NMFS to implement Aside Committee will meet. interpretation or other auxiliary aids Amendment 13 and publish the final 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. – The Surfclam and should be directed to Kathy Collins at rule. NMFS will publish the final rule Ocean Quahog Committee will meet. the Council (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 in the Federal Register in the near 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. – The Atlantic days prior to the meeting date. future. Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish In addition, the public is informed Committee will meet. Dated: April 15, 2004. that the ROD for Amendment 13 in Wednesday, May 5, 2004, 8 a.m. to 9 Alan D. Risenhoover, compliance with NEPA is available on a.m. – The Executive Committee will Acting Director, Office of Sustainable the NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science meet. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Center’s website: http:// 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. – Council will [FR Doc. E4–895 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] www.nefsc.noaa.gov/groundfish/#mg meet. BILLING CODE 3510–22–S Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 3:30 to 4 p.m. – There will be a NMFS Dated: April 14, 2004. Outreach Briefing. 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. – There will be a DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE John Oliver, South Atlantic Council Scoping Hearing Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, on Amendment 15 to the Coastal National Oceanic and Atmospheric NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Administration [FR Doc. 04–8766 Filed 4–15–04; 3:35 pm] Plan. [I.D. 040504D] BILLING CODE 3510–22–S Thursday, May 6, 2004, 8 a.m. until approximately noon – The Council will Endangered Species; Permit No. 1198 meet. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Agenda items for the Council’s AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries committees and the Council itself are: Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Administration Review status of states recreational saltwater fishing license programs; Commerce. [I.D. 041404E] Review of New England Council (NEC) ACTION: Issuance of permit modification. process to incorporate research results SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management into NMFS scientific data bases; request for modification of scientific Council; Public Meetings Address strategies to optimize use of research Permit No. 1198 submitted by multi-year quota setting mechanisms for AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the Florida Marine Research Institute, surfclams and ocean quahogs; Review Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Jacksonville Field Laboratory, 6134 action on herring and its impacts on Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Authority Avenue, Building 200, mackerel; Receive report from annual Commerce. Jacksonville, FL 32221, has been Council Chairmen’s meeting; Review ACTION: Notice of public meetings. granted. and resolve Advisory Panel ADDRESSES: SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery appointment issues; Receive update on The amendment and related Management Council (Council) and its Council’s FY04 budget; Receive reports documents are available for review Fisheries Issues Focus Committee, on Climatic Impacts on East Coast upon written request or by appointment Research Set-Aside Committee, Fishery Stocks and Clean Ocean Zone in the following offices: Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Initiative; Review and adopt Framework Permits, Conservation and Education Committee, Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, 5 regarding multi-year total allowable Division, Office of Protected Resources, and Butterfish Committee, and landings (TALs) for summer flounder, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room Executive Committee will hold public scup, and black sea bass; Discuss items 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone meetings. related to Dogfish Amendment 1; (301)713–2289, fax (301)713–0376; and Receive a NMFS Outreach Briefing on Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 DATES: The meetings will be held on the Northeast Regional Bycatch Executive Center Drive North, St. Tuesday, May 4, through Thursday, May Workshop; the Council will also receive Petersburg, FL 33702–2432; phone SUPPLEMENTARY 6, 2004. See and hear committee and organizational (727)570–5301; fax (727)570–5320. INFORMATION for specific dates and reports, and act on any new and/or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: times. continuing business. Carrie Hubard or Ruth Johnson, ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at Although non-emergency issues not (301)713–2289. the Crowne Plaza Meadowlands, Two contained in this agenda may come SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Harmon Plaza, Secaucus, NJ 07094; before the Council for discussion, these requested amendment has been granted telephone: 201-348-6900. issues may not be the subject of formal under the authority of the Endangered

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21091

Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: approaches to enhancing security and 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the Jean A. Webb, (202) 418–5100. protection of these facilities. provisions of 50 CFR 222.306 of the The mission of the Defense Science Jean A. Webb, regulations governing the taking, Board is to advise the Secretary of importing, and exporting of endangered Secretary of the Commission. Defense and the Under Secretary of and threatened fish and wildlife (50 [FR Doc. 04–9007 Filed 4–16–04; 11:52 am] Defense for Acquisition, Technology & CFR 222–226). BILLING CODE 6351–01–M Logistics on scientific and technical The modification extends the matters as they affect the perceived expiration date of the Permit from needs of the Department of Defense. At March 31, 2004, to March 31, 2005, for COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING these meetings, the Task Force will takes of green (Chelonia mydas), COMMISSION assess investments in technology and loggerhead (Caretta caretta), leatherback Sunshine Act; Meetings manpower in order to ensure proper (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill security levels at our nation’s high-value (Eretmochelys imbricata) and Kemp’s TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, May 21, installations with particular emphasis ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtles. 2004. on airports, harbors, nuclear power Issuance of this amendment, as facilities and military bases. To that PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, required by the ESA was based on a DC, Room 1012. end, the Task Force will review existing finding that such permit: (1) Was best practices in force protection and applied for in good faith; (2) will not STATUS: Closed. security at civil, industrial and military operate to the disadvantage of the MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance complexes, assess shortfalls and threatened and endangered species Matters. deficiencies associated with operational which are the subject of this permit; and CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: security, identify promising technology (3) is consistent with the purposes and Jean A. Webb, (202) 418–5100. and/or processes that will enhance policies set forth in section 2 of the security; and recommend methods for Jean A. Webb, ESA. reducing overall manpower Secretary of the Commission. requirements without relinquishing Dated: April 14, 2004. [FR Doc. 04–9008 Filed 4–16–04; 11:52 am] Stephen L. Leathery, robust security measures. BILLING CODE 6351–01–M In accordance with Section 10(d) of Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Pub. L. No. 92–463, as amended (5 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined [FR Doc. 04–8888 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] COMMISSION that these Defense Science Board Task BILLING CODE 3510–22–S Sunshine Act Meetings Force meetings concerning matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, May 28, accordingly, the meetings will be closed COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 2004. to the public. COMMISSION PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, Dated: April 14, 2004. Sunshine Act; Meetings DC, Room 1012. L.M. Bynum, STATUS: Closed. Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, May 7, MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance 2004. Matters. [FR Doc. 04–8879 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001–06–M PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: DC, Room 1012. Jean A. Webb, (202) 418–5100. STATUS: Closed. Jean A. Webb, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Secretary of the Commission. Matters. Office of the Secretary; National [FR Doc. 04–9009 Filed 4–16–04; 11:52 am] CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Security Education Board Meeting BILLING CODE 6351–01–M Jean A. Webb, (202) 418–5100. AGENCY: National Defense University. Jean A. Webb, ACTION: Notice of meeting. Secretary of the Commission. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUMMARY: [FR Doc. 04–9006 Filed 4–16–04; 11:52 am] Pursuant to Pub. L. 92–463, Office of the Secretary, Defense notice is hereby given of a forthcoming BILLING CODE 6351–01–M Science Board meeting of the National Security Education Board. The purpose of the AGENCY: Department of Defense. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING meeting is to review and make ACTION: Notice of advisory committee COMMISSION recommendations to the Secretary meetings. concerning requirements established by Sunshine Act; Meetings the David L. Boren National Security SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Education Act, Title VIII of Pub. L. 102– Task Force on Critical Homeland TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, May 14, 183, as amended. 2004. Installation Protection will meet in closed sessions on July 20–21, 2004; and DATES: May 20, 2004. PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, August 26–27, 2004, at SAIC, 4001 N. ADDRESSES: The Crystal City Marriott DC, Room 1012. Fairfax Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA. Hotel, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, STATUS: Closed. The Task Force will assess best Arlington, Virginia 22202. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance practices for protecting U.S. homeland FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Matters. installations and recommend various Edmond J. Collier, Deputy Director,

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21092 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

National Security Education Program, 552b(f)(2). The afternoon session on DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 1101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1210, May 11, 2004 and the entire session on Rosslyn, Virginia 22209–2248; (703) May 12, 2004 will be open to the public. Department of the Army; Corps of 696–1991. Electronic mail address: Open sessions of the meeting will be Engineers [email protected]. limited by space accommodations. The Intent To Prepare a Draft Programmatic SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board meeting will be open to the public in Environmental Impact Statement for meeting is open to the Public. accordance with Section 552b(c) of Title the Near-Term Ecosystem Restoration Dated: April 14, 2004. 5, U.S.C., specifically subparagraph (1) thereof and Title 5 U.S.C., appendix 1, Plan for the Louisiana Coastal Area L.M. Bynum, subsection 10(d). Any interested person Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. may attend, appear before or file Officer, Department of Defense. Corps of Engineers, DoD. statements with the committee at the [FR Doc. 04–8878 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] time and in the manner permitted by the ACTION: Notice; date correction. BILLING CODE 5001–06–M committee. SUMMARY: The scoping meeting dates of Brenda S. Bowen, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE May 2004 published in the Federal Alternate Army Federal Register Liaison Register on Thursday, April 8, 2004 (69 Officer. Department of the Army FR 18553) was in error. The correct date [FR Doc. 04–8935 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] for these meetings is April 2004. Armed Forces Epidemiological Board; BILLING CODE 3710–08–M Meeting FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. William P. Klein, Jr., (504) 862–2540. AGENCY: Department of the Army; DoD. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACTION: Notice of partially-closed Brenda S. Bowen, meeting. Department of the Army Alternate Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. SUMMARY: In accordance with section Board of Visitors, United States [FR Doc. 04–8936 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] 10(a)(2) of Public Law 92–463, The Military Academy BILLING CODE 3710–84–M Federal Advisory Committee Act, announcement is made of the following AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. meeting: ACTION: Notice of open meeting. Name of Committee: Armed Forces DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Epidemiological Board (AFEB). Dates: May 11, 2004 (Partially-closed SUMMARY: In accordance with Section Federal Energy Regulatory meeting). May 12, 2004 (Open meeting). 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Commission Times: 7:30 a.m.–5:45 p.m. (May 11, Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), 2004). 7:30 a.m.–5:15 p.m. (May 12, announcement is made of the following [Docket No. IC04–723–000] 2004). committee meeting: Location: Armed Forces Medical Name of Committee: Board of Proposed Information Collection and Intelligence Center, 1607 Porter Avenue, Visitors, United States Military Request for Comments; Errata Notice Fort Detrick, MD (May 11, 2004, 8:20 Academy. a.m.–12 p.m.) and U.S. Army Medical April 12, 2004. Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2004. On April 9, 2004, the Commission 1425 Porter Street, Fort Detrick, MD Place of Meeting: Veteran Affairs issued a ‘‘Notice of Request for Office of 21702–5011 (May 12, 2004, see above). Conference Room, Room 418, Senate Management and Budget Emergency Agenda: The purpose of the meeting Russell Office Building, Washington, Processing of proposed information is to address pending and new Board DC. issues, provide briefings for Board collection and request for comments’’ in members on topics related to ongoing Start Time of Meeting: Approximately the above referenced proceeding. The and new Board issues, conduct 10 a.m. notice omitted to include a question on subcommittee meetings, and conduct an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: possible impediments to adequate executive working session. Lieutenant Colonel Edward C. Clarke, vegetation management. FERC–723 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: United States Military Academy, West ‘‘Vegetation Management Report’’ is also Colonel (Sel) Roger Gibson, Executive Point, NY 10996–5000, (845) 938–4200. to include the following: Secretary, Armed Forces ‘‘Describe any Federal or State regulatory Epidemiological Board, Skyline Six, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed Agenda: Spring Meeting of the Board of provisions or practices that prevent or 5109 Leesburg Pike, Room 682, Falls unduly delay adequate vegetation Visitors. Review of the Academic, Church, VA 22041–3258, (703) 681– management. Also describe any other Military and Physical Programs at the 8012/3. conditions or reasons (financial or otherwise) USMA. All proceedings are open. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the that prevent or unduly delay adequate interest of national security, and in Brenda S. Bowen, vegetation management.’’ accordance with Title 5, United States Alternate Army Federal Register Liaison Code (U.S.C.) Section 552b(c)(1), the Officer. Magalie R. Salas, morning session on May 11, 2004 may [FR Doc. 04–8933 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Secretary. be closed to the public. In addition, any BILLING CODE 3710–08–M [FR Doc. E4–883 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] classified portions of the meeting BILLING CODE 6717–01–P minutes may be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21093

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Intervention and Protest Date: April strongly encourages electronic filings. 28, 2004. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the Federal Energy Regulatory instructions on the Commission’s web Magalie R. Salas, Commission site under the e-Filing link. Secretary. [FR Doc. E4–877 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Magalie R. Salas, [Docket No. PR04–10–000] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Secretary. Arkansas Western Gas Company; [FR Doc. E4–879 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Notice of Petition for Rate Approval BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY April 13, 2004. Federal Energy Regulatory DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Take notice that on April 1, 2004, Commission Arkansas Western Gas Company (AWG) [Docket No. RP04–252–000] Federal Energy Regulatory filed pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) Commission of the Commission’s regulations, a Columbia Gas Transmission [Docket No. RP04–255–000] petition for rate approval requesting that Corporation; Notice of Proposed the Commission approve the proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff Columbia Gas Transmission rates as fair and equitable for firm and Corporation; Notice of Proposed interruptible transmission services April 13, 2004. Changes in FERC Gas Tariff performed under section 311 of the Take notice that on April 6, 2004, Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA). Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation April 13, 2004. Raptor proposes an effective date of (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of Take notice that on April 8, 2004, April 1, 2004. its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation AWG states that it owns and operates Volume No. 1, Sixth Revised Sheet No. (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of 500B, to be effective May 1, 2004. intrastate transmission and local its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised In addition, Columbia tendered for distribution facilities in several counties Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets filing the following Service Agreements listed on Appendix A to the filing, with in Arkansas. AWG further states that it for consideration and approval: also owns and operates a local a proposed effective date of May 8, FTS Service Agreement No. 78533 distribution system in northeast 2004. between Columbia Gas Transmission Arkansas that includes two 50′ pipeline Columbia states that as an integral Corporation and Columbia Natural stubs which cross the Arkansas/ component of its efforts to prepare for Resources dated April 1, 2004 2004 re-contracting issues, it has Missouri border and interconnect with FTS Service Agreement No. 78534 United Cities Gas Company. undertaken a comprehensive review of between Columbia Gas Transmission the pro forma service agreements in its Any person desiring to participate in Corporation and Fortuna Energy Inc. Tariff, and this review has led Columbia this rate proceeding must file a motion dated April 1, 2004 to propose several Tariff revisions. to intervene or protest with the Federal Columbia states that copies of its Columbia states that these tariff Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 filing have been mailed to all firm revisions are intended to (1) correct/ First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426, customers, interruptible customers, and delete certain minor inconsistencies in in accordance with § 385.214 or 385.211 affected state commissions. Columbia’s pro forma service of the Commission’s Rules and Any person desiring to be heard or to agreements, and (2) to ensure that Regulations. All such motions or protest said filing should file a motion Columbia, when it agrees with its protests must be filed with the Secretary to intervene or a protest with the shippers in future service agreements on of the Commission on or before the date Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, minimum pressures and/or hourly flow as indicated below. Protests will be 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC rates, can also agree with its shippers on considered by the Commission in 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or conditions to those minimum pressures/ determining the appropriate action to be § 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules hourly flow rates necessary to ensure taken, but will not serve to make and Regulations. All such motions or the integrity of Columbia’s pipeline protestants parties to the proceedings. protests must be filed in accordance system. Any person wishing to become a party with § 154.210 of the Commission’s Columbia states that copies of its must file a motion to intervene. This Regulations. Protests will be considered filing have been mailed to all firm petition for rate approval is available for by the Commission in determining the customers, interruptible customers, and review at the Commission in the Public appropriate action to be taken, but will affected state commissions. Reference Room or may be viewed on not serve to make protestants parties to Any person desiring to be heard or to the Commission’s Web site at http:// the proceedings. Any person wishing to protest said filing should file a motion www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. become a party must file a motion to to intervene or a protest with the Enter the docket number excluding the intervene. This filing is available for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, last three digits I the docket number review at the Commission in the Public 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC field to access the document. For Reference Room or may be viewed on 20426, in accordance with Sections Assistant, call (202) 502–8222 or for the Commission’s Web site at http:// 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s TTY, (202) 502–8659. Comments, www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary. Enter Rules and Regulations. All such motions protests and interventions may be filed the docket number excluding the last or protests must be filed in accordance electronically via the Internet in lieu of three digits in the docket number field with Section 154.210 of the paper. The Commission strongly to access the document. For assistance, Commission’s Regulations. Protests will encourages electronic filings. See, 18 please contact FERC Online Support at be considered by the Commission in CFR 385.2001(1)(iii) and the [email protected] or toll- determining the appropriate action to be instructions on the Commission’s web free at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact taken, but will not serve to make site under the e-Filing link. (202) 502–8659. The Commission protestants parties to the proceedings.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21094 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Any person wishing to become a party filed in accordance with Section Regulations. All such protests must be must file a motion to intervene. This 154.210 of the Commission’s filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the filing is available for review at the Regulations. Protests will be considered Commission’s Regulations. Protests will Commission in the Public Reference by the Commission in determining the be considered by the Commission in Room or may be viewed on the appropriate action to be taken, but will determining the appropriate action to be Commission’s Web site at http:// not serve to make protestants parties to taken, but will not serve to make www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary. Enter the proceedings. This filing is available protestants parties to the proceedings. the docket number excluding the last for review at the Commission in the This filing is available for review at the three digits in the docket number field Public Reference Room or may be Commission in the Public Reference to access the document. For assistance, viewed on the Commission’s Web site at Room or may be viewed on the please contact FERC Online Support at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary Commission’s Web site at http:// [email protected] or toll- link. Enter the docket number excluding www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. free at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact the last three digits in the docket Enter the docket number excluding the (202) 502–8659. The Commission number field to access the document. last three digits in the docket number strongly encourages electronic filings. For assistance, please contact FERC field to access the document. For See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the Online Support at assistance, please contact FERC Online instructions on the Commission’s Web [email protected] or toll- Support at site under the e-Filing link. free at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact [email protected] or toll- (202) 502–8659. The Commission free at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact Magalie R. Salas, strongly encourages electronic filings. (202) 502–8659. The Commission Secretary. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the strongly encourages electronic filings. [FR Doc. E4–881 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] instructions on the Commission’s Web See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the BILLING CODE 6717–01–P site under the e-Filing link. instructions on the Commission’s Web site under the e-Filing link. Magalie R. Salas, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Secretary. Magalie R. Salas, [FR Doc. E4–878 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Secretary. Federal Energy Regulatory BILLING CODE 6717–01–P [FR Doc. E4–875 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Commission BILLING CODE 6717–01–P [Docket No. RP04–179–001] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Compliance Filing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory April 13, 2004. Commission [Docket No. RP00–404–013] Take notice that on April 9, 2004, [Docket No. RP98–52–052] National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice (National Fuel) tendered for filing as of Compliance Filing Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Inc.; Notice of Compliance Report Revised Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised April 13, 2004. Filing Sheet No. 478, with an effective date of Take notice that on April 8, 2004, April 15, 2004. Northern Natural Gas Company April 13, 2004. National Fuel states that the instant (Northern) tendered for filing to become Take notice that on April 7, 2004, filing is being made in compliance with part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. the Letter Order issued by the Volume No. 1 the following tariff sheets, (Southern Star) tendered for filing a Commission on March 31, 2004, in with an effective date of June 1, 2004: Report in Compliance with Ordering Docket No. RP04–179–000, granting Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 2 Paragraph (C) of the Commission’s National Fuel’s request for waiver of Fourth Revised Sheet No. 305 March 30, 2004 Order on Initial certain tariff provisions relating to cost First Revised Sheet No. 403A Decision in this proceeding, Southern contributions, financial assurance and First Revised Sheet No. 406 Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc, 106 FERC real-time measurement in connection First Revised Sheet No. 407 ¶ 61,316. Southern Star states that such with transportation services for Fortuna First Revised Sheet No. 408 report details ‘‘the status of payment by Energy Inc. (Fortuna). First Revised Sheet No. 409 Andover Oil on the liability associated National Fuel states that in Second Revised Sheet No. 410 with potential successors-in-interest to compliance with that directive, it Northern states that it will implement Andover Oil as well as the liability of submits Fourth Revised Sheet No. 478 Market Area segmentation on June 1, Mr. Grant or Grant Oil.’’ and red-lined copies of Service 2004, and proposes certain Southern Star states that copies of the Agreement Nos. F10702, F10703, administrative tariff changes associated report are being mailed to Andover Oil’s F10704, and F10705. with this implementation. successor in interest (Global Santa Fe National Fuel states that copies of this Northern further states that copies of Corporation), Mr. Grant and Grant Oil, filing were served upon its customers the filing have been mailed to each of and all participants on the and interested state commissions. its customers and interested State Commission’s official service list in the Any person desiring to protest said Commissions. proceeding. filing should file a protest with the Any person desiring to protest said Any person desiring to protest said Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, filing should file a protest with the filing should file a protest with the 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 20426, in accordance with Section 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of Regulations. All such protests must be the Commission’s Rules and the Commission’s Rules and

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21095

Regulations. All such protests must be Room or may be viewed on the mainline portion of the agreements with filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission’s Web site at http:// available unsubscribed East of Thoreau Commission’s Regulations. Protests will www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. capacity. be considered by the Commission in Enter the docket number excluding the Transwestern states that it is filing the determining the appropriate action to be last three digits in the docket number above-referenced tariff sheets to provide taken, but will not serve to make field to access the document. Transwestern the authority to reserve protestants parties to the proceedings. Comments, protests and interventions unsubscribed capacity to avoid This filing is available for review at the may be filed electronically via the construction of unnecessary facilities in Commission in the Public Reference Internet in lieu of paper. For assistance, conjunction with the San Juan Room or may be viewed on the please contact FERC Online Support at Expansion Project and other future Commission’s Web site at http:// [email protected] or toll- expansion projects. www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. free at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact Any person desiring to be heard or to Enter the docket number excluding the (202) 502–8659. The Commission protest said filing should file a motion last three digits in the docket number strongly encourages electronic filings. to intervene or a protest with the field to access the document. For See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, assistance, please contact FERC Online instructions on the Commission’s Web 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Support at site under the e-Filing link. 20426, in accordance with Sections [email protected] or toll- Protest Date: April 20, 2004. 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations. All such motions free at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact Magalie R. Salas, (202) 502–8659. The Commission or protests must be filed in accordance Secretary. with Section 154.210 of the strongly encourages electronic filings. [FR Doc. E4–876 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the Commission’s Regulations. Protests will BILLING CODE 6717–01–P instructions on the Commission’s Web be considered by the Commission in site under the e-Filing link. determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Magalie R. Salas, protestants parties to the proceedings. Secretary. Federal Energy Regulatory Any person wishing to become a party [FR Doc. E4–873 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Commission must file a motion to intervene. This BILLING CODE 6717–01–P filing is available for review at the [Docket No. RP04–253–000] Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Transwestern Pipeline Company; DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Commission’s Web site at http:// Notice of Tariff Filing www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary. Enter Federal Energy Regulatory April 13, 2004. the docket number excluding the last Commission Take notice that on April 8, 2004, three digits in the docket number field [Docket No. RP03–273–004] Transwestern Pipeline Company to access the document. For assistance, (Transwestern) tendered for filing as please contact FERC Online Support at Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second [email protected] or toll- Corporation; Notice of Report of Revised Volume No. 1, the following free at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact Refund tariff sheets to become effective May 10, (202) 502–8659. The Commission 2004: strongly encourages electronic filings. April 13, 2004. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the Take notice that on April 8, 2004, Twenty-Second Revised Sheet No. 48; instructions on the Commission’s Web Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Fifth Revised Sheet No. 83; site under the e-Filing link. Corporation (Transco) tendered for First Revised Sheet No. 84A. filing its Report of Refund detailing the Transwestern states that it is filing Magalie R. Salas, surcharges distributed to its customers, concurrently with this filing an Secretary. as applicable, in the referenced application for a certificate of public [FR Doc. E4–880 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] proceedings pursuant to section 154.501 convenience and necessity to expand its BILLING CODE 6717–01–P of the Commission’s Regulations. San Juan Lateral by 375,000 Dth/day to Transco states that copies of its filing move incremental San Juan supplies have been served upon all affected from the constrained San Juan basin to DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY customers and interested state markets on the Transwestern mainline commissions. on the eastern end of its system. Federal Energy Regulatory Any person desiring to protest said Transwestern states that subsequent to Commission filing should file a protest with the an open season conducted by them for [Docket No. RP97–28–012] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, its San Juan 2005 Expansion Project 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC (San Juan Expansion Project), Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd; 20426, in accordance with Section Transwestern has executed binding Notice of Negotiated Rates 385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and agreements with several shippers to Regulations. All such protests must be participate in the San Juan Expansion April 13, 2004. filed on or before the protest date as Project for incremental San Juan Take notice that on April 8, 2004, shown below. Protests will be capacity and for capacity to further Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd. considered by the Commission in move the gas on the mainline from the (WIC) tendered for filing as part of its determining the appropriate action to be interconnection of the San Juan lateral FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised taken, but will not serve to make at Thoreau to markets in the East of Volume No. 2, the following tariff sheets protestants parties to the proceedings. Thoreau Area. Transwestern states that to its FERC Gas Tariff, with an effective This filing is available for review at the although it intends to expand its San date of April 8, 2004: Commission in the Public Reference Juan lateral, it is able to serve the Fourth Revised Sheet No. 110 and

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21096 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Third Revised Sheet No. 111 through 113 Agreement under PJM’s OATT to meet Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, WIC states that these tariff sheets the condition in the Commission’s 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC describe four existing negotiated rate orders to hold harmless utilities in 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 transactions that were previously filed Michigan and Wisconsin from the and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of for review under the Commission’s financial impacts of loop flows and Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 material deviation policies. congestion resulting from the choice of and 385.214). Protests will be Any person desiring to be heard or to ComEd to participate as a transmission- considered by the Commission in protest said filing should file a motion owning member of PJM. ComEd and determining the appropriate action to be to intervene or a protest with the PJM request that the Commission accept taken, but will not serve to make Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, this submission for filing effective May protestants parties to the proceeding. 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 1, 2004. Any person wishing to become a party 20426, in accordance with Sections ComEd and PJM state that a copy of must file a motion to intervene. All such 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s the filing was served upon ComEd’s motions or protests should be filed on Rules and Regulations. All such motions transmission service customers, PJM’s or before the comment date, and, to the or protests must be filed in accordance customers, the Midwest ISO, and the extent applicable, must be served on the with Section 154.210 of the state regulatory commissions exercising applicant and on any other person Commission’s Regulations. Protests will jurisdiction over ComEd Companies. designated on the official service list. be considered by the Commission in Comment Date: April 16, 2004. This filing is available for review at the determining the appropriate action to be 2. Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Commission or may be viewed on the taken, but will not serve to make Inc. Commission’s Web site at http:// protestants parties to the proceedings. www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘FERRIS’’ link. Any person wishing to become a party [Docket No. ES04–18–000] Enter the docket number excluding the must file a motion to intervene. This Take notice that on April, 2, 2004, last three digits in the docket number filing is available for review at the Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. filed to access the document. For Commission in the Public Reference (Golden Spread) submitted an assistance, call (202) 502–8222 or TTY, Room or may be viewed on the application pursuant to section 204 of (202) 502–8659. Protests and Commission’s Web site at http:// the Federal Power Act requesting that interventions may be filed electronically www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary. Enter the Commission authorize: (1) An via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 the docket number excluding the last increase to Golden Spread’s current CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the three digits in the docket number field authorization to issue securities in the instructions on the Commission’s Web to access the document. For assistance, form of short-term and intermediate- site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The please contact FERC Online Support at term debt from $160 to $240 million; (2) Commission strongly encourages [email protected] or toll- issuance of new long-term debt in an electronic filings. free at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact amount not to exceed $150 million and; Magalie R. Salas, (202) 502–8659. The Commission (3) Golden Spread’s entrance into a strongly encourages electronic filings. Continuing Guarantee of performance, Secretary. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the in favor of AEP Texas Central Company, [FR Doc. E4–872 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] instructions on the Commission’s Web in connection with the assignment of BILLING CODE 6717–01–P site under the e-Filing link. Golden Spread to Oklaunion Electric Generating Cooperative, Inc. of its Magalie R. Salas, obligations under a Purchase and Sale DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Secretary. Agreement. [FR Doc. E4–882 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Golden Spread also requests a waiver Federal Energy Regulatory Commission BILLING CODE 6717–01–P from the Commission’s competitive bidding and negotiated placement [Project No. 12187–000] requirements at 18 CFR 34.2. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Comment Date: April 29, 2004. Price Dam Partnership, LTD; Notice of 3. Ameren Energy Generating Company Intent To Prepare an Environmental Federal Energy Regulatory Assessment and Notice of Scoping Commission [Docket No. ES04–19–000] and Soliciting Scoping Comments [Docket No. ER04–718–000, et al.] Take notice that on April 5, 2004, Ameren Energy Generating Company April 13, 2004. Commonwealth Edison Company, et (AEG) submitted an application Take notice that the following al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Filings pursuant to section 204 of the Federal hydroelectric application has been filed Power Act requesting that the with the Commission and is available April 12, 2004. Commission: (1) Authorize issuance of for public inspection: The following filings have been made up to $500 million of new long-term a. Type of Application: Original Major with the Commission. The filings are debt; and (2) authorize issuance of new License. listed in ascending order within each short-term debt in the aggregate amount b. Project No.: 12187–000. docket classification. of up to $300 million. c. Date filed: June 3, 2002. d. Applicant: Price Dam Partnership, 1. Commonwealth Edison Company and AEG also requests a waiver from the LTD. PJM Interconnection, LLC Commission’s competitive bidding and negotiated placement requirements at 18 e. Name of Project: Price Dam [Docket No. ER04–718–000] CFR 34.2. Hydroelectric Project. Take notice that on April 6, 2004, Comment Date: April 29, 2004. f. Location: Located on the Commonwealth Edison Company, Mississippi River in city of Alton, Wood (ComEd) and PJM Interconnection, Standard Paragraph River Township, Madison County, L.L.C. (PJM), tendered for filing with the Any person desiring to intervene or to Illinois. The proposed project would be Commission an unexecuted Service protest this filing should file with the constructed on the U.S. Corps of

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21097

Engineers (Corps) Melvin Price Locks & (kV) transformer and breaker sets on an comments, recommendations, Dam and the nearby Illinois shoreline of adjacent pier; (3) lifting/access columns information, and alternatives by issuing the Mississippi River and would affect at the end of each module; (4) six air- a Scoping Document (SD). a portion of 7.8 acres of federal lands operated spillway gates, 7-feet-high by Copies of the SD outlining the subject (including six of the nine existing gate 96-feet-long, installed on top of each areas to be addressed in the EA were bays in the dam and a portion of the module with each gate containing an distributed to the parties on the Illinois shoreline for the construction of inflatable rubber bladder; (5) a hallway Commission’s mailing list. Copies of the a proposed transmission line). housing the station service transformer, SD may be viewed on the web at http:/ g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power motor control center, and control /www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r). system; (6) a slave terminal at the h. Applicant Contact: Mr. James B. lockmaster’s office and a control station Magalie R. Salas, Price; Price Dam Partnership LTD; P.O. located on the dam superstructure; (7) a Secretary. Box 5550; Aiken, SC 29804–5550; (803) 6.9-kV/138-kV step-up transformer [FR Doc. E4–874 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] 642–5581. located on a platform on the dam axis BILLING CODE 6717–01–P i. FERC Contact: Lee Emery, (202) at elevation 479 feet National Geodetic 502–9379 or [email protected]. Vertical Datum; (8) a mobile, 1,000 j. Deadline for filing scoping metric ton crane with an auxiliary crane ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION comments: 45 days from the issuance riding on top of the module cranes’ AGENCY date of this notice. lifting beam; these cranes would lower [0A–2003–0009, FRL–7649–5] All documents (original and eight and raise the power modules and copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. operate the trash rake; (9) a fish bypass Agency Information Collection Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy on each module; (10) a trashrack Activities: Proposed Collection; Regulatory Commission, 888 First assembly with a two-inch clear spacing Comment Request; Request for Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. between the bars, and a crane-operated Obtaining Feedback on Public Please indicate the project number (P– trash rake; (11) a 500-kilowatt generator; Involvement Activities and Processes; 12187) on any comments or motions (12) a 0.8-mile-long, 138-kV Reopening of Comment Period filed. transmission line connecting the project The Commission’s Rules of Practice power to a Ameren, Incorporated AGENCY: Environmental Protection and Procedure require all interveners substation; and (13) appurtenant Agency (EPA). filing documents with the Commission facilities. The average annual generation ACTION: Notice. to serve a copy of that document on is estimated to be 319,000 megawatt- each person on the official service list hours and have an installed generating SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection for the project. Further, if an intervener capacity of 92 megawatts (MW). All Agency is reopening the comment files comments or documents with the generated power would be sold to a period for its Information Collection Commission relating to the merits of an local utility connected to the grid. Request for Obtaining Feedback on issue that may affect the responsibilities m. A copy of the application is Public Involvement Activities and of a particular resource agency, they available for review at the Commission Processes, published on February 13, must also serve a copy of the document in the Public Reference Room or may be 2004 (69 FR 7213). on that resource agency. viewed on the Commission’s Web site at DATES: Comments will be accepted until Scoping comments may be filed http://www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ May 20, 2004. electronically via the Internet in lieu of link. Enter the docket number excluding ADDRESSES: Submit comments, paper. The Commission strongly the last three digits in the docket referencing docket ID number OA– encourages electronic filings. See 18 number field to access the document. 2003–0009, to EPA online using CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the For assistance, contact FERC Online EDOCKET at http://www.epa.gov/ instructions on the Commission’s Web Support at edocket, by e-mail to site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ‘‘e- [email protected] or toll- [email protected], or by mail to EPA Filing’’ link. free at 866–208–3676, or for TTY, 202– Docket Center, OEI Docket MC 2822T, k. This application is not ready for 502–8659. A copy is also available for environmental analysis at this time. 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., inspection and reproduction at the Washington, DC 20460. l. The proposed Price Dam Project address in item h above. would use the U.S. Corps of Engineers’ You may also register online at http:/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melvin Price Locks & Dam and /www.ferc.gov/esuscribenow.htm to be Patricia Bonner at (202) 566–2204 or by Reservoir, and would consist of the notified via e-mail of new filings and e-mail: [email protected]. following facilities: (1) 192 individual, issuances related to this or other SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On turbine/generator units grouped in six pending projects. For assistance, contact February 13, 2004, EPA published a 60- moveable steel modules 108.9-feet-long FERC Online Support. day request for comment on an ICR for by 26.2-feet-wide by 44.0-feet-high, (a) n. Scoping Process: The Commission Obtaining Feedback on Public each module contains 32 turbine/ intends to prepare a single Involvement Activities and Processes generator sets (two horizontal rows of 16 Environmental Assessment (EA) for the with the incorrect closing date of March units each) that will be installed in proposed project in accordance with the 15, 2004. The ICR presents draft stoplog slots on adjacent piers upstream National Environmental Policy Act. The questionnaires and plans to survey from the Taintor gates, and (b) each EA will consider both site-specific and participants in EPA’s public turbine/generator unit includes a 550 cumulative environmental impacts and involvement activities. To review the kilowatt bulb-type generator, a fixed- reasonable alternatives to the proposed ICR or submit comments, use the blade propeller turbine, and a single action. detailed instructions provided in the draft tube for each two turbine/ The Commission staff does not initial paragraphs of the SUPPLEMENTARY generating units; (2) flexible power propose to conduct any on-site scoping INFORMATION section of the February 13, cables, each connecting the six 32- meetings at this time. Instead, we will 2004, Federal Register notice. If you turbine/generator-sets to six 7.2 kilovolt conduct paper scoping by soliciting have questions, please contact the

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21098 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

person listed in the FOR FURTHER disclose facts or considerations which a substantial request for a public hearing INFORMATION CONTACT section of this indicate that the settlement is is made by May 24, 2004, a public notice. inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. hearing will be held. If no timely and Dated: April 14, 2004. The Agency’s response to any comments appropriate request for a hearing is Elizabeth A. Shaw, received will be available for public received and the Regional Administrator inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, does not elect to hold a hearing on his Director, Office of Environmental Policy Innovation, Office of Policy, Economics and Texas 75202–2733. own motion, this determination shall Innovation. DATES: Comments must be submitted on become final and effective on May 24, [FR Doc. 04–8909 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] or before May 20, 2004. 2004. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background information (1) The name, address, and telephone relating to the settlement are available number of the individual organization, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for public inspection at 1445 Ross or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) AGENCY Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. A A brief statement of the requesting copy of the proposed settlement may be person’s interest in the Regional [FRL–7649–7] obtained from Kenneth Talton, 1445 Administrator’s determination and a brief statement of the information that Notice of Proposed Administrative Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733 at (214) 665–7475. Comments should the requesting person intends to submit Settlement Pursuant to the at such hearing; (3) The signature of the Comprehensive Environmental reference the Falcon Refinery Superfund Site, Ingleside, Texas, EPA Docket individual making the request, or, if the Response, Compensation, and Liability request is made on behalf of an Act Number 06–04–04 and should be addressed to Kenneth Talton at the organization or other entity, the AGENCY: Environmental Protection address listed above. signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity. Agency (EPA). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ADDRESSES: All documents relating to ACTION: Notice; request for public Gloria Moran, 1445 Ross Avenue, this determination are available for comment. Dallas, Texas 75202–2733 at (214) 665– inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. 3193. SUMMARY: In accordance with section and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Dated: April 13, 2004. at the following offices: Environmental Response, Richard E. Greene, North Carolina Department of Compensation, and Liability Act, as Regional Administrator, Region 6. Environment and Natural Resources, amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. [FR Doc. 04–8911 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Public Water Supply Section, Parker- 6922(h)(1), notice is hereby given of a BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Lincoln Building, 2728 Capital proposed administrative settlement Boulevard, Raleigh, North Carolina concerning the Falcon Refinery 27604. Superfund Site (Site). The Site is ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Environmental Protection Agency, located in Ingleside, San Patricio AGENCY Region 4, Drinking Water Section, 61 County, Texas, 1.7 miles southeast of Forsyth Street Southwest, Atlanta, [FRL–7649–8] State Highway 361 on FM 2725 at the Georgia 30303. northwest and southeast corners of FM Public Water System Supervision FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 2725 and Bishop Road. Program Revision for the State of David Apanian, EPA Region 4, Drinking The settlement requires the Settling North Carolina Water Section at the Atlanta address Party, National Oil and Recovery given above (telephone (404) 562–9477). Corporation (NORCO) to pay a total of AGENCY: Environmental Protection Authority: (section 1413 and section 1414 $120,078.52 for reimbursement of past Agency (EPA). of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended response costs to the EPA Hazardous ACTION: Notice. (1996), and 40 CFR part 142). Substance Superfund. The settlement Dated: April 7, 2004. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that includes a covenant not to sue which J.I. Palmer, Jr., the State of North Carolina is revising its includes, but is not limited to: (1) Any Regional Administrator, Region 4. direct or indirect claim for approved Public Water System [FR Doc. 04–8912 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] reimbursement from the EPA Hazardous Supervision Program. North Carolina Substance Superfund pursuant to has adopted drinking water regulations BILLING CODE 6560–50–P sections 106(b)(2), 107, 111, 112, and for Minor Revisions to the Lead and 113 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606(b)(2), Copper Rule, Arsenic, Radionuclides 9607, 9611, 9612, or 9613; (2) any and Filter Backwash. EPA has FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION claims arising out of the response determined that these revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding Farm Credit Administration Board; actions at or in connection with the Site; Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting and, (3) any claims against the United Federal regulations. Therefore, EPA has States pursuant to sections 107 and 113 tentatively decided to approve this State AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607 and 9613, program revision. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, relating to the Site. DATES: All interested parties may pursuant to the Government in the For thirty (30) days following the date request a public hearing. A request for Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of of publication of this notice, the Agency a public hearing must be submitted by the regular meeting of the Farm Credit will receive written comments relating May 24, 2004, to the Regional Administration Board (Board). to the settlement. The Agency will Administrator at the address shown DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of consider all comments received and below. Frivolous or insubstantial the Board will be held at the offices of may modify or withdraw its consent to requests for a hearing may be denied by the Farm Credit Administration in the settlement if comments received the Regional Administrator. However, if McLean, Virginia, on April 22, 2004,

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21099

from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An the agreement. Franchise authorities concludes its business. agency may not conduct or sponsor a must notify the FCC of their intentions FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: collection of information unless it to continue regulating rates under the Jeanette C. Brinkley, Secretary to the displays a currently valid control rate agreement. Farm Credit Administration Board, number. No person shall be subject to OMB Control Number: 3060–0562. (703) 883–4009, TTY (703) 883–4056. any penalty for failing to comply with Title: Section 76.916, Petition for ADDRESSES: Farm Credit a collection of information subject to the Recertification. Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that Form Number: N/A. Type of Review: Extension of a McLean, Virginia 22102–5090. does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) currently approved collection. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This whether the proposed collection of Respondents: Businesses or other for- meeting of the Board will be open to the information is necessary for the proper profit entities; and State, local, or tribal public (limited space available). In order performance of the functions of the governments. to increase the accessibility to Board Commission, including whether the Number of Respondents: 10. meetings, persons requiring assistance information shall have practical utility; Estimated Time per Response: 10 should make arrangements in advance. (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s hours. The matters to be considered at the Frequency of Response: On occasion burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance meeting are: reporting requirement; Third party the quality, utility, and clarity of the disclosure. Open Session information collected; and (d) ways to Total Annual Burden: 100 hours. minimize the burden of the collection of A. Approval of Minutes Total Annual Costs: None. information on the respondents, Privacy Impact Assessment: No —March 11, 2004 (Open and Closed) including the use of automated impact. B. Reports collection techniques or other forms of Needs and Uses: A franchising information technology. authority wishing to assume jurisdiction —Allowance for Loan Losses— DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction to regulate basic cable service and Bookletter and Informational Act (PRA) comments should be associated equipment rates after its Memorandum submitted on or before June 21, 2004. If request for certification has been denied —Farm Credit System Performance: A you anticipate that you will be or revoked, may file a petition for Four-Year Review submitting comments, but find it recertification with the FCC. The —Human Development and Investment difficult to do so within the period of petition must be served on the cable Group Update time allowed by this notice, you should operator and on any interested party C. New Business advise the contact listed below as soon that participated in the proceeding as possible. denying or revoking the original 1. Regulations ADDRESSES: Direct all Paperwork certification. —Preferred Stock—Draft Proposed Rule Reduction Act (PRA) comments to Les Federal Communications Commission. —Other Financing Institution Lending— Smith, Federal Communications Marlene H. Dortch, Draft Final Rule Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Secretary. —Farmer Mac Non-Program Investment Room 1–A804, Washington, DC 20554 and Liquidity—Draft Proposed Rule [FR Doc. 04–8843 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] or via the Internet to BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 2. Other [email protected]. —Farm Management and Agricultural FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Trust Services Request additional information or copies of the information collections contact Les COMMISSION Dated: April 15, 2004. Smith at (202) 418–0217 or via the [Report No. AUC–04–56–B; DA 04–633] Jeanette C. Brinkley, Internet at [email protected]. Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Auction of 24 GHz Service Licenses [FR Doc. 04–8976 Filed 4–15–04; 4:49 pm] OMB Control Number: 3060–0570. Scheduled for July 28, 2004; Notice BILLING CODE 6705–01–P Title: Section 76.982, Continuation of and Filing Requirements, Minimum Rate Agreements. Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Form Number: N/A. Other Auction Procedures FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Type of Review: Extension of a AGENCY: Federal Communications COMMISSION currently approved collection. Respondents: State, local, or tribal Commission. Notice of Public Information governments. ACTION: Notice. Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Number of Respondents: 25. SUMMARY: This document announces the Federal Communications Commission Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 procedures, minimum opening bids, for Extension Under Delegated hours. and revised inventory for the upcoming Authority Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement. auction of licenses in the 24 GHz March 23, 2004. Total Annual Burden: 13 hours. Service in the 24.25–24.45 GHz and SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Total Annual Cost: None. 25.05–25.25 GHz bands. This document Commission, as part of its continuing Privacy Impact Assessment: No is intended to familiarize prospective effort to reduce paperwork burden impact. bidders with the procedures and invites the general public and other Needs and Uses: Franchise authorities minimum opening bids for this auction. Federal agencies to take this that were regulating basic cable rates DATES: Auction No. 56 is scheduled to opportunity to comment on the pursuant to a rate agreement executed begin on July 28, 2004. following information collection(s), as before July 1, 1990, may continue to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: required by the Paperwork Reduction regulate rates during the remainder of Auctions and Spectrum Access Division:

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21100 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

For legal questions: Howard Davenport via e-mail [email protected]. This would be made available for licensing at (202) 418–0660, for general auction document is also available on the throughout the United States by questions: Roy Knowles or Barbara Internet at the Commission’s Web site: Economic Areas (‘‘EA’’). Stations in the Sibert at (717) 338–2888. Media http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/56/. 24 GHz Service may render any kind of Contact: For press inquiries: Lauren digital fixed communications service I. General Information Patrich at (202) 418–7944. Broadband consistent with the Commission’s rules Division: For legal questions: Nancy A. Introduction and the regulatory status of the station Zaczek at (202) 418–2487, for technical 1. The Auction No. 56 Procedures to provide services on a common carrier questions: Michael Pollak at (202) 418– Public Notice announces the procedures or non-common carrier basis. The 2487 or Steve Buenzow at (717) 338– and minimum opening bids for the Commission adopted rules to license the 2687. upcoming auction of licenses in the 24 24 GHz band by EA because EAs not SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a GHz Service in the 24.25–24.45 GHz only offer economies of scale, but also summary of the Auction No. 56 and 25.05–25.25 GHz bands scheduled serve the needs of a wider range of Procedures Public Notice released on for July 28, 2004 (Auction No. 56). On entities, including both large and small March 12, 2004. The complete text of January 30, 2004, in accordance with service providers. the Auction No. 56 Procedures Public the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the ii. Licenses To Be Auctioned Notice, including attachments, is Bureau released a public notice seeking available for public inspection and comment on reserve prices or minimum 3. Auction No. 56 will offer 880 copying during regular business hours opening bids and the procedures to be licenses in the 24 GHz Service in the at the FCC Reference Information used in Auction No. 56. The Bureau 24.25–24.45 GHz and 25.05–25.25 GHz Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., received no comments in response to bands. Five licenses will be offered in Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. the Auction No. 56 Comment Public each of 172 EAs and four EA-like areas: The Auction No. 56 Procedures Public Notice, 69 FR 7219, February 13, 2004. Guam and Northern Mariana Islands; Notice may also be purchased from the and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Commission’s duplicating contractor, i. Background of Proceeding American Samoa; and the Gulf of Qualex International, Portals II, 445 2. On August 1, 2000, the Commission Mexico. A complete list of the licenses 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, released the 24 GHz Report and Order, available in Auction No. 56 is included Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– 65 FR 59350, October 5, 2000, in which in Attachment A of the Auction No. 56 863–2893, facsimile 202–863–2898, or it determined that the 24 GHz band Procedures Public Notice.

Bandwidth Channel number Channel description Frequency bands (MHz)

EA Licenses

35 ...... Two paired 40 MHz frequency blocks ...... 24,250–24,290/25,050–25,090 MHz ...... 80 MHz. 36 ...... Two paired 40 MHz frequency blocks ...... 24,290–24,330/25,090–25,130 MHz ...... 80 MHz. 37 ...... Two paired 40 MHz frequency blocks ...... 24,330–24,370/25,130–25,170 MHz ...... 80 MHz. 38 ...... Two paired 40 MHz frequency blocks ...... 24,370–24,410/25,170–25,210 MHz ...... 80 MHz. 39 ...... Two paired 40 MHz frequency blocks ...... 24,410–24,450/25,210–25,250 MHz ...... 80 MHz.

Grand Total ...... 400 MHz.

B. Rules and Disclaimers and public notices are not negotiable. must affirmatively avoid all discussions The Commission may amend or with each other that affect, or in their i. Relevant Authority supplement the information contained reasonable assessment have the 4. Prospective applicants must in our public notices at any time, and potential to affect, bidding or bidding familiarize themselves thoroughly with will issue public notices to convey any strategy. This prohibition begins at the the Commission’s rules relating to the new or supplemental information to short-form application filing deadline 24 GHz service contained in title 47, applicants. It is the responsibility of all and ends at the down payment deadline part 101, of the Code of Federal applicants to remain current with all after the auction. For purposes of this Regulations, and those relating to Commission rules and with all public prohibition, § 1.2105(c)(7)(i) defines application and auction procedures, notices pertaining to this auction. applicant as including all controlling contained in title 47, part 1, of the Code interests in the entity submitting a ii. Prohibition of Collusion of Federal Regulations. Prospective short-form application to participate in applicants must also be thoroughly 6. To ensure the competitiveness of the auction, as well as all holders of familiar with the procedures, terms and the auction process, § 1.2105(c) of the partnership and other ownership conditions (collectively, ‘‘terms’’) Commission’s rules prohibits applicants interests and any stock interest contained in the Auction No. 56 for any of the same geographic license amounting to 10 percent or more of the Procedures Public Notice; the Auction areas from communicating with each entity, or outstanding stock, or No. 56 Comment Public Notice; 24 GHz other during the auction about bids, outstanding voting stock of the entity Report & Order and the 24 GHz bidding strategies, or settlements unless submitting a short-form application, and Reconsideration Order (as well as prior such applicants have identified each all officers and directors of that entity. and subsequent Commission other on their FCC Form 175 7. Applicants for licenses in any of proceedings regarding competitive applications as parties with whom they the same geographic license areas are bidding procedures). have entered into agreements under encouraged not to use the same 5. The terms contained in the § 1.2105(a)(2)(viii). Thus, applicants for individual as an authorized bidder. A Commission’s rules, relevant orders, any of the same geographic license areas violation of the anti-collusion rule could

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21101

occur if an individual acts as the arrangement or understanding to the GHz channels are occupied by authorized bidder for two or more Commission by amending their pending incumbents. We note that the power competing applicants, and conveys applications. In addition, § 1.2105(c)(6) flux density listed in subparagraph (e) information concerning the substance of requires all auction applicants to report under § 101.509 should read ‘‘–114’’ bids or bidding strategies between the prohibited discussions or disclosures instead of ‘‘–14.’’ applicants he or she is authorized to regarding bids or bidding strategy to the 14. Potential applicants are solely represent in the auction. A violation Commission in writing immediately but responsible for identifying associated could similarly occur if the authorized in no case later than five business days risks and for investigating and bidders are different individuals after the communication occurs, even if evaluating the degree to which such employed by the same organization the communication does not result in an matters may affect their ability to bid (e.g., law firm or consulting firm). In agreement or understanding regarding on, otherwise acquire, or make use of such a case, at a minimum, applicants bids or bidding strategy that must be licenses available in Auction No. 56. should certify on their applications that reported under § 1.65. 15. Potential applicants also should precautionary steps have been taken to 10. Any applicant found to have be aware that certain applications prevent communication between violated the anti-collusion rule may be (including those for modification), authorized bidders and that applicants subject to sanctions, including forfeiture petitions for rulemaking, requests for and their bidding agents will comply of its upfront payment, down payment special temporary authority (‘‘STA’’), with the anti-collusion rule. However, or full bid amount, and may be waiver requests, petitions to deny, the Bureau cautions that merely filing a prohibited from participating in future petitions for reconsideration, and certifying statement as part of an auctions. applications for review may be pending application will not outweigh specific 11. A summary listing of documents before the Commission and relate to evidence that collusive behavior has issued by the Commission and the particular applicants, incumbent occurred, nor will it preclude the Bureau addressing the application of the licensees, or the licenses available in initiation of an investigation when anti-collusion rules may be found in Auction No. 56. In addition, certain warranted. Attachment G of the Auction No. 56 judicial proceedings that may relate to 8. The Commission’s anti-collusion Procedures Public Notice. particular applicants or incumbent licensees, or the licenses available in rules allow applicants to form certain iii. Interference Protection agreements during the auction, provided Auction No. 56, may be commenced, or the applicants have not applied for 12. Among other licensing and may be pending, or may be subject to licenses covering the same geographic technical rules, 24 GHz licensees must further review. We note that resolution areas. In addition, applicants that apply comply with the interference protection of these matters could have an impact to bid for all markets will be precluded and coordination requirements set forth on the availability of spectrum in from communicating with all other in §§ 101.509 of the Commission’s rules. Auction No. 56. In addition, although applicants until after the down payment Incumbent 24 GHz Service Licensees the Commission will continue to act on deadline. However, all applicants may (formerly Digital Electronic Message pending applications, requests and enter into bidding agreements before Service (DEMS) licensees when they petitions, some of these matters may not filing their FCC Form 175, as long as were in the 18 GHz band) authorized to be resolved by the time of the auction. they disclose the existence of the operate in Standard Metropolitan 16. In addition, potential applicants agreement(s) in their Form 175. If Statistical Areas (‘‘SMSAs’’) shall retain may research the licensing database for parties agree in principle on all material exclusive rights to their channel(s) the Wireless Telecommunications terms prior to the short-form filing within their SMSA and must be Bureau on the Internet in order to deadline, those parties must be protected. 24 GHz service licensees determine which frequencies are identified on the short-form application must also protect neighboring licensees. already licensed to incumbent licensees. pursuant to § 1.2105(c), even if the New EA licensees are encouraged to The Commission makes no agreement has not been reduced to develop sharing agreements with these representations or guarantees regarding writing. If the parties have not agreed in incumbents and other new EA licensees the accuracy or completeness of principle by the filing deadline, an along the boundaries of their areas. information in its databases or any third applicant would not include the names Potential bidders seeking licenses for party databases, including, for example, of those parties on its application, and EAs that border Canada or Mexico are court docketing systems. Furthermore, may not continue negotiations. By subject to coordination arrangements the Commission makes no signing their FCC Form 175 short-form with those respective countries. representations or guarantees regarding applications, applicants are certifying the accuracy or completeness of iv. Due Diligence their compliance with § 1.2105(c). information that has been provided by 9. Section 1.65 of the Commission’s 13. Potential applicants are reminded incumbent licensees and incorporated rules requires an applicant to maintain that there are a number of incumbent 24 into the database. Potential applicants the accuracy and completeness of GHz Service licensees operating on are strongly encouraged to physically information furnished in its pending 24.25–24.45 GHz and 25.05–25.25 GHz inspect any sites located in, or near, the application and to notify the bands that are subject to the upcoming service area for which they plan to bid. Commission within 30 days of any auction. Incumbent licenses were 17. Potential bidders may obtain substantial change that may be of originally granted in 1997 in 102 information about licenses available in decisional significance to that SMSAs. Incumbent systems are entitled Auction No. 56 through the Wireless application. Thus, § 1.65 requires to protection as specified under Telecommunications Bureau’s licensing auction applicants that engage in § 101.509 of the Commission’s rules database on the World Wide Web at communications of bids or bidding from co-channel interference by any http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls. Potential strategies that result in a bidding new entrant who obtains a 24 GHz EA applicants may query the database agreement, arrangement or license at the auction. We therefore online and download a copy of their understanding not already identified on caution potential bidders in formulating search results if desired. Detailed their short-form applications to their bidding strategies to investigate instructions on using License Search promptly disclose any such agreement, and consider the extent to which 24 (including frequency searches and the

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21102 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

GeoSearch capability) and downloading otherwise announced, bidding on all Licensing Information query results are available online by licenses will be conducted on each Rules, Policies, Regulations selecting the ‘‘?’’ button at the upper business day until bidding has stopped Licensing Issues right-hand corner of the License Search on all licenses. Due Diligence screen. ii. Auction Title Incumbency Issues 18. Potential applicants should direct Broadband Division, (202) 418–2487 questions regarding the search 24. Auction No. 56—24 GHz Service. Technical Support capabilities to the FCC Technical iii. Bidding Methodology Support hotline at (202) 414–1250 Electronic Filing (voice) or (202) 414–1255 (TTY), or via 25. The bidding methodology for FCC Automated Auction System e-mail at [email protected]. Auction No. 56 will be simultaneous FCC Auctions Technical Support multiple round bidding. The v. Bidder Alerts Hotline, (202) 414–1250, (202) 414– Commission will conduct this auction 1255 (TTY), Hours of service: 8 19. The FCC makes no representations over the Internet, and telephonic a.m.–6 p.m. e.t., Monday through or warranties about the use of this bidding will be available as well. As a Friday spectrum for particular services. contingency plan, bidders may also dial Applicants should be aware that an FCC in to the FCC Wide Area Network. Payment Information auction represents an opportunity to Qualified bidders are permitted to bid Wire Transfers become an FCC licensee in this service, telephonically or electronically. Refunds subject to certain conditions and iv. Pre-Auction Dates and Deadlines FCC Auctions Accounting Branch, regulations. An FCC auction does not (202) 418–0578, (202) 418–2843 constitute an endorsement by the FCC of 26. The following is a list of important (Fax) any particular services, technologies or dates related to Auction No. 56: Telephonic Bidding products, nor does an FCC license Auction Seminar—May 25, 2004. constitute a guarantee of business Short-Form Application (FCC Form 175) Will be furnished only to qualified success. Applicants and interested Filing Window Opens—May 25, 2004; bidders parties should perform their own due 12 p.m. e.t. Press Information diligence before proceeding, as they Short-Form Application (FCC Form 175) would with any new business venture. Filing Window Deadline—June 4, Lauren Patrich (202) 418–7944 20. As is the case with many business 2004; 6 p.m. e.t. FCC Forms investment opportunities, some Upfront Payments (via wire transfer)— (800) 418–3676 (outside Washington, unscrupulous entrepreneurs may June 29, 2004; 6 p.m. e.t. attempt to use Auction No. 56 to DC), (202) 418–3676 (in the Mock Auction—July 23, 2004. Washington Area), http:// deceive and defraud unsuspecting Auction Begins—July 28, 2004. investors. www.fcc.gov/formpage.html 21. Information about deceptive v. Requirements for Participation FCC Internet Sites telemarketing investment schemes is 27. Those wishing to participate in available from the FTC at (202) 326– http://www.fcc.gov, http:// the auction must: wireless.fcc.gov/auctions, http:// 2222 and from the SEC at (202) 942– • Submit a short-form application wireless.fcc.gov/uls 7040. Complaints about specific (FCC Form 175) electronically by 6 p.m. deceptive telemarketing investment e.t., June 4, 2004. II. Short-Form (FCC Form 175) schemes should be directed to the FTC, • Submit a sufficient upfront Application Requirements the SEC, or the National Fraud payment and an FCC Remittance Advice 29. Guidelines for completion of the Information Center at (800) 876–7060. Form (FCC Form 159) by 6 p.m. e.t., short-form (FCC Form 175) are set forth Consumers who have concerns about June 29, 2004. in Attachment D of the Auction No. 56 specific proposals regarding Auction • Comply with all provisions Procedures Public Notice. No. 56 may also call the FCC Consumer outlined in the Auction No. 56 Center at (888) CALL–FCC ((888) 225– Procedures Public Notice. A. Ownership Disclosure Requirements 5322). (FCC Form 175 Exhibit A) vi. General Contact Information vi. National Environmental Policy Act 30. All applicants must comply with Requirements 28. The following is a list of general the uniform Part 1 ownership disclosure contact information related to Auction standards and provide information 22. Licensees must comply with the No. 56: required by §§ 1.2105 and 1.2112 of the Commission’s rules regarding the Commission’s rules. Specifically, in National Environmental Policy Act General Auction Information completing FCC Form 175, applicants (‘‘NEPA’’). The construction of a General Auction Questions will be required to file an ‘‘Exhibit A’’ wireless antenna facility is a federal Seminar Registration providing a full and complete statement action and the licensee must comply FCC Auctions Hotline, (888) 225– of the ownership of the bidding entity. with the Commission’s NEPA rules for 5322, Press Option #2, or direct The ownership disclosure standards for each such facility. (717) 338–2888, Hours of service: 8 the short-form are set forth in § 1.2112 C. Auction Specifics a.m.–5:30 p.m. e.t., Monday through of the Commission’s rules. Friday i. Auction Date B. Consortia and Joint Bidding Auction Legal Information 23. The auction will begin on Arrangements (FCC Form 175 Exhibit B) Wednesday, July 28, 2004. The initial Auction Rules, Policies, Regulations 31. Applicants will be required to schedule for bidding will be announced Auctions and Spectrum Access identify on their short-form applications by public notice at least one week before Division, Legal Branch (202) 418– any parties with whom they have the start of the auction. Unless 0660 entered into any consortium

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21103

arrangements, joint ventures, years (‘‘entrepreneur’’) will receive a 15 attachments are true and correct. partnerships or other agreements or percent discount on its winning bids; Submission of a false certification to the understandings that relate in any way to • A bidder with attributed average Commission may result in penalties, the licenses being auctioned, including annual gross revenues of not more than including monetary forfeitures, license any agreements relating to post-auction $15 million for the preceding three forfeitures, ineligibility to participate in market structure. Applicants will also years (‘‘small business’’) will receive a future auctions, and/or criminal be required to certify on their short-form 25 percent discount on its winning bids; prosecution. applications that they have not entered • A bidder with attributed average 41. Entrepreneur, small business, or into any explicit or implicit agreements, annual gross revenues of not more than very small business eligibility (Exhibit arrangements or understandings of any $3 million for the preceding three years C). Entities applying to bid as kind with any parties, other than those (‘‘very small business’’) will receive a 35 entrepreneurs, small businesses, or very identified, regarding the amount of their percent discount on its winning bids. small businesses (or consortia of bids, bidding strategies, or the particular 35. Small business bidding credits are entrepreneurs, small businesses, or very licenses on which they will or will not not cumulative; a qualifying applicant small businesses) will be required to bid. receives the 15 percent, the 25 percent disclose on Exhibit C to their FCC Form or 35 percent bidding credit on its 32. A party holding a non-controlling, 175 short-form applications, separately winning bid, but only one credit per attributable interest in one applicant and in the aggregate, the gross revenues license. will be permitted to acquire an for the preceding three years of each of 36. To encourage the growth of the following: (i) The applicant, (ii) its ownership interest in, form a wireless services in federally recognized affiliates, (iii) its controlling interests, consortium with, or enter into a joint tribal lands the Commission has and (iv) the affiliates of its controlling bidding arrangement with other implemented a tribal land bidding interests. Certification that the average applicants for licenses in the same credit. See section V.F. of the Auction annual gross revenues for the preceding geographic license area provided that (i) No. 56 Procedures Public Notice. three years do not exceed the applicable the attributable interest holder certifies 37. Attribution for entrepreneur, small limit is not sufficient. A statement of the that it has not and will not business, and very small business total gross revenues for the preceding communicate with any party concerning eligibility. In determining which entities three years is also insufficient. The the bids or bidding strategies of more qualify as entrepreneurs, small applicant must provide separately for than one of the applicants in which it businesses, or very small businesses, the itself, its affiliates, its controlling holds an attributable interest, or with Commission will consider the gross interests, and the affiliates of its which it has formed a consortium or revenues of the applicant, its affiliates, controlling interests, a schedule of gross entered into a joint bidding its controlling interests, and the revenues for each of the preceding three arrangement; and (ii) the arrangements affiliates of its controlling interests. The years, as well as a statement of total do not result in a change in control of Commission does not impose specific average gross revenues for the three-year any of the applicants. While the anti- equity requirements on controlling period. If the applicant is applying as a collusion rules do not prohibit non- interest holders. Once the principals or consortium of entrepreneurs, small auction related business negotiations entities with a controlling interest are businesses, or very small businesses, among auction applicants, applicants determined, only the revenues of those this information must be provided for are reminded that certain discussions or principals or entities, the affiliates of each consortium member. exchanges could touch upon those principals or entities, and the C. Provisions Regarding Defaulters and impermissible subject matters because applicant and its affiliates, will be they may convey pricing information Former Defaulters (FCC Form 175 counted in determining small business Exhibit D) and bidding strategies. eligibility. C. Eligibility 38. Each member of a consortium of 42. Each applicant must certify on its entrepreneurs, small businesses or very FCC Form 175 application under i. Bidding Credit Eligibility (FCC Form small businesses must disclose its gross penalty of perjury that the applicant, its 175 Exhibit C) revenues along with those of its controlling interests, its affiliates, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, 33. A bidding credit represents the affiliates, its controlling interests, and as defined by § 1.2110, are not in default amount by which a bidder’s winning the affiliates of its controlling interests. on any payment for Commission bids are discounted. The size of the ii. Supporting Documentation licenses (including down payments) and bidding credit depends on the average 39. Applicants should note that they not delinquent on any non-tax debt of the aggregated annual gross revenues will be required to file supporting owed to any Federal agency. In for each of the preceding three years of documentation to their FCC Form 175 addition, each applicant must attach to the bidder, its affiliates, its controlling short-form applications to establish that its FCC Form 175 application a interests, and the affiliates of its they satisfy the eligibility requirements statement made under penalty of controlling interests. to qualify as entrepreneur, small perjury indicating whether or not the 34. In the 24 GHz Report and Order, business, or very small business (or applicant, its affiliates, its controlling the Commission adopted bidding credits consortia of entrepreneurs, small interests, or the affiliates of its to promote and facilitate the businesses, or very small businesses) for controlling interests, as defined by participation of small businesses in the this auction. § 1.2110, have ever been in default on competitive bidding for licenses in the 40. Applicants should further note any Commission licenses or have ever 24 GHz service. For Auction No. 56, that submission of an FCC Form 175 been delinquent on any non-tax debt bidding credits will be available to application constitutes a representation owed to any Federal agency. Applicants small businesses or consortia thereof, as by the certifying official that he or she must include this statement as Exhibit follows: is an authorized representative of the D of the FCC Form 175. • A bidder with attributed average applicant, has read the form’s 43. ‘‘Former defaulters’’—i.e., annual gross revenues of not more than instructions and certifications, and that applicants, including their attributable $40 million for the preceding three the contents of the application and its interest holders, that in the past have

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21104 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

defaulted on any Commission licenses G. Maintaining Current Information in support is available at (202) 414–1250 or been delinquent on any non-tax debt Short-Form Applications (FCC Form (voice) or (202) 414–1255 (text owed to any Federal agency, but that 175) telephone (TTY)); hours of service are have since remedied all such defaults 48. Section 1.65 of the Commission’s Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to and cured all of their outstanding non- rules requires an applicant to maintain 6 p.m. e.t. In order to provide better tax delinquencies—are eligible to bid in the accuracy and completeness of service to the public, all calls to the Auction No. 56, provided that they are information furnished in its pending hotline are recorded. otherwise qualified. However, as application and to notify the ii. Completion of FCC Form 175 discussed infra in section III.D.3, former Commission within 30 days of any defaulters are required to pay upfront substantial change that may be of 53. Applicants should carefully payments that are fifty percent more decisional significance to that review 47 CFR 1.2105, and must than the normal upfront payment application. Amendments reporting complete all items on the FCC Form amounts. substantial changes of possible 175. Instructions for completing the FCC decisional significance in information Form 175 are in Attachment D of the D. Installment Payments contained in FCC Form 175 Auction No. 56 Procedures Public Notice. 44. Installment payment plans will applications, as defined by 47 CFR not be available in Auction No. 56. 1.2105(b)(2), will not be accepted and iii. Electronic Review of FCC Form 175 may in some instances result in the E. Other Information (FCC Form 175 dismissal of the FCC Form 175 54. The FCC Form 175 electronic Exhibits E and F) application. review system may be used to locate and print applicants’ FCC Form 175 45. Applicants owned by minorities III. Pre-Auction Procedures information. There is no fee for or women, as defined in 47 CFR A. Auction Seminar accessing this system. See Attachment C 1.2110(c)(2), may attach an exhibit of the Auction No. 56 Procedures Public 49. On Tuesday, May 25, 2004, the (Exhibit E) regarding this status. This Notice for details on accessing the FCC will sponsor a free seminar for applicant status information is collected review system. Auction No. 56 at the Federal for statistical purposes only and assists 55. Applicants may also view other the Commission in monitoring the Communications Commission, located at 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, applicants’ completed FCC Form 175s participation of ‘‘designated entities’’ in after the filing deadline has passed and its auctions. Applicants wishing to DC. The seminar will provide attendees with information about pre-auction the FCC has issued a public notice submit additional information may do explaining the status of the applications. so on Exhibit F. procedures, auction conduct, the FCC Automated Auction System, auction Note: Applicants should not include F. Minor Modifications to Short-Form rules, and the 24 GHz service rules. sensitive information (i.e., TIN/EIN) on any Applications (FCC Form 175) exhibits to their FCC Form 175 applications. B. Short-Form Application (FCC Form 46. After the short-form filing 175)—Due June 4, 2004 C. Application Processing and Minor deadline (6 p.m. e.t. June 4, 2004), 50. In order to be eligible to bid in this Corrections applicants may make only minor auction, applicants must first submit an changes to their FCC Form 175 FCC Form 175 application. This 56. After the deadline for filing the applications. Applicants will not be application must be submitted FCC Form 175 applications has passed, permitted to make major modifications electronically and received at the the FCC will process all timely to their applications (e.g., change their Commission no later than 6 p.m. e.t. on submitted applications to determine license selections, change the certifying June 4, 2004. Late applications will not which are acceptable for filing, and official, change control of the applicant, be accepted. subsequently will issue a public notice identifying: (i) Those applications or change bidding credits). See 47 CFR i. Electronic Filing accepted for filing; (ii) those 1.2105. Permissible minor changes applications rejected; and (iii) those include, for example, deletion and 51. Applicants must file their FCC applications which have minor defects addition of authorized bidders (to a Form 175 applications electronically. that may be corrected, and the deadline maximum of three) and revision of Applications may generally be filed at for filing such corrected applications. exhibits. Applicants must make these any time beginning at noon e.t. on May modifications to their FCC Form 175 25, 2004, until 6 p.m. e.t. on June 4, D. Upfront Payments—Due June 29, electronically and submit a letter, 2004. Applicants are strongly 2004 encouraged to file early and are briefly summarizing the changes, by responsible for allowing adequate time 57. In order to be eligible to bid in the electronic mail to the attention of for filing their applications. Applicants auction, applicants must submit an Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and may update or amend their electronic upfront payment accompanied by an Spectrum Access Division, at the applications multiple times until the FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC following address: [email protected]. filing deadline on June 4, 2004. Form 159) (Revised 2/03). All upfront The electronic mail summarizing the 52. Applicants must press the payments must be received by Mellon changes must include a subject or ‘‘SUBMIT Application’’ button on the Bank in Pittsburgh, PA by 6 p.m. e.t. on caption referring to Auction No. 56. The ‘‘Submission’’ page of the electronic June 29, 2004. Failure to deliver the Bureau requests that parties format any form to successfully submit their FCC upfront payment by the June 29, 2004, attachments to electronic mail as    Form 175s. Any form that is not deadline will result in dismissal of the Adobe Acrobat (pdf) or Microsoft submitted will not be reviewed by the application and disqualification from Word documents. FCC. Information about accessing the participation in the auction. For specific 47. A separate copy of the letter FCC Form 175 is included in details regarding upfront payments, see should be faxed to the attention of Attachment C of the Auction No. 56 III.D. of the Auction No. 56 Procedures Kathryn Garland at (717) 338–2850. Procedures Public Notice. Technical Public Notice.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21105

i. Making Auction Payments by Wire payment to cover all licenses for which 159 unless the payer submits written Transfer the applicant has applied on Form 175, authorization instructing otherwise. but rather to cover the maximum 58. Wire transfer payments must be E. Auction Registration number of bidding units that are received by 6 p.m. e.t. on June 29, 2004. 67. Approximately ten days before the To avoid untimely payments, applicants associated with licenses on which the bidder wishes to place bids and hold auction, the FCC will issue a public should discuss arrangements (including notice announcing all qualified bidders bank closing schedules) with their high bids at any given time. 62. For Auction No. 56 the for the auction. Qualified bidders are banker several days before they plan to Commission adopts upfront payments those applicants whose FCC Form 175 make the wire transfer, and allow on a license-by-license basis using the applications have been accepted for sufficient time for the transfer to be following formula: $0.00015 * MHz * filing and have timely submitted initiated and completed before the License Area Population with a upfront payments sufficient to make deadline. minimum of $2,500 per license. them eligible to bid on at least one of 59. Applicants must fax a completed 63. The specific upfront payments the licenses for which they applied. FCC Form 159 to Mellon Bank at (412) and bidding units for each license are 68. All qualified bidders are 209–6045 at least one hour before set forth in Attachment A of the Auction automatically registered for the auction. placing the order for the wire transfer No. 56 Procedures Public Notice. Registration materials will be (but on the same business day). On the Attachment A of the Auction No. 56 distributed prior to the auction by two cover sheet of the fax, write ‘‘Wire Procedures Public Notice also includes separate overnight mailings, one Transfer—Auction Payment for Auction the number of bidding units for each containing the confidential bidder Event No. 56.’’ In order to meet the license. identification number (BIN) and the Commission’s upfront payment 64. In calculating its upfront payment other containing the SecurID cards, both deadline, an applicant’s payment must amount, an applicant should determine of which are required to place bids. be credited to the Commission’s account the maximum number of bidding units These mailings will be sent only to the by the deadline. Applicants are on which it may wish to be active contact person at the contact address responsible for obtaining confirmation (bidding units associated with licenses listed in the FCC Form 175. from their financial institution that on which the bidder has the standing 69. Applicants that do not receive Mellon Bank has timely received their high bid from the previous round and both registration mailings will not be upfront payment and deposited it in the licenses on which the bidder places a able to submit bids. Therefore, any proper account. bid in the current round) in any single qualified applicant that has not received ii. Amount of Upfront Payment round, and submit an upfront payment both mailings by noon on Wednesday, covering that number of bidding units. July 21, 2004, should contact the 60. In the Part 1 Order, 62 FR 13540, In order to make this calculation, an Auctions Hotline at (717) 338–2888. March 21, 1997, the Commission applicant should add together the Receipt of both registration mailings is delegated to the Bureau the authority upfront payments for all licenses on critical to participating in the auction, and discretion to determine appropriate which it seeks to bid in any given and each applicant is responsible for upfront payment(s) for each auction. In round. Applicants should check their ensuring it has received all of the addition, in the Part 1 Fifth Report and calculations carefully, as there is no registration material. Order, 65 FR 52323, August 29, 2000, provision for increasing a bidder’s 70. Qualified bidders should note that the Commission ordered that ‘‘former maximum eligibility after the upfront lost bidder identification numbers or defaulters,’’ i.e., applicants that have payment deadline. SecurID cards can be replaced only by ever been in default on any Commission 65. Former defaulters should calculate appearing in person at the FCC license or have ever been delinquent on their upfront payment for all licenses by headquarters, located at 445 12th St., any non-tax debt owed to any Federal multiplying the number of bidding units SW., Washington, DC 20554. Only an agency, be required to pay upfront they wish to purchase by 1.5. In order authorized representative or certifying payments 50 percent greater than non- to calculate the number of bidding units official, as designated on an applicant’s ’’former defaulters.’’ For purposes of to assign to former defaulters, the FCC Form 175, may appear in person this calculation, the ‘‘applicant’’ Commission will divide the upfront with two forms of identification (one of includes the applicant itself, its payment received by 1.5 and round the which must be a photo identification) in affiliates, its controlling interests, and result up to the nearest bidding unit. order to receive replacements. Qualified affiliates of its controlling interests, as bidders requiring replacements must iii. Applicant’s Wire Transfer defined by § 1.2110 of the Commission’s call technical support prior to arriving Information for Purposes of Refunds of rules. at the FCC. 61. The amount of the upfront Upfront Payments payment will determine the number of 66. The Commission will use wire F. Remote Electronic Bidding bidding units on which a bidder may transfers for all Auction No. 56 refunds. 71. The Commission will conduct this place bids. In order to bid on a license, To ensure that refunds of upfront auction over the Internet, and otherwise qualified bidders that applied payments are processed in an telephonic bidding will be available as for that license on Form 175 must have expeditious manner, the Commission is well. As a contingency plan, bidders an eligibility level that meets or exceeds requesting that the following pertinent may also dial in to the FCC Wide Area the number of bidding units assigned to information be supplied to the FCC: Network. Qualified bidders are that license. At a minimum, therefore, Name of Bank; ABA Number; Contact permitted to bid telephonically or an applicant’s total upfront payment and Phone Number; Account Number to electronically. Each applicant should must be enough to establish eligibility to Credit; Name of Account Holder; FCC indicate its bidding preference— bid on at least one of the licenses Registration Number (FRN); Taxpayer electronic or telephonic—on the FCC applied for on Form 175, or else the Identification Number; Correspondent Form 175. In either case, each applicant will not be eligible to Bank (if applicable); Account Number. authorized bidder must have its own participate in the auction. An applicant All refunds will be returned to the payer SecurID card, which the FCC will does not have to make an upfront of record as identified on the FCC Form provide at no charge. For security

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21106 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

purposes, the SecurID cards and the total upfront payment does not affect and bids during the current round) by FCC Automated Auction System user the total dollar amount a bidder may bid twenty-nineteenths (20/19). manual are only mailed to the contact on any given license. Caution: Since activity requirements person at the contact address listed on 77. In order to ensure that the auction increase in each auction stage, bidders the FCC Form 175. Each SecurID card is closes within a reasonable period of must carefully check their current tailored to a specific auction; therefore, time, an activity rule requires bidders to activity during the bidding period of the SecurID cards issued for other auctions bid actively throughout the auction. first round following a stage transition. or obtained from a source other than the 78. A bidder’s activity level in a This is especially critical for bidders FCC will not work for Auction No. 56. round is the sum of the bidding units that have standing high bids and do not The telephonic bidding phone number associated with licenses on which the plan to submit new bids. In past will be supplied in the first overnight bidder is active. A bidder is considered auctions, some bidders have mailing, which also includes the active on a license in the current round inadvertently lost bidding eligibility or confidential bidder identification if it is either the high bidder at the end used an activity rule waiver because number. of the previous bidding round and does they did not re-verify their activity not withdraw the high bid in the current status at stage transitions. Bidders may G. Mock Auction round, or if it submits a bid in the check their activity against the required 72. All qualified bidders will be current round (see ‘‘Minimum activity level by using the bidding eligible to participate in a mock auction Acceptable Bids and Bid Increments’’ in system’s bidding module. on Friday, July 23, 2004. The mock section IV.B.iii). The minimum required 80. Because the foregoing procedures auction will enable applicants to activity is expressed as a percentage of have proven successful in maintaining become familiar with the FCC the bidder’s current bidding eligibility, proper pace in previous auctions, we Automated Auction System prior to the and increases by stage as the auction adopt them for Auction No. 56. auction. Participation by all bidders is progresses. Because these procedures strongly recommended. have proven successful in maintaining iv. Stage Transitions the pace of previous auctions (as set 81. The auction will generally III. Auction Event forth under ‘‘Auction Stages’’ in section advance to the next stage (i.e., from 73. The first round of bidding for IV.A.iii and ‘‘Stage Transitions’’ in Stage One to Stage Two) when the Auction No. 56 will begin on section IV.A.iv), we adopt them for auction activity level, as measured by Wednesday, July 28, 2004. The initial Auction No. 56. the percentage of bidding units bidding schedule will be announced in receiving new high bids, is below 20 iii. Auction Stages a public notice listing the qualified percent for three consecutive rounds of bidders, which is released 79. The Commission will conduct the bidding in each Stage. The Bureau will approximately 10 days before the start auction in two stages and employ an retain the discretion to change stages of the auction. activity rule. Listed are the activity unilaterally by announcement during levels for each stage of the auction. The H. Auction Structure the auction. FCC reserves the discretion to further 82. Thus, the Bureau will retain the i. Simultaneous Multiple Round alter the activity percentages before and/ discretion to regulate the pace of the Auction or during the auction. auction by announcement. This 74. The Commission will award all Stage One: During the first stage of the determination will be based on a variety licenses in Auction No. 56 in a auction, a bidder desiring to maintain of measures of bidder activity, simultaneous multiple round auction. its current eligibility will be required to including, but not limited to, the Unless otherwise announced, bids will be active on licenses encompassing at auction activity level, the percentages of be accepted on all licenses in each least 80 percent of its current bidding licenses (as measured in bidding units) round of the auction. This approach eligibility in each bidding round. on which there are new bids, the allows bidders to take advantage of Failure to maintain the required activity number of new bids, and the percentage synergies that exist among licenses and level will result in a reduction in the increase in revenue. We believe that is administratively efficient. bidder’s bidding eligibility in the next these stage transition rules are round of bidding (unless an activity rule appropriate for use in Auction No. 56. ii. Maximum Eligibility and Activity waiver is used). During Stage One, Rules reduced eligibility for the next round v. Activity Rule Waivers and Reducing 75. The amount of the upfront will be calculated by multiplying the Eligibility payment submitted by a bidder will bidder’s current activity (the sum of 83. Each bidder will be provided three determine the initial (maximum) bidding units of the bidder’s standing activity rule waivers that may be used eligibility (as measured in bidding high bids and bids during the current in any round during the course of the units) for each bidder. round) by five-fourths (5/4). auction. Use of an activity rule waiver 76. Note that each license is assigned Stage Two: During the second stage of preserves the bidder’s current bidding a specific number of bidding units equal the auction, a bidder desiring to eligibility despite the bidder’s activity to the upfront payment listed in maintain its current eligibility is in the current round being below the Attachment A of the Auction No. 56 required to be active on 95 percent of its required level. An activity rule waiver Procedures Public Notice on a bidding current bidding eligibility. Failure to applies to an entire round of bidding unit per dollar basis. The total upfront maintain the required activity level will and not to a particular license. payment defines the maximum number result in a reduction in the bidder’s 84. The FCC Automated Auction of bidding units on which the applicant bidding eligibility in the next round of System assumes that bidders with will be permitted to bid and hold high bidding (unless an activity rule waiver insufficient activity would prefer to use bids in a round. As there is no provision is used). During Stage Two, reduced an activity rule waiver (if available) for increasing a bidder’s eligibility after eligibility for the next round will be rather than lose bidding eligibility. the upfront payment deadline, calculated by multiplying the bidder’s Therefore, the system will automatically applicants are cautioned to calculate current activity (the sum of bidding apply a waiver (known as an ‘‘automatic their upfront payments carefully. The units of the bidder’s standing high bids waiver’’) at the end of any round where

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21107

a bidder’s activity level is below the only in certain circumstances, such as at the discretion of the Bureau. We minimum required unless: (i) There are where the auction is proceeding very emphasize, however, that such no activity rule waivers available; or (ii) slowly, where there is minimal overall discretion will be exercised, if at all, the bidder overrides the automatic bidding activity or where it appears sparingly and early in the auction, i.e., application of a waiver by reducing likely that the auction will not close before bidders lose all waivers and eligibility, thereby meeting the within a reasonable period of time. begin to lose substantial eligibility. minimum requirements. If a bidder has During the course of the auction, the vii. Auction Delay, Suspension, or no waivers remaining and does not Bureau will not entertain requests to Cancellation satisfy the required activity level, the reduce the minimum opening bid on current eligibility will be permanently 89. By public notice or by specific licenses. reduced, possibly eliminating the bidder announcement during the auction, the 94. The specific minimum opening from the auction. Bureau may delay, suspend, or cancel bids for each license available in 85. A bidder with insufficient activity the auction in the event of natural Auction No. 56 are set forth in that wants to reduce its bidding disaster, technical obstacle, evidence of Attachment A of the Auction No. 56 eligibility rather than use an activity an auction security breach, unlawful Procedures Public Notice. rule waiver must affirmatively override bidding activity, administrative or iii. Minimum Acceptable Bids and Bid the automatic waiver mechanism during weather necessity, or for any other Increments the round by using the reduce eligibility reason that affects the fair conduct of function in the bidding system. In this competitive bidding. In such cases, the 95. In the Auction No. 56 Comment case, the bidder’s eligibility is Bureau in its sole discretion, may elect Public Notice, we will use a smoothing permanently reduced to bring the bidder to resume the auction starting from the methodology to calculate minimum into compliance with the activity rules beginning of the current round, resume acceptable bids. The smoothing as described in ‘‘Auction Stages’’ (see the auction starting from some previous methodology is designed to vary the section IV.A.iii discussion). Once round, or cancel the auction in its increment for a given license between a eligibility has been reduced, a bidder entirety. Network interruption may maximum and minimum percentage will not be permitted to regain its lost cause the Bureau to delay or suspend based on the bidding activity on that bidding eligibility. the auction. Exercise of this authority is license. This methodology allows the 86. Finally, a bidder may proactively solely within the discretion of the increments to be tailored to the activity use an activity rule waiver as a means Bureau, and its use is not intended to be on a license, decreasing the time it takes to keep the auction open without a substitute for situations in which for licenses receiving many bids to placing a bid. If a bidder submits a bidders may wish to apply their activity reach their final prices. The formula used to calculate this increment is proactive waiver (using the proactive rule waivers. waiver function in the FCC Automated included as Attachment F of the Auction System) during a round in I. Bidding Procedures Auction No. 56 Procedures Public Notice. We will initially set the which no bids are submitted, the i. Round Structure auction will remain open and the weighting factor at 0.5, the minimum 90. The initial bidding schedule will bidder’s eligibility will be preserved. percentage increment at 0.1 (10%), and be announced in the public notice the maximum percentage increment at However, an automatic waiver triggered listing the qualified bidders, which is 0.2 (20%). Hence, at these initial during a round in which there are no released approximately 10 days before settings, the percentage increment will new bids or withdrawals will not keep the start of the auction. Each bidding fluctuate between 10% and 20% the auction open. round is followed by the release of depending upon the number of bids for Note: Once a proactive waiver is submitted round results. Multiple bidding rounds the license. The Bureau will retain the during a round, that waiver cannot be may be conducted in a given day. discretion to change the minimum unsubmitted. Details regarding round results formats acceptable bids and bid increments if and locations will also be included in circumstances so dictate. vi. Auction Stopping Rules the qualified bidders public notice. 96. In each round, each eligible bidder 87. For Auction No. 56, the 91. The FCC has discretion to change will be able to place a bid on a Commission will employ a the bidding schedule in order to foster particular license for which it applied in simultaneous stopping rule, and retain an auction pace that reasonably any of nine different amounts. The FCC discretion to invoke a modified version balances speed with the bidders’ need to Automated Auction System will list the of the stopping rule. The modified study round results and adjust their nine bid amounts for each license. version of the stopping rule would close bidding strategies. The Bureau may 97. Once there is a standing high bid the auction for all licenses after the first increase or decrease the amount of time on a license, the FCC Automated round in which no bidder submits a for the bidding rounds and review Auction System will calculate a proactive waiver, a withdrawal, or a periods, or the number of rounds per minimum acceptable bid for that license new bid on any license on which it is day, depending upon the bidding for the following round, as described in not the standing high bidder. activity level and other factors. Attachment F of the Auction No. 56 88. In addition, the Bureau may Procedures Public Notice. The reserve the right to declare that the ii. Reserve Price or Minimum Opening difference between the minimum auction will end after a designated Bid acceptable bid and the standing high bid number of additional rounds (‘‘special 92. For Auction No. 56, the Bureau for each license will define the bid stopping rule’’). If the Bureau invokes adopts the following license-by license increment—i.e., bid increment = this special stopping rule, it will accept formula for calculating minimum (minimum acceptable bid)—(standing bids in the final round(s) only for opening bids: $0.0003 * MHz * License high bid). The nine acceptable bid licenses on which the high bid Area Population with a minimum of amounts for each license consist of the increased in at least one of the $2,500 per license. minimum acceptable bid (the standing preceding specified number of rounds. 93. The minimum opening bids we high bid plus one bid increment) and The Bureau may exercise these options adopt for Auction No. 56 are reducible additional amounts calculated using

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21108 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

multiple bid increments (i.e., the second 102. In the event of identical high 107. In each round, eligible bidders bid amount equals the standing high bid bids on a license in a given round (i.e., will be able to place bids on a given plus two times the bid increment, the tied bids), a Sybase SQL pseudo- license in any of nine different amounts. third bid amount equals the standing random number generator will be used For each license, the FCC Automated high bid plus three times the bid to assign a random number to each bid. Auction System interface will list the increment, etc.). The remaining bidders, as well as the nine acceptable bid amounts in a drop- 98. At the start of the auction and high bidder, will be able to submit a down box. Bidders may use the drop- until a bid has been placed on a license, higher bid in a subsequent round. If no down box to select from among the nine the minimum acceptable bid for that bidder submits a higher bid in a bid amounts. The FCC Automated license will be equal to its minimum subsequent round, the high bid from the Auction System also includes an import opening bid. Corresponding additional previous round will win the license. If function that allows bidders to upload bid amounts will be calculated using any bids are received on the license in text files containing bid information. bid increments defined as the difference a subsequent round, the high bid will 108. Finally, bidders are cautioned to between the minimum opening bid once again be determined on the highest select their bid amounts carefully times one plus the percentage gross bid amount received for the because, as explained in the following increment, rounded as described in license. section, bidders that withdraw a Attachment F of the Auction No. 56 standing high bid from a previous Procedures Public Notice, and the v. Bidding round, even if the bid was mistakenly or minimum opening bid—i.e., bid 103. During a round, a bidder may erroneously made, are subject to bid increment = (minimum opening bid)(1 + submit bids for as many licenses as it withdrawal payments. percentage increment) {rounded} ¥ wishes (subject to its eligibility), vi. Bid Removal and Bid Withdrawal (minimum opening bid). At the start of withdraw high bids from previous the auction and until a bid has been bidding rounds, remove bids placed in 109. For Auction No. 56 the placed on a license, the nine acceptable the same bidding round, or permanently Commission adopts bid removal and bid bid amounts for each license consist of reduce eligibility. Bidders also have the withdrawal procedures. With respect to the minimum opening bid and option of making multiple submissions bid withdrawals, the Commission will additional amounts calculated using and withdrawals in each round. If a limit each bidder to withdrawals in no multiple bid increments (i.e., the second bidder submits multiple bids for a single more than two rounds during the course bid amount equals the minimum license in the same round, the system of the auction. The rounds in which opening bid plus the bid increment, the takes the last bid entered as that withdrawals are used will be at the third bid amount equals the minimum bidder’s bid for the round. Bidders bidder’s discretion. opening bid plus two times the bid should note that the bidding units 110. Procedures. Before the close of a increment, etc.). associated with licenses for which the bidding round, a bidder has the option 99. In the case of a license for which bidder has removed or withdrawn its of removing any bids placed in that the standing high bid has been bid do not count towards the bidder’s round. By using the ‘‘remove bid’’ withdrawn, the minimum acceptable activity at the close of the round. function in the bidding system, a bidder bid will equal the second highest bid may effectively ‘‘unsubmit’’ any bid received for the license. The additional 104. Please note that all bidding will take place remotely either through the placed within that round. A bidder bid amounts are calculated using the removing a bid placed in the same difference between the second highest FCC Automated Auction System or by telephonic bidding. (Telephonic bid round is not subject to withdrawal bid times one plus the minimum payments. Removing a bid will affect a percentage increment, rounded, and the assistants are required to use a script when entering bids placed by telephone. bidder’s activity for the round in which second highest bid. it is removed, i.e., a bid that is removed 100. The Bureau retains the discretion Telephonic bidders are therefore reminded to allow sufficient time to bid does not count toward bidding activity. to change the minimum acceptable bids These procedures will enhance bidder and bid increments and the by placing their calls well in advance of the close of a round. Normally, five to flexibility during the auction. methodology for determining the 111. Once a round closes, a bidder ten minutes are necessary to complete a minimum acceptable bids and bid may no longer remove a bid. However, bid submission.) increments if it determines that in later rounds, a bidder may withdraw circumstances so dictate. The Bureau 105. A bidder’s ability to bid on standing high bids from previous will do so by announcement in the FCC specific licenses in the first round of the rounds using the withdraw bid function Automated Auction System. The Bureau auction is determined by two factors: (i) in the FCC Automated Auction System may also use its discretion to adjust the The licenses applied for on FCC Form (assuming that the bidder has not minimum bid increment without prior 175 and (ii) the upfront payment reached its withdrawal limit). A high notice if circumstances warrant. amount deposited. The bid submission bidder that withdraws its standing high screens will allow bidders to submit iv. High Bids bid from a previous round during the bids on only those licenses for which auction is subject to the bid withdrawal 101. At the end of each bidding the bidder applied on its FCC Form 175. payments specified in 47 CFR 1.2104(g). round, the high bids will be determined 106. In order to access the bidding based on the highest gross bid amount function of the FCC Automated Auction Note: Once a withdrawal is submitted received for each license. A high bid System, bidders must be logged in during a round, that withdrawal cannot be unsubmitted. from a previous round is sometimes during the bidding round using the referred to as a ‘‘standing high bid.’’ A bidder identification number provided 112. The Bureau will limit the ‘‘standing high bid’’ will remain the high in the registration materials, and the number of rounds in which bidders may bid until there is a higher bid on the password generated by the SecurID place withdrawals to two rounds. These same license at the close of a subsequent card. Bidders are strongly encouraged to rounds will be at the bidder’s discretion round. Bidders are reminded that print bid confirmations for each round and there will be no limit on the standing high bids count towards after they have completed all of their number of bids that may be withdrawn bidding activity. activity for that round. in either of these rounds. Withdrawals

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21109

during the auction will be subject to the viii. Auction Announcements auction the license or offer it to the next bid withdrawal payments specified in 116. The FCC will use auction highest bidder (in descending order) at 47 CFR 1.2104(g). Bidders should note announcements to announce items such its final bid. In addition, if a default or that abuse of the Commission’s bid as schedule changes and stage disqualification involves gross withdrawal procedures could result in transitions. All FCC auction misconduct, misrepresentation, or bad the denial of the ability to bid on a announcements will be available by faith by an applicant, the Commission market. clicking a link on the FCC Automated may declare the applicant and its 113. Calculation. Generally, the Auction System. principals ineligible to bid in future auctions, and may take any other action Commission imposes payments on IV. Post-Auction Procedures bidders that withdraw high bids during that it deems necessary, including the course of an auction. If a bidder A. Down Payments and Withdrawn Bid institution of proceedings to revoke any withdraws its bid and there is no higher Payments existing licenses held by the applicant. bid in the same or subsequent 117. After bidding has ended, the E. Refund of Remaining Upfront auction(s), the bidder that withdrew its Commission will issue a public notice Payment Balance bid is responsible for the difference declaring the auction closed and between its withdrawn bid and the high identifying winning bidders, down 122. All applicants that submit bid in the same or subsequent payments, final payments, and any upfront payments but are not winning auction(s). In the case of multiple bid withdrawn bid payments due. bidders for a license in Auction No. 56 withdrawals on a single license, within 118. Within ten business days after may be entitled to a refund of their the same or subsequent auctions(s), the release of the auction closing notice, remaining upfront payment balance payment for each bid withdrawal will each winning bidder must submit after the conclusion of the auction. No be calculated based on the sequence of sufficient funds (in addition to its refund will be made unless there are bid withdrawals and the amounts upfront payment) to bring its total excess funds on deposit from the withdrawn. No withdrawal payment amount of money on deposit with the applicant after any applicable bid will be assessed for a withdrawn bid if Commission for Auction No. 56 to 20 withdrawal payments have been paid. either the subsequent winning bid or percent of the net amount of its winning All refunds will be returned to the payer any of the intervening subsequent bids (gross bids less any applicable of record, as identified on the FCC Form entrepreneur, small business, or very withdrawn bids, in either the same or 159, unless the payer submits written small business bidding credits). In subsequent auctions(s), equals or authorization instructing otherwise. exceeds that withdrawn bid. Thus, a addition, by the same deadline, all 123. Bidders that drop out of the bidder that withdraws a bid will not be bidders must pay any bid withdrawal auction completely may be eligible for responsible for any withdrawal payments due under 47 CFR 1.2104(g), a refund of their upfront payments payments if there is a subsequent higher as discussed in ‘‘Bid Removal and Bid before the close of the auction. Qualified bid in the same or subsequent Withdrawal,’’ section IV.B.vi. (Upfront bidders that have exhausted all of their auction(s). payments are applied first to satisfy any withdrawn bid liability, before being activity rule waivers, have no remaining 114. In instances in which bids have applied toward down payments.) bidding eligibility, and have not been withdrawn on a license that is not withdrawn a high bid during the B. Final Payments won in the same auction, the auction must submit a written refund Commission will assess an interim 119. Each winning bidder will be request. If a bidder has completed the withdrawal payment equal to 3 percent required to submit the balance of the net refund instructions electronically, then of the amount of the withdrawn bids. amount of its winning bids within 10 only a written request for the refund is The 3 percent interim payment will be business days after the deadline for necessary. If not, the request must also applied toward any final bid withdrawal submitting down payments. include wire transfer instructions, payment that will be assessed after C. Long-Form Application (FCC Form Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) subsequent auction of the license. The 601) and FCC Registration Number (FRN). Part 1 Fifth Report and Order provides 120. Within ten business days after Send refund request to: Federal specific examples showing application Communications Commission, of the bid withdrawal payment rule. release of the auction closing notice, winning bidders must electronically Financial Operations Center, Auctions vii. Round Results submit a properly completed long-form Accounting Group, Gail Glasser, 445 application (FCC Form 601) and 12th Street, SW., Room 1–C864, 115. Bids placed during a round will required exhibits for each license won Washington, DC 20554. not be made public until the conclusion through Auction No. 56. Further filing 124. Bidders are encouraged to file of that bidding period. After a round instructions will be provided to auction their refund information electronically closes, the Bureau will compile reports winners at the close of the auction. using the refund information portion of of all bids placed, bids withdrawn, the FCC Form 175, but bidders can also current high bids, new minimum D. Default and Disqualification fax their information to the Auctions acceptable bids, and bidder eligibility 121. Any high bidder that defaults or Accounting Group at (202) 418–2843. status (bidding eligibility and activity is disqualified after the close of the Once the information has been rule waivers), and post the reports for auction (i.e., fails to remit the required approved, a refund will be sent to the public access. Reports reflecting down payment within the prescribed party identified in the refund bidders’ identities for Auction No. 56 period of time, fails to submit a timely information. will be available before and during the long-form application, fails to make full auction. Thus, bidders will know in payment, or is otherwise disqualified) Note: Refund processing generally takes up advance of this auction the identities of will be subject to the payments to two weeks to complete. Bidders with the bidders against which they are described in 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(2). In questions about refunds should contact Gail bidding. such event the Commission may re- Glasser at (202) 418–0578.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21110 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Federal Communications Commission. DATES: Comments are due on or before Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) Gary Michaels, April 23, 2004, and reply comments are 863–2893, facsimile (202) 863–2898, or Deputy Chief, Auction and Spectrum Access due on or before April 30, 2004. via e-mail [email protected]. Division, WTB. ADDRESSES: Comments and reply 1. By the Auction No. 57 Comment [FR Doc. 04–8844 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] comments must be sent by electronic Public Notice, the Wireless BILLING CODE 6712–01–P mail to the following address: Telecommunications Bureau (‘‘Bureau’’) [email protected]. announces the auction of 20 Automated Maritime Telecommunications System FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For (AMTS) licenses. This auction is COMMISSION legal questions: Christopher Shields, scheduled to commence on September (202) 418–0660. For general auction [Report No. AUC–04–57–A (Auction No. 57); 15, 2004 (Auction No. 57). AMTS is a DA 04–954] questions: Lyle Ishida (202) 418–0660, Lisa Stover (717) 338–2888. For service specialized system of coast stations which provide integrated and Automated Maritime rule questions: Roberto Mussenden or interconnected marine voice and data Telecommunications System Spectrum Ghassan Khalek, (202) 418–0680. communications, somewhat like a Auction Scheduled for September 15, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a cellular phone system, for tugs, barges, 2004; Comment Sought on Reserve summary of the Auction No. 57 and other vessels on waterways. Service Prices or Minimum Opening Bids and Comment Public Notice released on to units on land is permitted, so long as Other Auction Procedures April 5, 2004. The complete text of the marine-originating communications AGENCY: Federal Communications Auction No. 57 Comment Public Notice, receive priority. In Auction No. 57, two Commission. including the attachments, is available 500-kilohertz blocks of paired spectrum for public inspection and copying ACTION: Notice. in the 217/219 MHz band will be offered during regular business hours at the in each of 10 AMTS Areas (AMTSAs). SUMMARY: This document announces the FCC Reference Information Center, auction of twenty Automated Maritime Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 2. A complete list of licenses available Telecommunications System licenses in CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. The for Auction No. 57 is included as Auction No. 57, scheduled to begin on Auction No. 57 Comment Public Notice Attachment A of the Auction No. 57 September 15, 2004. This document also may also be purchased from the Comment Public Notice. seeks comment on reserve prices or Commission’s duplicating contractor, The following table describes the minimum opening bids and other Qualex International, Portals II, 445 licenses that will be auctioned in each auction procedures. 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, of the AMTSAs:

No. of Block Frequency bands (MHz) Total bandwidth Pairing Geographic area type licenses

A ...... 217.5–218.0/219.5–220.0 ...... 1 MHz ...... 2 × 500 kHz ...... AMTSA ...... 10 B ...... 217.0–217.7/219.0–219.5 ...... 1 MHz ...... 2 × 500 kHz ...... AMTSA ...... 10

Note: The table displays the band edges of prior to the start of each auction. The related to the specific spectrum subject spectrum blocks A and B using the twenty 25 Bureau therefore seeks comment on the to auction protect against frivolous or kHz channels that comprise each block as following issues relating to Auction No. insincere bidding and provide the listed in 47 CFR 80.385(a)(2). It should be 57. Commission with a source of funds from noted that pursuant to 47 CFR 80.481, which to collect payments owed at the licensees are not required to use 25 kHz I. Auction Structure channelization and may choose any close of the auction. With these channelization scheme; however, regardless A. Simultaneous Multiple-Round guidelines in mind for Auction No. 57, of the channelization scheme used, emissions Auction Design The Bureau proposes to calculate at these band edges must be attenuated upfront payments on a license-by- 4. The Bureau proposes to award all within the limitation that would be required license basis using the following licenses included in Auction No. 57 in under 47 CFR 80.211 if the licensee were formula: using 25 kHz channels. a simultaneous multiple-round auction. This methodology offers every license $0.0075 * MHz * License Area 3. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 for bid at the same time with successive Population with a minimum of $1,000 requires the Commission to ‘‘ensure that, bidding rounds in which bidders may per license. Accordingly, in Attachment in the scheduling of any competitive place bids. The Bureau seeks comment A of the Auction No. 57 Comment bidding under this subsection, an on this proposal. Public Notice the Bureau lists all adequate period is allowed * * * before licenses included in Auction No. 57 and B. Upfront Payments and Bidding issuance of bidding rules, to permit the proposed upfront payment for each Eligibility notice and comment on proposed license. The Bureau seeks comment on auction procedures. * * *’’ Consistent 5. The Bureau has delegated authority this proposal. with the provisions of the Balanced and discretion to determine an 6. The Bureau further proposes that Budget Act and to ensure that potential appropriate upfront payment for each the amount of the upfront payment bidders have adequate time to license being auctioned, taking into submitted by a bidder will determine familiarize themselves with the specific account such factors as the population the maximum number of bidding units rules that will govern the day-to-day in each geographic license area and the on which a bidder may place bids. This conduct of an auction, the Commission value of similar spectrum. The upfront limit is a bidder’s initial eligibility. Each directed the Bureau, under its existing payment is a refundable deposit made license is assigned a specific number of delegated authority, to seek comment on by each bidder to establish eligibility to bidding units equal to the upfront a variety of auction-specific procedures bid on licenses. Upfront payments payment listed in Attachment A of the

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21111

Auction No. 57 Comment Public Notice, to maintain the requisite activity level period by using the ‘‘reduce eligibility’’ on a bidding unit per dollar basis. This will result in a reduction in the bidder’s function in the bidding system. In this number does not change as prices rise eligibility in the next round of bidding case, the bidder’s eligibility is during the auction. A bidder’s upfront (unless an activity rule waiver is used). permanently reduced to bring the bidder payment is not attributed to specific During Stage One, reduced eligibility for into compliance with the activity rules. licenses. Rather, a bidder may place the next round will be calculated by Once eligibility has been reduced, a bids on any combination of licenses as multiplying the current round activity bidder will not be permitted to regain its long as the total number of bidding by five-fourths (5/4). lost bidding eligibility. units associated with those licenses Stage Two: In each round of the 14. A bidder may proactively use an does not exceed its current eligibility. second stage, a bidder desiring to activity rule waiver as a means to keep Eligibility cannot be increased during maintain its current eligibility is the auction open without placing a bid. the auction. Thus, in calculating its required to be active on 95 percent of its If a bidder submits a proactive waiver upfront payment amount, an applicant current bidding eligibility. In this final (using the proactive waiver function in must determine the maximum number stage, reduced eligibility for the next the bidding system) during a bidding of bidding units it may wish to bid on round will be calculated by multiplying period in which no bids or withdrawals (or hold high bids on) in any single the current round activity by twenty- are submitted, the auction will remain round, and submit an upfront payment nineteenths (20/19). open and the bidder’s eligibility will be covering that number of bidding units. 10. The Bureau seeks comment on preserved. An automatic waiver invoked The Bureau seeks comment on this these proposals. Commenters that in a round in which there are no new proposal. believe these activity rules should be bids or withdrawals will not keep the modified should explain their reasoning C. Activity Rules auction open. Note: Once a proactive and comment on the desirability of an waiver is submitted during a round, that 7. In order to ensure that the auction alternative approach. Commenters are waiver cannot be unsubmitted. closes within a reasonable period of advised to support their claims with 15. The Bureau proposes that each time, an activity rule requires bidders to analyses and suggested alternative bidder in Auction No. 57 be provided bid actively throughout the auction, activity rules. with three activity rule waivers that may rather than wait until late in the auction D. Activity Rule Waivers and Reducing be used at the bidder’s discretion during before participating. Bidders are Eligibility the course of the auction. The Bureau required to be active on a specific seeks comment on this proposal. percentage of their current bidding 11. Use of an activity rule waiver eligibility during each round of the preserves the bidder’s current bidding E. Information Relating to Auction auction. A bidder that does not satisfy eligibility despite the bidder’s activity Delay, Suspension, or Cancellation the activity rule will either lose bidding in the current round being below the 16. For Auction No. 57, the Bureau required minimum level. An activity eligibility in the next round or must use proposes that, by public notice or by rule waiver applies to an entire round an activity rule waiver (if any remain). announcement during the auction, the of bidding and not to a particular 8. The Bureau proposes to divide the Bureau may delay, suspend, or cancel license. Activity waivers can be either auction into two stages, each the auction in the event of natural proactive or automatic and are characterized by an increased activity disaster, technical obstacle, evidence of principally a mechanism for auction requirement. The auction will start in an auction security breach, unlawful participants to avoid the loss of auction Stage One. The Bureau proposes that the bidding activity, administrative or auction generally will advance to the eligibility in the event that exigent weather necessity, or for any other next stage (i.e., from Stage One to Stage circumstances prevent them from reason that affects the fair and efficient Two) when the auction activity level, as placing a bid in a particular round. conduct of competitive bidding. In such measured by the percentage of bidding 12. The FCC Automated Auction cases, the Bureau, in its sole discretion, units receiving new high bids, is System assumes that bidders with may elect to resume the auction starting approximately twenty percent or below insufficient activity would prefer to use from the beginning of the current round, for three consecutive rounds of bidding. an activity rule waiver (if available) resume the auction starting from some However, the Bureau further proposes rather than lose bidding eligibility. previous round, or cancel the auction in that the Bureau retain the discretion to Therefore, the system will automatically its entirety. Network interruption may change stages unilaterally by apply a waiver (known as an ‘‘automatic cause the Bureau to delay or suspend announcement during the auction. In waiver’’) at the end of any bidding the auction. Exercise of this authority is exercising this discretion, the Bureau period where a bidder’s activity level is solely within the discretion of the will consider a variety of measures of below the minimum required unless: (i) Bureau, and its use is not intended to be bidder activity, including, but not the bidder has no activity rule waivers a substitute for situations in which limited to, the auction activity level, the available; or (ii) the bidder overrides the bidders may wish to apply their activity percentage of licenses (as measured in automatic application of a waiver by rule waivers. The Bureau seeks bidding units) on which there are new reducing eligibility, thereby meeting the comment on this proposal. bids, the number of new bids, and the minimum requirement. Note: If a bidder percentage increase in revenue. The has no waivers remaining and does not II. Bidding Procedures Bureau seeks comment on these satisfy the required activity level, its A. Round Structure proposals. current eligibility will be permanently 9. For Auction No. 57, the Bureau reduced, possibly eliminating the bidder 17. The Commission will conduct proposes the following activity from the auction. Auction No. 57 over the Internet. requirements: Stage One: In each round 13. A bidder with insufficient activity Telephonic bidding will also be of the first stage of the auction, a bidder may wish to reduce its bidding available. As a contingency plan, the desiring to maintain its current eligibility rather than use an activity FCC Wide Area Network will be eligibility is required to be active on rule waiver. If so, the bidder must available as well. The telephone number licenses representing at least 80 percent affirmatively override the automatic through which the backup FCC Wide of its current bidding eligibility. Failure waiver mechanism during the bidding Area Network may be accessed will be

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21112 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

announced in a later public notice. Full 23. Specifically, for Auction No. 57, increments (i.e., the second bid amount information regarding how to establish the Commission proposes the following equals the standing high bid plus two such a connection will be provided in license-by-license formula for times the bid increment, the third bid the public notice announcing details of calculating minimum opening bids: amount equals the standing high bid auction procedures. $0.0075 * MHz * License Area plus three times the bid increment, etc.). 18. The initial bidding schedule will Population with a minimum of $1,000 27. Until a bid has been placed on a be announced in a public notice to be per license. The specific minimum license, the minimum acceptable bid for released at least one week before the opening bid for each license available in that license will be equal to its start of the auction, and will be Auction No. 57 is set forth in minimum opening bid. The additional included in the registration mailings. Attachment A of the Auction No. 57 bid amounts for licenses that have not The simultaneous multiple-round Comment Public Notice. The Bureau yet received a bid will be calculated format will consist of sequential bidding seeks comment on this proposal. differently. rounds, each followed by the release of 24. If commenters believe that these 28. For Auction No. 57, the Bureau round results. Details regarding the minimum opening bids will result in proposes to calculate minimum location and format of round results will substantial numbers of unsold licenses, acceptable bids by using a smoothing be included in the same public notice. or are not reasonable amounts, or methodology, as we have done in 19. The Bureau has discretion to should instead operate as reserve prices, several other auctions. The smoothing change the bidding schedule in order to they should explain why this is so, and formula calculates minimum acceptable foster an auction pace that reasonably comment on the desirability of an bids by first calculating a percentage alternative approach. Commenters are balances speed with the bidders’ need to increment, not to be confused with the advised to support their claims with study round results and adjust their bid increment. The percentage valuation analyses and suggested bidding strategies. The Bureau may increment for each license is based on reserve prices or minimum opening bid increase or decrease the amount of time bidding activity on that license in all levels or formulas. In establishing the for the bidding rounds and review prior rounds; therefore, a license that minimum opening bids, the Bureau periods, or the number of rounds per has received many bids throughout the particularly seeks comment on such day, depending upon the bidding auction will have a higher percentage factors as the amount of spectrum being activity level and other factors. The increment than a license that has auctioned, levels of incumbency, the Bureau seeks comment on this proposal. received few bids. availability of technology to provide 29. The calculation of the percentage service, the size of the geographic B. Reserve Price or Minimum Opening increment used to determine the service areas, issues of interference with Bid minimum acceptable bids for each other spectrum bands and any other 20. The Balanced Budget Act calls license for the next round is made at the relevant factors that could reasonably end of each round. The computation is upon the Commission to prescribe have an impact on valuation of the based on an activity index, which is a methods for establishing a reasonable AMTS spectrum. The Bureau also seeks weighted average of the number of bids reserve price or a minimum opening bid comment on whether, consistent with in that round and the activity index when FCC licenses are subject to the Balanced Budget Act, the public from the prior round. The current auction, unless the Commission interest would be served by having no activity index is equal to a weighting determines that a reserve price or minimum opening bid or reserve price. minimum opening bid is not in the factor times the number of new bids public interest. Consistent with this C. Minimum Acceptable Bids and Bid received on the license in the most mandate, the Commission has directed Increments recent bidding round plus one minus the Bureau to seek comment on the use 25. In each round, eligible bidders the weighting factor times the activity of a minimum opening bid and/or will be able to place bids on a given index from the prior round. The activity reserve price prior to the start of each license in any of nine different amounts. index is then used to calculate a auction. The FCC Automated Auction System percentage increment by multiplying a 21. Normally, a reserve price is an interface will list the nine acceptable minimum percentage increment by one absolute minimum price below which bid amounts for each license. Until a bid plus the activity index with that result an item will not be sold in a given has been placed on a license, the being subject to a maximum percentage auction. Reserve prices can be either minimum acceptable bid for that license increment. The Commission will published or unpublished. A minimum will be equal to its minimum opening initially set the weighting factor at 0.5, opening bid, on the other hand, is the bid. In the rounds after a bid is placed the minimum percentage increment at minimum bid price set at the beginning on a license, the minimum acceptable 0.1 (10%), and the maximum percentage of the auction below which no bids are bid for that license will be equal to the increment at 0.2 (20%). Hence, at these accepted. It is generally used to standing high bid plus the defined initial settings, the percentage accelerate the competitive bidding increment. increment will fluctuate between 10% process. Also, the auctioneer often has 26. Once there is a standing high bid and 20% depending upon the number of the discretion to lower the minimum on a license, the FCC Automated bids for the license. opening bid amount later in the auction. Auction System will calculate a Equations It is also possible for the minimum minimum acceptable bid for that license ¥ opening bid and the reserve price to be for the following round. The difference Ai = (C * Bi) + ((1 C) * Ai¥1) the same amount. between the minimum acceptable bid Ii∂1 = smaller of ((1 + Ai) * N) and M 22. In light of the Balanced Budget and the standing high bid for each X i∂1 = Ii∂1 * Yi Act’s requirements, the Bureau proposes license will define the bid increment. where, to establish minimum opening bids for The nine acceptable bid amounts for Ai = activity index for the current round Auction No. 57. The Bureau believes a each license consist of the minimum (round i) minimum opening bid, which has been acceptable bid (the standing high bid C = activity weight factor used in other auctions, is an effective plus one bid increment) and additional Bi = number of bids in the current round bidding tool. amounts calculated using multiple bid (round i)

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21113

Ai¥1 = activity index from previous ii. Calculation of dollar amount reminded that standing high bids confer round (round i¥1), A0 is 0 associated with the percentage activity. Ii∂1 = percentage increment for the next increment for round 4 (using I ): 4 E. Information Regarding Bid round (round i+1) X4 = 0.2 * $2,400,000 = $480,000 N = minimum percentage increment or Withdrawal and Bid Removal iii. Minimum acceptable bid for round percentage increment floor 36. For Auction No. 57, the Bureau 4 = $2,880,000 M = maximum percentage increment or proposes the following bid removal and 31. Until a bid has been placed on a percentage increment ceiling bid withdrawal procedures. Before the license, the minimum acceptable bid for X ∂ = dollar amount associated with close of a bidding period, a bidder has i 1 that license will be equal to its the percentage increment the option of removing any bid placed Y = high bid from the current round minimum opening bid. The additional in that round. By removing selected bids i bid amounts are calculated using the 30. Under the smoothing in the bidding system, a bidder may difference between the minimum effectively ‘‘unsubmit’’ any bid placed methodology, once a bid has been opening bid times one plus the received on a license, the minimum within that round. A bidder removing a minimum percentage increment, and bid placed in the same round is not acceptable bid for that license in the the minimum opening bid. That is, I = following round will be the high bid subject to a withdrawal payment. Once (minimum opening bid)(1 + a round closes, a bidder may no longer from the current round plus the dollar N){rounded}¥(minimum opening bid). amount associated with the percentage remove a bid. Therefore, when N equals 0.1, the first 37. A high bidder may withdraw its increment, with the result rounded to additional bid amount will be the nearest thousand if it is over ten standing high bids from previous approximately ten percent higher than rounds using the withdraw function in thousand or to the nearest hundred if it the minimum opening bid; the second, is under ten thousand. the bidding system. A high bidder that twenty percent; the third, thirty percent; withdraws its standing high bid from a Examples etc. previous round is subject to the bid License 1 32. In the case of a license for which withdrawal payment provisions of the C = 0.5, N = 0.1, M = 0.2 the standing high bid has been Commission rules. The Bureau seeks withdrawn, the minimum acceptable comment on these bid removal and bid Round 1 (2 New Bids, High Bid = bid will equal the second highest bid withdrawal procedures. $1,000,000) received for the license. The additional 38. In the Part 1 Third Report and i. Calculation of percentage increment bid amounts are calculated using the Order, 65 FR 52401, August 29, 2000, for round 2 using the smoothing difference between the second highest the Commission explained that allowing formula: bid times one plus the minimum bid withdrawals facilitates efficient percentage increment, rounded, and the aggregation of licenses and the pursuit A1 = (0.5 * 2) + (0.5 * 0) = 1 second highest bid. of efficient backup strategies as I2 = The smaller of ((1 + 1) * 0.1) = 0.2 or 0.2 (the maximum percentage 33. The Bureau retains the discretion information becomes available during increment) to change the minimum acceptable bids the course of an auction. The ii. Calculation of dollar amount and bid increments if it determines that Commission noted, however, that, in associated with the percentage circumstances so dictate. The Bureau some instances, bidders may seek to will do so by announcement in the FCC withdraw bids for improper reasons. increment for round 2 (using I2): Automated Auction System. The Bureau The Bureau, therefore, has discretion, in X = 0.2 * $1,000,000 = $200,000 2 seeks comment on these proposals. managing the auction, to limit the iii. Minimum acceptable bid for round number of withdrawals to prevent any D. High Bids 2 = $1,200,000 bidding abuses. The Commission stated Round 2 (3 New Bids, High Bid = 34. At the end of a bidding round, a that the Bureau should assertively $2,000,000) high bid for each license will be exercise its discretion, consider limiting determined based on the highest gross the number of rounds in which bidders i. Calculation of percentage increment bid amount received for the license. In may withdraw bids, and prevent bidders for round 3 using the smoothing the event of identical high bids on a from bidding on a particular market if formula: license in a given round (i.e., tied bids), the Bureau finds that a bidder is abusing A2 = (0.5 * 3) + (0.5 * 1) = 2 we propose to use a random number the Commission’s bid withdrawal I3 = The smaller of ((1 + 2) * 0.1) = 0.3 generator to select a single high bid from procedures. or 0.2 (the maximum percentage among the tied bids. If the auction were 39. Applying this reasoning, the increment) to end with no higher bids being placed Bureau proposes to limit each bidder in ii. Calculation of dollar amount for that license, the winning bidder Auction No. 57 to withdrawing standing associated with the percentage would be the one that placed the high bids in no more than two rounds increment for round 3 (using I3): selected high bid. However, the during the course of the auction. To X3 = 0.2 * $2,000,000 = $400,000 remaining bidders, as well as the high permit a bidder to withdraw bids in iii. Minimum acceptable bid for round bidder, can submit higher bids in more than two rounds would likely 3 = $2,400,000 subsequent rounds. If any bids are encourage insincere bidding or the use received on the license in a subsequent of withdrawals for anti-competitive Round 3 (1 new bid, high bid = round, the high bid again will be purposes. The two rounds in which $2,400,000) determined by the highest gross bid withdrawals may be utilized will be at i. Calculation of percentage increment amount received for the license. the bidder’s discretion; withdrawals for round 4 using the smoothing 35. A high bid will remain the high otherwise must be in accordance with formula: bid until there is a higher bid on the the Commission’s rules. There is no A3 = (0.5 * 1) + (0.5 * 2) = 1.5 same license at the close of a subsequent limit on the number of standing high I4 = The smaller of ( (1 + 1.5) * 0.1) = round. A high bid from a previous bids that may be withdrawn in either of 0.25 or 0.2 (the maximum round is sometimes referred to as a the rounds in which withdrawals are percentage increment) ‘‘standing high bid.’’ Bidders are utilized. Withdrawals will remain

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21114 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

subject to the bid withdrawal payment appears likely that the auction will not FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM provisions specified in the close within a reasonable period of time. Commission’s rules. The Bureau seeks Before exercising these options, the Notice of Proposals to Engage in comment on this proposal. Bureau is likely to attempt to increase Permissible Nonbanking Activities or F. Stopping Rule the pace of the auction by, for example, to Acquire Companies That Are increasing the number of bidding Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ‘‘ 40. The Bureau has discretion to rounds per day, and/or increasing the Activities establish stopping rules before or during amount of the minimum bid increments multiple round auctions in order to for the limited number of licenses where The companies listed in this notice terminate the auction within a there is still a high level of bidding have given notice under section 4 of the reasonable time.’’ For Auction No. 57, Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. the Bureau proposes to employ a activity. We seek comment on these 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 simultaneous stopping rule approach. A proposals. CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to simultaneous stopping rule means that III. Conclusion all licenses remain available for bidding 44. Comments are due on or before acquire or control voting securities or until bidding closes simultaneously on April 23, 2004, and reply comments are assets of a company, including the all licenses. due on or before April 30, 2004. Because companies listed below, that engages 41. Bidding will close simultaneously of the disruption of regular mail and either directly or through a subsidiary or on all licenses after the first round in other deliveries in Washington, DC, the other company, in a nonbanking activity which no new bids, proactive waivers, Bureau requires that all comments and that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y or withdrawals are received. Thus, reply comments be filed electronically. (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has unless circumstances dictate otherwise, Comments and reply comments must be determined by Order to be closely bidding will remain open on all licenses sent by electronic mail to the following related to banking and permissible for until bidding stops on every license. address: [email protected]. The bank holding companies. Unless 42. However, the Bureau proposes to electronic mail containing the otherwise noted, these activities will be retain the discretion to exercise any of comments or reply comments must conducted throughout the United States. the following options during Auction include a subject or caption referring to Each notice is available for inspection No. 57: i. Utilize a modified version of the Auction No. 57 Comments and the name at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. simultaneous stopping rule. The of the commenting party. The Bureau The notice also will be available for modified stopping rule would close the requests that parties format any inspection at the offices of the Board of auction for all licenses after the first attachments to electronic mail as Governors. Interested persons may    round in which no bidder submits a Adobe Acrobat (pdf) or Microsoft express their views in writing on the proactive waiver, withdrawal, or a new Word documents. Copies of comments question whether the proposal complies bid on any license on which it is not the and reply comments will be available with the standards of section 4 of the standing high bidder. Thus, absent any for public inspection during regular BHC Act. Additional information on all other bidding activity, a bidder placing business hours in the FCC Public bank holding companies may be a new bid on a license for which it is Reference Room, Room CY–A257, 445 obtained from the National Information the standing high bidder would not 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. keep the auction open under this 20554. In addition, the Bureau requests Unless otherwise noted, comments modified stopping rule. The Bureau that commenters fax a courtesy copy of regarding the applications must be further seeks comment on whether this their comments and reply comments to received at the Reserve Bank indicated modified stopping rule should be used the attention of Kathryn Garland at (717) or the offices of the Board of Governors at any time or only in stage two of the 338–2850. not later than May 14, 2004. auction. 45. This proceeding has been ii. Keep the auction open even if no A. Federal Reserve Bank of San designated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ new bids or proactive waivers are Francisco (Tracy Basinger, Director, proceeding in accordance with the submitted and no previous high bids are Regional and Community Bank Group) Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons withdrawn. In this event, the effect will 101 Market Street, San Francisco, making oral ex parte presentations are be the same as if a bidder had submitted California 94105–1579: a proactive waiver. The activity rule, reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain 1. Cathay General Bancorp, Los therefore, will apply as usual and a Angeles, California; to acquire bidder with insufficient activity will summaries of the substance of the Broadway Financial Corporation, Los either lose bidding eligibility or use a presentations and not merely a listing of Angeles, California, and thereby acquire remaining activity rule waiver. the subjects discussed. More than a one iii. Declare that the auction will end or two sentence description of the views voting shares of Broadway Federal after a specified number of additional and arguments presented is generally Bank, FSB, Los Angeles, California, and rounds (‘‘special stopping rule’’). If the required. Other rules pertaining to oral thereby engage in operating a savings Bureau invokes this special stopping and written ex parte presentations in and loan association, pursuant to rule, it will accept bids in the specified permit-but-disclose proceedings are set section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y. final round(s) only for licenses on forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve which the high bid increased in at least rules. System, April 14, 2004. one of a specified preceding number of Federal Communications Commission. Robert deV. Frierson, rounds. 43. The Bureau proposes to exercise Gary Michaels, Deputy Secretary of the Board. these options only in certain Deputy Chief, Auction and Spectrum Access [FR Doc. 04–8869 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] circumstances, for example, where the Division, WTB. BILLING CODE 6210–01–S auction is proceeding very slowly, there [FR Doc. 04–9019 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] is minimal overall bidding activity, or it BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21115

GENERAL SERVICES constitute the only notification of one application per State will be ADMINISTRATION revisions in CONUS per diem rates to funded. Applicant agencies are agencies. encouraged to have the support and Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Dated: April 12, 2004. active involvement of the Single State Maximum Per Diem Rates for Montana, Becky Rhodes, Agency on Aging. One-year grants are New York, Ohio, and Texas open only to those States that have Deputy Associate Administrator. never applied for, or been funded, under AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide [FR Doc. 04–8905 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] the ADDGS Program (Delaware, New Policy, General Services Administration BILLING CODE 6820–14–M Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, (GSA). Wyoming, and all territories except ACTION: Notice of Per Diem Bulletin 04– Puerto Rico). Three-year grants are 3, revised continental United States DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND available to all States that will not be (CONUS) per diem rates. HUMAN SERVICES receiving ADDGS Program funds as of July 1, 2004. Applicants eligible for a SUMMARY: The General Services Administration on Aging Administration (GSA) has reviewed the three-year project include: lodging rates of certain locations in the [Program Announcement No. AoA–04–02] Alabama Alaska States of Montana, New York, Ohio, and Fiscal Year 2004 Program Texas and determined that they are Arizona Announcement; Availability of Funds Arkansas inadequate. The per diems prescribed in and Notice Regarding Applications Bulletin 04–3 may be found at http:// California Delaware www.gsa.gov/perdiem. AGENCY: Administration on Aging, HHS. District of Columbia DATES: This notice is effective April 20, ACTION: Announcement of availability of Florida 2004, and applies to travel performed 15 funds and request for applications for Georgia days after this date. the Alzheimer’s Disease Demonstration Hawaii FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Grants to States Program. Illinois clarification of content, contact Patrick Indiana SUMMARY: The Administration on Aging McConnell, Office of Governmentwide Iowa Policy, Travel Management Policy, at announces that under this program announcement it will hold a Louisiana (202) 501–2362. Please cite FTR Per Maine competition for grant awards with two Diem Bulletin 04–3. Maryland different project periods: (A) Massachusetts SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: approximately two (2) to three (3) one- Minnesota year projects at a Federal share of A. Background Missouri approximately $150,000–$225,000 per After an analysis of the per diem rates Nevada year for a project period of one year. A established for FY 2004 (see the Federal New Hampshire total of $450,000 has been allocated for Register notice at 68 FR 52035), the per New Jersey these grants. (B) approximately 20 three- diem rate is being changed in the New Mexico year projects at a Federal share of following locations: North Carolina approximately $225,000–$350,000 North Dakota State of Montana (annually) for a period of three years. A Ohio • Butte, including Silver Bow County, total of $6,100,000 has been allocated Oregon • Missoula, including Missoula for these grants. Rhode Island County, Legislative Authority: The South Carolina • Polson/Kalispell, including Lake Alzheimer’s Disease Demonstration South Dakota and Flathead Counties. Grants to States (ADDGS) Program was Tennessee established under section 398 of the State of New York Texas Public Health Service Act (Pub. L. 78– Vermont • Schenectady, including 410) as amended by Pub. L. 101–157, Virginia Schenectady County. and by Pub. L. 105–379, the Health Washington Professions Education Partnerships Act State of Ohio Wisconsin of 1998. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Wyoming • Fairborn, including City limits of Assistance 93.051.) All territories except Puerto Rico Fairborn. Purpose of grant awards: The purpose [ of these projects is to: State of Texas 1. Develop models of home and Note: States that are eligible for both the • Killeen, including Bell County. community based care for persons with one-year and three-year projects may only Alzheimer’s disease and their families, apply for one of the project period options.] B. Procedures and Grantees are required to provide a Per diem rates are published on the 2. Improve the existing home and non-Federal share, in cash or in-kind, Internet at www.gsa.gov/perdiem as an community based care system to better which must equal at least 25% of the FTR Per Diem Bulletin and published in respond to the needs of persons with total project cost in the first year, 35% the Federal Register on a periodic basis. dementia and their families, through in the second year, and 45% in the third This process ensures timely increases or improving the coordination and year. Executive Order 12372 is not decreases in per diem rates established integrated access to health and social applicable to these grant applications. by GSA for Federal employees on support services. Screening Criteria: Applications must official travel within CONUS. Notices Eligibility for grant awards and other meet the application deadline date/ published periodically in the Federal requirements: Eligibility for grant criteria as identified below. Awards will Register, such as this one, now awards is limited to State agencies. Only be only made to agencies of State

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21116 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

governments. Applications must be no grant applications available at http:// of the functions of the agency, including more than 20 single-sided pages, www.grants.gov. whether the information shall have double-spaced, excluding work plan FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the grid (if selecting to use suggested Department of Health and Human agency’s estimate of the burden of the format), Standard Form (SF) 424, Services, Administration on Aging, proposed collection of information; (c) assurances, certification forms, budget Office of Grants Management, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and forms and justification (up to 4 pages), Washington, DC, 20201, telephone: clarity of the information to be and indirect cost agreements. (202) 357–3440. collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Review of applications: Applications SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All grant burden of the collection of information will be evaluated against the following applicants are required to obtain a D–U– on respondents, including through the criteria: Purpose and Need for N–S number from Dun and Bradstreet. use of automated collection techniques Assistance (10 points); Approach/ It is a unique, nine-digit identification or other forms of information Method—Workplan and Activities (40 number, which provides unique technology. Send comments to Sandra points); Outcomes/Benefits/Impacts (25 identifiers of single business entities. Gambescia, CDC Assistant Reports points); and Level of Effort, Program The D–U–N–S number is free and easy Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, Management, and Organizational to obtain from https://eupdate.dnb.com/ MS–E11, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written Capacity (25 points). requestoptions.html?cmid=EOE100537. comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. DATES: The deadline date for the Dated: April 15, 2004. submission of applications is June 1, Josefina G. Carbonell, Proposed Project 2004. Applications must be postmarked Assistant Secretary for Aging. The National Death Index, (0920– by midnight, or hand-delivered by 5:30 [FR Doc. 04–8871 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] p.m. Eastern Time, or submitted 0215)—Extension—National Center for BILLING CODE 4154–01–P electronically by midnight, June 1, 2004. Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). ADDRESSES: Application kits are available by writing to the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Background Department of Health and Human HUMAN SERVICES The National Death Index (NDI) is a Services, Administration on Aging, national data base containing Center for Wellness and Community Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifying death record information Based Services, Washington, DC 20201; submitted annually to NCHS by all the by calling (202) 357–3452; or online at [60Day–04–42] state vital statistics offices, beginning http://www.grants.gov. with deaths in 1979. Searches against Applications may be mailed to the Proposed Data Collections Submitted the NDI file provide the states and dates U.S. Department of Health and Human for Public Comment and of death, and the death certificate Services, Administration on Aging, Recommendations numbers of deceased study subjects. Office of Grants Management, In compliance with the requirement Since the implementation of the NDI Washington, DC 20201, attn: Margaret of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Plus service, researchers have the option Tolson (AoA 04–02). Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for of also receiving cause of death Applications may be delivered to the opportunity for public comment on information for deceased subjects, thus U.S. Department of Health and Human proposed data collection projects, the reducing the need to request copies of Services, Administration on Aging, Centers for Disease Control and death certificates from the states. The Office of Grants Management, One Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic NDI Plus option currently provides the Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Room summaries of proposed projects. To ICD codes for the underlying and 4604, Washington, DC 20001, attn: request more information on the multiple causes of death for the years Margaret Tolson (AoA 04–02). If you proposed projects or to obtain a copy of 1979–2002. Health researchers must elect to mail or hand deliver your the data collection plans and complete five administrative forms in application you must submit one instruments, call the CDC Reports order to apply for NDI services, and original and two copies of the Clearance Officer on (404) 498–1210. submit records of study subjects for application; an acknowledgment card Comments are invited on: (a) Whether computer matching against the NDI file. will be mailed to applicants. the proposed collection of information There is no cost to respondents except Instructions for electronic mailing of is necessary for the proper performance for their time.

Number of Average burden Respondents Number of responses per per response Total burden respondents respondents (in hrs.) (in hrs.)

Government researchers ...... 48 1 2 96 University researchers ...... 60 1 2 120 Private industry researchers ...... 12 1 2 24

Total ...... 240

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21117

Dated: April 13, 2004. purposes, and those for whom for the purpose of atypical strain Alvin Hall, diagnostic sera are used for surveillance surveillance. Director, Management Analysis and Services of atypical strains. c. Sites where the use of sera from the Office, Centers for Disease Control and Compare the prevalence among the diagnostic blood draw for HIV Prevention. two groups. genotyping is not practical because the [FR Doc. 04–8874 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] This project will fulfill the purpose of time between blood draw and BILLING CODE 4163–18–P monitoring prevalence of atypical processing is consistently greater than strains by extending surveillance to sites 96 hours, rendering the amplification of that would currently be unable to virus for HIV drug resistance genotyping DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND provide sera for genotyping. DBS may problematic. HUMAN SERVICES also be collected for atypical strain d. Sites where the use of DBS for surveillance in other sites where the atypical HIV strain surveillance is more Centers for Disease Control and collection of DBS may be more acceptable than the use of sera to staff Prevention acceptable or require fewer resources or participants, or where fewer resources may be required to collect Monitoring Atypical HIV Strains Among than the collection of diagnostic sera. A DBS than sera. Persons Newly Diagnosed With HIV comparison of resource requirements for the two methods in a variety of site (4) To evaluate the resources needed Using Dried Blood Spots vs. and the logistics involved in collecting Diagnostic Sera types will be an important part of the evaluation. This program addresses the and transporting specimens and Announcement Type: New. ‘‘Healthy People 2010’’ focus area(s) of amplifying HIV for genotyping from Funding Opportunity Number: 04118. HIV. DBS, compared with using HIV Catalog of Federal Domestic Measurable outcomes of the program diagnostic sera, for routine atypical HIV Assistance Number: 93.944. will be in alignment with one (or more) strain surveillance. Key Dates: Letter of Intent Deadline: of the following performance goal(s) for Activities: Awardee activities for this May 20, 2004. Application Deadline: the National Center for HIV, STD, and program are as follows: 1. Identify HIV diagnostic sites, June 21, 2004. TB Prevention (NCHSTP): Strengthen Counseling, Testing and Referral I. Funding Opportunity Description the capacity nationwide to monitor the Centers, and/or clinical sites where HIV epidemic, develop and implement Authority: This program is authorized drug resistance surveillance in newly effective HIV prevention interventions under the Public Health Service Act diagnosed persons cannot take place and evaluate prevention programs. sections 301 and 318(b) (42 U.S.C. 241 using the serum/plasma based The expected outcome is an enhanced and 247c), as amended. methodology funded under PA 01194, ability to collect data on atypical HIV Purpose: The purpose of the program PA 04017, and PA 00005 because of one strains in persons newly diagnosed with is to expand the ability of health of the following conditions: departments to perform surveillance of HIV. Data from surveillance of atypical a. Blood draws are not used for HIV the prevalence of atypical strains of strains of HIV are used to identify diagnosis. HIV, including drug resistant strains emerging epidemics, monitor trends in b. Blood draw volumes are and non-B subtypes, by piloting the use transmission, target prevention consistently too low for 1 ml of serum of dried blood spots as an additional resources and interventions to areas and to be set aside for HIV drug resistance specimen type for this purpose. The use populations most heavily affected, and genotyping. of serum from an HIV diagnostic blood evaluate programs designed to prevent c. The use of sera from the diagnostic draw for surveillance of atypical strains the transmission of HIV. blood draw for HIV genotyping is not is the methodology used in several HIV Research Objectives: (1) To monitor practical because the time between resistance surveillance projects in the prevalence of HIV drug resistant blood draw and processing is various stages of implementation with strains and non-B HIV–1 subtypes in consistently greater than 96 hours, different health departments. Some persons newly diagnosed with HIV in rendering the amplification of virus for diagnostic sites and clinical centers public or private settings, including HIV drug resistance genotyping cannot currently be included in these those in which sera are not available for problematic. projects, due to logistical problems with HIV genotyping and those in which sera d. DBS are more acceptable to staff or specimen availability, processing or are used. participants, or their collection, volume. The purpose of CDC funding (2) To compare the results of HIV processing, and transport may require for this activity is to allow state and genotyping for atypical strain fewer resources than sera. local health departments, including surveillance purposes from both a 2. Identify the subset of those sites both those already participating in serum or plasma specimen and a dried from which DBS could be obtained for atypical HIV strain surveillance and blood spot collected not more than three equal to or greater than 90 percent of those not yet participating, to: months after diagnosis for at least 20 persons newly diagnosed with HIV in (1) Evaluate the feasibility and newly diagnosed persons per area. each site, either at the time of HIV efficiency of routine use of dried blood (3) To compare the prevalence of diagnosis or no more than three months spots (DBS) for surveillance of atypical atypical strains of HIV among persons after diagnosis. strains of HIV, including drug resistant diagnosed at sites where HIV diagnostic 3. Identify comparison sites from strains and non-B subtypes, in persons specimens are used for HIV drug which HIV diagnostic sera are being newly diagnosed with HIV. resistance and subtype surveillance, and used, or can be used, for routine (2) Monitor the prevalence of atypical sites where HIV diagnostic specimens surveillance of atypical strains of HIV, HIV strains, including antiretroviral cannot be used, such as: in which logistics, resources, and staff drug resistant strains and non-B a. Sites where blood draws are not time needed to collect and process subtypes, among persons newly used for HIV diagnosis. specimens can be compared to those in diagnosed with HIV, including those for b. Sites where blood draw volumes sites where DBS will be collected. These whom sera from a diagnostic blood are consistently too low for 1 ml of sites may include, but are not limited to, draw are not available for surveillance serum to be set aside for HIV genotyping sites already participating in atypical

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21118 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

HIV strain surveillance under PA 00005, infected or newly diagnosed with HIV. budget period, and includes both direct PA 01194, or PA 04017. Further collaborate with CDC in and indirect costs). 4. Identify one or more sites in which planning the extension of the method as Floor of Award Range: None. paired specimens (sera or plasma + part of routine surveillance of atypical Ceiling of Award Range: $200,000 DBS) can be collected no more than HIV strains, if the method proves (This ceiling is for the first 12-month three months after diagnosis from at successful and if funds are available. budget period.) least 20 persons newly diagnosed with In a cooperative agreement, CDC staff Anticipated Award Date: September HIV annually. (Note that the paired is substantially involved in the program 1, 2004. specimens may be collected from a activities, above and beyond routine Budget Period Length: 12 months. blood draw required for routine grant monitoring. Project Period Length: Five years. surveillance or clinical purposes no CDC Activities for this program are as Throughout the project period, CDC’s more than three months following follows: commitment to continuation of awards diagnosis, but need not necessarily be 1. Assist in the development of a will be conditioned on the availability collected as part of a diagnostic blood protocol or project description for of funds, evidence of satisfactory draw.) Institutional Review Board (IRB) review progress by the recipient (as 5. Develop and implement (after at all cooperating institutions documented in required reports), and appropriate ethics review) a protocol to participating in the project to request a the determination that continued obtain and transfer DBS from selected non-research determination. The IRB funding is in the best interest of the sites identified in (2), sera from sites review at each cooperating institution Federal government. identified in (3), and at least 20 paired will be done by an Office of Human III. Eligibility Information specimens consisting of sera or plasma Research Protection (OHRP)-approved + DBS from any atypical strain IRB with either a single, multiple, or III.1. Eligible Applicants surveillance site, to a laboratory Federal-wide project assurance. The Applications may be submitted by collaborating with CDC and local health CDC IRB will review and approve the health departments of States, U.S. department staff on surveillance of HIV protocol initially and on at least an territories or their bona fide agents, drug resistance in newly diagnosed annual basis until the project is including the District of Columbia, the persons through HIV drug resistance completed, or until a non-research Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the genotyping under PA 00005, PA 01194, determination is received. Virgin Islands, and the six or PA 04017. 2. Provide assistance in the design independently-funded city health 6. Record or download minimum and conduct of the project and departments of Chicago, Houston, Los specimen tracking and non-identifying statistical analysis. Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, demographic and clinical information, 3. Provide assistance in training, if and San Francisco. in formats currently used in HIV drug requested. A Bona fide agent is an agency/ resistance surveillance funded under 4. Provide assistance in locating or organization identified by the State as 00005, 01194, and 04017, to be contracting with a laboratory eligible to submit an application under transferred to CDC. participating in CDC-funded HIV drug the State eligibility in lieu of a State 7. Make available the option for each resistance surveillance genotyping to application. If you are applying as a participant to designate a provider to provide HIV genotypic testing of the bona fide agent of a State or local receive a clinician-friendly hard copy DBS and sera (or plasma). Work with government, you must provide a letter report of HIV drug resistance and participating laboratories to develop from the State or local government as subtype results from the genotyping laboratory procedures to extend and documentation of your status. Place this laboratory, similar to that currently validate current HIV genotyping documentation behind the first page of produced in current HIV drug resistance methods for use with DBS. your application form. surveillance protocols. 5. Assist in the analysis of the data Areas conducting these activities 8. Store HIV drug resistance and the presentation and publication of must have a sufficient volume of newly genotyping data electronically and results. diagnosed HIV cases in order to assess analyze them along with risk factor 6. Collaborate with participants in the correlation in results between DBS information for use in HIV prevention evaluating the feasibility and cost and sera or plasma with adequate and public health programs. effectiveness of using DBS to statistical precision. 9. Record minimum data to evaluate supplement or replace collection of Eligible applicants are limited to areas labor and resources used to collect and diagnostic sera to monitor prevalence of that have a HIV case reporting system in process DBS, and to collect and process atypical strains in persons newly place as of April 1, 2004. diagnostic sera, for surveillance of infected or newly diagnosed with HIV. atypical strains of HIV. Further collaborate in planning the III.2. Cost Sharing or Matching 10. Collaborate with CDC in analyzing extension of the project as a long-term Matching funds are not required for the data. network, if the pilot is successful and if this program. 11. Provide results and share data funds are available. with network participants, other III.3. Other collaborators in the field, and with CDC. II. Award Information CDC will accept and review 12. Attend an annual meeting to Type of Award: Cooperative applications with budgets greater than discuss project activities and methods agreement. the ceiling of the award range. for data and specimen collection to CDC involvement in this program is If your application is incomplete or facilitate representative surveillance. listed in the Activities Section above. non-responsive to the requirements 13. Collaborate with CDC in Fiscal Year Funds: 2004. listed in this section, it will not be evaluating the feasibility and efficiency Approximate Total Funding: entered into the review process. You of using DBS to supplement or replace $500,000. will be notified that your application serum-based surveillance to monitor Approximate Number of Awards: Six. did not meet submission requirements. prevalence of HIV drug resistance and Approximate Average Award: $83,000 Individuals Eligible to Become non-B HIV subtypes in persons newly (This amount is for the first 12-month Principal Investigators: Any individual

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21119

with the skills, knowledge, and • Names of other key personnel. date and time, or (2) significant weather resources necessary to carry out the • Participating institutions. delays or natural disasters, you will be proposed research is invited to work • Number and title of this Program given the opportunity to submit with their institution to develop an Announcement (PA). documentation of the carriers guarantee. application for support. Individuals Application: Follow the PHS 398 If the documentation verifies a carrier from underrepresented racial and ethnic application instructions for content and problem, CDC will consider the groups as well as individuals with formatting of your application. For application as having been received by disabilities are always encouraged to further assistance with the PHS 398 the deadline. apply for CDC programs. application form, contact PGO–TIM staff This announcement is the definitive at (770) 488–2700, or contact GrantsInfo, Note: Title 2 of the United States Code guide on application submission section 1611 states that an organization telephone (301) 435–0714, e-mail: address and deadline. It supersedes described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal [email protected]. information provided in the application Revenue Code that engages in lobbying Your research plan should address instructions. If your application does activities is not eligible to receive Federal activities to be conducted over the not meet the deadline above, it will not funds constituting an award, grant, or loan. entire five-year project period. Your be eligible for review, and will be detailed line-item budget narrative discarded. You will be notified that IV. Application and Submission should cover the costs of activities for your application did not meet the Information first one-year budget period. submission requirements. IV.1. Address To Request Application You are required to have a Dun and CDC will not notify you upon receipt Package Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering of your application. If you have a System (DUNS) number to apply for a question about the receipt of your To apply for this funding opportunity, grant or cooperative agreement from the application, first contact your courier. If use application form PHS 398 (OMB Federal Government. Your DUNS you still have a question, contact the number 0925–0001 rev. 5/2001). Forms number must be entered on line 11 of PGO–TIM staff at: 770–488–2700. Before and instructions are available in an the face page of the PHS 398 application calling, please wait two to three days interactive format on the CDC Web site, form. The DUNS number is a nine-digit after the application deadline. This will at the following Internet address: identification number, which uniquely allow time for applications to be http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/ identifies business entities. Obtaining a processed and logged. forminfo.htm. DUNS number is easy and there is no Forms and instructions are also charge. To obtain a DUNS number, IV.4. Intergovernmental Review of available in an interactive format on the access www.dunandbradstreet.com or Applications National Institutes of Health (NIH) Web call 1–866–705–5711. Your application is subject to site at the following Internet address: For more information, see the CDC Intergovernmental Review of Federal http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/ Web site at: http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/ Programs, as governed by Executive phs398/phs398.html. funding/pubcommt.htm. Order (EO) 12372. This order sets up a If you do not have access to the This PA uses just-in-time concepts. system for State and local governmental Internet, or if you have difficulty Additional requirements that may review of proposed Federal assistance accessing the forms on-line, you may require you to submit additional applications. You should contact your contact the CDC Procurement and documentation with your application State single point of contact (SPOC) as Grants Office Technical Information are listed in section ‘‘VI.2. early as possible to alert the SPOC to Management Section (PGO–TIM) staff Administrative and National Policy prospective applications, and to receive at: (770) 488–2700. Application forms Requirements.’’ instructions on your State’s process. can be mailed to you. IV.3. Submission Dates and Times Click on the following link to get the IV.2. Content and Form of Application current SPOC list: http:// Submission LOI Deadline Date: May 20, 2004. www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/ CDC requests that you send a LOI if spoc.html. Letter of Intent (LOI): Your LOI must you intend to apply for this program. be written in the following format: Although the LOI is not required, not IV.5. Funding Restrictions • Maximum number of pages: three. • binding, and does not enter into the Restrictions, which must be taken into Font size: 12-point unreduced. review of your subsequent application, • Single spaced. account while writing your budget, are the LOI will be used to gauge the level • Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches. as follows: • Page margin size: One inch. of interest in this program, and to allow Funding cannot be used for purchase • Printed only on one side of page. CDC to plan the application review. of major laboratory equipment for the • Written in plain language, avoid Application Deadline Date: June 21, performance of HIV genotyping. jargon. 2004. (Laboratory supplies and labor for Your LOI must contain the following Explanation of Deadlines: specimen processing may be included.) information: Applications must be received in the If you are requesting indirect costs in • Descriptive title of the proposed CDC Procurement and Grants Office by your budget, you must include a copy research. 4 p.m. eastern time on the deadline of your indirect cost rate agreement. If • Evidence that at least 40 cases of date. If you send your application by the your indirect cost rate is a provisional HIV were diagnosed in the area in the United States Postal Service or rate, the agreement should be less than latest 12 months for which data are commercial delivery service, you must 12 months of age. available, accompanied by a brief ensure that the carrier will be able to Awards will not allow reimbursement description of the method by which the guarantee delivery of the application by of pre-award costs. figures were obtained (including the the closing date and time. If CDC elimination of duplicates). receives your application after closing IV.6. Other Submission Requirements • Name, address, e-mail address, and due to: (1) Carrier error, when the LOI Submission Address: Submit your telephone number of the Principal carrier accepted the package with a LOI by express mail, delivery service, Investigator. guarantee for delivery by the closing fax, or e-mail to: Andrew Vernon,

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21120 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Scientific Review Administrator, CDC, 1. Areas having at least 100 newly Protection of Human Subjects from National Center for HIV, STD and TB diagnosed cases of HIV annually should Research Risks: Does the application Prevention, Office of the Associate demonstrate that they are able to adequately address the requirements of Director for Science, 1600 Clifton Road, provide all of the following: 45 CFR part 46 for the protection of Mail-Stop E–07, Atlanta, Georgia, a. At least 80 specimens (sera, plasma, human subjects? This will not be 30333; telephone number: 404–639– or DBS) annually for atypical strain scored; however, an application can be 8000, fax: 404–639–8600, e-mail surveillance. disapproved if the research risks are address: [email protected]. b. At least 30 dried blood spot sufficiently serious and protection Application Submission Address: specimens annually. against risks is so inadequate as to make Submit the original and five hard copies c. At least 20 paired sera or plasma + the entire application unacceptable. of your application by mail or express DBS annually. Inclusion of Women and Minorities in delivery service to: Technical 2. Areas having 40–99 cases of HIV Research: Does the application Information Management-PA# 04118, diagnosed annually should demonstrate adequately address the CDC Policy CDC Procurement and Grants Office, that they are able to provide ALL of the requirements regarding the inclusion of 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA following: women, ethnic, and racial groups in the 30341. a. Specimens (sera, plasma, or DBS) proposed research? This includes: (1) Applications may not be submitted from at least 80 percent of newly The proposed plan for the inclusion of electronically at this time. diagnosed cases annually for atypical both sexes and racial and ethnic strain surveillance. V. Application Review Information minority populations for appropriate b. DBS specimens from at least 20 HIV representation; (2) the proposed V.1. Criteria cases reported in the state or local area justification when representation is You are required to provide measures annually. limited or absent; (3) a statement as to of effectiveness that will demonstrate c. At least 20 paired sera or plasma whether the design of the study is the accomplishment of the various /DBS specimens (these may include adequate to measure differences when identified objectives of the cooperative specimens in categories 2b and 2c). warranted; and (4) a statement as to agreement. Measures of effectiveness Other issues to be examined in whether the plans for recruitment and must relate to the performance goals applicant’s approach include: outreach for study participants include • Are the conceptual framework, stated in the ‘‘Purpose’’ section of this the process of establishing partnerships design, methods, and analyses announcement. Measures must be with community(ies) and recognition of adequately developed, well-integrated, objective and quantitative, and must mutual benefits. measure the intended outcome. These and appropriate to the aims of the Budget: The reasonableness of the measures of effectiveness must be project? proposed budget and the requested • Does the applicant acknowledge submitted with the application and will period of support in relation to the potential problem areas and consider be an element of evaluation. proposed research. alternative tactics? The goals of CDC-supported research • are to advance the understanding of Is there evidence that the health V.2. Review and Selection Process biological systems, improve the control department has an agreement to Applications will be reviewed for and prevention of disease and injury, collaborate with one or more sites in the completeness by the Procurement and and enhance health. In the written area to collect DBS at the diagnostic Grants Office (PGO) and for comments, reviewers will be asked to blood draw or another routine blood responsiveness by NCHSTP. Incomplete evaluate the application in order to draw from at least 90 percent of persons applications and applications that are judge the likelihood that the proposed newly diagnosed with HIV at that site/ non-responsive to the eligibility criteria research will have a substantial impact those sites annually? will not advance through the review on the pursuit of these goals. Innovation: Does the project employ process. Applicants will be notified that The scientific review group will novel concepts, approaches or methods? their application did not meet address and consider each of the Are the aims original and innovative? submission requirements. following criteria in assigning the Does the project challenge existing Applications that are complete and application’s overall score, weighting paradigms or develop new responsive to the PA will be evaluated them as appropriate for each methodologies or technologies? for scientific and technical merit by an application. The application does not Investigator: Is the investigator appropriate peer review group or charter need to be strong in all categories to be appropriately trained and well suited to study section convened by NCHSTP in judged likely to have major scientific carry out this work? Is the work accordance with the review criteria impact and thus deserve a high priority proposed appropriate to the experience listed above. As part of the initial merit score. For example, an investigator may level of the principal investigator and review, all applications may: propose to carry out important work other researchers (if any)? • Undergo a process in which only that by its nature is not innovative, but Environment: Does the scientific those applications deemed to have the is essential to move a field forward. environment in which the work will be highest scientific merit, generally the The criteria are as follows: done contribute to the probability of top half of the applications under Significance: Does this study address success? Do the proposed experiments review, will be discussed and assigned an important problem? If the aims of the take advantage of unique features of the a priority score. application are achieved, how will scientific environment or employ useful • Receive a written critique. scientific knowledge be advanced? What collaborative arrangements? Is there • Receive a second level review by will be the effect of these studies on the evidence of institutional support? Has the CDC, NCHSTP, Division of HIV/ concepts or methods that drive this the applicant demonstrated AIDS Prevention (DHAP) Senior Staff. field? collaborative planning by the State and Award Criteria: Criteria that will be Approach: Applicants should local health department, the State or used to make award decisions include: demonstrate the ability to collect local HIV diagnostic laboratory, and one • Scientific merit (as determined by adequate numbers of DBS and sera or more HIV diagnostic or clinical sites peer review). specimens. from which DBS can be obtained? • Availability of funds.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21121

• Programmatic priorities. of the budget period. The progress DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND report will serve as your non-competing V.3. Anticipated Announcement and HUMAN SERVICES continuation application, and must Award Dates contain the following elements: Administration for Children and September 17, 2004. a. Current Budget Period Activities Families VI. Award Administration Information Objectives. b. Current Budget Period Financial Grants and Cooperative Agreements; VI.1. Award Notices Progress. Notice of Availability c. New Budget Period Program Successful applicants will receive a Federal Agency Contact Name: Notice of Grant Award (NGA) from the Proposed Activity Objectives. d. Budget. Administration for Children and CDC Procurement and Grants Office. e. Additional Requested Information. Families (ACF), Family and Youth The NGA shall be the only binding, f. Measures of Effectiveness. Services Bureau (FYSB). authorizing document between the 2. Financial status report and annual Funding Opportunity Title: FY 2004 recipient and CDC. The NGA will be progress report, no more than 90 days Basic Center Program (BCP). signed by an authorized Grants after the end of the budget period. Announcement Type: Initial. Management Officer, and mailed to the 3. Final financial and performance Funding Opportunity Number: HHS– recipient fiscal officer identified in the reports, no more than 90 days after the 2004–ACF–ACYF–CY–0011. application. end of the project period. CFDA Number: 93.623. Unsuccessful applicants will receive These reports must be mailed to the Due Dates for Applications: The due notification of the results of the Grants Management Specialist listed in date for receipt of applications is June application review by mail. the ‘‘Agency Contacts’’ section of this 4, 2004. VI.2. Administrative and National announcement. I. Funding Opportunity Description Policy Requirements VII. Agency Contacts A. Background: Basic Center Program 45 CFR part 74 and part 92. For more For general questions about this The Runaway and Homeless Youth information on the Code of Federal announcement, contact: Technical Act of 1974 was a response to Regulations, see the National Archives Information Management Section, CDC widespread concern regarding the and Records Administration at the Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 alarming number of youth who were following Internet address: http:// Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341; leaving home without parental www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table- telephone: (770) 488–2700. permission, crossing State lines and search.html. For scientific/research issues, contact: who, while away from home, were The following additional Diane Bennett, M.D., Extramural Project exposed to exploitation and other requirements apply to this project: Officer, CDC, National Center for HIV, • dangers of street life. The purpose of AR–1 Human Subjects STD and TB Prevention, Division of Part A of the RHY Act is to establish or Requirements. HIV/AIDS Prevention, 1600 Clifton • strengthen locally-controlled, AR–2 Requirements for Inclusion of Road, Mail-Stop E–47, Atlanta, Georgia community-based and faith-based Women and Racial and Ethnic 30333; telephone: (404) 639–5349, e- programs that address the immediate Minorities in Research. mail: [email protected]. needs of runaway and homeless youth • AR–4 HIV/AIDS Confidentiality For questions about peer review, and their families. Services must be Provisions. contact: Andrew Vernon, Scientific delivered outside of the law • AR–5 HIV Program Review Panel Review Administrator, CDC, National enforcement, child welfare, mental Requirements. Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention, • AR–7 Executive Order 12372. health and juvenile justice systems. Office of the Director, Associate Director The Basic Center Program was one of • AR–9 Paperwork Reduction Act for Science, 1600 Clifton Road, Mail-S the programs authorized under Part A of Requirements. top E–07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; • the Act to address the runaway and AR–10 Smoke-Free Workplace telephone: (404) 639–8000, e-mail: Requirements. homeless youth problems. The goals of [email protected]. the Basic Center Program are as follows: • AR–11 Healthy People 2010. For financial, grants management, or • • Alleviate problems of runaway and AR–12 Lobbying Restrictions. budget assistance, contact: Brenda • AR–14 Accounting System homeless youth; Hayes, Grants Management Specialist, • Reunite youth with their families Requirements. CDC Procurement and Grants Office, • AR–22 Research Integrity. and encourage the resolution of intra- • 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA family problems through counseling and AR–24 Health Insurance Portability 30341; telephone: 770–488–2741, e- and Accountability Act Requirements. other services; • mail: [email protected]. • Strengthen family relationships and AR–25 Release and Sharing of Data. For financial, grants management, or Additional information on these encourage stable living conditions for budget assistance in the territories, youth; and requirements can be found on the CDC contact: Vincent Falzone, Contract • Web site at the following Internet Help youth decide upon Specialist, CDC Procurement and Grants constructive courses of action. address: http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/ Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, funding/ARs.htm. Each Basic Center program is required GA 30341; telephone: 770–488–2763, e- to provide outreach to runaway and VI.3. Reporting mail: [email protected]. homeless youth; temporary shelter for You must provide CDC with an Dated: April 14, 2004. up to fifteen (15) days; food; clothing; original, plus two hard copies of the William P. Nichols, individual, group and family following reports: Acting Director, Procurement and Grants counseling; aftercare and referrals, as 1. Interim progress report, (use form Office, Centers for Disease Control and appropriate. Basic Center programs are PHS 2590, OMB Number 0925–0001, Prevention. required to provide their services in rev. 5/2001 as posted on the CDC Web [FR Doc. 04–8875 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] residential settings. Some programs also site) no less than 90 days before the end BILLING CODE 4163–18–P provide some or all of their shelter

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21122 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

services through host homes (usually development approach and its needs of such individual; or who is at private homes under contract to the importance for serving youth will risk of entering the child welfare system centers) with counseling and referrals increase. The FYSB publication, or juvenile justice system as a result of being provided from a central location. Understanding Youth Development: the lack of services available to the Basic Center programs shelter youth Promoting Positive Pathways of Growth family to meet such needs. through 18 years of age at risk of and Reconnecting Youth and Drug Abuse Education and Prevention separation from the family and who Community: A Youth Development Services—The term ‘‘drug abuse have a history of running away from the Approach is widely distributed as education and prevention services’’ family. Basic Centers must provide age source documents for positive youth means services to runaway and appropriate services or referrals for development concepts and applications. homeless youth to prevent or reduce the homeless youth ages 18–21. It is currently available from FYSB illicit use of drugs by such youth; and The primary presenting problems of National Clearinghouse on Families and may include individual, family, group, youth who receive shelter and non- Youth (NCFY) at http://www.ncfy.com and peer counseling; drop-in services; shelter services through FYSB-funded (301–608–8098). Additionally, a recent assistance to runaway and homeless Basic Centers include: (1) Family Statement of Principles for Positive youth in rural areas (including the conflicts; (2) physical, sexual and Youth Development, endorsed by a development of community support emotional abuse; (3) divorce, death or broad range of agencies, institutions and groups); information and training sudden loss of income; and (4) personal organizations, may be found in the relating to the illicit use of drugs by problems such as drug use, problems brochure: Toward A Blueprint For runaway and homeless youth, to with peers, school attendance and Youth: Making Positive Youth individuals involved in providing truancy, bad grades, inability to get Development A National Priority. services to such youth; and activities to along with teachers and learning Multiple copies of this resource are improve the availability of local drug disabilities. available from NCFY or it can be found abuse prevention services to runaway The Family and Youth Services online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ and homeless youth. Bureau has worked to promote a programs/fysb. Home-Based Services—The term positive youth development framework ‘‘home-based services’’ means services B. Legislative Authority for all FYSB funded grant programs provided to youth and their families for (including the Basic Center Programs) Grants for Runaway and Homeless the purpose of preventing such youth and activities. Applicants are advised to Youth programs are authorized by the from running away, or otherwise be mindful of this fact in responding to Runaway and Homeless Youth Act becoming separated, from their families; the evaluation criteria. (Title III of the Juvenile Justice and and assisting runaway youth to return to The positive youth development Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974), as their families; and includes services that approach is predicated on the amended by the Runaway, Homeless, are provided in the residences of understanding that all young people and Missing Children Protection Act of families (to the extent practicable), need support, guidance and 2003, Public Law 108–96. Text of the including intensive individual and opportunities during adolescence, a statute may be found at http:// family counseling; and training relating time of rapid growth and change. With www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb. to life skills and parenting. Street-Based Services—The term this support, they can develop self- C. Definitions assurance and create a healthy, ‘‘street-based services’’ means services successful life. These definitions may be found at provided to runaway and homeless Key elements of positive youth section 387 of the RHY Act, as amended youth, and street youth, in areas where development are: in 1999. they congregate, designed to assist such • Healthy messages to adolescents Homeless Youth—The term ‘‘homeless youth in making healthy personal about their bodies, their behaviors and youth’’ means an individual who is not choices regarding where they live and their interactions; more than 21 years of age, in the case how they behave; and may include • Safe and structured places for teens of a youth seeking shelter in a center identification of and outreach to to study, recreate and socialize; under part A, not more than 18 years of runaway and homeless youth, and street • Strengthened relationships with age, and for the purposes of part B, not youth; crisis intervention and adult role models, such as parents, less than 16 years of age, for whom it counseling; information and referral for mentors, coaches or community leaders; is not possible to live in a safe housing; information and referral for • Skill development in literacy, environment with a relative; and who transitional living and health care competence, work readiness and social has no other safe alternative living services; advocacy, education, and skills; and arrangement. prevention services related to alcohol • Opportunities to self-esteem. Street Youth—The term ‘‘street youth’’ and drug abuse; sexual exploitation; If these factors are being addressed, means an individual who is a runaway sexually transmitted diseases, including young people can become not just youth; or indefinitely or intermittently a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); ‘‘problem free’’ but ‘‘fully-prepared’’ and homeless youth; and spends a and physical and sexual assault. engaged constructively in their significant amount of time on the street Transitional Living Youth Project— communities and society. or in other areas that increase the risk The term ‘‘transitional living youth These key elements result in the to such youth for sexual abuse, sexual project’’ means a project that provides following outcomes: exploitation, prostitution, or drug abuse. shelter and services designed to • Increased opportunities and Youth at Risk of Separation from the promote a transition to self-sufficient avenues for the positive use of time; Family—The term ‘‘youth at risk of living and to prevent long-term • Increased opportunities for positive separation from the family’’ means an dependency on social services. self-expression; and individual who is less than 18 years of Public Agency—The term ‘‘public • Increased opportunities for youth age; and who has a history of running agency’’ means any State, unit of local participation and civic engagement. away from the family of such individual government, Indian tribe and tribal It is FYSB’s hope and expectation that whose parent, guardian, or custodian is organization, combination of such States awareness of this positive youth not willing to provide for the basic or units, or any agency, department, or

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21123

instrumentality of any of the foregoing. Project Periods: This announcement under this announcement. The number This definition applies to all runaway invites applications for project periods of new awards made within each State and homeless youth programs funded up to three years. Awards, however, will depends upon the amount of the State’s under this announcement. be made on a competitive basis for a total allotment less the amount required Shelter—The term ‘‘shelter’’ includes one-year budget period. Applications for for non-competing continuations, as host homes, group homes and continuation grants funded under these well as on the number of acceptable supervised apartments. As currently awards beyond the one-year budget applications. Therefore, where the understood in the field: ‘‘Host homes’’ period but within the three year project amount required for non-competing are facilities providing shelter, usually period will be entertained in subsequent continuations in any State equals or in the home of a family, under contract years on a noncompetitive basis, subject exceeds the State’s total allotment, it is to accept runaway and/or homeless to availability of funds, satisfactory possible that no new awards will be youth assigned by the RHY service progress of the grantee and a made in the State. However, agencies in provider and are licensed according to determination that continued funding States where zero ($ -0-) funding is State or local laws. ‘‘Group homes’’ are would be in the best interest of the reflected on the BCP Table of Allocation single-site residential facilities designed Government. are highly encouraged to apply for grant to house RHY clients who may be new funding in the event that additional III. Eligibility Information to the program or may require a higher funding becomes available. level of supervision. These dwellings 1. Eligible Applicants All applicants under this competitive grant area will compete with other operate in accordance with State or County governments, city or township eligible applicants in the State in which local housing codes and licensure. governments , special district they propose to deliver services. In the ‘‘Supervised apartment’’ is a single unit governments, State controlled event that there are insufficient numbers dwelling or multiple unit apartment institutions of higher education, Native of applications approved for funding in house operated under the auspices of American tribal governments (federally any State or jurisdiction, the unused the TLP service provider for the purpose recognized), Native American tribal funds will be reallocated to other Basic of housing program participants. organizations (other than federally- Center Program applicants. Street Based Outreach and recognized tribal governments), Non-profit organizations applying for Education—The term ‘‘street-based nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status, funding are required to submit proof of outreach and education’’ includes nonprofits that do not have a 501(c) their non-profit status. education and prevention efforts with the IRS, other than institutions of directed at youth that are victims of Proof of non-profit status is any one higher education, and faith-based of the following: offenses committed by offenders who organizations. are and are not known to the victim. (a) A reference to the applicant Temporary Shelter—The term Additional Information on Eligibility organization’s listing in the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) most recent list ‘‘temporary shelter’’ means the provision Faith-based organizations are eligible of tax-exempt organizations described in of short-term (maximum of 15 days) applicants. the IRS code. room and board and core crisis Current Basic Center grantees with intervention services on a 24-hour basis. (b) A copy of a currently valid IRS tax project periods ending on or before exemption certificate. State—The term ‘‘State’’ means any September 29, 2004, and all other (c) A statement from a State taxing State of the United States, the District of eligible applicants not currently body, State Attorney General, or other Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto receiving Basic Center funds may apply appropriate State official certifying that Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, for a new competitive Basic Center grant the applicant organization has a non- American Samoa and the under this announcement. profit status and that none of the net Commonwealth of the Northern Current Basic Center Program grantees earnings accrue to any private Marianas. (including subgrantees) with one or two shareholders or individuals. Training—The term ‘‘training’’ means years remaining on their current grant (d) A certified copy of the the provision of local, State, or and the expectation of continuation organization’s certificate of regionally based instruction to runaway funding in FY 2004 may not apply for incorporation or similar document that and homeless youth service providers in a new Basic Center grant for the clearly establishes non-profit status. skill areas that will directly strengthen community they currently serve. These (e) Any of the items in the service delivery. grantees will receive instructions from subparagraphs immediately above for a Technical Assistance—The term their respective ACF Runaway and State or national parent organization ‘‘technical assistance’’ means the Homeless Youth (RHY) Regional Office and a statement signed by the parent provision of expertise, consultation and/ contacts on the procedures for applying organization that the applicant or support for the purpose of for noncompetitive continuation grants. organization is a local non-profit strengthening the capabilities of grantee Current grantees that have questions affiliate. organizations to deliver services. regarding their eligibility to apply for new funds, should consult with the 2. Cost Sharing or Matching II. Award Information appropriate Regional Office Youth Yes. Funding Instrument Type: Grant. Contact, listed in Part VIII, Appendix B, Applicant Share of Project Costs: The Anticipated Total Priority Area to determine if they are eligible to apply applicant must provide a non-Federal Funding: $17.4 million in FY2004. for a new grant award. share or match of at least ten percent Anticipated Number of Awards: 180. The funds available for new awards (10%) of the Federal funds awarded. Ceiling on Amount of Individual and continuations in each State and (There may be certain exceptions for Awards: $200,000 per budget period. insular area are listed in the Table of tribes with ‘‘638’’ funding pursuant to Floor of Individual Award Amounts: Allocations by State (Part VIII, Pub. L. 93–638, under which certain None. Appendix D). In this Table, the amounts Federal grants may qualify as matching Average Anticipated Award Amount: shown in the ‘‘New Awards’’ column are funds for other Federal grant programs, $128,000 per budget period. the amounts available for competition e.g., those which contribute to the

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21124 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

purposes for which grants under section copies (not the original) specific salary www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/ 638 were made.) The non-Federal share rates or amounts for individuals forms.htm. may be met by cash or in-kind specified in the application budget. Application Requirements contributions, although applicants are You may submit your application to encouraged to meet their match us in either electronic or paper format. Each application will be duplicated, requirements through cash To submit an application electronically, therefore, do not use or include separate contributions. Therefore, a three-year please use the http://www.Grants.gov covers, binders, clips, tabs, plastic project costing $600,000 in Federal apply site. If you use Grants.gov, you inserts, folded maps, brochures or any funds (based on an award of $200,000 will be able to download a copy of the other items that cannot be processed per 12-month budget period) must application package, complete it off- easily on a photocopy machine with an provide a match of at least $60,000 line, and then upload and submit the automatic feed. Do not bind, clip, staple, ($20,000 per budget period). application via the Grants.gov site. You or fasten in any way separate may not e-mail an electronic copy of a subsections of the application, 3. Other grant application to us. including supporting documentation. All applicants must have a DUNS & Please note the following if you plan Project Description: Each application Bradstreet Number. On June 27, 2003, to submit your application may include only one proposed project. the Office of Management and Budget electronically via http:// Describe the project clearly in 40 pages or less (not counting budget narrative published in the Federal Register a new www.Grants.Gov. justification, supplemental Federal policy applicable to all Federal • Electronic submission is voluntary. documentation, letters of support) using grant applicants. The policy requires all • When you enter the Grants.gov site, the outline and guidelines for each Federal grant applicants to provide a you will find information about program area. The description must be Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal submitting an application electronically Numbering System (DUNS) number 12-point Times Roman font, double through the site, as well as the hours of 1 when applying for Federal grants or spaced, and single-sided on 8 ⁄2 x 11 operation. We strongly recommend that inches plain white paper with at least 1 cooperative agreements on or after you do not wait until the application October 1, 2003. The DUNS number will inch margins. Pages over the limit will deadline date to begin the application be removed from the application and be required whether an applicant is process through Grants.gov. submitting a paper application or using • will not be reviewed. To use Grants.gov, you, as the Project Summary/Abstract (one page the government-wide electronic portal applicant, must have a DUNS Number maximum): Clearly mark this page with (http://www.Grants.gov). A DUNS and register in the Central Contractor the applicant name as shown on item 5 number will be required for every Registry (CCR). You should allow a of the SF 424 and the service area as application for a new award or renewal/ minimum of five days to complete the shown in item 12 of the SF 424. Also, continuation of an award, including CCR registration. include telephone number and e-mail applications or plans under formula, • You will not receive additional address. The summary description is entitlement and block grant programs, point value because you submit a grant limited to one page. Care should be submitted on or after October 1, 2003. application in electronic format, nor taken to produce a summary which Please ensure that your organization will we penalize you if you submit an accurately and concisely reflects the has a DUNS number. You may acquire application in paper format. proposed project. It should describe the a DUNS number at no cost by calling the • You may submit all documents objectives of the project, the approach to dedicated toll-free DUNS number electronically, including all information be used and the results and benefits request line on 1–866–705–5711 or you typically included on the SF 424 and all expected. may request a number on-line at necessary assurances and certifications. Supplemental Documentation: The http://www.dnb.com. • Your application must comply with maximum number of pages for IV. Application and Submission any page limitation requirements supplemental documentation is 10 Information described in this program pages. The supplemental announcement. documentation, subject to the 10-page 1. Address To Request Information • After you electronically submit limit, must be numbered and may ACYF Operations Center, c/o the your application, you will receive an include brief resumes, position Dixon Group, Inc., 118 Q Street, NE., automatic acknowledgement from descriptions, maps, organization charts, Washington, DC 20002–2132; telephone: Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov etc. Supplemental documentation over 1–866–796–1591, e-mail: tracking number. The Administration the 10-page limit will not be reviewed. [email protected]. for Children and Families will retrieve Letters of Support: Applicants are your application from Grants. encouraged to provide letters of support, 2. Content and Form of Application • We may request that you provide if appropriate or applicable, in Submission original signatures on forms at a later relationship to the project description. An original and two copies of the date. Letters of support are limited to 10. complete application are required. The • You may access the electronic Sub-grant/Contractual Agreements: original and two copies must include all application for this program on http:// Applicants should provide brief required forms, certifications, www.Grants.gov. summaries of proposed sub-grants or assurances, and appendices, be signed • You must search for the contractual agreements. Applicable by an authorized representative, have downloadable application package by agreements are those between the original signatures and be submitted the CFDA number. grantee and cooperating entities which unbound. All applications must be Private non-profit organizations may support or complement the provision of stapled well in the upper left corner to voluntarily submit with their mandated services to runaway and prevent separation of any part of the applications the survey located under homeless youth as reflected in the complete application and submitted in ‘‘Grant Related Documents and Forms’’ project description. Summaries of a single package. Applicants have the titled ‘‘Survey for Private, Non-Profit agreements are not counted as part of option of omitting from the application Grant Applicants’’ at http:// the 40-page project description limit,

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21125

nor the 10-page supplemental Federal and non-Federal, proposed for Many standard forms can also be documentation limit. this project. downloaded and printed from the following ACF Web page: http:// Forms and Certifications Note: Applicant should refer to the UPD Requirement guidance when preparing the www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/grants/ An Application for Federal Assistance budget and narrative budget justification. form.htm. (Standard Form 424) must be fully Place the budget/narrative budget completed and submitted by the due justification after form 424A. These 3. Submission Date and Time date to the address stated above. If more documents do not count against any page The closing time and date for receipt than one agency is involved in limitation. of applications is 4:30 p.m. eastern submitting a single application, one Assurances Form: Applicants standard time (e.s.t.) on June 4, 2004. entity must be identified as the requesting financial assistance for non- Mailed or hand carried applications applicant organization which will have construction projects must file the received after 4:30 p.m. on the closing legal responsibility for the grant. Use the Standard Form 424B, ‘‘Assurances: Non- date will be classified as late. Mailed addition guidance below to complete Construction Programs.’’ Applicants applications shall be considered as the form: meeting an announced deadline if they • must sign and return the Standard Form Item 6: Insure the accuracy of 424B with their applications. are received on or before the deadline Employer Identification Number (EIN). Certification Regarding Lobbying, time and date at the following address: This number is provided to an Standard Form LLL Disclosure of ACYF Operations Center, c/o the Dixon organization by the Internal Revenue Lobbying Activities: Applicants must Group, Inc., 118 Q Street, NE., Service (IRS). disclose lobbying activities on the form Washington, DC 20002–2132; telephone: • Item 10: clearly state the Catalog of when applying for an award in excess 1–866–796–1591. Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) of $100,000. Applicants who have used Applicants are responsible for mailing number (93.623) and title of the program non-Federal funds for lobbying applications well in advance, when (Basic Center Program). activities in connection with receiving using all mail services, to ensure that • Item 13: Proposed Project Start Date assistance under this announcement the applications are received on or is 09/30/2004; End Date is 09/29/2007. shall complete a disclosure form to before the deadline time and date. • Item 14: Include the Congressional report lobbying. Applicants must sign Applications hand carried by District where the applicant is located and return the disclosure form, if in (a) and other district(s) affected by applicants, applicant couriers, other applicable, with their applications. representatives of the applicant, or by the project in (b). An applicant may Certification Regarding insure the accuracy of its district(s) via overnight/express mail couriers shall be Environmental Tobacco Smoke: considered as meeting an announced the following Web site address: http:// Applicants are not required to return a www.house.gov/writerep/. Once in the deadline if they are received on or signed certification. As stated on the before the deadline date, between the site: Select your State, enter your zip certification, by signing and submitting code, including the 4-digit zip code hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., e.s.t., at an application , the applicant certifies the following address: extension, then click ‘‘contact my compliance with the requirements of Late applications: Applications which representative’’. Pub. L. 103227, part C, Environmental do not meet the criteria above are Standard Form 424A (Budget Tobacco Smoke. Information Form and Budget considered late applications. ACF shall Justification): The budget justification Availability of Forms and Other notify each late applicant that its includes a detailed budget and a Materials application will not be considered in narrative justification. Refer to the Legislation referenced in section I of the current competition. ‘‘Budget and Budget Justification’’ this announcement may be found at Extension of deadlines: ACF may evaluation criteria in Part II for more http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/ extend application deadlines when guidance. The budget justification grant.htm (click on the link to circumstances such as acts of God should be typed on standard size plain ‘‘Missing, Exploited, and Runaway (floods, hurricanes, etc.) occur, or when white paper. The detailed budget must Children Protection Act’’). there are widespread disruptions of include breakdowns for major budget Additional copies of this mails service. Determinations to extend categories. In the budget narrative, announcement may be downloaded or waive deadline requirements rest describe and justify all costs. List from this Web site: http:// with the Chief Grants Management amounts and sources of all funds, both www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb. Officer.

REQUIRED FORMS AND DOCUMENTS

What to submit Required content Required form or format When to submit

Project Description ...... Responsiveness to Format described in Part V; 40-pages limit, By application due Evaluation Criteria. 12 font, Times Roman, double spaced, sin- date. gle sided, 1 inch, margin. Project Summary/Abstract ...... Summary of applica- One page limit. tion request. SF 424, SF 424A ...... Per required form ...... May be found on http://www.acf.hhs.gov/pro- By application due grams/ofs/forms.htm. date. SF 424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Pro- Sign and submit ...... May be found on http://www.acf.hhs.gov/pro- By application due grams. grams/ofs/forms.htm. date. Certification regarding Lobbying and Sign and submit if ap- May be found on http://www.acf.hhs.gov/pro- By application due asssociated Disclosure of Lobbying Activi- plicable. grams/ofs/forms.htm. date. ties (SF LLL).

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21126 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

REQUIRED FORMS AND DOCUMENTS—Continued

What to submit Required content Required form or format When to submit

Proof of Non-Profit Status ...... As described in Sec- Format described in Section IV ...... By application due tion IV. date.

Additional Forms applications the survey located under Grant Applicants’’ at http:// Private non-profit organizations may ‘‘Grant Related Documents and Forms’’ www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/ voluntarily submit with their titled ‘‘Survey for Private, Non-Profit forms.htm.

What to submit Required content Required form or format When to submit

Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Appli- Per Required Form .... http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/ By application due cants. forms.htm. date.

4. Intergovernmental Review any, to the SPOC and indicate the date meeting an announced deadline if they of this submittal (or the date of contact are received on or before the deadline Single Point of Contact (SPOC) if no submittal is required) on the time and date at: This program is covered under Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 ACYF Operations Center, c/o the Executive Order (E.O.) 12372, CFR 100.8(a) (2), a SPOC has 60 days Dixon Group, Inc., 118 Q Street, NE., ‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal from the application deadline to Washington, DC 20002–2132; telephone: Programs,’’ and 45 CFR part 100, comment on proposed new or 1–866–796–1591. ‘‘Intergovernmental Review of competing continuation awards. Applicants are responsible for mailing Department of Health and Human SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate applications well in advance, when Services Programs and Activities.’’ the submission of routine endorsements using all mail services, to ensure that Under the Order, States may design as official recommendations. the applications are received on or their own processes for reviewing and Additionally, SPOCs are requested to before the deadline time and date. commenting on proposed Federal clearly differentiate between mere Hand Delivery: Applications hand- assistance under covered programs. advisory comments and those official carried by applicants, applicant As of October 2003, of the most recent State process recommendations which couriers, other representatives of the SPOC list, the following jurisdictions may trigger the ‘‘accommodate or applicant, or by overnight/express mail have elected not to participate in the explain’’ rule. couriers shall be considered as meeting Executive Order process. Applicants When comments are submitted an announced deadline if they are from these jurisdictions or for projects directly to ACF, they should be received on or before the deadline date, administered by federally-recognized addressed to: Department of Health and between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 Indian Tribes need take no action in Human Services, Administration for p.m., e.s.t., at ACYF Operations Center, regard to E.O. 12372: Alabama, Alaska, Children and Families, Division of c/o the Dixon Group, Inc., 118 Q Street, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Discretionary Grants, 370 L’Enfant NE., Washington, DC 20002–2132, telephone: 1–866–796–1591, between Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Promenade, SW., Washington, DC Monday and Friday (excluding Federal Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, 20447. holidays). This address must appear on Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, The official list, including addresses, the envelope/package containing the Oklahoma, Oregon, Palau, of the jurisdictions elected to participate application. Applicants are cautioned Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, in E.O. 12372 can be found on the that express/overnight mail services do Vermont, Virginia, Washington and following URL: http:// not always deliver as agreed. ACF Wyoming. www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/ spoc.htm. cannot accommodate transmission of Although the jurisdictions listed applications by fax. above no longer participate in the 5. Funding Restrictions Electronic Submission: Please see process, entities which have met the Grant funds are not allowable for ‘‘Section IV. 2. Content and Form of eligibility requirements of the program construction of a facility. Application Submission,’’ for guidelines are still eligible to apply for a grant even Grant funds are not allowable for pre- and requirements when submitting if a State, Territory, Commonwealth, etc. award costs. applications electronically. does not have a SPOC. All remaining A minimum of $100,000 will be Hard Copy Address Submission: jurisdictions participate in the awarded to each State, the District of ACYF Operations Center, c/o the Dixon Executive Order process and have Columbia and Puerto Rico. A minimum Group, Inc., 118 Q Street, NE., established SPOCs. Applicants from of $45,000 will be awarded to each of Washington, DC 20002–2132. participating jurisdictions should the four insular areas: Guam, American V. Application Review Information contact their SPOCs as soon as possible Samoa, the Commonwealth of the to alert them of the prospective Northern Marianas and the Virgin 1. Criteria applications and receive instructions. Islands. Applicants must submit any required The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 material to the SPOCs as soon as 6. Other Submission Requirements (Pub. L. 104–13) possible so that the program office can Electronic Address to Submit Public Reporting Burden for this obtain and review SPOC comments as Application: http://www.Grants.Gov. collection of information is estimated to part of the award process. The applicant Submission by Mail: Mailed average 20 hours per response, must submit all required materials, if applications shall be considered as including the time for reviewing

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21127

instructions, gathering and maintaining create collaborations to better serve Provide a narrative budget the data needed and reviewing the those most in need. justification that describes how the collection information. categorical costs are derived. Discuss Objectives and Need for Assistance The project description is approved the necessity, reasonableness, and under OMB Control No. 0970–0139. Clearly identify the physical, allocability of the proposed costs. economic, social, financial, General Instructions for the Uniform institutional, and/or other problem(s) General Project Description requiring a solution. The need for The following guidelines are for The following are instructions and assistance must be demonstrated and preparing the budget and budget guidelines on how to prepare the the principal and subordinate objectives justification. Both Federal and non- ‘‘project summary/abstract’’ and ‘‘Full of the project must be clearly stated. Federal resources shall be detailed and Project Description’’ sections of the Supporting documentation, such as justified in the budget and narrative application. Under the evaluation letters of support and testimonials from justification. For purposes of preparing criteria section, note that each criterion concerned interests other than the the budget and budget justification, is preceded by the generic evaluation applicant, may be included. Any ‘‘Federal resources’’ refers only to the requirement under the ACF Uniform relevant data based on planning studies ACF grant for which you are applying. Project Description (UPD). should be included or referred to in the Non-Federal resources are all other An agency may not conduct or endnotes/footnotes. Incorporate Federal and non-Federal resources. It is sponsor, and a person is not required to demographic data and participant/ suggested that budget amounts and respond to, a collection of information beneficiary information, as needed. In computations be presented in a unless it displays a currently valid OMB developing the project description, the columnar format: First column, object control number. applicant may volunteer or be requested class categories; second column, Federal Approach to provide information on the total budget; next column(s), non-Federal range of projects currently being budget(s), and last column, total budget. Outline a plan of action which conducted and supported (or to be describes the scope and detail of how The budget justification should be a initiated), some of which may be narrative. the proposed work will be outside the scope of the program accomplished. Account for all functions announcement. Personnel or activities identified in the application. Cite factors which might Staff and Position Data Description: Costs of employee accelerate or decelerate the work and Provide a biographical sketch for each salaries and wages. state your reason for taking the key person appointed and a job Justification: Identify the project proposed approach rather than others. description for each vacant key position. director or principal investigator, if Describe any unusual features of the A biographical sketch will also be known. For each staff person, provide project such as design or technological required for new key staff as appointed. the title, time commitment to the project innovations, reductions in cost or time, (in months), time commitment to the or extraordinary social and community Organizational Profiles project (as a percentage or full-time involvement. Provide quantitative Provide information on the applicant equivalent), annual salary, grant salary, monthly or quarterly projections of the organization(s) and cooperating wage rates, etc. Do not include the costs accomplishments to be achieved for partners, such as organizational charts, of consultants or personnel costs of each function or activity in such terms financial statements, audit reports or delegate agencies or of specific as the number of people to be served statements from CPAs/Licensed Public project(s) or businesses to be financed and the number of activities Accountants, Employer Identification by the applicant. accomplished. When accomplishments Numbers, names of bond carriers, Fringe Benefits cannot be quantified by activity or contact persons and telephone numbers, function, list them in chronological child care licenses and other Description: Costs of employee fringe order to show the schedule of documentation of professional benefits unless treated as part of an accomplishments and their target dates. accreditation, information on approved indirect cost rate. If any data is to be collected, compliance with Federal/State/local Justification: Provide a breakdown of maintained, and/or disseminated, government standards, documentation the amounts and percentages that clearance may be required from the U.S. of experience in the program area, and comprise fringe benefit costs such as Office of Management and Budget other pertinent information. Any non- health insurance, FICA, retirement (OMB). This clearance pertains to any profit organization submitting an insurance, taxes, etc. ‘‘collection of information that is application must submit proof of its conducted or sponsored by ACF.’’ non-profit status in its application at the Travel List organizations, cooperating time of submission. entities, consultants, or other key Description: Costs of project-related Budget and Budget Justification individuals who will work on the travel by employees of the applicant project along with a short description of Provide line item detail and detailed organization (does not include costs of the nature of their effort or contribution. calculations for each budget object class consultant travel). identified on the Budget Information Justification: For each trip, show the Results or Benefits Expected form. Detailed calculations must total number of traveler(s), travel Identify the results and benefits to be include estimation methods, quantities, destination, duration of trip, per diem, derived. For example, describe how the unit costs, and other similar quantitative mileage allowances, if privately owned intermediary’s assistance to faith-based detail sufficient for the calculation to be vehicles will be used, and other and community organizations will duplicated. The detailed budget must transportation costs and subsistence increase their effectiveness, enhance also include a breakout by the funding allowances. Travel costs for key staff to their ability to provide social services, sources identified in Block 15 of the SF– attend ACF-sponsored workshops diversify their funding sources, and 424. should be detailed in the budget.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21128 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Equipment to make available to ACF pre-award order to be given credit in the review Description: ‘‘Equipment’’ means an review and procurement documents, process. A detailed budget must be article of nonexpendable, tangible such as request for proposals or prepared for each funding source. invitations for bids, independent cost personal property having a useful life of Total Direct Charges, Total Indirect estimates, etc. more than one year and an acquisition Charges, Total Project Costs cost which equals or exceeds the lesser Note: Whenever the applicant intends to Self-explanatory. of (a) the capitalization level established delegate part of the project to another agency, by the organization for the financial the applicant must provide a detailed budget Evaluation Criterion I: Approach Statement purposes, or (b) $5,000. and budget narrative for each delegate (Maximum: 35 points) agency, by agency title, along with the (Note: Acquisition cost means the net required supporting information referred to The Program Performance Standards invoice unit price of an item of equipment, in these instructions. in Appendix A define the minimum including the cost of any modifications, standards of which RHY Basic Center attachments, accessories, or auxiliary apparatus necessary to make it usable for the Indirect Charges projects funded by ACF must conform. They address operational features such purpose for which it is acquired. Ancillary Description: Total amount of indirect charges, such as taxes, duty, protective in- as outreach, individual intake and group transit insurance, freight, and installation costs. This category should be used only counseling, family counseling, service shall be included in or excluded from when the applicant currently has an linkages, recreational program, case acquisition cost in accordance with the indirect cost rate approved by the disposition, aftercare, individual client organization’s regular written accounting Department of Health and Human files, staffing and staff development, practices.) Services (HHS) or another cognizant youth participation, ongoing center Justification: For each type of Federal agency. planning, periodic reports to the equipment requested, provide a Justification: An applicant that will Secretary of HHS and Board of description of the equipment, the cost charge indirect costs to the grant must Directors/Advisory Body. per unit, the number of units, the total enclose a copy of the current rate Applications will be evaluated based cost, and a plan for use on the project, agreement. If the applicant organization on the acceptability of the description of as well as use or disposal of the is in the process of initially developing the factors below and plans and/or equipment after the project ends. An or renegotiating a rate, it should procedures for assuring all Basic Center applicant organization that uses its own immediately upon notification that an Program Performance Standards are definition for equipment should provide award will be made, develop a tentative met. a copy of its policy or section of its indirect cost rate proposal based on its Factors: a. Application describes the policy which includes the equipment most recently completed fiscal year in program’s positive youth development definition. accordance with the principles set forth philosophy and approach and indicate in the cognizant agency’s guidelines for how it underlies and integrates all Supplies establishing indirect cost rates, and proposed activities, including provision Description: Costs of all tangible submit it to the cognizant agency. of services to runaway and homeless personal property other than that Applicants awaiting approval of their youth and involvement of the youth’s included under the Equipment category. indirect cost proposals may also request parents or legal guardians. Specific Justification: Specify general indirect costs. It should be noted that information must be provided on how categories of supplies and their costs. when an indirect cost rate is requested, youth will be involved in the design, Show computations and provide other those costs included in the indirect cost operation and evaluation of the information which supports the amount pool should not also be charged as program. requested. direct costs to the grant. Also, if the b. Application states the expected or applicant is requesting a rate which is estimated ratio of staff to youth and Contractual less than what is allowed under the explain how it will be sufficient to Description: Costs of all contracts for program, the authorized representative ensure adequate supervision and services and goods except for those of the applicant organization must treatment. which belong under other categories submit a signed acknowledgement that c. Application describes how runaway such as equipment, supplies, the applicant is accepting a lower rate and homeless youth and their families construction, etc. Third-party evaluation than allowed. will be reached and how services will contracts (if applicable) and contracts be provided consistent with the Basic Program Income with secondary recipient organizations, Center Program Performance Standards including delegate agencies and specific Description: The estimated amount of listed in Part V, Appendix A. project(s) or businesses to be financed income, if any, expected to be generated d. Application describes the strategies by the applicant, should be included from this project. and activities for encouraging awareness under this category. Justification: Describe the nature, of and sensitivity to the diverse needs Justification: All procurement source and anticipated use of program of runaway and homeless youth who are transactions shall be conducted in a income in the budget or refer to the persons of low English proficiency, or manner to provide, to the maximum pages in the application which contain represent particular ethnic and racial extent practical, open and free this information. backgrounds, sexual orientations, or competition. Recipients and who are street youth. Non-Federal Resources subrecipients, other than States that are e. Application describes plans for required to use part 92 procedures, must Description: Amounts of non-Federal conducting an outreach program that, justify any anticipated procurement resources that will be used to support where applicable, will attract members action that is expected to be awarded the project as identified in Block 15 of of ethnic, cultural, and racial minorities without competition and exceed the the SF–424. and/or persons with limited ability to simplified acquisition threshold fixed at Justification: The firm commitment of speak English. 41 U.S.C. 403(11) (currently set at these resources must be documented f. Application proposes to serve a $100,000). Recipients might be required and submitted with the application in specific RHY population (e.g., single-sex

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21129

programs, gay and lesbian youth, a involvement with each family receiving Evaluation Criterion III: Objectives and particular ethnic group, etc.) and such services; and (b) staff providing Need for Assistance (Maximum: 15 describe plans for providing focused such services will receive qualified points) services to meet the special needs of this supervision. Applications will be evaluated based population and how the applicant will k. To provide optional drug abuse on the acceptability of the description of make referrals or otherwise provide for education and prevention services, an the following factors: the needs of RHY youth who are not in applicant must provide a description of: Factors: a. Application specifies the the specific population the applicant • The types of such services that the goals and objectives of the project and will serve. applicant proposes to provide; how implementation will fulfill the g. Application describes the plans for • The objectives of such services; purposes of the legislation described ensuring coordination with schools to • The types of information and above in the ‘‘Background’’ which runaway and homeless youth training to be provided to individuals b. Application states the need for will return and for assisting the youth providing such services to runaway and assistance by describing the conditions to stay current with the curricula of homeless youth; and of youth and families in the area to be these schools. • An assurance that in providing such served and the estimated number and h. Application describes procedures services the applicant must conduct characteristics of runaway and homeless for dealing with youth who have run outreach activities for runaway and youth and their families. The discussion from foster care placements and from homeless youth. must include matters of family correctional institutions and must show l. To provide optional street-based functioning and the health, education, that procedures are in accordance with services, the applicant must include employment and social conditions of Federal, State and local laws. assurances that in providing such the youth, including at-risk conditions i. Application describes procedures services the applicant will: or behaviors such as drug use, school for maintaining confidentiality of • Provide qualified supervision of failure and delinquency. records on the youth and families staff, including on-street supervision by c. Application proposing to focus served. Procedures must insure that no appropriately trained staff; services on a specific RHY population information on the youth and families is • Provide backup personnel for on- (e.g., single-sex programs, gay and disclosed without the consent of the street staff; lesbian youth, a particular ethnic group, individual youth, parent or legal • Provide initial and periodic training etc.) identifies the youth to be served. guardian. Disclosures without consent of staff who provide such services; and Additional information on ‘‘focused’’ can be made to another agency conduct outreach activities for runaway services is requested under ‘‘Approach’’ compiling statistical records if and homeless youth, and street youth. criteria. individual identities are not provided or d. Application discusses the existing to a government agency involved in the Evaluation Criterion II: Results or support systems for ‘‘youth at risk of disposition of criminal charges against Benefits Expected (Maximum: 20 separation from the family’’ in the area, an individual youth. points) with specific references to law j. To provide optional home-based Applications will be evaluated based enforcement, health and mental health services, an applicant must include care, social services, schools and child on the acceptability of the description of assurances that in providing such welfare. In addition, other agencies the following factors: services the applicant will: providing shelter and services to Factors: a. Application specifies the • Provide counseling and information runaway and homeless youth in the area annual number of qualifying runaway to youth and the families (including must be identified. Supporting and homeless youth (RHY) and their unrelated individuals in the family documentation of need from other families expected to be directly served households) of such youth, including community groups may be included. (e.g., sheltered and counseled), the services relating to basic life skills, Additional information about other interpersonal skill building, educational number of beds available for runaway organizations is requested under advancement, job attainment skills, and homeless youth (at least 4 youth ‘‘Organizational Profile’’ Criteria. It must mental and physical health care, and a maximum capacity of not more be clear that the applicant will parenting skills, financial planning, and than 20 youth, except where the complement or enhance, not duplicate, referral to sources of other needed applicant assures that the State or local existing available services. services; law or regulations that requires a higher e. Application describes the area to be • Provide directly, or through an maximum to comply with licensure served, indicate the precise locations of arrangement made by the center, 7 day, requirements for child and youth program services and demonstrate that 24-hour service to respond to family serving facilities; and a ratio of staff to the services will be located in an area crises (including immediate access to youth that is sufficient to ensure which is frequented by and/or easily temporary shelter for runaway and adequate supervision) and the types and accessible by runaway and homeless homeless youth, and youth at risk of quantities of services to be provided. youth. Maps or other graphic aids may separation from the family); (Runaway and homeless youth are be included as part of the • Establish, in partnership with the distinct from other youth, e.g., youth supplementary documentation 10-page families of runaway and homeless currently in foster care or other limit. youth, and youth at risk of separation systems.) from the family, objectives and b. Application describes the Evaluation Criterion IV: Staff and measures of success to be achieved as a anticipated changes in attitudes, values Position Data (Maximum: 10 points) result of receiving home-based services; and behavior of the youth served and Applications will be evaluated based • Provide initial and periodic training improvements in individual and family on the acceptability of the description of of staff who provide home-based functioning that will occur as a the following factors: services; and consequence of the services provided. Factors: a. Application discusses key • Ensure that (a) caseloads will c. Application describes the criteria to staff experience in working with remain sufficiently low to allow for be used to evaluate the results and runaway, homeless, and the street youth intensive (5 to 20 hours per week) success of the program. populations.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21130 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

b. Application includes information ceased and a listing of applicant’s Summaries of agreements do not count on skills, knowledge and experience of funding sources. Applicant must against the 40-page project description limit.) the project director and other key describe how the activities implemented c. Application describes the fiscal project staff. Biographical sketches or under this project will be continued by control that will be used to ensure brief resumes of current and proposed the agency once Federal funding for the prudent use, proper disbursement and staff, as well as job descriptions, should project has ended and must describe accurate accounting of funds received be included. Resumes must indicate specific plans for accomplishing under this program announcement. what position the individual will fill program phase-out in the event the and position descriptions must applicant cannot obtain new operating (Note: Do not submit an entire audit report. specifically describe the job as it relates funds at the end of the 36-month project If available, an applicant may provide an to the proposed project. Such period. executive summary of the organization’s documents count against the 10-page d. Application includes letters of current audit report.) supplemental documentation limit. support and statements from They do not count against the overall community, public and commercial 2. Review and Selection Process 40-page project description limit. leaders and organizations that support Applications received by the due date c. Application lists consultants who the project proposed for funding. will be reviewed and scored will work on the program along with a competitively. Experts in the field, short description of the nature of their (Note: Letters of support are limited to 10. generally persons from outside the effort or contribution. They do not count against the 40-page project description limit nor the 10-page Federal government, will use the d. Application provides information supplemental documentation limit.) evaluation criteria listed in Part V of on plans for training project staff as well this announcement to review and score as staff of cooperating organizations and Evaluation Criterion VI: Budget and the applications. The results (scores) of individuals. Budget Justification (Maximum: 10 this review will be a primary factor in Evaluation Criterion V: Organizational points) making funding decisions. ACF may also solicit comments from Regional Profiles (Maximum 10 points) Applications will be evaluated based Office staff. ACF may consider a variety on the acceptability of the description Applications will be evaluated based of factors in addition to the review on the acceptability of the description of the following factors: Factors: a. Application provides a criteria identified above, including the following factors: geographic and types of applicant Factors: a. Application discusses proposed detailed line item budget organizations, in order to ensure that the organizational experience in working related to the types and quantities of interests of the Federal Government are with runaway, homeless and street activities to be implemented as met in making the final selections. youth populations. As required by the discussed in the full project description Please note that applicants that do not RHY Act, priority for funding shall be for the first year (12 months) of the comply with the requirements in the given to organizations with proposed project . The detailed line section titled ‘‘Eligible Applicants’’ will demonstrated experience providing items must be consistent with the not be included in the review process. long-term residential services to Budget Categories listed on standard Approved but Unfunded runaway, homeless and street youth. form 424A, Section B. In this section of Applications: In cases where more Application documents the services it the form reflect total costs for each of applications are approved for funding provides to this specific population and the following categories: personnel, than ACF can fund with the money the length of time the applicant has fringe benefits, travel, equipment, available, the Grants Officer shall fund been involved in the provision of these supplies, contractual, other, total direct applications in their order of approval services. charges, indirect charges, and total until funds run out. In this case, ACF b. Application provides a short budget. Non-Federal share must also be has the option of carrying over the description of the applicant agency’s reflected among the same categories approved applications up to a year for organization; the types, quantities and where appropriate. funding consideration in a later costs of services it provides and must b. Application includes a narrative competition of the same program. These identify and briefly describe the role of budget that describes how each category applications need not be reviewed and other organizations or multiple sites of of costs are derived, i.e., detailed scored again if the program’s evaluation the agency that will be involved in calculations that include estimation criteria have not changed. However, direct services to runaway and homeless methods, quantities unit costs, etc., that they must then be placed in rank order youth through this grant. List all these equate to the total costs proposed in a along with other applications in the sites, including addresses, phone particular category. Applicants must later competition numbers and staff contact names if adhere to the following additional different from the address on the SF guidance in preparing the budget VI. Award Administration Information 424. If the agency is a recipient of funds justification: 1. Award Notices from the Administration on Children Note: Proposed indirect costs must be and Families for services to runaway supported by a current indirect cost rate The successful applicant will be and homeless youth for programs other (IDC) agreement. Indirect Costs cannot be notified through the issuance of a than that applied for in this application, proposed as direct costs too. Place the Financial Assistance Award (FAA) show how the services supported by budget/ narrative budget justification after document, signed by an authorized these funds are or will be integrated grant application form 424A. These Grants Officer, which will set forth the with the existing services. documents do not count against any page amount of funds granted, the terms and Organizational charts may be provided. limitation. Applicant must include brief, conditions of the grant, the effective c. Application provides a plan for concise summaries of proposed written date of the grant, the budget period for agreements, if applicable, between grantee project continuance beyond grant and sub-grantee or contractor or other which initial support will be given, the support, including a plan for securing cooperating entities which support or non-Federal share to be provided and resources and continuing project complement the provision of mandated the total project period for which activities after Federal assistance has services to runaway and homeless youth. support is contemplated.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21131

Organizations whose applications will program needs. A RHYMIS hotline/help They address the methods and processes by not be funded will be notified in writing desk is available at 888–749–64, and/or which the needs of runaway and homeless by the Administration on Children, at [email protected]. youth and their families are being met, as Youth and Families. The Compilation of The Family and Youth Services opposed to the outcome of the services Reviewers’ Comments will also be made Bureau will fund computer software for provided to the clients served. Nine of these standards relate to service components available to unsuccessful applicants as a RHY program data collection through (outreach, individual intake process, means of providing technical assistance RHYMIS. An applicant lacking the temporary shelter, individual and group for preparing future proposals. computer equipment for RHYMIS data counseling, family counseling, service collection must include an estimated 2. Administrative and National Policy linkages, aftercare services, recreational cost for such equipment in their programs, and case disposition), and six to Requirements proposed budget. If the applicant administrative functions or activities (staffing Runaway Youth Program already has such equipment, this fact and staff development, youth participation, Administration Requirements (45 CFR must be noted. individual client files, reporting, ongoing part 1351). Uniform Administrative project planning, and board of directors/ Requirements for Grant Awards (45 CFR (Note: Existing grantees generally report advisory body). parts 74 and 92). that their staff has been able to easily train Although fiscal management is not themselves to operate RHYMIS due to its included as a program performance standard, 3. Reporting Requirements user-friendliness, prompts and help features, it is viewed by FYSB as being an essential and FYSB’s technical support service.) element in the operation of its funded Programmatic Reports: Semi-annually • projects. Therefore, as validation visits are with final report due 90 days after Research or Evaluation—Applicant made, the Regional ACF youth specialist project end date. must agree to cooperate with any and/or staff from the Office of Fiscal Financial Reports: Semi-annually research or evaluation efforts sponsored Operations will also review the project’s with final report due 90 days after by the Administration for Children and financial management activities. project end date. Families. The standards are designed to serve as a • Annual Report—Applicant must developmental tool for use by the project VII. Agency Contacts agree to submit data required for the staff and the Regional ACF staff specialists in identifying those services and administrative 1. Program Office Contact Family and Youth Services Bureau components of projects which require Dorothy W. Pittard, Family and Youth Annual Report to the Secretary of HHS strengthening through internal action on the Services Bureau, 330 C Street, SW., on program activities and part of staff or through the provision of Washington, DC 20447. accomplishments with statistical external technical assistance. summaries describing the number and E-mail: [email protected], II. Basic Center Program Performance telephone number: 202–205–8906. characteristics of runaway and homeless Standards youth, and youth at risk of family 2. Grants Management Office Contact separation, who participate in the The following are the program performance standards applicable to funded basic centers: William Wilson, Office of Grants project and the services provided to Management, 330 C Street, SW., such youth by the project. 1. Outreach Washington, DC 20447. • Other Reports—Applicant must also The project shall conduct outreach efforts E-mail: [email protected], agree to submit other required program directed towards community agencies, youth telephone number: 202–205–8913. and financial reports, as instructed by and parents based on a written plan that All Basic Center grants are managed FYSB. takes diversity into consideration. out of the ACF Regional Offices. See 2. Appendices 2. Individual Intake Process ACF Regional Office Youth Contacts in The project shall conduct an individual your area listed in Appendix B. Appendix A: Basic Center Program intake process with each youth seeking Performance Standards. VIII. Other Information services from the project. The individual Appendix B: Administration for intake process shall provide for: 1. Special Requirements Children and Families Regional Office a. Direct access to project services on a 24- Youth Contacts. hour basis. By signing and submitting an Appendix C: Training and Technical b. The identification of the emergency application, the applicant is agreeing to Assistance Providers. service needs of each youth and the the following special requirements: Appendix D: Table of Basic Center provision of the appropriate services either RHYMIS (Runaway and Homeless Program Allocations by State. directly or through referrals to community Youth Management Information agencies and individuals. System)—Applicant must agree to keep Dated: April 9, 2004. c. An explanation of the services which are adequate statistical records profiling the Frank Fuentes, available and the requirements for youth and families served under the Deputy Commissioner, Administration on participation, and the securing of a voluntary Children, Youth and Families. commitment from each youth to participate Federal grant and to gather and submit in project services prior to admitting the program and client data required by Appendix A. Basic Center Program youth into the project. FYSB. This information is required by Performance Standards d. The recording of basic background the RHY program legislation and information on each youth admitted into the defined in user-friendly Runaway and I. Background, Purpose, Goals and project. Homeless Youth Management Objectives e. The assignment of primary responsibility Information System (RHYMIS or The Program Performance Standards to one staff member for coordinating the RHYMIS-LITE). Recipients of a FYSB established by the Family and Youth Services services provided to each youth. grant are required and expected to Bureau (FYSB) are minimum standards for its f. The contact of the parent(s) or legal funded basic centers. They relate to the basic guardian of each youth provided temporary submit the data via RHYMIS or in an program components enumerated in section shelter within the timeframe established by approved format which RHYMIS can 312 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act State law or, in the absence of State receive. Grantees have the option of as reauthorized and as further detailed in requirements, preferably within 24 but using RHYMIS for internal management Regulations and other guidance from FYSB within no more than 72 hours following the improvement or for research and other governing the implementation of the Act. youth’s admission into the project.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21132 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

3. Temporary Shelter 8. Case Disposition homeless youth and youth at risk of family The project shall provide temporary shelter The project shall determine, on an separation who participate in such project, and food to each youth admitted into the individual case basis, the disposition of each and the services provided to such youth by such project, in the year for which the report project and requesting such services. youth provided temporary shelter, and shall is submitted. a. Each facility in which temporary shelter assure the safe arrival of each youth home or to an alternative living arrangement. b. The project shall submit timely and is provided shall be in compliance with State complete program and financial reports, and and local licensing requirements. a. To the extent feasible, the project shall provide for the active involvement of the data reports under RHYMIS requirements, b. Each facility in which temporary shelter according to the instructions of FYSB. is provided shall accommodate at least 4 youth, the parent(s) or legal guardian, and the youth and no more than 20. staff in determining what living arrangement 12. Staffing and Staff Development constitutes the best interest of each youth. c. Temporary shelter funded by the Basic b. The project shall assure the safe arrival Each center is required to develop and Center program shall not be provided for a of each youth home or to an alternative living maintain a plan for staffing and staff period exceeding 15 days during a youth’s arrangement, following the termination of the development. given stay at the project. crisis services provided by the project, by a. The project shall operate under an d. Each facility in which temporary shelter arranging for the transportation of the youth affirmative action plan. is provided shall ensure nutritional needs are if he/she will be residing within the area b. The project shall maintain a written met as appropriate for individual youth. served by the project; or by arranging for the staffing plan which indicates the number of e. At least one adult shall be on the meeting and local transportation of the youth paid and volunteer staff in each job category. premises whenever youth are using the at his/her destination if he/she will be c. The project shall maintain a written job temporary shelter facility. residing beyond the area served by the description for each paid and volunteer staff function which describes both the major f. The shelter shall maintain a ratio of staff project. tasks to be performed and the qualifications to youth that is sufficient to ensure adequate c. The project shall verify the arrival of required. supervision and treatment. each youth who is not accompanied home or d. The project shall provide training to all to an alternative living arrangement by the 4. Individual and Group Counseling paid and volunteer staff (including youth) in parent(s) or legal guardian, project staff or both the procedures employed by the project The project shall provide individual and/ other agency staff within 12 hours after his/ and in specific skill areas as determined by or group counseling to each youth admitted her scheduled arrival at his/her destination. the project. into the project. 9. Aftercare Services e. The project shall evaluate the a. Individual and/or group counseling shall The project shall provide for continuity of performance of each paid and volunteer staff be available daily to each youth admitted member on a regular basis. services to all youth served on a temporary into the project on a temporary shelter basis f. Case supervision sessions, involving shelter basis and/or their families following and requesting such counseling. relevant project staff, shall be conducted at the termination of such temporary shelter b. Individual and/or group counseling shall least weekly to review current cases and the both directly and through referrals to other be available to each youth admitted into the types of counseling and other services which agencies and individuals. project on a non-residential basis and are being provided. requesting such counseling. 10. Individual Client Files c. The individual and/or group counseling 13. Youth Participation The project shall maintain an individual shall be provided by qualified staff. The center shall actively involve youth in file on each youth admitted into the project. the design and delivery of the services a. The client file maintained on each youth 5. Family Counseling provided by the project. The project shall make family counseling should, at a minimum, include an intake a. Youth shall be involved in the ongoing form which minimally contains the basic available to each parent or legal guardian and planning efforts conducted by the project. background information needed by FYSB; youth admitted into the project. b. Youth shall be involved in the delivery counseling notations; information on the a. Family counseling shall be provided to of the services provided by the project. services provided both directly and through each parent or legal guardian and youth referrals to community agencies and 14. Ongoing Center Planning admitted into the project and requesting such individuals; disposition data; and, as services. The center shall develop a written plan at applicable, any follow-up and evaluation least annually. b. The family counseling shall be provided data which are compiled by the center. by qualified staff. a. At least annually, the project shall b. The file on each client shall be review the crisis counseling, temporary 6. Service Linkages maintained by the project in a secure place shelter, and aftercare needs of the youth in and shall not be disclosed without the The project shall establish and maintain the area served by the center and the existing written permission of the client and his/her linkages with community agencies and services which are available to meet these parent(s) or legal guardian except to project needs. individuals for the provision of those staff, to the funding agency(ies) and its (their) services which are required by youth and/or b. The project shall conduct an ongoing contractor(s), and to a court involved in the evaluation of the impact of its services on the their families but which are not provided disposition of criminal charges against the youth and families it serves. directly by the centers. youth. c. At least annually, the project shall a. Arrangements shall be made with 11. Periodic Reports to the Secretary, HHS review and revise, as appropriate, its goals, community agencies and individuals for the objectives, and activities based upon the data provision of alternative living arrangements, The project shall meet its data reporting generated through both the review of youth medical services, psychological and/or requirements via the Runaway and Homeless needs and existing services (13a) and the psychiatric services, and the other assistance Youth Management Information System follow-up evaluations (13b). required by youth admitted into the project (RHYMIS) or in an approved form which d. The project’s planning process shall be and/or by their families which are not RHYMIS can receive and shall submit reports open to all paid and volunteer staff, youth, provided directly by the project. as required by FYSB, including an annual and members of the Board of Directors and/ b. Specific efforts shall be conducted by report for the Secretary of HHS no later than or Advisory Body. the project directed toward establishing 3 months after the end of each year in which working relationships with law enforcement Federal RHY funds were received. 15. Board of Directors/Advisory Body and other juvenile justice system personnel. a. The report to the Secretary shall include (Optional) information regarding the activities carried It is strongly recommended that the centers 7. Recreational Program out with RHY funds, the achievements of the have a Board of Directors or Advisory Body. The project shall provide a recreational/ project carried out by the applicant and a. The membership of the project’s Board leisure time schedule of activities for youth statistical summaries describing the number of Directors or Advisory Body shall be admitted to the project for residential care. and the characteristics of the runaway and composed of a representative cross-section of

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21133

the community, including youth, parents, 94102, (AZ, CA, HI, NV, American Samoa, Contact: Sherry Allen, (239) 949–4414, Ext. and agency representatives. Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Marshall 14, Fax (239) 949–4911; b. Training shall be provided to the Board Islands, Federated States of Micronesia), [email protected]. AL, FL, GA, KY, of Directors or Advisory Body designed to (415) 437–8426. MS, NC, SC, TN orient the members to the goals, objectives, Region X: Steve Ice, Administration for and activities of the project. Children and Families, 2201 Sixth Avenue, Region V c. The Board of Directors or Advisory Body RX 32, Seattle, WA 98121, (AK, ID, OR, WA), Youth Network Council, 200 North shall review and approve the overall goals, (206) 615–2210. Michigan Avenue, Suite 400, Chicago, IL objectives, and activities of the project, Appendix C. Training and Technical 60601. including the written plan developed under Contact: Denis Murstein, (312) 704–1257, standard 14. Assistance Providers Fax (312) 704–1265; Appendix B. Administration for The Family and Youth Services Bureau [email protected]. IL, IN, Children and Families Regional Office funds 10 regionally based organizations to MI, MN, OH, WI provide training and technical assistance to Youth Contacts programs funded under the Basic Center, Region VI Region I: Maryellen Connors, Transitional Living and Street Outreach Southwest Network of Youth Services, Inc., Administration for Children and Families, Programs, and to other agencies serving 2525 Wallingwood Drive, Suite 1503, Austin, runaway and homeless youth. John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Room TX 78746. Each of the training and technical 2011, Boston, MA 02203, (CT, MA, ME, NH, Contact: Theresa Tod, (512) 328–6860, Fax RI, VT), (617) 565–1119. assistance providers offers on-site consultations; regional, State and local (512) 328–6863; [email protected]. AR, LA, Region II: Junius Scott, Administration for NM, OK, TX Children and Families, 26 Federal Plaza, conferences; information sharing and skill- Room 4114, New York, NY 10278, (NJ, NY, based training. Region VII PR, VI), (212) 264–2890, Ext. 145. For more information, contact the training and technical assistance provider in your M.I.N.K Youth Services Network, 9082 Region III: Dick Gilbert, Administration for Parkhill, Lenexa, KS 66215. Children and Families, 150 S. Independence region. Contact: Amy Gray, (913) 888–5992, Fax Mall West, Suite 864, Philadelphia, PA Region I (913) 888–5774; [email protected]. IA, KS, 19104–3499, (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV), (215) 861–4031. New England Network, 156 College Street, MO, NE Region IV: Ruth Walker, Administration for Suite 302, Burlington, VT 05401–8423. Contact: Melanie Goodman, (802) 658– Region VIII Children and Families, 61 Forsyth Street, 9182, Fax (802) 951–4201; S.W., Suite 4M60, Atlanta, GA 30303, (AL, Mountain Plains Network for Youth, 410 E. [email protected]. CT, MA, ME, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), (404) 562– Thayer Avenue, #2, Bismarck, ND 58501. NH, RI, VT 2901. Contact: Linda Garding, (701) 355–0721 or Region V: Bill Clair, Administration for Region II 1–800–665–8682, Fax (701) 255–0848; Children and Families, 233 North Michigan [email protected]. CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, Empire State Coalition of Youth and WY Avenue, Suite 400, Chicago, IL 60601, (IL, IN, Family Services, 121—6th Avenue, Room MI, MN, OH, WI), (312) 353–0166. 507, New York, NY 10013–1505. Region IX Region VI: Ralph Rogers, Administration Contact: Margo Hirsch, (212) 966–6477, Western States Youth Services Network, for Children and Families, 1301 Young Ext. 307, Fax (212) 226–6817; 1309 Ross Street, Suite B, Petaluma, CA Street, Dallas, TX 75202, (AR, LA, NM, OK, [email protected]. NJ, 94954. TX), (214) 767–2977. NY, PR, VI Region VII: Dale Scott, Administration for Contact: Nancy Fastenau, (707) 763–2213, Children and Families, Federal Office Region III Fax (707) 763–2704; [email protected]. AZ, CA, Building, Room 384, 601 East 12th Street, Mid-Atlantic Network of Youth and Family HI, NV, AS, GU, NMI, MI, MICRONESIA Kansas City, MO 64106, (IA, KS, MO, NE), Services, 135 Cumberland Road, Suite 201, Region X (816) 426–5401, Ext. 181. Pittsburgh, PA 15237. Region VIII: Al Martinez, Administration Contact: Nancy Johnson, (412) 366–6562, Northwest Network for Youth, 603 Stewart for Children and Families, Federal Office Fax (412) 366–5407; [email protected]. Street, Suite 609, Seattle, WA 98101. Building, 1961 Stout Street, 9th Floor, DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV Contact: Gary Hammons, (206) 628–3760, Denver, CO 80294, (303) 844–1172, (CO, MT, Fax (206) 628–3746; [email protected]. AK, ID, Region IV ND, SD, UT, WY), (303) 844–1167. OR, WA Region IX: Deborah Oppenheim, Southeastern Network of Youth and Family Administration for Children and Families, 50 Services, 3780 C Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Appendix D: Table of Basic Center United Nations Plaza, San Francisco, CA FL 34134. Program Allocations by State

FY 2004 BASIC CENTER PROGRAM: ALLOCATION BY STATE

Continuations New Awards Totals

Region I: Connecticut ...... 255,000 244,645 499,645 Maine ...... 134,371 53,974 188,345 Massachusetts ...... 705,892 203,145 909,037 New Hampshire ...... 0 190,923 190,923 Rhode Island ...... 221,382 0 221,382 Vermont ...... 99,992 8 100,000

Region I Total ...... 1,416,637 692,695 2,109,332

Region II: New Jersey ...... 571,721 627,086 1,198,807 New York ...... 2,315,166 500,328 2,815,494 Puerto Rico ...... 344,149 303,452 647,601 Virgin Islands ...... 0 45,000 45,000

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21134 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

FY 2004 BASIC CENTER PROGRAM: ALLOCATION BY STATE—Continued

Continuations New Awards Totals

Region II Total ...... 3,231,036 1,475,866 4,706,902

Region III: Delaware ...... 37,857 80,744 118,601 District of Columbia ...... 50,000 50,000 100,000 Maryland ...... 300,000 510,672 810,672 Pennsylvania ...... 673,568 1,103,956 1,777,524 Virginia ...... 680,175 369,188 1,049,363 West Virginia ...... 0 251,054 251,054

Region III Total ...... 1,741,600 2,365,614 4,107,214

Region IV: Alabama ...... 315,000 368,053 683,053 Florida ...... 1,076,639 1,130,646 2,207,285 Georgia ...... 708,974 585,472 1,294,446 Kentucky ...... 350,000 253,070 603,070 Mississippi ...... 447,299 0 447,299 North Carolina ...... 724,578 451,943 1,176,521 South Carolina ...... 328,906 290,779 619,685 Tennessee ...... 568,981 274,827 843,808

Region IV Total ...... 4,520,377 3,354,790 7,875,167

Region V: Illinois ...... 526,501 1,414,832 1,941,333 Indiana ...... 407,255 546,119 953,374 Michigan ...... 1,181,542 392,199 1,573,741 Minnesota ...... 640,272 145,984 786,256 Ohio ...... 1,129,219 621,512 1,750,731 Wisconsin ...... 320,790 525,580 846,370

Region V Total ...... 4,205,579 3,646,226 7,851,805

Region VI: Arkansas ...... 301,070 111,023 412,093 Louisiana ...... 728,489 0 728,489 New Mexico ...... 281,920 0 281,920 Oklahoma ...... 165,060 379,807 544,867 Texas ...... 2,417,036 1,084,111 3,501,147

Region VI Total ...... 3,893,575 1,574,941 5,468,516

Region VII: Iowa ...... 337,239 117,740 454,979 Kansas ...... 203,844 229,893 433,737 Missouri ...... 500,000 370,927 870,927 Nebraska ...... 265,475 0 265,475

Region VII Total ...... 1,306,558 718,560 2,025,118

Region VIII: Colorado ...... 447,881 211,687 659,568 Montana ...... 0 144,106 144,106 North Dakota ...... 56,425 46,060 102,485 South Dakota ...... 100,000 0 100,000 Utah ...... 415,000 0 415,000 Wyoming ...... 0 100,000 100,000

Region VIII Total ...... 1,019,306 501,853 1,521,159

Region IX: American Samoa ...... Arizona ...... 615,265 192,725 807,990 California ...... 2,829,188 2,437,297 5,266,485 Guam ...... 45,000 0 45,000 Hawaii ...... 174,214 0 174,214 Northern Marianas ...... 45,000 45,000 Nevada ...... 171,878 123,832 295,710

Region IX Total ...... 3,835,545 2,798,854 6,634,399

Region X:

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21135

FY 2004 BASIC CENTER PROGRAM: ALLOCATION BY STATE—Continued

Continuations New Awards Totals

Alaska ...... 94,835 19,360 114,195 Idaho ...... 0 224,955 224,955 Oregon ...... 698,521 0 698,521 Washington ...... 830,965 85,803 916,768

Region X Total ...... 1,624,321 330,118 1,954,439

FY 2004 BCP TOTAL ...... 26,794,534 17,459,517 44,254,051

Note: Agencies in States where zero change requirements appearing HRSA–04–096 Clinical Ex- ($ -0-) funding is reflected on the BCP Table elsewhere in the Federal Register. periences in Federally- of Allocation are highly encouraged to apply This notice is intended to serve as the Funded Community for grant funding in the event that additional Health Centers for Nurse funds becomes available. HRSA Mini-Preview. The HRSA Mini- Practitioners and/or Preview contains a description of new [FR Doc. 04–8787 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Nurse-Midwifery Students competitive grant programs scheduled (CENS) ...... 06/07/2004 BILLING CODE 4184–01–P for awards in FY 2004 which were not HIV/AIDS Programs: included in the earlier HRSA Preview, HRSA–04–079 National DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND and includes instructions on how to Quality Improvement/ Management Technical HUMAN SERVICES contact the Agency for information and receive application kits for these Assistance Center Cooper- ative Agreement (NQC) .... 06/30/2004 Health Resources and Services programs. Specifically, the following Maternal and Child Health Administration information is included in the HRSA Mini-Preview: (1) Program Programs: HRSA–04–083 Awareness Availability of Funds Announced in the announcement number; (2) program and Access to Care for HRSA Mini-Preview announcement title; (3) program Children and Youth with announcement code; (4) legislative Epilepsy (AACYE) ...... 06/01/2004 AGENCY: Health Resources and Services authority; (5) Catalog of Federal HRSA–04–084 State Oral Administration. Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Health Collaborative Sys- ACTION: General notice. identification number; (6) purpose; (7) tems (SOHCS) ...... 06/25/2004 eligibility; (8) funding priorities and/or HRSA–04–085 Heritable SUMMARY: Health Resources and preferences; (9) application review Disorders Program (HDP) 06/30/2004 Services Administration (HRSA) criteria; (10) estimated dollar amount of HRSA–04–088 State Grants announces the availability of funds in competition; (11) estimated number of for Perinatal Depression the HRSA Mini-Preview for Spring awards; (12) estimated project period; (SGPD) ...... 06/01/2004 2004. The HRSA Preview is a (13) application availability date; (14) HRSA–04–094 State Mater- comprehensive review of HRSA’s fiscal nal and Child Health letter of intent deadline (if any); (15) Early Childhood Com- year (FY) 2004 competitive grant application deadline; (16) projected programs. This supplemental edition prehensive Systems award date; and (17) programmatic (SECCS) ...... 06/18/2004 provides information on programs not contact, with telephone and e-mail Rural Health Policy Programs: initially announced in the full HRSA addresses. Certain other information, HRSA–04–089 Public Ac- Preview, which was published in the including how to obtain and use the cess Defibrillation Dem- Federal Register on September 4, 2003. HRSA Preview and grant terminology, onstration Projects (Vol. 68, No. 171) can also be found in the HRSA Mini- (PADDP) ...... 06/10/2004 The purpose of the HRSA Preview is Preview. HRSA–04–090 Rural Emer- to provide the general public with a gency Medical Service single source of program and This Fiscal Year HRSA began Training and Equipment application information related to the accepting grant applications online. Assistance Program Agency’s competitive grant offerings. Please refer to the HRSA Web site at (REMSTEP) ...... 06/10/2004 The HRSA Preview is designed to http://www.hrsa.gov/grants/preview/ HRSA–04–091 Rural Health default.htm for more information. Best Practices and Com- replace the multiple Federal Register munity Development Co- Dated: April 13, 2004. notices that traditionally advertised the operative Agreement availability of HRSA’s discretionary Elizabeth M. Duke, (RHCD) ...... 06/21/2004 funds for its various programs. It should Administrator. HRSA–04–092 Frontier Ex- be noted that additional program This notice describes funding for the tended Stay Clinic Coop- initiatives responsive to new or erative Agreement (FESC) 07/02/2004 following HRSA discretionary emerging issues in the health care area HRSA–04–093 Rural Policy authorities and programs (receipt and unanticipated at the time of Analysis Cooperative deadlines are also provided): publication of the HRSA Preview may Agreement (RPACA) ...... 06/30/2004 be announced through the Federal Health Professions Programs: Special Programs—Grants: HRSA–04–086 Nurse Fac- Register and the HRSA Web site, HRSA–04–082 State Plan- ulty Loan Program (NFLP) 05/19/2004 ning Grants (SPGP) ...... 06/15/2004 http://www.hrsa.gov/grants.htm. A list HRSA–04–087 Health Ca- HRSA–04–095 Media-Based of these programs can also be found at reers Adopt a School Grass Roots Efforts to In- the Grants.gov Web site: http:// Demonstration Program crease Minority Organ Do- www.grants.gov. This notice does not (HCSDP) ...... 06/01/2004 nations (MBMOD) ...... 06/25/2004

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21136 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

How To Use and Obtain Copies of the Grant Terminology Federally-recognized Indian Tribes or HRSA Mini-Preview tribal organizations, and occasionally to Application Deadlines It is recommended that you read the individuals. For-profit organizations are introductory materials, terminology Applications will be considered on eligible to receive awards under section, and individual program time if they are received on or before the financial assistance programs when category descriptions before contacting established deadline. Applicants should authorized by legislation. check the application guidance material the toll-free number: 1–877–HRSA–123 Estimated Amount of Competition (1–877–477–2123), M–F 8:30 a.m. to 5 or the HRSA-Grants homepage for deadline changes. Applications sent to p.m. e.s.t. Likewise, we urge applicants The funding level listed is provided any address other than that specified in to fully assess their eligibility for grants only as an estimate, and is subject to the before requesting kits. As a general rule, the application guidance are subject to being returned. availability of funds, Congressional no more than one kit per category will action, and changing program priorities. be mailed to applicants. Authorization Funding Priorities and/or Preferences To Obtain a Copy of the HRSA Mini- The citation of the law authorizing the Preview various grant programs is provided Funding preferences, priorities, and Unlike the full HRSA Preview, this immediately following the title of the special considerations may come from Mini-Preview will not be available in programs. legislation, regulations, or HRSA booklet form. However, the HRSA Mini- CFDA Number program leadership decisions. They are Preview will be available on the HRSA not the same as review criteria. Funding homepage via the World Wide Web at: The Catalog of Federal Domestic preferences are any objective factors that http://www.hrsa.gov/grants.htm. You Assistance (CFDA) is a Government- would be used to place a grant can download this document in Adobe wide compendium of Federal programs, application ahead of others without the Acrobat format. projects, services, and activities that preference on a list of applicants provide assistance. Programs listed recommended for funding by a review To Obtain Application Materials therein are given a CFDA Number. committee. Some programs give You may apply for HRSA grants on- Cooperative Agreement preference to organizations that have line or on paper. HRSA encourages you specific capabilities such as A financial assistance mechanism to apply on-line. HRSA’s online system telemedicine networking, or have is designed to maximize data accuracy (grant) used when substantial Federal programmatic involvement with the established relationships with managed and speed processing. Multiple care organizations. Funding priorities individuals may register and collaborate recipient is anticipated by the funding agency during performance of the are factors that cause a grant application on applications, and institutional data is to receive a fixed amount of extra rating stored for you to re-use on future project. The nature of that involvement points—which may similarly affect the applications. will always be specified in the offering To apply online, go to http:// or application guidance materials, order of applicants on a funding list. www.hrsa.gov/grants. On that Web page, which HRSA considers to be part of the Special considerations are other factors you will find basic instructions and published program announcement. considered in making funding decisions that are neither review criteria, links to the HRSA online application DUNS Number system, where you will be able to preferences, nor priorities, e.g., ensuring register, download application guidance All applicants are now required to that there is an equitable geographic for specific programs, and submit your have a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) distribution of grant recipients, or grant application. number to apply for a grant or meeting requirements for urban and Please submit your application early, cooperative agreement from the Federal rural proportions. and pay strict attention to deadlines. Government. The DUNS number is a Letter of Intent Applications submitted after a nine-digit identification number which program’s deadline will not be accepted. uniquely identifies business entities. To help in planning the application To obtain paper application materials, Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and review process, many HRSA programs determine which kit(s) you wish to there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS request a letter of intent from the receive and call 1–877–477–2123 to be number, access http:// applicant in advance of the application placed on the mailing list. Be sure to www.dunandbradstreet.com or call 1– deadline. Letters of intent are neither provide the information specialist with 866–705–5711. binding nor mandatory. Details on the Program Announcement Number, where to send letters can be found in Program Announcement Code and the Eligibility the guidance materials contained in the title of the grant program. You may also The status an entity must possess to application kit. request application kits using the e-mail be considered for a grant. Authorizing address [email protected]. Application legislation and programmatic Matching Requirements kits are generally available 30–45 days regulations specify eligibility for prior to application deadline. If kits are individual grant programs, and Several HRSA programs require a available earlier, they will be mailed eligibility may be further restricted for matching amount, or percentage of the immediately. The guidance contained in programmatic reasons. Although total project support, to come from the various kits contains detailed program authorizing legislation and sources other than Federal funds. instructions, background on the grant regulations provide specific eligibility Matching requirements are generally program, and other essential requirements, generally, assistance is mandated in the authorizing legislation information, such as the applicability of provided to public and nonprofit private for specific categories. Also, matching or Executive Order 12372 and 45 CFR part organizations and institutions, other cost-sharing requirements may be 100, and additional information including faith-based and community- administratively required by the pertinent to the intergovernmental based organizations, State/local awarding office. Such requirements are review process, as appropriate. governments and their agencies, set forth in the application kit.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21137

Program Announcement Code of project results, and/or the extent to contact is listed. This contact person The program announcement code is a which project results may be national in can provide information concerning the unique identifier for each program scope and/or the degree to which a specific program’s purpose, scope and funded by HRSA. The three-seven community is impacted by delivery of goals, and eligibility criteria. Usually, character acronyms are located in health services, and/or the degree to you will be encouraged to request the parentheses immediately at the end of which the project activities are application kit so that you will have each program title and must be used to replicable, and/or the sustainability of clear, comprehensive, and accurate request application materials either the program beyond Federal funding. information available to you. When from the HRSA Grants Application (5) Resources/Capabilities—The requesting application materials, you Center or online at [email protected]. extent to which project personnel are must state the program announcement Be sure to use the program qualified by training and/or experience number, the program code and title of announcement number, program to implement and carry out the project. the program. The application kit lists announcement code and the title of the The capabilities of the applicant telephone numbers for a program expert grant progam when requesting an organization, and quality and and a grants management specialist who application kit. availability of facilities and personnel to will provide information about your fulfill the needs and requirements of the program of interest if you are unable to Program Announcement Number proposed project. For competing find the information within the written A unique program announcement continuations, past performance will materials provided. (HRSA) number is located at the also be considered. In general, the program contact person beginning of each program (6) Support Requested—The provides information about the specific announcement in the HRSA Preview, reasonableness of the proposed budget grant offering and its purpose, and the Mini-Preview and Federal Register in relation to the objectives, the grants management specialist provides notices and includes the Fiscal Year and complexity of the activities, and the information about the grant mechanism sequence number for announcement; for anticipated results. and business matters, though their example, HRSA 04–001. (7) Specific Program Criteria— responsibilities often overlap. This number is used with the program Additional specific program criteria, if Information specialists at the toll-free title and program announcement code to any, are included in the program number provide only basic information order application materials. description and in the individual and administer mailings. Project Period guidance material provided with the 3. The Dates Listed in the HRSA Mini- application kit. Preview and the Dates in the The project period is the total time for The specific review criteria (that is, which support of a discretionary project Application Kit Do Not Agree. How Do specific information detailing each of I Know Which Is Correct? has been programmatically approved. the above generic criteria) which will be The project period usually consists of a used to review and rank applications are HRSA Mini-Preview dates for series of budget periods of one-year included in the individual guidance application kit availability and duration. Once approved through initial material provided with the application application receipt deadlines are based review, continuation of each successive kit. Applicants should pay strict upon the best known information at the budget period is subject to satisfactory attention to addressing these criteria, as time of publication, often several performance, availability of funds, and they are the basis upon which the months in advance of the competitive program priorities. reviewers will judge their applications. cycle. Occasionally, the grant cycle does not begin as projected and dates must be Review Criteria Technical Assistance adjusted. The deadline date stated in The following are generic review A contact person is listed for each your application kit is generally correct. criteria applicable to HRSA programs: program and his/her e-mail address and If the application kit has been made (1) Need—The extent to which the telephone number provided. Some available and subsequently the date application describes the problem and programs may have also scheduled changes, notification of the change will associated contributing factors to the workshops and conference calls. If you be mailed to known recipients of the problem. have questions concerning individual application kit, and also posted on the (2) Response—The extent to which programs or the availability of technical HRSA home page. the proposed project responds to the assistance, please contact the person ‘‘Purpose’’ included in the program 4. Are Programs Announced in the listed. Also check your application description. The clarity of the proposed HRSA Mini-Preview Ever Cancelled? materials and the HRSA Web site at goals and objectives and their Infrequently, announced programs http://www.hrsa.gov/ for the latest relationship to the identified project. may be withdrawn from competition. If technical assistance information. The extent to which the activities this occurs, a cancellation notice will be (scientific or other) described in the Frequently Asked Questions provided in the Federal Register, as application are capable of addressing well as through the HRSA Mini-Preview 1. Where Do I Submit Grant the problem and attaining the project at the HRSA home page at http:// Applications? objectives. www.hrsa.gov/grants.htm. If practicable, (3) Evaluative Measures—The The address for submitting your grant an attempt will be made to notify those effectiveness of the method proposed to application will be shown in the who have requested a kit for the monitor and evaluate the project results. guidance document included in the cancelled program by mail. Evaluative measures must be able to application kit. assess (1) to what extent the program HRSA Program Competitions 2. How Do I Learn More About a objectives have been met and (2) to what Particular Grant Program? Health Professions Program extent these can be attributed to the project. If you want to know more about a HRSA–04–086 Nurse Faculty Loan (4) Impact—The extent and program before you request an Program (NFLP) effectiveness of plans for dissemination application kit, an e-mail/telephone CFDA: 93.264.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21138 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Legislative Authority: Public Health disadvantaged students. The final to chronic disease management, and to Service Act, Title VIII, Section 846A. product of each project supported by introduce them to integrated mental Purpose: The Nurse Faculty Loan this grant will be the demonstration of health and substance abuse services Program authorizes a school of nursing the Adopt A School educational within the CHC’s primary care clinics. to establish and operate a student loan curriculum, and a technical assistance Based on increased exposure to nurse fund to increase the number of qualified presentation detailing the practitioner and nurse-midwifery nurse faculty. The school of nursing implementation of the model, intended students, an expected outcome of this makes loans from the fund to students to enhance and support the portability grant includes increased CHC enrolled full-time in an advanced degree of the program. For FY 2004, funding is recruitment of graduate nurse program in nursing that will prepare available for five to ten (5–10) HCSDP practitioners and nurse-midwives. students to teach at a school of nursing. demonstration grants activities. Eligibility: Applicants must either be Loan recipients who complete the Activities will include: (a) Identifying an accredited School of Nursing with a education program may cancel up to and recruiting partners; (b) Nurse Practitioner or a Nurse-Midwifery 85% of the loan in exchange for serving implementing the Adopt A School Program, or a CHC funded under section as full-time nurse faculty at a school of educational curriculum for middle or 330(e) of the PHS Act. nursing. high school students; and (c) creating Review Criteria: Final review criteria Eligibility: Only collegiate schools of models and procedures for carrying out are included in the application kit. nursing are eligible to apply. Schools of educational activities utilizing the Estimated Amount of This nursing must be accredited as defined in resource of partners. Competition: $250,000.00. section 801(3) of the Public Health Eligibility: Middle schools, high Estimated Number of Awards: 10. Service (PHS) Act and offer full-time schools, community colleges, Estimated Project Period: 1 year. advanced degree programs in nursing universities, non-profit faith-based and HRSA–04–096 Clinical Experience in that prepare students to serve as nurse community-based organizations, and Federally-Funded Community Health faculty. health or education professional Centers for Nurse Practitioners and/or Review Criteria: Final review criteria organizations. Nurse-Midwifery Students (CENS) are included in the application kit. Review Criteria: Final review criteria Estimated Amount of This are included in the application kit. Application Availability: May 3, 2004. Competition: $4,800,000.00. Estimated Amount of This Letter of Intent Deadline: Not Estimated Number of Awards: 80. Competition: $400,000.00. required. Estimated Project Period: 1 year. Estimated Number of Awards: 5–10. Application Deadline: June 7, 2004. Estimated Project Period: 1 year. Project Award Date: Prior to HRSA–04–086 Nurse Faculty Loan September 30, 2004. Program (NFLP) HRSA–04–087 Health Careers Adopt a Program Contact Person: Carolyn School Demonstration Program (HCSDP) Application Availability: April 18, Aoyama, MPH, CNM, RN. 2004. Application Availability: April 30, Program Contact Phone Number: Letter of Intent Deadline: Not required 2004. (301) 443–1272. Application Deadline: May 19, 2004. Letter of Intent Deadline: Not Program Contact E-Mail: Project Award Date: June 30, 2004. required. [email protected]. Program Contact Person: Denise Application Deadline: June 1, 2004. Thompson. Project Award Date: Prior to HIV/AIDS Programs Program Contact Phone Number: September 30, 2004. HRSA–04–079 National Quality (301) 443–6333. Program Contact Person: Stuart Improvement/Management Technical Program Contact E-Mail: Weiss. Assistance Center Cooperative [email protected]. Program Contact Phone Number: Agreement (NQC) HRSA–04–087 Health Careers Adopt a (301) 443–5644. Program Contact E-Mail: CFDA: 93.145. School Demonstration Program (HCSDP) [email protected]. Legislative Authority: Public Health CFDA: 93.822. Service Act sec. 2692, 42 U.S.C. 300ff- Legislative Authority: Public Health HRSA–04–096 Clinical Experience in 111. Service Act, Title VII, Section 739. Federally-Funded Community Health Purpose: The goal of this Cooperative Purpose: The purpose of the HCSDP Centers for Nurse Practitioners and/or Agreement is to support the National program is to stimulate the development Nurse-Midwifery Students (CENS) Quality Improvement/ Management of partnerships between community- CFDA: 93.247. Technical Assistance Center (NQC). The based organizations, schools, and health Legislative Authority: Public Health NQC will provide technical assistance professionals, exposing under- Service Act, Title VIII, Section 811(f). related to quality improvement and represented minority (URM) and Purpose: To establish partnerships quality management to Ryan White disadvantaged students to health between accredited schools of nursing Comprehensive AIDS Resources careers, introducing health career and a Community Health Center (CHC) Emergency (CARE) Act grantees as they curriculum, improving academic funded under the Section 330(e) of the improve the quality of care and services achievement, and promoting healthy Consolidated Health Center Program, and respond to and implement quality lifestyles through education. The Public Health Service (PHS) Act in management legislative mandates. The HCSDP program is intended to provide order to provide nurse practitioner and/ NQC is expected to serve as the primary models that can be replicated and or nurse-midwifery graduate students resource for CARE Act grantees on utilized by schools (middle and high with clinical learning experiences issues related to quality improvement school), community-based organizations within CHCs. The goal of the grant is to and quality management. There are six and other educational or health related provide nurse practitioner and nurse- (6) main expectations for the NQC. The entities, in partnership, to increase the midwifery students with clinical NQC will: (1) Establish a formal system interest, preparation and pursuit of experience serving underserved to triage and field all requests for quality health careers among URM and populations, to introduce the students management consultation, (2) Offer

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21139

three levels of consultation/technical Purpose: The purpose of this initiative Project Award Date: Prior to assistance (TA) to meet the varied is to improve access to comprehensive, September 30, 2004. quality improvement/management coordinated health care and related Program Contact Person: Bonnie needs of the CARE Act grantees: Level services for children and youth with Strickland. (1) Information dissemination; Level (2) epilepsy residing in medically Program Contact Phone Number: training and educational forums; and underserved areas (MUAs). The (301) 443–2370. Level (3) intensive consultation on/off- initiative supports (1) development of Program Contact E-Mail: site; (3) Measure achievement of an epilepsy demonstration program to [email protected]. program objectives and impact of the improve access to health and other HRSA–04–084 State Oral Health program and implement an internal services regarding seizures and to Collaborative Systems (SOHCS) continuous quality improvement encourage early detection and treatment CFDA: 93.110. program; (4) Actively collaborate with for children and youth with epilepsy Legislative Authority: Social Security the HIV/AIDS Bureau (HAB), HAB’s TA residing in medically underserved areas, Act, Title V, Section 501(a)(2). programs, grantees and subcontractors, especially rural medically underserved Purpose: This grant program has been and other identified contractors to areas, and (2) establishment of a public developed with the intention of achieve the program’s expectations; (5) education and awareness campaign supporting States’ efforts to develop, Within the TA strategy, incorporate directed toward racial and ethnic implement or otherwise strengthen State responses to Congressionally-mandated populations to improve access to care. strategies to better integrate oral health reports, Department of Health and Applications will be accepted in three into State MCH programs, address Human Services (DHHS), HRSA and priority areas: Priority #1 (grants): MCHB performance measures in oral HAB performance measures and other development of statewide health and stimulate action toward HAB quality management initiatives; demonstration grants to improve access implementation of the Surgeon and (6) Establish a Steering Committee to health and other services for children General’s National Call to Action to or Advisory Board that is representative and youth residing in medically Promote Oral Health as it affects women of the CARE Act grantees. underserved areas; Priority #2 and children. The underlying goal of Eligibility: Eligible entities include (cooperative agreement): development this grant program is to increase access public or private non-profit entities, of a national Continuous Quality to oral health services for Medicaid and including schools and academic health Improvement (CQI) strategy using a State Children’s Health Insurance sciences centers. Faith-based and learning collaborative model to support Program (SCHIP) eligible children, and community-based organizations are grantees funded through Priority #1 to other underserved children and their eligible to apply. Applicants must have improve access to and quality of care for families. Because of the cross-cutting extensive experience in the field of children and youth with epilepsy; and oral health needs of women and quality improvement, working with Priority # 3 (cooperative agreement): children, collaborative strategies may Ryan White CARE Act grantees and development of a national public range from broad-based interventions providing technical assistance. education and awareness campaign such as strategic planning, public/ Federal Involvement: The scope of directed toward racial and ethnic private partnerships and comprehensive Federal involvement is included in the populations to improve access to care integrated support systems to more application kit. for children and youth with epilepsy. narrowly focused interventions in such Review Criteria: Final review criteria Eligibility: As cited in 42 CFR part areas as early childhood dental decay, are included in the application kit. 51a.3(a), any public or private entity, sealant and prevention programs. Estimated Amount of This including an Indian tribe or tribal Eligibility: Only State (defined in this Competition: $1,500,000.00. organization (as those terms are defined offering as State and State Jurisdictions/ Estimated Number of Awards: 1. at 25 U.S.C. 450b), faith-based or Territories) oral health program offices Estimated Project Period: 5 years. community-based organization, is are eligible to apply for State Oral eligible to apply for these funds. Health Collaborative Systems grant HRSA–04–079 National Quality Funding Preferences: Applicants Improvement/Management Technical funding. A State may specifically serving medically underserved areas request and designate another Assistance Center Cooperative and populations, including qualified Agreement (NQC) government or non-government agency, rural and urban communities, are so long as it provides a convincing Application Availability: April 30, strongly encouraged to apply. justification for so doing. States Federal Involvement: The scope of 2004. designating another agency must submit Letter of Intent Deadline: June 1, 2004. Federal involvement for Priorities 2 and an endorsement acknowledging that the Application Deadline: June 30, 2004. 3 is included in the application kit. applicant has consulted with the State Project Award Date: August 31, 2004. Review Criteria: Final review criteria and that the State has been assured that Program Contact Person: Dr. Magda are included in the application kit. the applicant will work with the State Barini-Garcia. Estimated Amount of This on the proposed project. This Program Contact Phone Number: Competition: $3,000,000.00. endorsement must accompany the (301) 443–6366. Estimated Number of Awards: Priority application. Without the endorsement, Program Contact E-Mail: mbarini- #1: 6–8; Priority #2: 1; Priority #3: 1. the application will not be considered [email protected]. Estimated Project Period: 3 years. for funding. Additionally, because of the Maternal and Child Health Programs HRSA–04–083 Awareness and Access importance of linking oral health To Care for Children and Youth With activities with systems of care for HRSA–04–083 Awareness and Access Epilepsy (AACYE) children, the involvement of the State To Care for Children and Youth With Application Availability: April 16, MCH program must be demonstrated Epilepsy (AACYE) 2004. either by a co-signed application or by CFDA: 93.110. Letter of Intent Deadline: April 30, a letter of support. Legislative Authority: Social Security 2004. Review Criteria: Final review criteria Act, Title V, Section 501(a)(2). Application Deadline: June 1, 2004. are included in the application kit.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21140 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Estimated Amount of This Center will serve to coordinate and 450b), is eligible to apply for Federal Competition: $3,835,000.00. monitor the implementation of MCHB- funding. For Project 2: Those eligible Estimated Number of Awards: 59. funded Regional Genetics and Newborn applicants must be based within the Estimated Project Period: 3 years. Screening Collaboratives projects and identified region it will serve and be HRSA–04–084 State Oral Health provide a community forum between part of a collaborative network of public Collaborative Systems (SOHCS) the Regional Collaborative projects, health program entities responsible for MCHB, and other relevant genetic and/or newborn screening and Application Availability: April 27, organizational entities to identify and services in at least 4 different States. 2004. prioritize issues of importance to the Federal Involvement: The scope of Letter of Intent Deadline: May 12, genetics and newborn screening federal involvement with respect to all 2004. community, specifically regarding the of the cooperative agreements is Application Deadline: June 25, 2004. utilization of genetic services at the included in the application kit. Project Award Date: September 1, National, State, and community levels. Review Criteria: Final review criteria 2004. Project 2: Regional Genetics and are included in the application kit. Program Contact Person: Mark E. Newborn Screening Collaboratives—The Estimated Amount of This Nehring, DMD, MPH. Regional Genetics and Newborn Competition: $3,950,000.00. Program Contact Phone Number: Screening Collaboratives are to be Estimated Number of Awards: Project (301) 443–3449. responsive to the priorities of the 1: 1; Project 2: 7; Project 3: 1. Program Contact E-Mail: Heritable Disorders Program as Estimated Project Period: 3 years. [email protected]. indicated under Title V, Section HRSA–04–085 Heritable Disorders HRSA–04–085 Heritable Disorders 501(a)(2) of the Social Security Act. The Program (HDP) Program (HDP) Regional Genetics and Newborn Screening Collaboratives project will Application Availability: April 16, CFDA: 93.110. 2004. Legislative Authority: Social Security enhance and support the genetics and newborn screening capacity of States Letter of Intent Deadline: April 23, Act, Title V, Section 501(a)(2). 2004. Purpose: Heritable Disorders Program across the nation by undertaking a regional approach toward addressing Application Deadline: June 30, 2004. (Program) was established to enhance, Project Award Date: September 30, improve or expand the ability of State the maldistribution of genetic resources. These grants are expected to improve 2004. and local public health agencies to Program Contact Person: Michele A. the health of children and their families provide screening, counseling or health Lloyd-Puryear, M.D., Ph.D. by promoting the translation of genetic care services to newborns and children Program Contact Phone Number: medicine into public health and health having or at risk for heritable disorders. (301) 443–1080. This Program shall improve the access care services. In order to address Program Contact E-Mail: to newborn screening and genetic capacity needs nationally, seven regions [email protected]. services for medically underserved have been identified. These regions are: populations and shall enhance such Region 1: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT HRSA–04–088 State Grants for activities as: screening, follow-up Region 2: DC, DE, MD, NY, NJ, PA, VA, Perinatal Depression (SGPD) services; augmentation of capacity WV CFDA: 93.110. needs: training, education; subspecialty Region 3: AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, PR, Legislative Authority: Social Security linkage; expansion of long term follow- SC, TN, VI Act, Title V, 42 U.S.C. 701. up activities; strengthening of linkage to Region 4: IL, IN, KY, MI, MN, OH, WI Purpose: The purpose of this grant medical homes; strengthening of linkage Region 5: AR, IA, KS, MO, ND, NE, OK, program is to focus on expanding the to tertiary care; strengthening of genetic SD capacity in State Maternal and Child counseling services; and enhancement Region 6: AZ, CO, MT, NM, TX, UT, WY Health programs to launch an intensive of communication/education to families Region 7: AK, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA, multi-lingual public health campaign and health practitioners and other forms Pacific Basin that, at the grassroots level, will of information sharing. Applicants must propose to serve one promote mental wellness for mothers This initiative, through the use of of the defined regions. and their families, as well as a better cooperative agreements, supports the Project 3: Screening for understanding of perinatal depression Heritable Disorders Program through: (1) Hyperbilirubinemia in the Term and the warning signs associated with A national coordinating center; (2) Newborn—The purpose of this project is it. The goals of this endeavor are to regional genetic service and newborn to prospectively assess and validate one reduce the stigma associated with screening collaboratives; and (3) or more previously published methods perinatal depression; to increase the increasing the screening capacity of that will predict the risk of a term or number of women and their families newborn screening programs to improve near-term newborn developing who seek treatment; and, to increase the early identification of infants with significant hyperbilirubinemia in the number of health and community-based hyperbilirubinemia. The Program is first two weeks of life. Potential providers to be able to recognize the divided into three projects: methods to be assessed and validated signs and symptoms of perinatal Project 1: Regional Genetics and include clinical risk factors analysis, depression, provide screening for Newborn Screening Collaboratives hour specific nomogram for total serum perinatal depression and related mental National Coordinating Center—The bilirubin levels and transcutaneous health problems, and refer for further Regional Genetics and Newborn measurements of serum bilirubin. assessment and treatment as necessary. Screening Collaboratives National Eligibility: For all Projects: As cited in This initiative would require the States Coordinating Center is to be responsive 42 CFR part 51a.3(a), any public or to work to decrease barriers to care for to the priorities of the Heritable private entity, including a faith-based or families with signs of perinatal Disorders Program as indicated under community-based organization, an depression and related mental health title V, section 501(a)(2) of the Social Indian Tribe or tribal organization (as problems. To maximize the use of this Security Act. The National Coordinating those terms are defined in 25 U.S.C. one-time funding, the competition

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21141

would capitalize on existing State Child Health Bureau’s (MCHB) Early Health Program Offices are eligible to assets, such as a hotline that has the Childhood Health Strategic Plan with apply for State Maternal and Child existing capacity to make referrals, an the experience of the State and local Health Early Childhood Comprehensive American College of Obstetrics and systems building initiatives supported Systems grant funding. Furthermore, Gynecology chapter currently working through MCHB’s Community Integrated this offering is limited to those States on perinatal depression, one or more Services Systems (CISS) grants program which have never received funding Healthy Start sites that screen and refer since 1992. While funding will be in through this initiative or those States for treatment, Postpartum Support two stages, planning and whose funding has been limited to a International chapters that offer support implementation, only planning grants one-year project period. groups, or other similar endeavors that are offered at this time. Plans would Review Criteria: Final review criteria are already working to address the anticipate the implementation of are included in the application kit. needs of mothers and their families in systems which would include, but not Estimated Amount of This perinatal depression and other related be limited to, the following initiatives: Competition: $1,000,000.00. mental health problems. (1) Access to medical homes providing Estimated Number of Awards: 10. Eligibility: Any State Maternal and comprehensive physical and child Estimated Project Period: 2 years. Child Health Department is eligible to development services for all children in HRSA–04–094 State Maternal and apply. If designated by the State Title V early childhood including children with Child Health Early Childhood agency as cited in 42 CFR part 51a.3(a), special health care needs and Comprehensive Systems (SECCS) any public/private entity, including an assessment, intervention, and referral of Indian Tribe or tribal organization (as children with developmental, Application Availability: April 23, those terms are defined at 25 U.S.C. behavioral and psycho-social problems; 2004. 450b), faith-based or community-based (2) availability of services to address the Letter of Intent Deadline: May 7, 2004. organization is eligible to apply for this needs of children at risk for the Application Deadline: June 18, 2004. Federal funding. Funding would be development of mental health problems, Project Award Date: August 1, 2004. made available to States that have and service delivery pathways to Program Contact Person: Joseph existing community-based activities in facilitate entrance of at risk children Zogby, MSW. perinatal depression and related mental into appropriate child development and Program Contact Phone Number: health problems, including infant mental health delivery systems; (3) early (301) 443–4393. mental health. care and education services for children Program Contact E-Mail: Special Consideration: For the from birth through five years of age that [email protected]. support children’s early learning, purposes of this grant program, only one Rural Health Policy Programs (1) applicant per State will be funded. health, and development of social Review Criteria: Final review criteria competence; (4) parenting education HRSA–04–089 Public Access are included in the application kit. services that provide support to parents Defibrillation Demonstration Projects Estimated Amount of This in their role as prime educators of their (PADDP) Competition: $1,000,000.00. children; and (5) family support services that address the stressors impairing the CFDA: 93.259. Estimated Number of Awards: 4–5. Legislative Authority: Section 330A of Estimated Project Period: 1 year. ability of families to nurture and support the healthy development of the PHS Act, note (42 U.S.C. 254c, note). HRSA–04–088 State Grants for their children. Purpose: The Public Access Perinatal Depression (SGPD) Through Planning Grants, State Defibrillation Demonstration Grant Application Availability: April 15, Maternal and Child Health programs Program is designed to assist both urban 2004. would be expected to provide and rural communities in increasing Letter of Intent Deadline: May 3, 2004. leadership in the development of cross survivability from sudden cardiac arrest. Application Deadline: June 1, 2004. systems service integration. They would This grant program provides funding for Project Award Date: September 30, work closely with other State public and the purchase, placement, and training in 2004. private agencies to coordinate their the use of automated external Program Contact Person: Janice efforts into a common focus on assuring defibrillators (AEDs). Berger. the availability of a broad range of early Eligibility: Eligible applicants will Program Contact Phone Number: childhood intervention services. include, but not be limited to: first (301) 443–9992. Examples of such agencies would be the responders (e.g., EMS, law enforcement Program Contact E-Mail: State administrations for Mental Health, and fire departments) and local for and [email protected]. Public Welfare, Education, Child non-profit entities that may include, but Welfare, local and county health are not limited to, long-term care HRSA–04–094 State Maternal and departments, March of Dimes, Easter facilities, rural health clinics, Federally Child Health Early Childhood Seal Society, etc. This grant should Qualified Health Centers, Indian Health Comprehensive Systems (SECCS) facilitate: (1) A completed needs Service clinics and tribal EMS services, CFDA: 93.110. assessment with respect to early post offices, libraries and other civic Legislative Authority: Social Security childhood intervention; (2) a completed centers, athletic facilities (i.e., high Act, Title V, Section 502(a)(1). plan for action based on the needs school playing fields where a town may Purpose: The purpose of these grants assessment; and (3) documented gather for games), senior citizen and is to support States to plan, develop, evidence of the contribution and child day care facilities, faith-based and ultimately implement commitment of their partners to carry organizations and schools. collaborations and partnerships to out this plan. The achievement of these Review Criteria: Final review criteria support families and communities in essential goals is requisite for States to are included in the application kit. Pre- their development of children that are apply for an implementation grant. applications will be reviewed and healthy and ready to learn at school Eligibility: Only State (defined in this scored based on how well applicants entry. This grant initiative combines the offering as State and State Jurisdictions/ developed their abstract based on their thrust engendered in the Maternal and Territories) Title V Maternal and Child need and the criteria provided in the

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21142 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

program guidance. Top applicants will State Offices of Rural Health, State EMS HRSA–04–091 Rural Health Best be invited to submit a fully developed Offices (and regional affiliates), State Practices and Community Development application which will be field EMS associations, local governmental Cooperative Agreement (RHCD) reviewed. entities, and individual EMS agencies. CFDA: 93.155. Administrative Funding Preference: Former and current rural health grantees Legislative Authority: Section 711(b) Applicants proposing to use a regional already involved in EMS are also of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. approach and distance learning to encouraged to apply. 912(b). address common needs of one region are All services funded via this program Purpose: The purpose of this program strongly encouraged to apply. must take place in an eligible rural area. is to develop and continue a number of Estimated Amount of This Eligible rural counties may be found at projects that (1) help identify and Competition: $900,000.00. http://www.ruralhealth.hrsa.gov/ promote best practices for rural health Estimated Number of Awards: 3–5. ruralcoI.htm and Rural-Urban care providers in terms of quality of care Estimated Project Period: 3 years. Commuting Area ZIP Codes may be and economic viability by addressing HRSA–04–089 Public Access found at http:// needs related to access to care, Defibrillation Demonstration Projects www.ruralhealth.hrsa.gov/ workforce, networking and performance (PADDP) ruralcoZIPII.htm. Each listing is sorted improvement through a variety of by State. ZIP Code listings are to include approaches, including workshops, Application Availability: May 10, rural census tracts of Metropolitan 2004. conferences, technical assistance and Statistical Areas (MSAs) as determined other outreach efforts; (2) provide Letter of Intent Deadline: Not by the most recent Goldsmith required. resources to communities for help in Modification, originally published in shaping their local health care systems Application Deadline: June 10, 2004. the Federal Register on February 27, HRSA will be using a pre-application to best meet community need; (3) 1992, 57 FR 6725. The applicant of promote best practices to help rural process. Deadline to submit a nine-page record, however, may be located in an pre-application is June 10, 2004. Pre- communities with health quality MSA if they can document in their initiatives; (4) identify and translate the applications will undergo an internal application that serves non-MSA review process and a subset of the key points from emerging policy issues residents. to rural health care providers, reviewed proposals will be invited to Matching Requirement: Mandatory 25 researchers and policymakers; and (5) submit a full and complete proposal, percent matching requirement. work with State-based entities such as which will be due on July 30, 2004. Review Criteria: Final review criteria State Offices of Rural Health and State Project Award Date: Prior to are included in the application kit. Pre- Rural Health Associations to provide September 30, 2004. applications will be reviewed and technical assistance in identifying key Program Contact Person: Blanca scored based on how well applicants rural health challenges and programs Fuertes. developed their abstract based on their and resources that will assist rural Program Contact Phone Number: need and the criteria provided in the communities in addressing these (301) 443–0612. program guidance. Top applicants will challenges. Program Contact E-Mail: be invited to submit a fully developed Eligibility: Eligibility is open to public [email protected]. application which will be field and private non-profit organizations, reviewed. HRSA–04–090 Rural Emergency faith-based and community-based Medical Service Training and Estimated Amount of This Competition: $370,000.00. organizations, State Governments and Equipment Assistance Program their agencies such as universities, (REMSTEP) Estimated Number of Awards: 2–3. Estimated Project Period: 3 years. colleges, research institutions, hospitals, CFDA: 93.912. State and local governments or their Legislative Authority: Public Health HRSA–04–090 Rural Emergency bona fide agents along with federally Service Act, Section 330J. Medical Service Training and recognized Indian tribal governments, Purpose: The Rural EMS Training and Equipment Assistance Program Indian tribes, and Indian tribal Equipment Assistance Grant Program (REMSTEP) organizations. Applicants who currently was enacted to assist rural and frontier Application Availability: May 10, receive funding through the HRSA communities in increasing access to 2004. Office of Rural Health Policy Rural desperately needed funding for EMS Letter of Intent Deadline: Not Health Research Center Cooperative agencies serving such areas. This grant required. Agreement program are not eligible. program provides funding for Application Deadline: June 10, 2004. Federal Involvement: The scope of innovative solutions to continuing HRSA will be using a pre-application Federal involvement is included in the education, initial provider licensure, process. Deadline to submit a nine page application kit. skill retention and expanding scopes of pre-application is June 10, 2004. Pre- Review Criteria: Final review criteria practice to support paramedicine as a applications will undergo an internal are included in the application kit. source of primary care in rural and review process and a subset of the Estimated Amount of This frontier communities. Medical direction reviewed proposals will be invited to Competition: $800,000.00. and emergency medical dispatcher submit a full and complete proposal, Estimated Number of Awards: 1. training is also eligible. In addition, which will be due on July 30, 2004. Estimated Project Period: 5 years. assistance towards the purchase of life Project Award Date: prior to HRSA–04–091 Rural Health Best saving equipment may also be obtained September 30, 2004. Practices and Community Development via this program. Such equipment could Program Contact Person: Blanca Cooperative Agreement (RHCD) include advanced airway adjuncts, Fuertes. manual defibrillators, intravascular (IV) Program Contact Phone Number: Application Availability: May 10, access training and equipment, etc. (301) 443–0612. 2004. Eligibility: Eligible applicants will be Program Contact E-Mail: Letter of Intent Deadline: May 24, emergency services training entities, [email protected]. 2004.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21143

Application Deadline: June 21, 2004. activities) for the same or a similar entity early in the application process to Project Award Date: Prior to project. advise them of their intent to apply. The September 1, 2004. Applicants for funds under Category State Offices can often provide technical Program Contact Person: Jennifer One/Model Development of this assistance to applicants. Riggle. program must also submit evidence of Federal Involvement: The scope of Program Contact Phone Number: the support of the agency of their State’s Federal involvement is included in the (301) 443–7530. government responsible for the application kit. Program Contact E-Mail: licensure and certification of health care Review Criteria: Final review criteria [email protected]. entities. are included in the application kit. HRSA–04–092 Frontier Extended Stay Funding Preferences: Section 330A of Estimated Amount of This Clinic Cooperative Agreement (FESC) the Public Health Service Act provides Competition: $1,500,000.00. a funding preference for some Estimated Number of Awards: 6. CFDA: 93.912. applicants. Applicants receiving a Estimated Project Period: 1 year. Legislative Authority: Section 330A of preference will be placed in a more the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. HRSA–04–092 Frontier Extended Stay competitive position among the 254c. Clinic Cooperative Agreement (FESC) Purpose: The purpose of this applicants that can be funded. A funding preference will be given to Application Availability: April 16, cooperative agreement program is to 2004. evaluate the effectiveness of a new type qualified applicants that can demonstrate either of the following two Letter of Intent Deadline: Not of provider, the ‘‘Frontier Extended Stay required. Clinic.’’ Funds awarded under Category criteria: A. Those applicants for which the Application Deadline: July 2, 2004. One/Model Development must be used service area is located in officially Project Award Date: Prior to for the support of activities related to designated health professional shortage September 30, 2004. the coordination of FESC efforts areas (HPSAs) OR medically Program Contact Person: Emily throughout a State, including the underserved communities (MUCs) OR Costich. development of FESC protocols, serve medically underserved Program Contact Phone Number: licensure and certification criteria and populations (MUPs). To ascertain HPSA (301) 443–0502. program evaluation. Funds awarded Program Contact E-Mail: and MUP designation status, please under Category Two/Model Feasibility [email protected]. refer to the following Web site: http:// must be used to educate eligible bhpr.hrsa.gov/shortage/index.htm. providers about the FESC model and HRSA–04–093 Rural Policy Analysis To qualify as a Medically determine if the model would be viable Cooperative Agreement (RPACA) Underserved Community (MUC), the for those providers. CFDA: 93.155. Eligibility: Funds awarded under the project must include facilities that are Legislative Authority: Section 711(b) authority of Section 330A of the Public federally designated as one of the of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Health Service Act must be awarded to following: 912(b). (i) Community Health Centers; a rural public or rural non-profit private Purpose: The purpose of this program (ii) Migrant Health Centers; is to (1) facilitate public dialogue on key entity. Funds awarded under this (iii) Health Care for the Homeless rural policy issues by tracking emerging authority also require the development Grantees; of a consortium of at least three (iv) Public Housing Primary Care rural health policy issues, and separately owned organizations that Grantees; synthesize them in a manner that provide health care services. For-profit (v) Rural Health Clinics; provides for easy understanding by rural organizations may be members of (vi) National Health Service Corps community leaders with particular consortiums, but they are not eligible to sites; emphasis on rural health care providers be applicants. The purpose of the (vii) Indian Health Service sites; and systems; (2) identify opportunities consortium requirement is to encourage (viii) Federally Qualified Health for integrating health and human creative and lasting collaborative Centers; services in rural policy, program and relationships among service providers (ix) Primary Medical Care Health evaluation in a local community in rural areas. Members of a consortium Professional Shortage Areas; context; (3) assist rural communities in might include hospitals, public health (x) Dental Health Professional understanding how geographic agencies, primary care service Shortage Areas; information systems technology can be providers, rural health clinics, (xi) Nurse Shortage Areas; brought to bear in rural community emergency services providers, and (xii) State or Local Health planning activities; and (4) provide community and migrant health centers. Departments; community leaders with assistance in Faith-based organizations are eligible to (xiii) Ambulatory practice sites examining ways community colleges apply as members of a consortium. At designated by State Governors as and workforce investment boards can least one member of the consortium serving medically underserved help address rural health and human must be an operational clinic or communities; or service workforce needs. hospital, currently providing primary B. Those applicants whose projects Eligibility: Eligibility is open to public care services and located at least 75 focus on primary care, and wellness and and private non-profit organizations, miles from the nearest acute care or prevention strategies. faith-based and community-based critical access hospital. The roles and To receive a funding preference, organizations, State Governments and responsibilities of each member applicants must clearly identify and their agencies such as universities, organization must be clearly defined demonstrate which preference they are colleges, research institutions, hospitals, and each must contribute significantly requesting as instructed in the program State and local governments or their to the goals of the project. guidance and application instructions. bona fide agents, along with Federally The applicant organization must not Prospective applicants are required to recognized Indian tribal governments, have received a grant under this notify their State Office of Rural Health Indian tribes and Indian tribal subsection (other than for planning or other appropriate State government organizations. Applicants who currently

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21144 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

receive funding through the HRSA Estimated Number of Awards: 7 new among funded projects with respect to Office of Rural Health Policy Rural grants; 24 Continuation Limited various parameters, e.g., target Health Research Center Cooperative Competition grants; 8 Pilot Planning populations, geography, and Agreement program are not eligible. Limited Competition grants. intervention diversity. Federal Involvement: The scope of Estimated Project Period: 1 year. Review Criteria: Review criteria are Federal involvement is included in the HRSA–04–082 State Planning Grants included in the application kit. application kit. (SPGP) Estimated Amount of This Review Criteria: Final review criteria Competition: $1,250,000.00. are included in the application kit. Application Availability: April 16, Estimated Number of Awards: 4–5. Estimated Amount of This 2004. Estimated Project Period: 2 years. Competition: $175,000.00. Letter of Intent Deadline: May 7, 2004. Application Deadline: June 15, 2004. HRSA–04–095 Media-Based Grass Estimated Number of Awards: 1. Project Award Date: Prior to Roots Efforts To Increase Minority Estimated Project Period: 3 years. September 1, 2004. Organ Donation (MBMOD) Program Contact Person: Judy HRSA–04–093 Rural Policy Analysis Application Availability: May 11, Cooperative Agreement (RPACA) Humphrey. Program Contact Phone Number: 2004. Application Availability: April 23, (301) 443–2309. Letter of Intent Deadline: June 4, 2004. 2004. Program Contact E-Mail: Application Deadline: June 25, 2004. Letter of Intent Deadline: May 30, [email protected]. Project Award Date: September 30, 2004. 2004. Application Deadline: June 30, 2004. HRSA–04–095 Media-Based Grass Program Contact Person: Judy Ceresa. Project Award Date: Prior to Roots Efforts To Increase Minority Program Contact Phone Number: September 1, 2004 Organ Donation (MBMOD) (301) 443–8727. Program Contact Person: Nisha Patel. CFDA: 93.134. Program Contact E-Mail: Program Contact Phone Number: Legislative Authority: Public Health [email protected]. (301) 443–6894. Service Act, Section 371(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. HRSA News—Additional Information Program Contact E-Mail: 273(a)(3) as Amended. [email protected]. Purpose: The goal of this grant Guidance and Policy Statement of program is to promote multifaceted Religious Nondiscrimination in Grant Special Programs—Grants interventions that use broadcast media Eligibility and Service Delivery Faith- HRSA–04–082 State Planning Grants to increase intent to donate solid organs Based and Other Community (SPGP) in minority communities. Specifically, Organizations HRSA’s Division of Transplantation CFDA: 93.256. The Department, in formulating and (DoT) wishes to fund projects that Legislative Authority: Public Law developing policies with implications consist of a television or television and 108–199. for faith-based organizations and other radio component with complementary Purpose: The purpose of this program community organizations, assists in community donation education furthering the national effort to expand is to ensure that every citizen in every programs in multiple venues (e.g., State has access to affordable health schools, worksites, faith institutions). opportunities for, and strengthen the insurance benefits similar in scope to Projects must target an ethnic minority capacity of, faith-based and other the Federal Employee Benefit Plan, group in a geographic area with community organizations so that they Medicaid, benefits offered to State particularly high numbers of that may better meet social needs in employees, or other similar quality population. Funds from this grant America’s communities. In awarding benchmarks. Each new State grantee is program are primarily to support the grant funding, the Department follows to develop a plan or propose options to media component of the intervention. these fundamental principles regarding meet this objective. Continuation No less than 80 percent of grant funds faith-based and other community Limited Competition Grants will be may be used to purchase media air time. organizations: awarded to complete and/or enhance No grant funds shall be used for (a) Federal financial assistance for existing work. Pilot Planning Limited development of radio or television ads. grant programs will be distributed in the Competition Grants will be awarded to Projects must use existing ads that are most effective and efficient manner plan for a pilot project to expand appropriate for the target population possible; insurance based on options previously (such as those produced by the (b) The Nation’s social service developed. Coalition on Donation, Division of capacity will benefit if all eligible Eligibility: For new grants, eligible Transplantation grants, or other organizations, including faith-based and applicants are any public State entity organizations). Only if media ads do not other community organizations, are able designated by the Governor of that State. exist for the target population may to compete on an equal footing for the Applicant States for new grants may not applicants justify use of grant funds for Department’s grant funding; have previously received a State ad development. In all cases, up to 20 (c) No organization will be Planning Grant. For continuation and percent of grant funds may be used to discriminated against on the basis of pilot planning limited competition support evaluation and grass roots religion or religious belief in the grants, eligible applicants are any public activities. administration or distribution of these State entity that has previously received Eligibility: Federally designated organ grant funds; a State Planning Grants Program grant. procurement organizations and other (d) All organizations that receive such Only one overall application per State is private not-for-profit entities eligible for Departmental grant funding will be accepted. funds under section 371(a)(3) of the prohibited from discriminating against Review Criteria: Final review criteria Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries are included in the application kit. 273(a)(3). of the funded programs on the basis of Estimated Amount of This Special Considerations: HRSA religion or religious belief. Accordingly, Competition: $14,800,000.00. reserves the option to achieve a balance organizations, in providing services

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21145

supported in whole or in part with these Additionally, the grants.gov initiative Health and Human Services, managing grant funds, and in their outreach will facilitate efficient operations for partner for the Grants.gov program, is activities related to such services, Federal grant agencies and the grant supported by 10 additional ‘‘partner’’ cannot discriminate against current or community. agencies. A list of these agencies can be prospective program beneficiaries on Agencies will allow applicants for found on the Grants.gov Web site, at the basis of religion, a religious belief, Federal grants to apply for and http://www.grants.gov. The Grants.gov a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a ultimately manage grant funds online team is also working closely with the refusal to actively participate in a through a common Web site, grant community and organizations that religious practice; simplifying grants management and represent them, to facilitate delivery of (e) Organizations that engage in eliminating redundancies. a system that will meet their needs. We inherently religious activities, such as (The President’s FY 2002 are in close contact with the Council of worship, religious instruction, and Management Agenda) State Governments, the National proselytization, must offer those Standardizing Federal grant Council for Nonprofit Associations, and services separately in time or location management activities is a priority for the Federal Demonstration Partnership, from any programs or services the Administration and Congress, as to name just a few. Questions? Visit supported with direct grant funding, evidenced by Public Law 106–107, http://www.grants.gov to access past and and participation in any such inherently legislation that mandates streamlining current materials on the Grants.gov religious activities must be voluntary for and improved accountability for Federal program or e-mail your questions to the beneficiaries of the grant program; grants, and related references in the [email protected]. and President’s Management Agenda. (f) A faith-based organization that Office of Management & Budget Benefits applies for or participates in a Requirement—DUNS Number for all Departmental grant program may retain Grants.gov will serve as the common Federal Applicants its independence and may continue to face for Federal grant program In order to improve the statistical carry out its mission, including the information and applications. Key reporting of federal grants and definition, development, practice, and benefits include: (1) A single source for cooperative agreements, the Office of expression of its religious beliefs, finding grant opportunities, helping Management and Budget has directed provided that it does not use direct applicants locate and learn more about federal agencies to require all applicants Departmental grant funding to support funding opportunities in a standardized to provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) any inherently religious activities, such manner; and (2) a single, secure and Data Universal Numbering System as worship, religious instruction, or reliable source for applying for Federal (DUNS) number when applying for proselytization. Among other things, Grants online, simplifying the grant Federal grants or cooperative faith-based organizations that receive application process and reducing agreements on or after October 1, 2003. Departmental grant funding may use paperwork The DUNS number is now required their facilities to provide the grant Grants.gov will provide a unified whether an applicant is submitting a funded activities without removing or interface for all agencies to announce paper or an electronic application, and altering religious art, icons, scriptures, their grant opportunities, and for all whether an applicant is applying for a or other symbols from these facilities. In potential grantees to find and apply for new award or renewal of a current addition, a faith-based organization that grants. Grants.gov simplifies the entire award. receives Departmental grant funding application process, while also creating Use of the DUNS number government- may retain religious terms in its avenues for consolidation and best wide will provide a cost-effective means organization’s name, select its board practices within each grant-making to identify entities receiving those members on a religious basis, and agency. awards and their business relationships. The identifier will be used for tracking include religious references in its Progress and Next Steps organization’s mission statements and purposes, and to validate address and other chartering or governing The first stage of Grants.gov was a point of contact information. The DUNS documents. successful pilot that enabled number already is in use by the federal participating grantors to post and grant government to identify entities receiving Key Facts About the Grants.gov seekers to search for grant opportunities. federal contracts, and by some agencies Program Spring 2004 Most Federal grant-making agencies are in their grant and cooperative agreement www.grants.gov. Find. Apply. Succeed. now posting all of their competitive processes. grant opportunities to Grants.gov. Here’s Organizations should verify that they Overview how it works: a grant seeker from an have a DUNS number or take the steps Grants.gov has simplified the grants organization, for instance, visits the needed to obtain one as soon as management process, and created a Grants.gov Web site to search for grant possible. Organizations can receive a centralized, online process to find and opportunities. Once a match is found, DUNS number at no cost by calling the apply for over 600 grant programs from the organization downloads an dedicated toll-free DUNS Number the 26 Federal grant-making agencies. electronic application to apply for the request line at 1–866–705–5711. Grants.gov has streamlined the process grant. The organization would complete Individuals who would personally of awarding $360+ billion annually to the application and then submit it receive a grant or cooperative agreement state and local governments, academia, through the Grants.gov site. The award from the federal government not-for-profits and other organizations. application is time stamped and the apart from any business or non-profit This program is one of the 24 Federal appropriate Federal agency has organization they may operate, and cross-agency e-government initiatives immediate access to it. The agency will foreign entities are exempt from this focused on improving access to services receive the application, sending requirement. via the Internet. The vision for confirmation back to the applicant If your organization does not have a grants.gov is to produce a simple, through Grants.gov. Processing will be DUNS number, and you anticipate that unified source to electronically find, accelerated by avoiding the handling of your organization will apply for a grant apply, and manage grant opportunities. paper applications. The Department of or cooperative agreement now or in the

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21146 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

future, you should take steps to obtain click on ‘‘Start New Registration.’’ SIC Code: Is required. Follow the a DUNS number in advance of the Registering in the CCR should be the instructions. application deadline. If your first preparation step in the submission Financial Information: Follow the organization does not have a DUNS for a grant. Allow a minimum of 5 days instructions found in the CCR number, you may not be able to apply to complete the CCR registration. Handbook on page 14. for Federal grants or cooperative Organizations can register agreements. Future potential applicants independently of submitting a grant Registration Acknowledgment and Point should also consider requesting a DUNS application. of Contact Information number now if there is any intention of applying for a Federal grant in the Registration Worksheet for Grant This section is very important and future. Further information can be Applicants/Recipients needs to have names and telephone found in the Federal Register, located General Information: Enter all numbers put in for specific purposes. at: http://a257.gakamaitech.net/7/257/ information that has an M placed next For grant applicants and recipients the 2422/14mar20010800/ to the line meaning Mandatory or M fields are required. edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03- Required. CCR Point of Contact: Mandatory. 16356.pdf. Prior to registering in the CCR, an Enter the name of the person that knows Register in the Central Contract applicant organization must receive a and acknowledges that the information Registry (CCR) DUNS number. This can be done by in the CCR is current, accurate and telephone and the numbers are on the complete. The person named here will In order to help centralize information bottom of the worksheet. Many of the about grant recipients and provide a be the only person within the registering items are self-explanatory. Identified organization to receive the Trading central location for grant recipients to below are some items that may not be change organizational information, the Partner Identification Number (TPIN) familiar to grant applicants and via e-mail or U.S. mail services. The government will be using the Central recipients. Contractor Registry (CCR) for grant registrant and the alternate are the only Cage Code: For U.S. applicants, do people authorized to share the applicants and recipients. Use of the not enter a Cage Code, one will be CCR is to provide one location for information with the CCR Assistance assigned. For foreign applicants, follow Center personnel. An e-mail address is applicants and recipients to change the instructions in the CCR. information about their organization required. An alternate is also required Legal Business Name: Enter the name for registration. and enter information on where of the business or entity as it appears on government payments should be made. legal documents. Government Business Point of The registry will enable recipients to Business Name: Enter the name of the Contact: Not mandatory; review CCR make a change in one place and one organization/entity under which it is Handbook. time for all Federal agencies to use. applying for a grant. Electronic Business Point of Contact: General Information Annual Revenue: For some Mandatory. Grant applicants/ recipients Organizations should register on how organizations/entities this can be an must provide a name of an individual they want to do business. A separate annual budget. who will be responsible for approving registration in the CCR may be required Type of Organization: In this section, the Role Manager for the organization. if an organization wants to have a single indicate whether the organization/entity The Role Manager will be required to unit conduct business and it has a direct is Tax Exempt or Not. Indicate what approve individuals who are authorized payment flow to that organization, it type or how the organization is to submit grant applications on behalf of would require a separate DUNS number recognized. Use ‘‘Other’’ if the the organization. E-mail and telephone specified for that unit (if a different organization does not fit in the number are required. An alternate is address from the parent organization). If designated categories. required. Owner Information: Fill-in if a sole the same address, the organization Past Performance Point of Contact: proprietorship. could use the DUNS + 4 found in the Not required. CCR. For example, a university that Business Types: As indicated, check wants to have its payment information all that apply. Check the ones that are Marketing Partner ID (MPIN): flow through one central point for grants the closest description to your Mandatory for grants.gov submission. should register as the entity doing organization. Most grant applicants can This is a self-defined access code that business with the government. This use ‘‘Nonprofit Institution’’ plus any will be shared with authorized registration would require a specific other type that may fit the description. electronic partner applications. The DUNS number for that business. (The listing is being revised to include MPIN will act as your password in other grant applicants business types.) systems. The MPIN must be nine Instructions for Registering Party Performing Certification: Enter positions and contain at least one alpha Information for registering in the CCR information only if the organization has character, one number and no spaces or and online documents can be found at a certification from SBA. Most grant special characters. http://www.ccr.gov. Before registering recipients and applicants do not fall Registration Notification: Once the applicants and recipients should review into this category. registration is completed, a TPIN will be the Central Contractor Registration Goods and Services: This section is e-mailed or sent via the U.S. Postal Handbook (March 2003). In the required. It will require the grant Service to the organization’s point of handbook is a Registration Worksheet. It applicant/recipient to look up a code contact. If registration is done is recommended that registrants print and enter the ones that best fit the type electronically, notification will be sent this worksheet and gather the needed of services the organization provides. It via e-mail within five days of information prior to starting the online is not required to fill-in all the spaces registration. registration process. The fastest and provided for the codes. easiest method to register is by NAICS Code: Is required. Follow the [FR Doc. 04–8889 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] computer. To register via the computer, instructions. BILLING CODE 416–15–P

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21147

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Request for Comments: Written property such as patentable material, HUMAN SERVICES comments and/or suggestions from the and personal information concerning public and affected agencies are invited individuals associated with the grant National Institutes of Health on one or more of the following points: applications, the disclosure of which (1) Evaluate whether the proposed would constitute a clearly unwarranted Proposed Collection: Comment collection of information is necessary invasion of personal privacy. Request; Survey of Family Physician’s for the proper performance of the Use of Genomic Information in Primary Name of Committee: National Center on function of the agency, including Minority Health and Health Disparities Care whether the information will have Special Emphasis Panel ZMD1(02) Loan Summary: In compliance with the practical utility; (2) Evaluate the Repayment Programs: Extramural Clinical requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the and Health Disparities Research. Date: May 16–18, 2004. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of Time: 5 p.m. to 1 p.m. for opportunity for public comment on Agenda: To review and evaluate grant proposed data collection projects, the the methodology and assumptions used; applications. National Human Genome Research (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and Place: Holiday Inn Select Bethesda, 8120 Institute (NHGRI), the National clarity of the information to be Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814. Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish collected; and (4) Minimize the burden Contact Person: Lorrita Watson, PhD, periodic summaries of proposed of the collection of information on those National Center on Minority Health and projects to be submitted to the Office of who are to respond, including the use Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd, Suite 800, Management and Budget (OMB) for of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological Bethesda MD 20892–5465, (301) 594–7784, review and approval. [email protected]. Proposed Collection: Title: Survey of collection techniques or other forms of Family Physician’s Use of Genomic information technology. Dated: April 13, 2004. Information in Primary Care. Type of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION LaVerne Y. Stringfield, Information Collection Request: New. CONTACT: To request more Director, Office of Federal Advisory Need and Use of Information Collection: information on the proposed project or Committee Policy. The information collected via an on-line to obtain a copy of the data collection [FR Doc. 04–8838 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] survey questionnaire will assist us to plans and instruments, contact Dr. BILLING CODE 4140–01–M gain an understanding of the factors that Colleen McBride, Chief, Social and influence American Academy of Family Behavioral Research Branch, NHGRI, Physicians (AAFP) members to NIH, 50 South Drive Building 50, Room DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND participate in the utilization of 5351, Bethesda, MD 20892–8000, or call HUMAN SERVICES educational modules and about factors non-toll-free-number 301–594–6788 or National Institutes of Health that explain any differences seen among e-mail your request, including your healthcare providers in their propensity address to: < [email protected] >. Comments Due Date: Comments National Heart, Lung, and Blood to integrate genomics into practice. Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting Frequency of Response: Prior to regarding this information collection are implementation of a year long on-line best assured of having their full effect if Pursuant to section 10(d) of the genomic curriculum, a one time received within 60-days of the date of Federal Advisory Committee Act, as baseline online survey will be requested this publication. amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice of a randomly selected and Dated: April 12, 2004. is hereby given of a meeting of the representative sample of AAFP Linda Jacobson, Board of Scientific Counselors, NHLBI. members. A sub-set of these providers Chief Administrative Services Branch, The meeting will be closed to the registered or not registered for the web- NHGRI, National Institutes of Health. public as indicated below in accordance based curriculum will comprise a cohort [FR Doc. 04–8840 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] with the provisions set forth in section who will be asked to complete a pre-test BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended survey prior to launching of the first for the review, discussion, and module, and then again a post-test at the evaluation of individual intramural completion of the educational DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND programs and projects conducted by the intervention. Affected Public: Members HUMAN SERVICES National Heart, Lung, and Blood of the AAFP. Type of Respondents: Institute, including consideration of Physicians. Estimated Number of National Institutes of Health personnel qualifications and Respondents: 5000 members will be performance, and the competence of National Center on Minority Health and invited to participate. A sub-set of 500 individual investigators, the disclosure Health Disparities; Notice of Closed will be requested to participate in pre/ of which would constitute a clearly Meeting post-test surveys. Estimated Number of unwarranted invasion of personal Responses per Respondent: The Pursuant to section 10(d) of the privacy. majority of respondents will have one Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Name of Committee: Board of Scientific response per respondent; maximum of amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Counselors, NHLBI. three. Average Burden Hours Per is hereby given of the following Date: May 27, 2004. Response: The majority of respondents meeting. Time: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. will have an average burden of one hour The meeting will be closed to the Agenda: To review and evaluate personal per response. Estimated Total Annual public in accordance with the qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators. Burden Hours Requested: The majority provisions set forth in sections Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One of respondents will have a total annual 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin burden of one hour requested; as amended. The grant applications and Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. maximum of three. Costs: There are no the discussions could disclose Contact Person: Elizabeth G. Nabel, MD, maintenance, operating, or capital costs. confidential trade secrets or commercial Scientific Director for Clinical Research,

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21148 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Place: National Institutes of Health, is hereby given of the following Division of Intramural Research, Building 10, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD meeting. Room 8C103, MSC 1754, Bethesda, MD 20892. The meeting will be closed to the 20892, (301) 496–1518. Closed: May 20, 2004, 9 a.m. to public in accordance with the Information is also available on the Adjournment. provisions set forth in sections Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Institute’s/Center’s Home page: http:// applications and/or proposals. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., www.nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/index.htm, Place: National Institutes of Health, as amended. The grant applications and where an agenda and any additional Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD the discussions could disclose information for the meeting will be 20892. confidential trade secrets or commercial posted when available. Contact Person: Claudette Varricchio, property such as patentable material, Assistant Director, National Institute of (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance and personal information concerning Nursing Research, National Institutes of Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for individuals associated with the grant Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 710, Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and applications, the disclosure of which Bethesda, MD 20892. Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung would constitute a clearly unwarranted Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases Any member of the public interested invasion of personal privacy. and Resources Research, National Institutes in presenting oral comments to the Name of Committee: National Institute of of Health, HHS) committee may notify the Contact Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Dated: April 13, 2004. Person listed on this notice at least 10 Emphasis Panel, International Studies of AIDS-Associated Co-Infections (ISAAC). Laverne Y. Stringfield, days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and Date: May 9–10, 2004. Director, Office of Federal Advisory Time: 6 p.m. to 6 p.m. Committee Policy. representatives or organizations may Agenda: To review and evaluate grant [FR Doc. 04–8836 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] submit a letter of intent, a brief applications. description of the organization BILLING CODE 4140–01–M Place: Holiday Inn Downtown, 1158 14th represented, and a short description of Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. the oral presentation. Only one Contact Person: Anna Ramsey-Ewing, PhD, representative of an organization may be Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Review Program, Division of Extramural HUMAN SERVICES allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, Activities, NIAID, NIH, Room 217, 6700–B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD National Institutes of Health presentations may be limited to five 20892–7616, (301) 496–2550, [email protected]. minutes. Both printed and electronic National Institute of Nursing Research; (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance copies are requested for the record. In Program Nos. 93.355, Allergy, Immunology, Notice of Meeting addition, any interested person may file and Transplantation Research; 93.856, written comments with the committee Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Microbiology and Infectious Diseases by forwarding their statement to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Contact Person listed on this notice. The amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Dated: April 13, 2004. statement should include the name, is hereby given of a meeting of the LaVerne Y. Stringfield, address, telephone number and when National Advisory Council for Nursing Director, Office of Federal Advisory applicable, the business or professional Research. Committee Policy. affiliation of the interested person. The meeting will be open to the [FR Doc. 04–8839 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Information is also available on the public as indicated below, with BILLING CODE 4140–01–M attendance limited to space available. Institute’s/Center’s home page: Individuals who plan to attend and www.nih.gov/ninr/a_advisory.html, where an agenda and any additional need special assistance, such as sign DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND information for the meeting will be language interpretation or other SECURITY reasonable accommodations, should posted when available. notify the Contact Person listed below (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Coast Guard in advance of the meeting. Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, [USCG–2004–17515] The meeting will be closed to the National Institutes of Health, HHS) public in accordance with the Dated: April 13, 2004. Towing Safety Advisory Committee provisions set forth in sections LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Director, Office of Federal Advisory as amended. The grant applications Committee Policy. ACTION: Notice of meetings. and/or contract proposals and the [FR Doc. 04–8837 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] discussions could disclose confidential SUMMARY: Two Working Groups of the trade secrets or commercial property BILLING CODE 4140–01–M Towing Safety Advisory Committee such as patentable material, and (TSAC) will meet to discuss issues personal information concerning relating to towing vessel safety. The DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Regulatory Review Working Group will individuals associated with the grant HUMAN SERVICES applications and/or contract proposals, discuss travel time for towing vessel officers. The Maritime Security Working the disclosure of which would National Institutes of Health constitute a clearly unwarranted Group will discuss implementation of invasion of personal privacy. National Institute of Allergy and security plan regulations and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed development of timely feedback to the Name of Committee: National Advisory Coast Guard on port, vessel and facility Council for Nursing Research. Meeting Date: May 19–20, 2004. security plan requirements. The Open: May 19, 2004, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the meetings will be open to the public. Agenda: For discussion of program policies Federal Advisory Committee Act, as DATES: The Regulatory Review Working and issues. amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Group will meet on Tuesday, April 27,

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21149

2004, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. The during the meeting. If you would like to toll free number) for copies of the Maritime Security Working Group will make an oral presentation at the proposed forms and other available meet on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 meeting, please notify the Assistant information. from 8 a.m. to 12 noon. The meetings Executive Director no later than April SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The may close early if all business is 26, 2004. Written material for Department is submitting the proposed finished. Written material and requests distribution at the meeting should reach information collection to OMB for to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard no later than April 23, review, as required by the Paperwork the Coast Guard on or before April 26, 2004. Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 2004. Requests to have a copy of your Information on Services for Individuals chapter 35, as amended). material distributed to each member of With Disabilities This Notice is soliciting comments the Working Group should reach the from members of the public and affected Coast Guard on or before April 23, 2004. For information on facilities or agencies concerning the proposed ADDRESSES: The Working Group will services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the collection of information to: (1) Evaluate meet in room 725 of the National whether the proposed collection is Pollution Funds Center, 4200 Wilson meeting, contact the Assistant Executive Director as soon as possible. necessary for the proper performance of Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203–1804, the functions of the agency, including Phone: 202–493–6700. Send written Dated: April 8, 2004. whether the information will have material and requests to make oral Joseph J. Angelo, practical utility; (2) Evaluate the presentations to Mr. Gerald Miante, Director of Standards, Marine Safety, Security accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the Commandant (G–MSO–1), U.S. Coast & Environmental Protection. burden of the proposed collection of Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street [FR Doc. 04–8868 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] information; (3) Enhance the quality, SW., Washington, DC 20593–0001. This BILLING CODE 4910–15–P utility, and clarity of the information to notice and related documents are be collected; and (4) Minimize the available on the Internet at http:// burden of the collection of information dms.dot.gov under the docket number DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND on those who are to respond; including USCG–2004–17515. URBAN DEVELOPMENT the use of appropriate automated FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. [Docket No. FR–4907–N–11] collection techniques or other forms of Miante, Assistant Executive Director of information technology, e.g., permitting TSAC, telephone (202) 267–0214, fax Notice of Proposed Information electronic submission of responses. (202) 267–4570, or e-mail Collection: Comment Request; Use of This Notice also lists the following [email protected]. Materials Bulletins Used in the HUD information: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of Building Products Standards and Title of Proposal: Use of Materials the meeting is given under the Federal Certification Program Bulletins Used in the HUD Building Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. Products Standards and Certification 2 (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770, as AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Program. amended). Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing OMB Control Number, if applicable: Commissioner, HUD. Discussion 2502–0526. ACTION: Notice. Description of the need for the The Regulatory Review Working information and proposed use: This Group’s subject of travel time relates to SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below proposed rule would adopt a number of problem of Towing Vessel Masters and Use of Material Bulletins (UM’s) and Pilots having to drive or ride long will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for references related to national voluntary distances to their vessels, then being consensus standards in accordance with required to get underway soon after review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is OMB Circular 119A. This includes arrival. In many instances, this travel supplements to the HUD Building time could be up to 4 to 10 hours or soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. Product Standards and Certification more, and the officer is then faced with Program. a watch of at least 6 hours. Some DATES: Comments Due Date: June 21, Agency form numbers, if applicable: consider this practice as work without 2004. None. sufficient rest. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are The Maritime Security Working Estimation of the total numbers of invited to submit comments regarding Group’s subject of security plans hours needed to prepare the information this proposal. Comments should refer to involves studying the development, collection including number of the proposal by name and/or OMB approval process, and implementation respondents, frequency of response, and Control Number and should be sent to: history of the newly required plans. hours of response: The estimated Wayne Eddins, Reports Management They will attempt to identify any number of burden hours needed to Officer, Department of Housing and problems or deficiencies in the prepare the information collection is Urban Development, 451 7th Street, processes, develop methods of notifying 200; the number of respondents is 10, SW., L’Enfant Plaza Building, Room the Coast Guard of their existence, and generating approximately 10 annual 8003, Washington, DC 20410 or ascertain any best practices that have responses; the frequency of response is [email protected]. come to light. on occasion; and the estimated time FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: needed to prepare the response 20 Procedural Elizabeth A. Cocke, Deputy hours. The meetings are open to the public. Administrator, Office of Manufactured Status of the proposed information Please note that the meetings may close Housing Programs, Department of collection: Extension of a previously early if all business is finished. At the Housing and Urban Development, 451 approved collection. Chair’s discretion, members of the 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act public may make oral presentations telephone (202) 708–6409 (this is not a of 1995, 44 U.S.C., chapter 35, as amended.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21150 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Dated: April 8, 2004. whether the information will have DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Sean G. Cassidy, practical utility; (2) Evaluate the URBAN DEVELOPMENT General Deputy Assistance Secretary for accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the [Docket No. FR–4907–N–13] Housing—Deputy Federal Housing burden of the proposed collection of Commissioner. information; (3) Enhance the quality, Notice of Proposed Information [FR Doc. 04–8858 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] utility, and clarity of the information to Collection: Comment Request; BILLING CODE 4210–27–M be collected; and (4) Minimize the Application for Hospital Project burden of the collection of information Mortgage Insurance/Section 242 on those who are to respond; including DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND AGENCY: the use of appropriate automated Office of the Assistant URBAN DEVELOPMENT Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing collection techniques or other forms of Commissioner, HUD. [Docket No. FR–4907–N–12] information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. ACTION: Notice. Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Comment Request; This Notice also lists the following SUMMARY: The proposed information Minimum Property Standards for information: collection requirement described below Housing Title of Proposal: Minimum Property will be submitted to the Office of Standards for Housing. Management and Budget (OMB) for AGENCY: Office of the Assistant review, as required by the Paperwork Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing OMB Control Number, if applicable: Reduction Act. The Department is Commissioner, HUD. 2502–0321. soliciting public comments on the ACTION: Notice. Description of the need for the subject proposal. information and proposed use: DATES: Comments Due Date: June 21, SUMMARY: The proposed information Information on local property standards 2004. collection requirement described below for assisted multifamily housing and ADDRESSES: Interested persons are will be submitted to the Office of care-type facilities is collected from Management and Budget (OMB) for invited to submit comments regarding State and local governments to assess this proposal. Comments should refer to review, as required by the Paperwork the equivalency of their existing Reduction Act. The Department is the proposal by name and/or OMB housing standards in meeting HUD’s Control Number and should be sent to: soliciting public comments on the minimum requirements. If such State or subject proposal. Wayne Eddins, Reports Management local codes are deemed equivalent, HUD Officer, Department of Housing and DATES: Comments Due Date: June 21, assisted properties need only comply Urban Development, 451 7th Street, 2004. with such equivalent codes. SW., L’Enfant Plaza Building, Room ADDRESSES: Interested persons are Agency form numbers, if applicable: 8003, Washington, DC 20410 or _ invited to submit comments regarding None. Wayne [email protected]. this proposal. Comments should refer to Estimation of the total numbers of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the proposal by name and/or OMB Chris Boesen, Director, Office of Insured Control Number and should be sent to: hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of Health Care Facilities, Department of Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Housing and Urban Development, 451 Officer, Department of Housing and respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, Urban Development, 451 7th Street, telephone (202) 708–0599 (this is not a SW., L’Enfant Plaza Building, Room number of burden hours needed to prepare the information collection is toll free number) for copies of the 8003, Washington, DC 20410 or proposed forms and other available _ 8,000; the number of respondents is Wayne [email protected]. information. 1,000 generating approximately 1,000 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Elizabeth A. Cocke, Deputy annual responses; the frequency of response is on occasion; and the Department is submitting the proposed Administrator, Office of Manufactured information collection to OMB for Housing Programs, Department of estimated time needed to prepare the response eight hours. review, as required by the Paperwork Housing and Urban Development, 451 Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Status of the proposed information chapter 35, as amended). telephone (202) 708–6423 (this is not a collection: Extension of a currently This Notice is soliciting comments toll free number) for copies of the approved collection. from members of the public and affected proposed forms and other available Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act agencies concerning the proposed information. of 1995, 44 U.S.C., chapter 35, as amended. collection of information to: (1) Evaluate SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Dated: April 8, 2004. whether the proposed collection is Department is submitting the proposed necessary for the proper performance of information collection to OMB for Sean G. Cassidy, the functions of the agency, including review, as required by the Paperwork General Deputy Assistant Secretary for whether the information will have Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Housing—Deputy Federal Housing practical utility; (2) Evaluate the chapter 35, as amended). Commissioner. accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the This Notice is soliciting comments [FR Doc. 04–8859 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] burden of the proposed collection of from members of the public and affected BILLING CODE 4210–27–M information; (3) Enhance the quality, agencies concerning the proposed utility, and clarity of the information to collection of information to: (1) Evaluate be collected; and (4) Minimize the whether the proposed collection is burden of the collection of information necessary for the proper performance of on those who are to respond; including the functions of the agency, including the use of appropriate automated

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21151

collection techniques or other forms of (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) as status of the species (50 CFR 424.14). information technology, e.g., permitting threatened or endangered under the ‘‘Substantial information’’ is defined in electronic submission of responses. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 50 CFR 424.14(b) as ‘‘that amount of This Notice also lists the following amended. We find the petition and information that would lead a information: additional information available in our reasonable person to believe that the Title of Proposal: Application for files did not present substantial measure proposed in the petition may Hospital Project Mortgage Insurance/ scientific or commercial information be warranted.’’ Section 242. indicating that listing this subspecies On December 16, 1999, we received a OMB Control Number, if applicable: may be warranted. We will not be formal petition to list the CRCT as 2502–0518. initiating a further status review in threatened or endangered in its Description of the need for the response to this petition. We ask the occupied habitat within its known information and proposed use: public to submit to us any new historic range, in accordance with Information is collected to provide HUD information that becomes available provisions in section 4 of the ESA. The with the data necessary to determine if concerning the status of or threats to the petition was filed by the Center for a hospital qualifies for FHA insurance species. This information will help us Biological Diversity, the Biodiversity under section 242 of the National monitor and encourage the conservation Legal Foundation, Biodiversity Housing Act. HUD reviews the of this species. Associates, Ancient Forest Rescue, information to determine if the DATES: The finding announced in this Southwest Trout, Wild Utah Forest proposed project meets basic eligibility document was made on April 8, 2004. Campaign, Colorado Wild, and Mr. criteria, underwriting standards, and You may submit new information Noah Greenwald. adequacy of State and/or local concerning this species for our On January 12, 2000, we notified the certifications, approvals, and waivers. consideration at any time. petitioners that our Listing Priority Agency form numbers, if applicable: ADDRESSES: Information, data, or Guidance, published in the Federal HUD–92013–HOSP. comments concerning this finding Register (64 FR 57114) on October 22, Estimation of the total numbers of should be submitted to the Assistant 1999, designated the processing of new hours needed to prepare the information Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, listing petitions as a ‘‘Priority 4’’ collection including number of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 activity, a lower priority than respondents, frequency of response, and Horizon Drive, Building B, Grand emergency listing (Priority 1), hours of response: The estimated Junction, Colorado 81506, or by e-mail processing final decisions on proposed number of burden hours needed to to [email protected]. The petition, listings (Priority 2), and resolving the prepare the information collection is finding, supporting data, and comments status of candidate species (Priority 3). 17,280; the number of respondents is 18, are available for public inspection, by We also informed the petitioners that generating approximately 18 annual appointment, during normal business due to staff and budget limitations, the responses; the frequency of response is hours, at the above address. petition could not be immediately on occasion; and the estimated time addressed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: needed to prepare the response 960 On August 8, 2000, we received a Patty Schrader Gelatt, at the above hours. notice of intent to sue from the Center Status of the proposed information address, by telephone at 970–243–2778, for Biological Diversity, Biodiversity or by e-mail at collection: Extension of a currently _ Associates, Biodiversity Legal approved collection. patty [email protected]. Foundation, Colorado Wild, Wild Utah SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act Forest Campaign, and Mr. Noah Greenwald concerning our failure to of 1995, 44 U.S.C., chapter 35, as amended. Background produce a 90-day finding on the subject Dated: April 8, 2004. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered petition in accordance with the Sean G. Cassidy, Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 provisions of section 4 of the ESA. We General Deputy Assistant Secretary for U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA), requires that responded on August 31, 2000, Housing—Deputy Federal Housing within 90 days of receipt of a petition, reiterating that we would not be able to Commissioner. to the maximum extent practicable, we begin an evaluation of the CRCT [FR Doc. 04–8860 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] make a finding on whether a petition to petition until the work on the higher BILLING CODE 4210–27–M list, delist, or reclassify a species priority activities was completed. In the presents substantial scientific or spring of 2003, the Service determined commercial information indicating that appropriate funds were available to DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR the requested action may be warranted. address the subject petition. The term ‘‘species’’ includes any In addition, the Service received Fish and Wildlife Service subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, correspondence from Mr. Noah and any distinct population segment of Greenwald on September 20, 2002, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife providing additional information. and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a that interbreeds when mature. The The September 20, 2002, Petition To List the Colorado River finding is based upon all information correspondence from the petitioners Cutthroat Trout provided or referenced in the petition recognized that some of the information AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, and all other information available to us presented in the original petition is Interior. at the time the finding was made. To the outdated due to the passage of time. The ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition maximum extant practicable, this petitioners discussed information finding. finding is to be made within 90 days of provided by the states focusing on three receipt of the petition, and the finding specific issues—hybridization, SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and is to be published promptly in the competition, and predation from Wildlife Service (Service), announce a Federal Register. If we find substantial nonnatives; habitat degradation; and 90-day finding for a petition to list the information present, we are required to inadequacy of existing regulation. The Colorado River cutthroat trout (CRCT) promptly commence a review of the petitioners again asserted that the range

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21152 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

of the CRCT has been reduced to a small The States of Colorado, Utah, and native cutthroat trout. Core conservation fraction of its historic range, resulting in Wyoming have implemented populations contain cutthroat trout that small isolated populations. They also conservation efforts for CRCT for many have not been impacted by genetic stated that none of the populations can years. Each State has developed plans to alteration linked to human intervention. be considered secure because every one facilitate conservation action for CRCT A ‘‘conservation population’’ is defined is threatened by nonnatives, limited within their respective States (Wyoming as a reproducing and recruiting stream length, small population size, Game and Fish Department (WGFD) population of native cutthroat trout that habitat limitations, or a combination of 1987; Colorado Division of Wildlife has managed to preserve the historical these factors. The petitioners asserted (CDOW) 1992; Langlois et al. 1994; Utah genome and/or unique genetic, that most CRCT populations are either Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) ecological, and/or behavioral hybridized or sympatric with nonnative 1997). The three States, U.S. Forest characteristics. In general, a trout species despite efforts to construct Service (USFS), Bureau of Land conservation population is at least 90 barriers and remove nonnatives. In Management (BLM), National Park percent pure CRCT, but purity may be addition, the States stock nonnative Service, Ute Indian Tribe, and the lower depending on circumstances and trout in CRCT historic range, which Service formed a task force to address the values and attributes to be limits potential streams where CRCT conservation efforts for CRCT on a preserved. can be recovered. The petitioners rangewide basis. A Conservation The CAS established a CRCT recommended that we use the same Agreement and Strategy (CAS) (CRCT Coordination Team to periodically criteria to evaluate the status of the Task Force 1999, 2001) was developed update the population status Colorado River cutthroat trout as was to expedite implementation of information provided in the appendices. used for the Rio Grande cutthroat trout conservation measures for the CRCT in As of July 16, 2003, the States of (Onchorhynchus clarki virginalis) Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as a Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming reported candidate status review. The Service did collaborative and cooperative effort 327 conservation populations, which not use these criteria in this 90-day among resource agencies. The primary include 286 populations in finding because it does not constitute a goal of the CAS is to assure the long- approximately 1,625 stream km (1,010 status review under the ESA. term prosperity of CRCT throughout stream mi) and 41 populations in approximately 455 ha (1,124 ac) of lakes Biology and Distribution their historic range by establishing two self-sustaining metapopulations, each (CRCT Coordination Team, unpublished The CRCT is the only salmonid (i.e., consisting of five separate, viable but data). These populations include 221 salmon, trout, and their close relatives) interconnected subpopulations, in each populations that meet the Coordination native to the upper Colorado River geographic management unit within the Team’s definition of core conservation basin, and is 1 of 14 subspecies of historic range. The short-term goal is to populations. Of these 221 core cutthroat trout recognized by Behnke establish one metapopulation in each conservation populations, 191 are found (1992, 2002) that are native to interior geographic management unit. in approximately 1,101 km (684 mi) of regions of western North America. It has Additional goals of the CAS are to streams and 30 are found in red or orange slash marks on both sides maintain areas that currently support approximately 221 ha (545 ac) of lakes. of the lower jaws and relatively large Since 1998, 125 stream populations abundant CRCT and manage other areas spots concentrated on the posterior part and 29 lake populations have been for increased abundance; to maintain of the body. Sexually mature males added to the list of conservation the genetic diversity of the subspecies; exhibit brilliant colors; the ventral populations (including core and to increase the distribution of CRCT region can be bright crimson, with red conservation populations and along the lateral line, and the lower where ecologically and economically conservation populations) (CRCT sides of the body are typically golden feasible. The specific objective of the Coordination Team, unpublished data). yellow (Behnke 1992). CAS is to maintain and restore 383 Most of the additions to the list of The CRCT historically occupied conservation populations in 2,823 conservation populations are due to portions of the Colorado River drainage stream kilometers (km) (1,754 stream results of genetic testing that indicated in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, miles (mi)) and 18 populations in 264 genetic purity of at least 90 percent. and New Mexico (Behnke 1992). Its lake hectares (ha) (652 lake acres (ac)) in Some waters were removed from the list original distribution probably included 14 geographic management units within due to the results of genetic testing. portions of larger streams, such as the the historic range. Other waters were added after Green, Yampa, White, Colorado, and The CAS (CRCT Task Force 2001) reclamation and restocking were San Juan Rivers. Behnke and Zarn classifies CRCT populations according completed. Still other stream segments (1976) suggested this subspecies was to their genetic purity using the criteria were removed because CRCT were absent from the lower reaches of many established in ‘‘Cutthroat Trout extirpated due to competition from large rivers because of summer thermal Management— a Position Paper. Genetic nonnative trout. barriers. The CRCT still occurs Considerations Associated with throughout its historic range, but Cutthroat Trout Management’’ (UDWR Assessment of the Petition and Other remaining populations now occur 2000). This position paper was Available Information mostly in headwater streams and lakes. developed by fishery administrators and The 1999 petition and subsequent The CRCT spawn over a gravel biologists from the following agencies— 2002 letter provided information substrate in spring when water Idaho Department of Fish and Game; regarding the status and threats to temperatures reach 7°C (45°F). The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; CRCT. Soon after we received the female digs out a nest in flowing water Nevada Division of Wildlife; New petition, we made the document and, after fertilization, the eggs are Mexico Game and Fish; UDWR; WGFD; available on our web site. We also covered with gravel and hatch in the the Service; USFS; and other technical contacted natural resource agencies summer (Behnke and Benson 1980). The experts. The Position Paper defines a whose responsibilities include CRCT CRCT feed on a wide range of ‘‘core conservation population’’ as a management and requested that these invertebrates; larger CRCT prey on other population that is >99 percent pure and agencies review the petition and fishes (Behnke and Benson 1980). represents the historic genome of the provide information on the current

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21153

status of the subspecies. In response to The petition used two sources of models (Franklin 1980; Gilpin and our request, we received information information for the distribution and Soule 1986; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; from UDWR, WGFD, CDOW, USFS, status of CRCT—Young et al. (1996) and Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000). National Park Service, and BLM. We the 1999 CAS (CRCT Task Force 1999). Through modeling, Hilderbrand and reviewed the information provided by While the Service considered these Kershner (2000) estimated minimum these agencies, scientific journal adequate and reliable sources of stream length for several subspecies of articles, agency reports, and other information at the time of the original cutthroat trout (Colorado River, information in our files to determine petition, new information is also Bonneville (Oncorhynchus clarki utah), whether the information provided or available to the Service, including the and westslope (Oncorhynchus clarki cited in the petition or other latest information (CRCT Coordination lewisi)), in relation to population size. information readily available to us met Team, unpublished data) on numbers of They estimated that a stream length of the ESA’s standard for ‘‘substantial conservation populations and core 3 km (2 mi) was required to support a information.’’ We respond to each of the conservation populations by State. population of 1,000 fish; 8 km (5 mi) to major assertions made in the petition, While the total number of support 2,500 fish; and 17 km (10 mi) organized by ESA listing factors. This conservation populations (106) and core to support 5,000 fish. Recent data show 90-day finding is not a status assessment conservation populations (221) stream lengths for core conservation and does not constitute a status review represents a relatively secure populations vary from less than 1.5 km under the ESA. subspecies, total numbers of to 34 km (less than 1 mi to 21 mi), with populations does not provide the full A. The Present or Threatened 77 of the 191 (40 percent) core picture of the status of a species. The conservation populations in stream Destruction, Modification, or CAS (CRCT Task Force 2001) Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range segments of 3 km (2 mi) or less (CRCT recognized that some past and present Coordination Team, unpublished data). With respect to factor A, the petition land management practices Core conservation populations of CRCT asserted that the CRCT has been (overgrazing, heavy metal pollution, and ranged in size from 20 to 6,830 adult reduced to small, unstable headwater water depletion and diversions) fish, with the majority (92 percent) of drainages in less than 5 percent of its contribute to the isolation of upstream the adult populations having either historic range and that this reduction in populations of CRCT. In some cases fewer than 1,000 fish or no available range is due to livestock grazing, water those practices serve to protect population data. However, it is diversions, mining, logging, and roads. populations from invasion by nonnative important to recognize that the The petition presented an analysis of salmonids, but they also cause Coordination Team has not adopted the the reduction of historic range primarily fragmented stream segments that restrict population criteria discussed above and based on information in a USFS Report movement between formerly connected has not developed specific standards for (Young et al. 1996). While we consider populations, leaving small isolated population viability for CRCT (CRCT this report a source of reliable populations that may be subject to Task Force 2001). The Coordination information, it was based on a extirpation and loss of genetic Team considered using the criteria for questionnaire distributed to various interchange (CRCT Task Force 2001). demographic and habitat requirements agency biologists and not all biologists Many of these populations occur in for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) as responded. Therefore, Young et al. headwater streams where water presented by Rieman and McIntyre (1996) considered the data base temperatures and small stream size (1993), but determined those criteria presented as incomplete. The make habitat conditions less than were not appropriate for CRCT. While information contained in this report optimal. Harig and Fausch (2002) noted limited habitat size, small population gave a general overview of the decline that cold summer water temperatures, size, inappropriate water temperatures, of the subspecies, but did not contain typical of high elevation streams, tend and habitat fragmentation are a concern, adequate information on the subspecies’ to delay spawning, which reduces its unclear how these factors affect the status throughout its current or overwinter survival. They also found long-term viability of the subspecies. historical range to determine reduction that many small streams lack sufficient in historic range. In fact, Young et al. pools deep enough for overwinter When addressing a species with (1996) stated, ‘‘comprehensive survival. The work of Novinger and multiple populations, such as CRCT, descriptions of the historical range of Rahel (2003) also suggested that isolated population viability is just one factor to the CRCT are unavailable.’’ However, headwater mountain streams lack some consider when determining the for years, scientists have recognized that of the necessary habitat components likelihood of species persistence. The the current range of the CRCT has been based on the finding , in some cases, CAS stresses the establishment of greatly reduced from its historic range that isolation management (the process metapopulations to assure the long-term (Behnke and Zarn 1976; Binns 1977; of constructing an artificial barrier, prosperity of CRCT (CRCT Task Force Behnke and Benson 1980; Martinez removal of brook trout, and stocking 2001). The CAS defines 1988; CRCT Task Force 2001), and we CRCT) resulted in more CRCT below the metapopulations as ‘‘a collection of concur with the conclusion that the artificial barrier than above. However, localized populations that are range of the CRCT has been greatly small, isolated populations have geographically distinct yet are reduced from historic levels. The ESA persisted for many years in some genetically interconnected through does not indicate threshold levels of situations, such as above waterfalls or in natural movement of individual fish historic range at which listing as either desert basins (Hilderbrand and Kershner between populations.’’ Metapopulations threatened or endangered becomes 2000). It is unclear what population and are important for stabilizing population warranted. Instead the principal habitat sizes are required for long-term dynamics by maintaining genetic considerations in determining whether a population viability. exchange (increasing genetic diversity) species warrants listing are the threats The scientific literature addresses and providing individuals to repopulate that currently confront the species species population viability in a stream segments where populations are within its range and the likelihood that theoretical manner, providing lost due to stochastic environmental the species will persist in the recommendations for minimum events (i.e., fire, drought) (UDWR 1997). foreseeable future. population size based on theoretical The long-term goal of the CAS is to

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21154 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

establish two self-sustaining noted for the survey location did not provide fish passage. The USFS has metapopulations, each consisting of five apply to the entire stream reach. The moved campsites and excluded vehicle separate, viable but interconnected CAS (CRCT Task Force 2001) stated that access to improve habitat for CRCT. The subpopulations, in each geographic ‘‘habitat problems are viewed as site- Federal agencies have partnered with management unit within the historic specific and not an overall threat the State agencies to monitor fish range. Two of the 14 geographic throughout the range,’’ but no populations, build and maintain management units currently meet the documentation was provided. The barriers, and remove nonnative fish. long-term goal of the CAS. The short- petition did not provide additional Some CRCT habitats are afforded term goal is to establish one substantial information to determine the protection from land use activities by metapopulation in each geographic extent of overgrazing in CRCT habitat. special land use designations, such as management unit. Seven additional Furthermore, the Service can not habitats within Rocky Mountain geographic management units currently assume that all livestock grazing within National Park and USFS Wilderness meet the CAS short-term goal. Overall, the CRCT habitat is inappropriate. Areas. metapopulations currently exist in Proper grazing management can reduce We find the petition did not provide Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, where or prevent the habitat and water quality substantial information to support its 11 metapopulations meet the criteria of degradation discussed in the petition. assertions that the threat of past and 5 separate but interconnected The Service recognizes that water present destruction, modification, or subpopulations and an additional 23 diversions can negatively impact CRCT curtailment of CRCT habitat is sufficient metapopulations contain 2 to 4 habitat. The petition asserted 59 CRCT to cause further significant declines in subpopulations (CRCT Core populations have been negatively this subspecies’ range or extant Coordination Team, unpublished data). impacted by water diversions. However, populations. We conclude that the total The States are actively working to the petition relied primarily upon the number of conservation populations and establish metapopulations in each habitat limitations data field presented core conservation populations represent geographic management unit. For in Appendix A discussed above. A a relatively secure subspecies. While example, in Wyoming, a large rangewide inventory has not been limited habitat size, small population restoration project is currently ongoing conducted to determine if water size, inappropriate water temperatures, to establish a metapopulation in the diversions are a problem in just a few and habitat fragmentation are a concern, LaBarge watershed in the southwestern locations or throughout CRCT range. it is unclear how these factors affect the portion of the State. Completion of this Many CRCT populations occur in long-term viability of the subspecies. project is expected 2007, and will result stream segments upstream of water State management efforts to establish in restoration of 58 stream miles, diversions, and some instream flows metapopulations in each geographic including 18 miles of LaBarge Creek and have been secured in CRCT streams in management unit continue to improve 40 stream miles of tributaries (Remmick Colorado and Wyoming. In Utah, the the outlook for the CRCT. Further, the 2002). Challenges in establishing State Engineer has the authority to deny petition failed to provide substantial metapopulations include difficulty in any changes in water rights applications information to support the allegation obtaining approval for chemical if such action ‘‘affects the natural stream that overgrazing, mining, logging, or treatments, reinvasion of nonnative environment or public recreation.’’ roads pose a threat to the overall habitat trout, funding, and landowner approval. Additionally, the petition asserted or range of the CRCT. Based on their work in Colorado, mining, dams and reservoirs, oil and gas B. Overutilization for Commercial, Brauch and Hebein (2003) found that development, road building and logging Recreational, Scientific, or Educational current technical limitations of may be detrimental to CRCT Purposes chemical treatments for reclamation populations. The petition also asserted limit potential reclamation sites to that mining, through isolation, and With respect to factor B, the petition smaller streams with low flows of less dams and reservoirs have preserved asserted that CRCT are threatened by than 0.42 cubic meter/second (15 cubic pure populations of CRCT. Information recreational fishing, because CRCT are feet/second). State efforts to overcome on the impacts of dams and reservoirs, easy to catch and the state regulatory these challenges continue. oil and gas development, road building agencies lack sufficient funding to The Service recognizes that and logging is not available on a enforce protective regulations overgrazing can be detrimental to trout rangewide basis. The petition did not effectively. Colorado, Utah, and habitat, and that overgrazing may occur provide substantial information to Wyoming all have special regulations in some habitats occupied by CRCT. The determine the rangewide impact on that provide protection against petition asserted that habitat conditions CRCT habitat. We have no other overharvest of CRCT. These special are degraded in a significant portion of information establishing these activities regulations include catch-and-release the subspecies’ range. Descriptions of as significant threats to CRCT. requirements, very limited harvest, habitat conditions are not available for The USFS and the BLM are currently fishing closures, and tackle restrictions. the CRCT on a rangewide basis (Bruce implementing conservation actions on Also, the remote locations of many May, USFS, pers. comm. 2003). The Federal lands to improve habitat CRCT streams provide protection from petition used the habitat limitations conditions for CRCT (USFS 2002, BLM heavy fishing pressure (CRCT Task data field presented in Appendix A of 2003). These actions include grazing Force 2001). the CAS to draw this conclusion. management by constructing fencing, The CDOW placed harvest and tackle However, this data field is not adequate building exclosures, and resting grazing restrictions on most conservation to determine the habitat condition of allotments. Other vegetation populations of CRCT in 1999. These individual streams or lakes or to management activities to improve regulations prohibit harvest of CRCT determine the condition of the habitat riparian conditions include weed and allow anglers to only use flies and rangewide (Dan Brauch, CDOW, pers. control and riparian plantings. The BLM lures (i.e., no bait). The CDOW reports comm. 2003). This data field was not has recently facilitated installation of a that 49 waters with conservation applied consistently in the three States, fish screen to prevent CRCT from populations are closed to cutthroat trout nor was it applied consistently over entering a water diversion structure and harvest and 1 lake is closed to fishing time. In many cases, habitat limitations implemented culvert improvements to (Brauch and Hebein 2003). In Rocky

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21155

Mountain National Park, all waters that complete its life cycle. Its essential hosts fontinalis), where they occur in the contain pure native cutthroat trout are are a salmonid fish and an aquatic same habitat; but the degree to which limited to catch-and-release angling worm, Tubifex tubifex. Field predation is a factor in this replacement (except Caddis Lake and Lake Nanita, experiments have shown that CRCT are has not been well studied (Peterson and where there is a two-fish daily limit), very susceptible to whirling disease, Fausch 2002). We find that there is and some waters are closed to angling with an 85 percent mortality rate over insufficient information to conclude while restoration efforts are being a 4-month period when CRCT were that predation by nonnative fishes is a implemented (Rosenlund et al. 2001). exposed to the parasites in the Colorado significant threat to CRCT. In the early 1980s, the WGFD River (Thompson et al. 1999). However, D. The Inadequacy of Existing implemented regulations to better Tubifex tubifex is usually most Regulatory Mechanisms manage CRCT waters. Some waters have abundant in areas of high complete fishing closures; other waters sedimentation, low water temperatures, With respect to factor D, the petition are catch-and-release only, reduced and low dissolved oxygen. Most asserted that currently there are no limits, and seasonal closures. The populations of CRCT occur in cold regulations protecting the species from WGFD continually revises fishing water stream habitats at high elevations, take or habitat degradation. The petition regulations to protect species of concern where Tubifex tubifex is unlikely to be and subsequent correspondence failed (Remmick 2002). The WGFD assigned a abundant. Thompson et al. (1999) found to recognize all of the ongoing efforts of warden to enforce fishing closures near infection rates to be low when the signatories of the 2001 Conservation CRCT habitat when roads were temperatures are less than 10°C (50°F). Agreement. The States of Utah, constructed in association with the Out of the hundreds of CRCT Wyoming, and Colorado, and the Cheyenne Stage II Water Project in the populations reported by the States, only Federal land management agencies all Little Snake River drainage in Wyoming a few populations of CRCT in Utah and have ongoing programs to conserve the (Remmick 2002). Wyoming have been infected by CRCT. In Utah, the UDWR has established whirling disease (Kimball 2001, Colorado Division of Wildlife seasonal closures, reduced limits, size Remmick 2002). In Colorado, CDOW has restrictions, and implemented fishing not found any native cutthroat The CDOW includes the CRCT on a closures in areas of recent introductions population infected with whirling list of species of special concern. to protect CRCT. The UDWR has not disease (Nesler 2003). Wyoming reports Colorado fishing regulations provide observed small, remote populations that no core conservation populations or restrictive regulations for some CRCT getting enough fishing pressure to conservation populations have been waters. These restrictions include influence numbers and size structure infected (Remmick 2002). All three angling limited to artificial flies and (Kimball 2001). States have developed management lures and immediate return of all trout While the petition recognizes that activities to protect CRCT populations alive to the water. A recent report existing fishing regulations are in most from whirling disease. outlines conservation activities cases adequate, it raises concerns that In Colorado, policies require that only conducted by the CDOW during 1999– funding for education and enforcement fish that have tested negative for 2002 (Brauch and Hebein 2003). The programs may be inadequate. However, Myxobolus cerebralis, within the last 60 CDOW reported that, during this period, the petition and information available in days are permitted to be released into 311 streams and lakes were targeted for the Service’s files fails to provide CRCT waters. Colorado also requires conservation activities. Statewide documentation to support this assertion. disease-free certification and requires conservation activities included Based on the existing regulations the use of isolation/quarantine units for restrictive tackle and catch-and-release described above, we conclude that the CRCT stocks (CRCT Task Force 2001). regulations, regulations prohibiting scientific and commercial information Utah has some of the most stringent fish nonnative stocking into conservation available does not support the assertion disease laws in the United States. Utah populations, and stocking CRCT for that overutilization by recreational has a Fish Health Board that oversees recreation into high lakes. Other angling is a threat to CRCT. the disease testing protocol. Utah does conservation activities included Furthermore, the petition failed to not allow stocking of fish that test development of subbasin brood stocks, present substantial information positive for whirling disease anywhere removal of nonnative trout, protection regarding a lack of sufficient funding for (CRCT Task Force 2001). A couple of of populations with barrier education and enforcement of the CRCT waters in Utah have been infected construction, genetic testing, and regulations. by whirling disease, and the UDWR is population monitoring. The Colorado studying the effects of whirling disease Water Quality Control Division and C. Disease or Predation on these populations (Kimball 2001). Commission regulate water quality and With respect to factor C, the petition Wyoming has a policy that any fish set water quality standards to protect asserted that CRCT are threatened by testing positive for Myxobolus cerebralis aquatic life in coldwater environments. whirling disease and the CDOW stocks will not be stocked (Remmick 2002). whirling disease-infected fish within the We find that the scientific and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources historic range of CRCT. Also, the commercial information available Utah lists CRCT as a conservation petition asserted that CRCT are supports the allegation that CRCT are species, which is defined as currently threatened by predation from brown, susceptible to whirling disease, but due receiving sufficient special management brook, and rainbow trout. In recent to the physical characteristics of CRCT under a conservation agreement to years, whirling disease has become a habitat and the current State policies, preclude listing as endangered, great concern to fishery managers in whirling disease does not pose a threatened, or species of special concern western States. Whirling disease is significant threat to CRCT. in Utah. Utah’s stocking practices have caused by the nonnative myxosporean Predation was recognized in the changed in recent years to protect parasite, Myxobolus cerebralis. This petition in association with the presence CRCT. Stocking of nonnative fishes no parasite was introduced to the United of nonnative trout in CRCT habitat. The longer occurs near core conservation States from Europe in the 1950s and CRCT are often replaced by nonnative populations or conservation requires two separate host organisms to trout, primarily brook trout (Salvelinus populations. In 2002, Utah discontinued

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21156 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

stocking rainbow trout in most streams controlling livestock crossings. In the are vulnerable to stochastic events, such and now only stocks sterile rainbow past 5 years, the USFS has completed as fire or drought. Hybridization with trout. Sterile rainbow trout are stocked 200 biological evaluations that address nonnative fish species has been only in areas that have no connection to CRCT. recognized as one of the most significant CRCT habitat. All stocking of nonnative The USFS (2002) reported that the threats to CRCT (Behnke 1992; Young et cutthroats was discontinued by 2000. Rocky Mountain Region in 2002 al. 1996; CRCT Task Force 2001). Utah fishing regulations restrict harvest implemented 51 conservation actions Hybridization occurs when nonnative of CRCT and implement fishing closures that positively influenced 64 lake ha species interbreed with CRCT, and the during restoration activities. (158 lake ac) and 727 stream km (452 offspring survive. The nonnative species stream mi) of CRCT habitat. Projects that hybridize with CRCT are primarily Wyoming Game and Fish Department included inventory of existing and rainbow trout and other subspecies of Wyoming protects CRCT through potential habitat, drought salvage, cutthroat trout. If the hybrids survive fishing regulations and stocking fencing to exclude cattle, stream and interbreed with one or both of the procedures. Restrictions on angling assessment and monitoring, nonnative parental species, it is called include reduced bag limits, catch-and- trout removal, building and maintaining introgressive hybridization. This can release fishing, seasonal closures, and barriers, moving dispersed campsites, lead to loss of genetic purity in the complete closures. The WGFD has filed and genetic analysis. Over the last 4 population and result in a population for water rights on a total of 30 stream years the USFS has provided $2,097,100 that consists entirely of individuals that segments of CRCT habitat, for a total of for the implementation of 112 contain genetic material from both 187 km (116 mi). Priority dates for these conservation actions. species (i.e., a hybrid swarm). filings range from 1989 to 2002. To date, Nonnative salmonids have been stocked two instream flow rights have been Bureau of Land Management in CRCT habitat since the late 1800s approved. The Wyoming State Division The CRCT is on the BLM’s Sensitive throughout CRCT historic range. The of Environmental Quality implements Species List. The BLM prepares Work State agencies have spent considerable water quality regulations and controls Plans and Accomplishment Reports for time and money in recent years testing that apply to CRCT waters. conservation efforts on BLM lands in populations to determine their genetic U.S. Forest Service Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. purity. Conservation actions are either planned Determining genetic purity is a The USFS has designated CRCT as a or have been implemented on complex issue and a single standard has sensitive species. According to the approximately 40 CRCT streams. not been established. Methods used by USFS, the petition misrepresented their the States to determine genetic purity National Park Service aquatic habitat management program have changed over the years. Analysis and land-use coordination by taking The current fisheries management by meristics (counts of body parts) was statements in reports out of context objectives in Rocky Mountain National used for many years, but now various (USFS 2003). The U.S. Department of Park were established in 1969, when the molecular genetic techniques (i.e., Agriculture policy directs the USFS to stocking of nonnative and hybrid fishes mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid manage ‘‘habitat for all existing native was no longer permitted. Lakes that did (DNA), nuclear DNA, allozymes) are and desired nonnative * * * species in not maintain reproducing populations available and can detect very small order to maintain at least viable of fish became fishless (Rosenlund et al. amounts of introgression. Many of the populations of such species and to 2001). Five sites that contain core core conservation populations have avoid actions that may cause a species conservation populations within Rocky been confirmed to be pure (<1 percent to become threatened or endangered.’’ Mountain National Park are open to introgression) with these molecular While specific population viability catch-and-release fishing, and four other genetic techniques. Many other test criteria have not been established by the sites have a two-fish limit. Most CRCT results are pending. In general, CRCT Coordination Team, this policy waters within the Park are in high- scientists have found that genetic testing requires the USFS to make a judgment elevation remote locations, where confirms the results of the earlier on the viability of each individual angling pressure is very light. Livestock meristic techniques (Brauch and Hebein population where authorized activities grazing, timber harvest, mining, or other 2003; Hepworth et al. in press). All may impact CRCT. development does not occur in Rocky three States continue the process of The 2001 CAS was used as a basis for Mountain National Park. genetic testing, using the latest recovery and conservation strategies for The scientific and commercial techniques. An evaluation of known Standards and Guidelines within information available does not support stocking history and genetic and individual Forest Plans, in combination the petition’s assertion that there are no meristic information is considered in with the Fisheries and Aquatic Ecology regulations protecting the species from determining core conservation section of the Forest Planning Desk take or habitat degradation. We populations. Guide. For example, the standards for conclude that take of the subspecies can Current policies preclude stocking of the White River National Forest Plan in be controlled by State regulations and nonnative trout in CRCT habitat, and Colorado include provisions to: that the Federal land management recent genetics work has added maintain or enhance existing CRCT agencies have policies to manage significantly to the number of core habitat; reduce sediment from existing sensitive species habitat. conservation populations (>99 percent roads and trials; maintain pool depths; pure). As of July 2003, 221 core maintain riparian vegetation; and retain E. Other Natural or Manmade conservation populations are known to large woody debris in streams. Mechanisms exist in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Guidelines to implement these With respect to factor E, the petition There are varying amounts of standards include restriction on new asserted that a major threat to CRCT is information available regarding the roads, rerouting existing roads, competition and hybridization from genetic purity of these core conservation decommissioning old roads, altering nonnative trout species occurring in the populations. Since 1999, Wyoming has timing of grazing, excluding sensitive or same habitat as CRCT. It also asserted added 20 core conservation populations problem areas from grazing, and that small isolated populations of CRCT and Colorado has added 25 core

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21157

conservation populations as the result of Team, unpublished data). Colorado also within CRCT waters are currently being genetic testing. Some populations are removed brook trout by electrofishing in implemented by responsible agencies. added to the list of core conservation 20 waters. Therefore, we conclude that the petition populations, and others are dropped Fish barriers have been constructed and other documents in our files do not from the list as genetic testing on CRCT streams to prevent the provide evidence that competition with continues. Far more populations have upstream movement of nonnative brook trout presents a significant threat been added to the list of core salmonids. The CAS identifies the to the subspecies within the foreseeable conservation populations through construction of barriers as a strategy to future. While stochastic events will genetic testing than have been removed protect and restore existing habitat. It always pose a threat to individual (Brauch and Hebein 2003; Conway also recognizes that natural barriers can populations, the establishment of 2003; Stone 2003). In addition to the be effective. Recent data show 117 (53 metapopulations and state management core conservation populations, there are percent) of the existing core actions should minimize this impact. 106 conservation populations that are conservation populations are currently Finding classified as 90 to 99 percent pure. protected by a natural or artificial Hybridization continues to be a threat barrier (CRCT Coordination Team, We conclude that the petition and where nonnative species, particularly unpublished data). However, the other documents in our files do not rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Service recognizes that barriers are not present substantial information to lead a and nonnative cutthroat trout, occur in a guarantee that non-natives will not be reasonable person to believe that listing the same habitat as CRCT. The most present in CRCT habitat. Thirty-two the CRCT as threatened or endangered recent data show that only 8 of the 221 percent of the core conservation may be warranted. After reviewing core conservation populations coexist populations with barriers have recent data, we conclude that there are with rainbow trout or another nonnative salmonids present. a significant number of core subspecies of nonnative cutthroat trout Ultimately, a larger watershed conservation populations of CRCT (although information on presence of approach may be necessary for the long- distributed throughout historic range nonnative salmonids is not available for term persistence of CRCT populations and that agencies are implementing 22 of the populations). Because core (Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000). management actions to improve the conservation populations are defined as The Service recognizes that stochastic status of these populations. Since 1998, >99 percent pure, one would expect a events can be detrimental to individual 125 stream populations and 29 lake very low occurrence of other species or populations of CRCT. The primary goal populations have been added to the list subspecies that are known to interbreed of the CAS is to establish of conservation populations for a total of with CRCT in the core conservation metapopulations within each 286 stream populations and 41 lake population waters. geographic management unit to assure populations. This increase in Competition from nonnative trout, the long-term prosperity of CRCT. While population numbers can be attributable especially brook trout, also has been all the specific metapopulation goals of to results of genetic testing, removal of recognized as a major threat to CRCT the CAS have not been met, nonnatives, and stocking. The total (Behnke 1992). Studies have shown metapopulations connecting 2 or more number of conservation populations and CRCT are displaced when brook trout streams do occur in 14 out of the 15 core conservation populations occur in the same habitat. A recent geographic management units (Table 3). represents a relatively secure study conducted by Colorado State The Service agrees with the assertion in subspecies. The States and the Federal University found survival of young the petition that once an isolated agencies report that there are currently CRCT was greatly impacted by the population is lost, there are no natural 11 metapopulations with 5 or more presence of brook trout, while adult means for these populations to recruit interconnected subpopulations and 23 CRCT survival was not impacted new members. However, management metapopulations with 2 to 4 (Peterson and Fausch 2002). Since 2001, actions have been taken by the States to interconnected subpopulations. Work is four conservation populations in repopulate CRCT streams after ongoing to establish additional Colorado (Corral Creek, Cub Creek, stochastic events. For example, during metapopulations throughout the CRCT’s Express Creek, and Nolan Creek) have the 2002 drought, Colorado salvaged historic range. The Federal land been completely displaced by brook fish from Trapper Creek and West management agencies are currently trout (Brauch and Hebein 2003). Antelope Creek and held the fish in implementing conservation actions in Brook trout are no longer stocked in refugia for return to the wild when CRCT habitat such as grazing CRCT waters in Colorado, Utah, or conditions improved and for the management, recreation management, Wyoming. Recent data (CRCT establishment of broodstock for weed control, and riparian plantings. Coordination Team, unpublished data) supplying fish for stocking into the The State and Federal agencies work show that brook trout are absent from respective hydrologic subbasins (Brauch cooperatively to construct and maintain 139 of the 199 core conservation and Hebein 2003). barriers, remove nonnative fish, and populations that have been surveyed for Although some CRCT populations are monitor fish populations. nonnative salmonids. Recognizing the threatened by hybridization, we The petition asserted that overgrazing, threat posed by brook trout, the conclude that the threat of hybridization water diversions, mining, dams and responsible agencies are actively is not pervasive to the extent that it reservoirs, oil and gas development, implementing management techniques, poses a risk to the continued survival of road-building and logging are such as the construction of barriers, the CRCT. The Service recognizes that detrimental to CRCT. The Service finds removal of brook trout, and the nonnatives can outcompete CRCT. the information in the petition was not curtailment of stocking brook trout However, brook trout are absent from adequate to assess the impacts within CRCT waters. Between 1999 and 139 of the 199 core conservation rangewide. While limited habitat size, 2002, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming populations that have been surveyed for small population size, inappropriate completed chemical treatments in 36 nonnative salmonids. Management water temperatures, and habitat CRCT waters, for a total of 88 stream techniques such as the construction of fragmentation are a concern, it is miles and 87 lake acres in 8 geographic barriers, the removal of brook trout and unclear how these factors affect the management units (CRCT Coordination the curtailment of stocking brook trout long-term viability of the subspecies.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21158 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

We do not agree with the petitioners’ and the States have ongoing programs to 2004. An optional field trip is planned conclusion that none of the populations remove brook trout from CRCT waters. for Tuesday, June 8, 2004. can be considered secure because every The petition failed to recognize the The public comment period is one is threatened by nonnative fishes, ongoing conservation efforts of the scheduled for Tuesday, June 8, 2004, limited stream length, habitat members of the CRCT Coordination from 6–7 p.m. The public may present limitations, or a combination of these Team. Numerous conservation efforts written comments to the RAC. factors. are ongoing in all three States and in Depending on the number of persons Historically, overharvest of CRCT may general appear to be well funded. We wishing to comment and time available, have significantly reduced the numbers conclude that the management programs individual oral comments may be of CRCT in some areas, but we find that currently in place for CRCT are limited. fishing regulations enacted by the States improving the status of this subspecies SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15- and the National Park Service provide and continued improvement is member RAC advises the Secretary of measures that preclude excessive take anticipated in the future. Therefore, as the Interior, through the Bureau of Land by recreational angling. The petition did required by section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Management, on a variety of planning not present substantial information ESA, we conclude that the petition did and management issues associated with indicating funding to enforce or educate not present substantial information to public land management in New the public about these regulations was demonstrate that the listing may be Mexico. All meetings are open to the inadequate. Also, many CRCT waters warranted. This finding is based on all are located in remote locations that public. At this meeting, topics for information available to us at this time. discussion include: Division of experience very light fishing pressure. References Cited: A complete list of Whirling disease is a significant Resources’ issues, Fluid Minerals’ all references cited herein is available report, Otero Mesa update, Field concern for trout in general, but very upon request from the Grand Junction, few CRCT populations have tested Managers’ reports, and feedback from Colorado Field Office (see ADDRESSES). the RAC Chairs meeting in Phoenix. positive for the disease and all three Author: The primary author of this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: States are implementing management document is Patty Schrader Gelatt, Theresa Herrera, New Mexico State actions to protect CRCT from whirling Colorado Field Office, Grand Junction, Office, Office of External Affairs, Bureau disease. Also, much of the habitat for Colorado. CRCT is unlikely to be conducive to the of Land Management, P.O. Box 27115, whirling disease pathogen. Therefore, Authority: The authority for this action is Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502–0115, we do not agree with the petition’s the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as (505) 438–7517. amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). assertions that overutilization or Dated: April 14, 2004. Dated: April 8, 2004. whirling disease present significant Ron Dunton, threats to CRCT. With regard to Elizabeth H. Stevens, Acting State Director. predation by nonnative fishes, we find Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife that there is insufficient information to Service. [FR Doc. 04–8876 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] conclude that this issue is a significant [FR Doc. 04–8633 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–FB–M threat to CRCT. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P The Federal land management agencies all have programs in place to DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR regulate land management activities. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation The petition did not provide evidence to and Enforcement support its allegation that these Bureau of Land Management programs are not providing adequate NM–910–04–1020–PH Notice of Proposed Information protection, and why they are not Collection for 1029–0124 effective in conserving CRCT. Service New Mexico Resource Advisory files do not contain adequate Council, Notice of Call for Nominations AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining information on habitat conditions to Reclamation and Enforcement. make an informed determination as to AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, ACTION: Notice and request for whether Federal lands are being Department of the Interior. comments. adequately protected or enhanced by ACTION: Notice of public meeting. existing regulations and policies. Thus, SUMMARY: In compliance with the the Service has no reason to assume the SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the programs in place for CRCT Federal Land Policy and Management Office of Surface Mining Reclamation management are inadequate. Act and the Federal Advisory and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing Although some CRCT populations are Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. its intention to request approval for the threatened by hybridization, we Department of the Interior, Bureau of collection of information for conclude that significant numbers of Land Management, New Mexico Revegetation: Standards for Success populations have been determined to be Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will required for surface mining activities core conservation populations (>99 meet as indicated below. and underground mining activities at 30 percent pure). Further, the States have DATES: The meeting will be held on June CFR 816.116 and 817.116. OSM implemented policies to protect the 9–10, 2004, beginning at 8 a.m. at the submitted an emergency request to the genetic purity of the core conservation Hilton Inn, 705 S. Telshor, Las Cruces, Office of Management and Budget to populations. Competition from brook New Mexico, in the Soledad Room. The seek approval for OSM to continue trout is recognized as a threat to CRCT meeting will adjourn at approximately 5 collecting the information required by and the State and Federal agencies are p.m. on Wednesday, June 9, 2004, and these sections. OMB approved the implementing management techniques 12 noon on Thursday, June 10, 2004. request and assigned them clearance to offset this threat. Many core The two established RAC working number 1029–0124. conservation populations (53%) are groups may have a late afternoon or an DATES: Comments on the proposed protected by natural or artificial barriers evening meeting on Wednesday, June 9, information collection must be received

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21159

by June 21, 2004, to be assured of Summary: Section 515 and 516 of the information on this matter by contacting consideration. Surface Mining Control and the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Reclamation Act of 1977 provides that 205–1810. Persons with mobility John A. Trelease, Office of Surface permittees conducting coal mining impairments who will need special Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, operations shall meet all applicable assistance in gaining access to the 1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Room performance standards of the Act. The Commission should contact the Office 210—SIB, Washington, DC. 20240. information collected is used by the of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. Comments may also be submitted regulatory authority in inspecting General information concerning the electronically to [email protected]. surface and underground coal mining Commission may also be obtained by reclamation activities to ensure that accessing its Internet server (http:// FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To they are revegetated in accordance with www.usitc.gov). The public record for request a copy of the information applicable State requirements. this review may be viewed on the collection request, explanatory Bureau Form Number: None. Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) information and related form, contact Frequency of Collection: Once. at http://edis.usitc.gov. John A. Trelease, at (202) 208–2783. Description of Respondents: Coal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office mining operators and State regulatory Background. On April 6, 2004, the of Management and Budget (OMB) authorities. Commission determined that the regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which Total Annual Responses: 882. domestic interested party group implement provisions of the Paperwork Total Annual Burden Hours: 70,600. response to its notice of institution (69 Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), Total Annual Non-Wage Costs: FR 101, January 2, 2004) of the subject require that interested members of the $44,000. five-year review was adequate and that public and affected agencies have an Dated: April 14, 2004. the respondent interested party group opportunity to comment on information response was inadequate. The Sarah E. Donnelly, collection and recordkeeping activities Commission did not find any other (see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)). Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. circumstances that would warrant This notice identifies information [FR Doc. 04–8902 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, collections at 30 CFR 816.116 and BILLING CODE 4310–05–M the Commission determined that it 817.116 that OSM will be submitting to would conduct an expedited review OMB. pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. OSM previously received approval for INTERNATIONAL TRADE Staff report. A staff report containing collection activities for 30 CFR part 816 COMMISSION information concerning the subject and part 817. They were assigned matter of the review will be placed in [Investigation No. AA–1921–167 (Review)] clearance number 1029–0047. However, the nonpublic record on May 10, 2004, OSM inadvertently failed to include in and made available to persons on the the clearance request existing collection Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy Administrative Protective Order service requirements for §§ 816.116 and list for this review. A public version 817.116. These sections require State AGENCY: United States International will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § regulatory authorities to develop Trade Commission. 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. statistically valid sampling techniques, ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited five- Written submissions. As provided in and for operators to document year review concerning the antidumping § 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, revegetation information during Phase 3 finding on pressure sensitive plastic interested parties that are parties to the bond release. OSM requested and tape from Italy. review and that have provided received an emergency clearance from individually adequate responses to the OMB for the collection activities in SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice of institution,2 and any party §§ 816.116 and 817.116. They were notice of the scheduling of an expedited other than an interested party to the assigned clearance number 1029–0124. review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of review may file written comments with Now, OSM is seeking a 3-year term of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. the Secretary on what determination the approval for these collections. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine Commission should reach in the review. Comments are invited on: (1) The whether revocation of the antidumping Comments are due on or before May 13, need for the collection of information finding on pressure sensitive plastic 2004, and may not contain new factual for the performance of the functions of tape from Italy would be likely to lead information. Any person that is neither the agency; (2) the accuracy of the to continuation or recurrence of material a party to the five-year review nor an agency’s burden estimates; (3) ways to injury within a reasonably foreseeable interested party may submit a brief enhance the quality, utility and clarity time. For further information written statement (which shall not of the information collection; and (4) concerning the conduct of this review contain any new factual information) ways to minimize the information and rules of general application, consult pertinent to the review by May 13, 2004. collection burden on respondents, such the Commission’s Rules of Practice and However, should the Department of as use of automated means of collection Procedure, part 201, subparts A through Commerce extend the time limit for its of the information. A summary of the E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, public comments will accompany subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 1 A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the OSM’s submission of the information 207). Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any collection request to OMB. individual Commissioner’s statements will be EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2004. available from the Office of the Secretary and at the This notice provides the public with Commission’s Web site. 60 days in which to comment on the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jai 2 The Commission has found the response following information collection Motwane (202–205–3176), Office of submitted by 3M Co. (including those submitted on activity: Investigations, U.S. International Trade behalf of Intertape Polymer Group, Inc.; Shurtape Technologies, Inc.; and Sekisui TA Industries, Inc.) Title: Revegetation: Standards for Commission, 500 E Street SW, to be individually adequate. Comments from other Success, 30 CFR 816.116 and 817.116. Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR OMB Control Number: 1029–0124. impaired persons can obtain 207.62(d)(2)).

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21160 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

completion of the final results of its information concerning the conduct of other than an interested party to the review, the deadline for comments this review and rules of general review may file written comments with (which may not contain new factual application, consult the Commission’s the Secretary on what determination the information) on Commerce’s final Rules of Practice and Procedure, part Commission should reach in the review. results is three business days after the 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part Comments are due on or before May 13, issuance of Commerce’s results. If 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 2004, and may not contain new factual comments contain business proprietary F (19 CFR part 207). information. Any person that is neither information (BPI), they must conform EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2004. a party to the five-year review nor an with the requirements of §§ 201.6, interested party may submit a brief FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jai 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s written statement (which shall not Motwane (202–205–3176), Office of rules. The Commission’s rules do not contain any new factual information) Investigations, U.S. International Trade authorize filing of submissions with the pertinent to the review by May 13, 2004. Commission, 500 E Street SW., Secretary by facsimile or electronic However, should the Department of Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- means, except to the extent permitted by Commerce extend the time limit for its impaired persons can obtain § 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as completion of the final results of its information on this matter by contacting amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, review, the deadline for comments the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 2002). (which may not contain new factual 205–1810. Persons with mobility In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and information) on Commerce’s final impairments who will need special 207.3 of the rules, each document filed results is three business days after the assistance in gaining access to the by a party to the review must be served issuance of Commerce’s results. If Commission should contact the Office on all other parties to the review (as comments contain business proprietary of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. identified by either the public or BPI information (BPI), they must conform General information concerning the service list), and a certificate of service with the requirements of sections 201.6, Commission may also be obtained by must be timely filed. The Secretary will 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s accessing its Internet server (http:// not accept a document for filing without rules. The Commission’s rules do not www.usitc.gov). The public record for a certificate of service. authorize filing of submissions with the this review may be viewed on the Determination. The Commission has Secretary by facsimile or electronic Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) determined to exercise its authority to means, except to the extent permitted by at http://edis.usitc.gov. extend the review period by up to 90 section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 1675(c)(5)(B). Background.—On April 6, 2004, the 2002). Commission determined that the In accordance with sections 201.16(c) Authority: This review is being conducted domestic interested party group under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act and 207.3 of the rules, each document of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to response to its notice of institution (69 filed by a party to the review must be § 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. FR 101, January 2, 2004) of the subject served on all other parties to the review five-year review was adequate and that (as identified by either the public or BPI Issued: April 14, 2004. the respondent interested party group By order of the Commission. service list), and a certificate of service response was inadequate. The Marilyn R. Abbott, must be timely filed. The Secretary will Commission did not find any other not accept a document for filing without Secretary to the Commission. circumstances that would warrant a certificate of service. [FR Doc. 04–8882 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, Determination.—The Commission has BILLING CODE 7020–02–P the Commission determined that it determined to exercise its authority to would conduct an expedited review extend the review period by up to 90 pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. INTERNATIONAL TRADE Staff report.—A staff report 1675(c)(5)(B). COMMISSION containing information concerning the Authority: This review is being conducted [Investigation No. AA–1921–188 (Review)] subject matter of the review will be under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act placed in the nonpublic record on May of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 10, 2004, and made available to persons section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. Strand From Japan on the Administrative Protective Order Issued: April 14, 2004. service list for this review. A public AGENCY: International Trade By order of the Commission. version will be issued thereafter, Commission. pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Marilyn R. Abbott, ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited five- Commission’s rules. Secretary to the Commission. year review concerning the antidumping Written submissions.—As provided in [FR Doc. 04–8883 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] finding on prestressed concrete steel section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s BILLING CODE 7020–02–P wire strand from Japan. rules, interested parties that are parties SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE notice of the scheduling of an expedited 2 review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of notice of institution, and any party [AAG/A Order No. 003–2004] the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1 A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine Privacy Act of 1974: System of Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any Records whether revocation of the antidumping individual Commissioner’s statements will be finding on prestressed concrete steel available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 wire strand from Japan would be likely Commission’s web site. 2 The Commission has found the responses U.S.C. 552a), the Department of Justice, to lead to continuation or recurrence of submitted on behalf of American Spring Wire Corp., material injury within a reasonably Insteel Wire Products Co., and Sumiden Wire Corp. interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR foreseeable time. For further to be individually adequate. Comments from other 207.62(d)(2)).

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21161

Office of Professional Responsibility * * * [Revise the current routine use DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (OPR), proposes to modify the following (8) to read as follows.] Employment and Training system of records previously published (8) a record may be disclosed to the Administration in full text in the Federal Register on National Archives and Records December 10, 1998 (63 FR 68299 Administration (NARA) in records (1998)): Office of Professional [TA–W–52,969B and TA–W–52,969C] management inspections conducted Responsibility Record Index, JUSTICE/ under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906; OPR–001. This system of records was Agilent Technologies, Inc., Computer last modified to add three routine uses * * * * * Test Equipment Division (Cte), Santa in Federal Register notice of November Rosa, CA and Including Employees of * * * (13) relevant information Agilent Technologies, Inc., Computer 27, 2002 (67 FR 70967 (2002)). contained in this system of records may OPR is adding one new routine use to Test Equipment Division (Cte), be disclosed to a member of the judicial Andover, MA; Amended Certification this system of records. This routine use branch of Federal Government in allows the disclosure of certain Regarding Eligibility To Apply for response to a written request where Worker Adjustment Assistance information to the subject of an disclosures are relevant to the investigation or inquiry conducted by authorized function of the recipient In accordance with Section 223 of the OPR for the purpose of furthering the judicial office or court system. Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the investigation or inquiry, or to give [Following this sentence insert the Department of Labor issued a notice of the status or outcome of the paragraph below.] Certification of Eligibility to Apply for investigation or inquiry. In addition, the Worker Adjustment Assistance on Department is revising the existing (14) information in this system may October 7, 2003, applicable to workers routine use for disclosure of records in be disclosed to the subject of an of Agilent Technologies, Inc., Computer records management inspections, since investigation or inquiry conducted by Test Equipment Division (CTE), Santa the General Services Administration no OPR to further the investigation or Rosa, California. The notice was longer conducts record management inquiry, or to give notice of the status published in the Federal Register on inspections. or outcome of the investigation or November 6, 2003 (68 FR 62834). Title 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11) inquiry. At the request of the company, the provides that the public be given a 30- * * * * * Department reviewed the certification day period in which to comment on the for workers of the subject firm. New proposed new routine use disclosures. [FR Doc. 04–8903 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–28–P information shows that worker The Office of Management and Budget separations have occurred involving (OMB), which has oversight employees of the Santa Rosa, California responsibilities under the Privacy Act, facility of Agilent Technologies, Inc., requires a 40-day period in which to DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Computer Test Equipment Division conclude its review of any proposal to (CTE) located in Andover, revise existing routine uses or add new Employment and Training Massachusetts. routine use disclosures or make other Administration These employees provided research major modifications. and development services supporting You may submit any comments by the production of drive test equipment [TA–W–54,509] May 20, 2004. The public, OMB and the in the PLPJ line at the subject firm. Congress are invited to send comments Based on these findings, the to Mary Cahill, Management Analyst, Agilent Technologies, Andover, MA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Department is amending this Management and Planning Staff, Justice certification to include employees of the Management Division, Department of Santa Rosa, California facility of Agilent Justice, Room 1400 National Place Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was Technologies, Inc., Computer Test Building, Washington, DC 20530. If no Equipment Div. (CTE), located in initiated on March 16, 2004 in response comments are received, the proposal Andover, Massachusetts. to a worker petition which was filed on will be implemented without further The intent of the Department’s behalf of workers at Agilent notice in the Federal Register. certification is to include all workers of In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552a(r), Technologies, Andover, Massachusetts. Agilent Technologies, Inc., Computer the Department has provided a report to The petitioners have requested that Test Equipment (CTE) who were OMB and the Congress on the proposed the petition be withdrawn. adversely affected by increased imports. new routine use. Consequently, the investigation has The amended notice applicable to Dated: April 6, 2004. been terminated. TA–W–52,969B is hereby issued as Paul R. Corts, Signed in Washington, DC, this 30th day of follows: Assistant Attorney General for March, 2004. ‘‘All workers of Agilent Technologies, Inc., Administration. Richard Church, Computer Test Equipment Division (CTE), Santa Rosa, California (TA–W–52,969B), JUSTICE/OPR–001 Certifying Officer, Division of Trade including employees of Agilent Adjustment Assistance. SYSTEM NAME: Technologies, Inc., Computer Test [FR Doc. E4–888 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Office of Professional Responsibility Equipment Division (CTE), Andover, BILLING CODE 4510–13–P Massachusetts (TA–W–52,969C), engaged in Record Index employment related to the support of drive * * * * * test equipment in the PLPJ product line who became totally or partially separated from ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE employment on or after September 16, 2002, SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND through October 7, 2005, are eligible to apply THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: for adjustment assistance under Section 223 * * * * * of the Trade Act of 1974.’’

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21162 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of worker group at a firm producing an The petitioner has requested that the April 2004. article on behalf of whom the petition petition be withdrawn. Consequently, Linda G. Poole, is being filed. The petition regarding the the investigation has been terminated. Certifying Officer, Division of Trade investigation does not meet these Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of Adjustment Assistance. criteria and has been deemed invalid. March 2004. [FR Doc. E4–891 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Consequently, the investigation has Richard Church, BILLING CODE 4510–13–P been terminated. Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of Adjustment Assistance. March, 2004. [FR Doc. E4–889 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Richard Church, BILLING CODE 4510–13–P Employment and Training Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Administration [FR Doc. E4–886 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR [TA–W–54,322] BILLING CODE 4510–13–P Employment and Training Dielectric Communications, Raymond, Administration ME; Notice of Termination of DEPARTMENT OF LABOR [NAFTA–06385] Investigation Employment and Training Ameriphone, Inc., a Wholly Owned Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Administration Act of 1974, as amended, an Subsidiary of Plantronics, Inc., Garden investigation was initiated on February [TA–W–54,537] Grove, CA; Notice of Revised 20, 2004, in response to a petition filed Determination on Remand by the State Agency (Maine) on behalf RBX Industries, Bedford, VA; Notice of Termination of Investigation The United States Court of of workers at Dielectric International Trade (USCIT) granted the Communications, Raymond, Maine. Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Secretary of Labor’s motion for a The petitioner has requested that the Act of 1974, as amended, an voluntary remand for further petition be withdrawn. Consequently, investigation was initiated on March 22, investigation in Former Employees of further investigation in this case would 2004 in response to a worker petition Ameriphone, Inc. v. U.S. Secretary of serve no purpose, and the investigation filed on behalf of workers at RBX Labor (Court No. 03–00243). has been terminated. Industries, Inc., Bedford, Virginia. The Department’s initial denial of Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of The petitioning group of workers is NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment March, 2004. covered by an earlier petition filed on Assistance (NAFTA–6385) for the Elliott S. Kushner, March 5, 2004 (TA–W–54,467) that is workers of Ameriphone, Inc., a wholly Certifying Officer, Division of Trade the subject of an ongoing investigation owned subsidiary of Plantronics, Inc., Adjustment Assistance. for which a determination has not yet Garden Grove, California (hereafter [FR Doc. E4–890 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] been issued. Further investigation in ‘‘Ameriphone’’), was issued on this case would duplicate efforts and September 11, 2002 and published in BILLING CODE 4510–13–P serve no purpose; therefore the the Federal Register on September 27, investigation under this petition has 2002 (67 FR 61160). The denial was DEPARTMENT OF LABOR been terminated. based on the finding that the workers at Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of the subject facility did not produce an Employment and Training March 2004. article as required by Section 250 of the Administration Richard Church, Trade Act of 1974. On March 10, 2003, the Department [TA–W–54,578] Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. issued a Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application Motion Picture Editors Guild [FR Doc. E4–887 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] for Reconsideration for NAFTA–6385 International Alliance of Theatrical BILLING CODE 4510–13–P Stage Employees, Moving Picture and published in the Federal Register Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts on March 18, 2003 (68 FR 12938). of the United States, Its Territorites DEPARTMENT OF LABOR In the request for reconsideration, the And Canada (Iatse), Local 700 Los petitioner alleged that the workers were Angeles, CA; Notice of Termination of Employment and Training engaged in the final phase of production Investigation Administration (inspecting, testing and modifying products) as well as prototype design Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade [TA–W–54,507] and production. In the reconsideration Act of 1974, as amended, an Siemens Energy and Automation, Inc., investigation, the Department found that investigation was initiated on March 24, A Subsidiary of Siemens Corporation, the articulated functions constituted a 2004 in response to a worker petition Tucker, GA; Notice of Termination of negligible portion of the work filed by a state agency representative on Investigation performed at the subject facility and that behalf of the members of The Motion the workers were, in fact, service Picture Editors Guild, International Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade providers. Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Act of 1974, as amended, an On voluntary remand, the Department Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and investigation was initiated on March 16, contacted the company and requested Allied Crafts of the United States, Its 2004 in response to a petition filed by detailed information regarding the Territories and Canada, (IATSE), Local a company official on behalf of workers workers’ functions at the subject facility. 700, Los Angeles, California. of Siemens Energy and Automation, The newly obtained information Petitions for trade Adjustment Inc., a subsidiary of Siemens revealed that workers at the subject Assistance must specify a particular Corporation, Tucker, Georgia. facility were engaged in production. The

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21163

new information also revealed that a ADDRESSES: I. Submission of Comments. procedures concerning the delivery of significant portion of the production Regular mail, express delivery, hand- material by express delivery, hand performed at the subject facility was delivery, and messenger service: Submit delivery and messenger service. shifted to Mexico impacting workers at your comments and attachments to the II. Background the subject plant. OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. ICR– 1218–0173 (2004), Room N–2625, The Department of Labor, as part of its Conclusion OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 continuing effort to reduce paperwork After careful review of the additional Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, facts obtained on remand, I conclude DC 20210. OSHA Docket Office and conducts a preclearance consultation that a shift of production to Mexico of Department of Labor hours of operation program to provide the public with an products like or directly competitive are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST. opportunity to comment on proposed with those produced at the subject firm Facsimile: If your comments, and continuing information-collection contributed importantly to the declines including any attachments, are 10 pages requirements in accordance with the in sales or production and to the total or fewer, you may fax them to the OSHA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 or partial separation of workers of Docket Office at (202) 693–1648. You (PRA–95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(q)(A)). This Ameriphone, Inc., Garden Grove, must include the docket number of this program ensures that information is in California. In accordance with the document, Docket No. ICR 1218–0173 the desired format, reporting burden provisions of the Act, I make the (2004), in your comments. (time and cost) is minimal, collection following certification: Electronic: You may submit instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA’s estimate of the information- ‘‘All workers of Ameriphone, Inc., a wholly comments, but not attachments, through owned subsidiary of Plantronics, Inc., Garden the Internet at http:// collection burden is correct. Grove, California, who became totally or ecomments.osha.gov/. Section 21 of the Occupational Safety partially separated from employment on or II. Obtaining Copies of the Supporting and Health Act of 1970 (the ‘‘OSH Act’’) after June 24, 2001 through two years of this Statement for the Information Collection (see 29 U.S.C. 670) authorizes the certification, are eligible to apply for Request. The Supporting Statement for Occupational Safety and Health NAFTA–TAA under Section 250 of the Trade ‘‘ the Information Collection Request is Administration ( OSHA’’ or the Act of 1974.’’ ‘‘ available for downloading from OSHA’s ( Agency’’) to conduct training and employee education. Paragraphs (a), (b), Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of Web site at http://www.osha.gov. The and (c) of section 21 require, October, 2003. supporting statement is available for respectively, that the Agency: (a) Elliott S. Kushner, inspection and copying in the OSHA ‘‘[C]onduct, directly or by grants or Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Docket Office, at the address listed contracts, (1) education programs to Adjustment Assistance. above. A printed copy of the supporting provide an adequate supply of qualified Editorial Note: This document was statement can be obtained by contacting personnel to carry out the purposes of received in the Office of the Federal Register Todd Owen at (202) 693–2222. on April 15, 2004. this Act, and (2) informational programs FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail on the importance of and proper use of [FR Doc. E4–892 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Butler, Division of Administration and adequate safety and health equipment’’; BILLING CODE 4510–13–P Training Information, OSHA Office of (b) ‘‘[C]onduct, directly or by grants or Training and Education, 2020 South contracts, short-term training of Arlington Heights Road, Arlington personnel engaged in work related to DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Heights, Illinois 60005; telephone (not [their] responsibilities under the Act’’; toll free) (847) 297–4810; e-mail: Occupational Safety and Health and (c) ‘‘(1) provide for the [email protected] or facsimile: (847) Administration establishment and supervision of 297–4874. programs for the education and training [Docket No. ICR–1218–0173 (2004)] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of employers and employees in the recognition, avoidance, and prevention I. Submission of Comments in This Course Evaluation Form; Extension of of unsafe and unhealthful working Notice and Internet Access to the Office of Management and conditions in employments covered by Comments and Submissions Budget’s (OMB) Approval of this Act, and (2) consult with and advise Information Collection (Paperwork) You may submit comments in employers and employees, and Requirements response to this document by (1) hard organizations representing employers AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health copy, (2) fax transmission (facsimile), or and employees as to effective means of Administration (OSHA), Labor. (3) electronically through the OSHA preventing occupational injuries and ACTION: Request for comment. Web page. Please note you cannot attach illnesses.’’ materials such as studies or journal As authorized by section 21 of the SUMMARY: OSHA solicits comments articles to electronic comments. If you Act, the OSHA Training Institute (the concerning its request for an extension have additional materials, you must ‘‘Institute’’) provides basic, intermediate, of the information collection submit three copies of them to the and advanced training and education in requirements contained in the Course OSHA Docket Office at the address occupational safety and health for Evaluation Form. above. The additional materials must Federal and State compliance officers, DATES: Comments must be submitted by clearly identify your electronic Agency professionals and technical- the following dates: comments by name, date, subject and support personnel, employers, Hard Copy: You comments must be docket number so that we can attach employees, organizations representing submitted (postmarked or received) by them to your comments. Because of employees and employers, educators June 21, 2004. security-related problems there may be who develop curricula and teach Facsimile and electronic: Your a significant delay in the receipt of occupational safety and health courses, comments must be submitted comments by regular mail. Please and representatives of professional (postmarked or received) by June 21, contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) safety and health groups. This program 2004. 693–2350 for information about security includes courses on occupational safety

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21164 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

and health provided by the Institute at III. Special Issues for Comment NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE its national training facility in Arlington ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES OSHA has a particular interest in Heights, Illinois. The Institute also comments on the following issues: National Endowment for the Arts; administers a program whereby several • institutions in various locations Whether the proposed information- Fellowships Advisory Panel collection requirements are necessary throughout the United States have been for the proper performance of the Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the authorized as OSHA Training Institute Agency’s functions, including whether Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. Education Centers. These Education the information is useful; L. 92–463), as amended, notice is hereby Centers conduct various OSHA courses • given that a meeting of the Fellowships that are geared for private sector and The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of the burden (time and cost) of the Advisory Panel, Music section (NEA other Federal Agency personnel. The information-collection requirements, Jazz Masters category) to the National goal of the Education Center program is including the validity of the Council on the Arts will be held by to expand the accessibility of high- methodology and assumptions used; teleconference on May 10, 2004 from 2 quality OSHA training courses. p.m. to 4 p.m. in Room 703 at the Nancy • The quality, utility, and clarity of Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania All students completing training the information collected; and Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20506. courses at the Institute and the • Ways to minimize the burden on Education Centers are requested to This meeting is for the purpose of employers who must comply; for Panel review, discussion, evaluation, complete the Course Evaluation Form example, by using automated or other (OSHA Form 49, 08–98 edition) on the and recommendations on financial technological information-collection assistance under the National last day of class. Students may be and -transmission techniques. Federal, State, private sector, local or Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended. In tribal government employees. The IV. Proposed Actions accordance with the determination of Course Evaluation Form contains ten OSHA is proposing to extend OMB’s the Chairman of April 30, 2003, these closed-ended questions. It requests previous approval of the recordkeeping sessions will be closed to the public participant feedback on ten elements of (paperwork) requirement specified in pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section the program to assess communication the Course Evaluation Form. The 552b of Title 5, United States Code. and accomplishment of learning Agency will summarize the comments Further information with reference to objectives, course content, training submitted in response to this notice, this meeting can be obtained from Ms. environment, relevance of topics in job, and will include this summary in its Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of effectiveness of exercises, workshops, request to OMB to extend the approval Guidelines & Panel Operations, National laboratories, field trips and of this information-collection Endowment for the Arts, Washington, audiovisuals, usefulness of course requirement. DC, 20506, or call 202/682–5691. materials and handouts, and overall Type of Review: Extension of Dated: April 14, 2004. rating of the course. The feedback currently approved information- Kathy Plowitz-Worden, provides an overall impression of the collection requirements. student’s training experience for the Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, Title: Course Evaluation. National Endowment for the Arts. course. Students may provide more OMB Number: 1218–0173. detailed feedback in the narrative [FR Doc. 04–8917 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Affected Public: Individuals; business BILLING CODE 7537–01–P sections of the form. The Course or other for-profit organizations; Federal Evaluation Form provides a Government; State, local, or tribal standardized tool for collecting quality governments. NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE data that OSHA uses to determine Number of Respondents: 20,900. ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES program successes and shortcomings. Frequency of Response: On occasion. Data from this form has also assisted the National Endowment for the Arts; Total Responses: 20,900. Training Institute in directing resources Fellowships Advisory Panel where they can do the most good. Average Time per Response: 10 minutes. Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the All Course Evaluation Forms are Estimated Total Burden Hours: 3,483. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public reviewed by the course chairperson, Law 92–463), as amended, notice is instructors, the Institute Director and Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0. hereby given that a meeting of the the supervisor responsible for that Fellowships Advisory Panel, Literature course. Ratings provide baseline data V. Authority and Signature section (Translation Projects in Poetry from which to draw conclusions about John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary category) to the National Council on the the effectiveness and quality of the Arts will be held on May 25, 2004 from training courses and to assess the level of labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this 9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. in Room 714 at the of student satisfaction with the course. Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Evaluation data is used to determine notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20506. which courses may need improvement. This meeting is for the purpose of Problem areas are noted and the (44 U.S.C. 3506) and Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 5–2002 (67 FR Panel review, discussion, evaluation, supervisor discusses them with the 65008). and recommendations on financial course chairperson. Courses needing assistance under the National further improvement are scheduled for Signed at Washington, DC, on April 14, Foundation on the Arts and the a more comprehensive follow-up course 2004. Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, evaluation with recommendations for John L. Henshaw, including information given in improvement. Revised courses are Assistant Secretary of Labor. confidence to the agency. In accordance closely monitored to determine if [FR Doc. 04–8913 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] with the determination of the Chairman problem areas have been resolved. BILLING CODE 4510–26–M of April 30, 2003, these sessions will be

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21165

closed to the public pursuant to and provided the visual acuity and field exemption from the distant visual subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title of vision requirements stated above are requirements of 10 CFR part 73, 5, United States Code. met. On-the-job evaluation shall be used appendix B, Section I.B.b(1). The Further information with reference to for individuals who exhibit a mild color licensee’s letter of June 12, 2003, is this meeting can be obtained from Ms. vision defect.’’ The regulation at 10 CFR being withheld from public disclosure Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of part 73, appendix B, Section III.A.IV, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(a)(6), because Guidelines & Panel Operations, National ‘‘Weapons qualification and the letter contains information about an Endowment for the Arts, Washington, requalification program,’’ states, employee’s personnel and medical DC, 20506, or call 202/682–5691. ‘‘Qualification firing for the handgun records, a disclosure of which would Dated: April 2, 2004. and rifle must be for daylight firing, and constitute a clearly unwarranted Kathy Plowitz-Worden, each individual shall perform night invasion of personal privacy. firing for familiarization with assigned Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, 3.0 Discussion National Endowment for the Arts. weapon(s). The results of weapons [FR Doc. 04–8918 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] qualification and requalification must Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the be documented by the licensee or the BILLING CODE 7537–01–P Commission may, upon application by licensee’s agent. Each individual shall any interested person or upon its own be requalified at least every 12 months. initiative, grant exemptions from the The licensee shall retain this requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) NUCLEAR REGULATORY documentation of each qualification and COMMISSION the exemptions are authorized by law, requalification as a record for three will not present an undue risk to public [Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370] years from the date of the qualification health or safety, and are consistent with or requalification, as appropriate. the common defense and security; and Duke Energy Corporation; McGuire A. Handgun—Guards, armed escorts (2) when special circumstances are Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; and armed response personnel shall present. Exemption qualify with a revolver or semiautomatic The NRC staff has reviewed the pistol firing from the national police 1.0 Background individual’s visual medical evaluations course, or an equivalent nationally and has determined that granting the The Duke Energy Corporation (the recognized course. Qualifying score exemption will not jeopardize the licensee) is the holder of Renewed shall be an accumulated total of 70 health and safety of the public or be Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–9 percent of the maximum obtainable inimical to the common defense and and NPF–17 which authorizes operation score. security. The NRC staff’s Safety of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 B. Semiautomatic Rifle—Guards, Evaluation is provided in the Enclosure, and 2 (McGuire). The license provides, armed escorts and armed response that is being withheld from public among other things, that the facility is personnel, assigned to use the disclosure because it also contains subject to all rules, regulations, and semiautomatic rifle by the licensee information about an employee’s orders of the Nuclear Regulatory training and qualifications plan, shall personnel and medical records, a Commission (NRC, the Commission) qualify with a semiautomatic rifle by disclosure of which would constitute a now or hereafter in effect. firing the 100-yard course of fire The facility consists of two specified in section 17.5(1) of the clearly unwarranted invasion of pressurized-water reactors located in National Rifle Association, High Power personal privacy. Mecklenburg County in North Carolina. Rifle Rules book (effective March 15, Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), the 2.0 Request/Action 1976) or a nationally recognized equivalent course of fire. Targets used exemption requested by the licensee in Title 10 of the Code of Federal shall be as stated in section 17.5 for the its June 12, 2003, submittal should be Regulations (10 CFR) part 73, appendix 100-yard course. Time limits for granted. ‘‘ B, Section I.B.b.(1), Vision,’’ (a) states, individuals shall be as specified in 4.0 Conclusion ‘‘For each individual, distant visual section 8.2 of the NRA rulebook, acuity in each eye shall be correctable regardless of the course fired. Qualifying Accordingly, the Commission has to 20/30 (Snellen or equivalent) in the scores shall be an accumulated total of determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR better eye and 20/40 in the other eye 80 percent of the maximum obtainable 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by with eyeglasses or contact lenses. If score. law, will not present an undue risk to uncorrected distance vision is not at C. Shotgun—Guards, armed escorts the public health and safety, and is least 20/40 in the better eye, the and armed response personnel assigned consistent with the common defense individual shall carry an extra pair of to use the 12-gauge shotgun by the and security. Also, special corrective lenses. Near visual acuity, licensee training and qualifications plan circumstances are present. Therefore, corrected or uncorrected, shall be at shall qualify with a full choke or the Commission hereby grants Duke least 20/40 in the better eye. Field of improved modified choke 12-gauge Energy Corporation an exemption from vision must be at least 70° horizontal shotgun. To qualify, the individual shall the requirements of 10 CFR part 73, meridian in each eye. The ability to be required to place 50 percent of all appendix B, Section I.B.b(1), ‘‘Vision,’’ distinguish red, green, and yellow pellets (36) pellets within the black for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units colors is required. Loss of vision in one silhouette. 1 and 2. eye is disqualifying. Glaucoma shall be D. Requalification—Individuals shall Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the disqualifying, unless controlled by be weapons requalified at least every 12 Commission has determined that the acceptable medical or surgical means, months in accordance with the NRC granting of this exemption will not have provided such medications as may be approved licensee training and a significant effect on the quality of the used for controlling glaucoma do not qualifications plan, and in accordance human environment (69 FR 18655, cause undesirable side effects which with the requirements stated in A, B, April 8, 2004). adversely affect the individual’s ability and C of this section.’’ In its letter of This exemption is effective upon to perform assigned security job duties, June 12, 2003, the licensee requested an issuance.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21166 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ precipitates in post-loss of coolant of April, 2004. adams/html. Persons who do not have accident (LOCA) sump fluid could be For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. access to ADAMS or who encounter generated in sufficient quantity to Ledyard B. Marsh, problems in accessing the documents significantly increase pressure drop Director, Division of Licensing Project located in ADAMS, should contact the (head loss) across ECCS recirculation Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone sump screen debris beds. This test Regulation. at 1–800–397–4209, or 301–415–4737 or program will generate data needed by [FR Doc. E4–894 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] by email to [email protected]. both NRC and the industry to address BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 12th this question. NRC and industry will day of April, 2004. conduct data analysis and reach For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. conclusions independently. These NUCLEAR REGULATORY results will be made publicly available. COMMISSION Jack N. Donohew, Attendees are requested to notify T.Y. Project Manager, Section 2, Project [Docket No. 50–483] Chang at (301) 425–6450 of their Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project planned attendance if special services, Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Union Electric Company; Notice of Regulation. such as for the hearing impaired, are necessary. Partial Withdrawal of Application for [FR Doc. E4–893 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Amendment to Facility Operating The NRC is accessible to the White BILLING CODE 7590–01–P License Flint Metro Station. Visitor parking near the NRC buildings is limited. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory NUCLEAR REGULATORY Date in Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day Commission (the Commission) has of April, 2004. granted the request of Union Electric COMMISSION For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Company (the licensee) to partially Generic Safety Issue (GSI)–191, withdraw its June 27, 2003, application Anthony Hsia, ‘‘Assessment of Debris Accumulation for proposed amendment to Facility Acting Chief, Engineering Research on Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Applications Branch, Division of Engineering Operating License No. NPF–30 for the Sump Performance;’’ Meeting Technology, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Callaway Plant, Unit 1, located in Research. Callaway County, Missouri. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory [FR Doc. E4–885 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] The proposed amendment will Commission. approve the application of leak-before- BILLING CODE 7590–01–P ACTION: Notice of meeting. break methodology for the accumulator and residual heat removal lines and SUMMARY: Representatives from Nuclear NUCLEAR REGULATORY installation of an opening the secondary Energy Institute (NEI), Electric Power COMMISSION shield wall in terms of the effect of the Research Institute (EPRI), utility groups opening on occupational exposure. The and stakeholders will meet with the Proposed Interim Enforcement Policy shield wall opening is related to plant staff of Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Pilot Program on the Use of modifications that would facilitate (NRC) to discuss the chemical effects Alternative Dispute Resolution in the maintenance on the replacement steam test plan and test facility that will be Enforcement Program Request for generators to be installed in Refueling used to conduct the tests. This is a joint Comments Outage (RO) 14 (Fall 2005). The licensee test program between the NRC and the withdrew the part of the amendment industry (represented by NEI and EPRI). AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory request that would apply LBB to the The meeting is a followup to a meeting Commission. pressurizer surge line Alloy 82/182 in January 2004 on the same subject. ACTION: Request for comments on pilot weld location. The meeting is open to the public and program. The Commission had previously all interested parties may attend. SUMMARY: issued a Notice of Consideration of The Nuclear Regulatory DATES: April 28, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 11 Commission (NRC) is seeking public Issuance of Amendment published in a.m. the Federal Register on July 22, 2003 comment on a proposed pilot program ADDRESSES: (68 FR 43397). However, by letter dated Nuclear Regulatory to address the use of Alternative Dispute April 5, 2004, the licensee partially Commission, One White Flint North, Resolution (ADR) in the enforcement withdrew the proposed change. 11555 Rockville Pike, Conference Room program. For further details with respect to this O–10B4, Rockville, Maryland, 20852. DATES: Submit comments on or before action, see the application for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.Y. May 20, 2004. amendment dated June 27, 2003, and Chang, Mail Stop T–10D20, U.S. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments the licensee’s letter dated April 5, 2004, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, by any of the following methods. which partially withdrew the Washington, DC 20555–0001. Comments submitted in writing or in application for license amendment. Telephone: (301) 415–6450; fax: (301) electronic format will be made available Documents may be examined, and/or 415–5074; Internet: [email protected]. to the public in their entirety on the copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: One of the NRC rulemaking Web site. Personal Document Room (PDR), located at One remaining open GSI–191 issues to be information will not be removed from White Flint North, Public File Area O1 resolved is the chemical effects for PWR your comments. Mail comments to: F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available recirculation, which relates to possible Commission, Washington, DC 20555– records will be accessible electronically chemical reactions between sump/spray 0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and from the Agencywide Documents fluids and materials in containment. Adjudications Staff. Access and Management Systems The NRC Advisory Committee on E-mail comments to: [email protected]. If (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) has asked if you do not receive a reply e-mail Room on the internet at the NRC Web chemical reaction products or confirming that we have received your

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21167

comments, contact us directly (301) conflicts. Most of these processes are neutral’s fee as is the typical custom in 415–1966. You may also submit voluntary, where the parties to the ADR. However, if licensees pay the comments via the NRC’s interactive dispute are in control of the decision on entire fee, whistleblowers would likely rulemaking Web site at http:// whether to participate in the process be concerned about the neutral’s bias. ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions and whether to agree to any resolution Therefore, the staff requested comments about our rulemaking Web site to Carol of the dispute. The parties are assisted regarding how neutrals should be paid Gallagher at (301) 415–5905 (e-mail: in their efforts to reach agreement by a in Early ADR. Stakeholders agreed that [email protected]). neutral third party. As an initial step in the NRC should pay for the neutral’s Hand deliver comments to: 11555 the development of the pilot program, services and, at least through the pilot Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, the NRC held a public workshop on program, the NRC should assess between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on December 10, 2003, to discuss multiple licensee fees for the expense of neutrals Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) issues. These issues were summarized in Early ADR through 10 CFR Part 171. 415–1966). in a document on the NRC’s Web site at After an investigation has been Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. http://www.nrc.gov: select What We Do, completed and the matter is under Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) Enforcement, then Alternative Dispute consideration for possible NRC 415–1101. Resolution. This document is also enforcement action, the NRC and the Publicly available documents related available in ADAMS at ML033290248. licensee will be the parties to the ADR, to this action may be viewed The NRC staff has developed a with each paying half of the neutral’s electronically on the public computers proposed interim enforcement policy fee. statement for implementation of the located at the NRC’s Public Document Issues Related to Early ADR Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint pilot program. The NRC staff believes North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, this proposed program is responsive to The NRC believes that, consistent Maryland. The PDR reproduction many of its stakeholders’ comments and with the existing Enforcement Policy contractor will copy documents for a concerns. A balance was attempted to be and in addition to the NRC-sponsored fee. Selected documents, including achieved between public confidence in Early ADR option, licensees should be comments, may be viewed and the process and increased efficiency and encouraged to develop ADR programs of downloaded electronically via the effectiveness. their own for use in conjunction with an NRC’s interactive rulemaking Web site Several issues were identified for employee concerns type program. at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. further discussion in SECY–03–0115, However, licensees have made it clear Publicly available documents created others were identified as the pilot that a significant impediment to both or received at the NRC after November program was outlined by the NRC, and that type of program and the proposed 1, 1999, are available electronically at stakeholder comments added a few NRC Early ADR program is the threat of the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at more. Most of the concerns focused on an investigation after the case is settled. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ Early ADR. Early ADR is defined for the Many external stakeholders were adams.html. From this site, the public pilot program purposes as ADR between explicit in stating that there must be can gain entry into the NRC’s a licensee or contractor and an certainty that if the parties arrive at a Agencywide Documents Access and employee who has raised a prima facie settlement, the NRC will not initiate an Management System (ADAMS), which case of discrimination prior to any NRC investigation or enforcement action provides text and image files of NRC’s investigation. The NRC believes many of regarding the same issue. The same public documents. If you do not have the issues have been adequately stakeholders acknowledge an NRC review of a settlement for any restrictive access to ADAMS or if there are addressed in the proposed pilot agreements in violation of the Employee problems in accessing the document program. However, some issues remain Protection regulations is important and located in ADAMS, contact the NRC and are described briefly below. should be conducted. Therefore, the PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, General Issues NRC proposes that should an employee 301–415–4737, or e-mail to Selection of a neutral agreeable to all who alleges retaliation for engaging in [email protected]. parties is fundamental to the success of protected activity utilize a licensee’s The NRC maintains the current ADR. The parties must agree that the program to settle the discrimination Enforcement Policy on its Web site at neutral is truly neutral and unbiased. concern, no NRC investigation will be http://www.nrc.gov, select What We Do, Most stakeholders believed external initiated until it is determined whether Enforcement, then Enforcement Policy. neutrals, rather than internal NRC a settlement can be reached. If a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick neutrals, were necessary to ensure that settlement is reached through a Hilton, Senior Enforcement Specialist, all parties viewed the neutral as licensee’s program, the NRC would Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear unbiased. Some suggested a roster of review the settlement for restrictive Regulatory Commission, Washington, neutrals should be available for the agreements in violation of 10 CFR DC 20555–0001, (301) 415–2741, e-mail parties to select from. The NRC, based 50.7(f) et al, and abuse of the ADR [email protected]. on input from internal and external process. If an acceptable settlement is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The experts, determined a list of reached, the NRC will not investigate or Commission approved an NRC staff organizations that have established take enforcement action. proposal to develop a pilot program on rosters of neutrals will be provided on The NRC is developing a booklet for the use of ‘‘Alternative Dispute the Office of Enforcement’s (OE) ADR whistleblowers who are considering Resolution’’ (ADR) in cases involving Web page, with the allowance that any requesting Early ADR. Most the NRC’s enforcement activities neutral the parties agree to will be whistleblowers will not have any concerning allegations or findings of acceptable. knowledge of the concept of ADR, either discrimination and other wrongdoing. Payment of neutral fees during Early positive or negative, or the NRC’s See SECY–03–0115. ‘‘ADR’’ is a term ADR was considered at length. The NRC program. The ADR booklet will provide that refers to a number of processes that is sensitive to the fact that an overview of the NRC’s Early ADR can be used in assisting parties in whistleblowers would not likely have program and ADR in general, resolving disputes and potential the financial ability to pay half of a supplementing the allegation booklet

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21168 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

already provided to concerned site’s SCWE. Therefore, on balance, the at a joint session unless a party was individuals. In addition, information NRC believes that early settlements comfortable with it. Therefore, the regarding the pilot program will be outweigh the risk of not taking an hypothetical destruction of evidence placed on the Office of Enforcement’s enforcement action on a case involving would be unlikely to succeed in that web page and be available to any party. deliberate misconduct. both parties have copies of the The NRC believes the more timely The NRC’s proposed pilot program documents. resolution of discrimination concerns includes a nominal time period of 90 Accordingly, the proposed revision to that should be brought about by Early days from an agreement to mediate the NRC Enforcement Policy reads as ADR will be a greater benefit to the between the parties for a settlement to follows: safety conscious work environment be reached by the parties. This (SCWE) than the potential negatives limitation is appropriate, particularly General Statement of Policy and associated with the process. However, regarding Early ADR, to ensure the Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions some of the potential shortcomings of attempted negotiations do not * * * * * the process are worth discussion. significantly delay further processing of Stakeholders from the industry and the case. A key assumption for the INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICIES those representing whistleblowers success of Early ADR is the quick * * * * * suggested that Early ADR settlements resolution of issues between the are not appropriate means for licensee and whistleblower. Failure to Interim Enforcement Policy Regarding documenting SCWE corrective actions. reach an agreement quickly will detract Enforcement Discretion For Certain Rather, the industry offered to use some from the potential benefits of Early ADR Fitness-for-Duty Issues (10 CFR Part 26) other vehicle and suggested the NRC as well as potentially making * * * * * could address concerns related to the subsequent investigation, if necessary, SCWE through the inspection process. more difficult. For cases considered Interim Policy for the Use of ADR in the However, the NRC notes that there after the issuance of an OI report of Enforcement Program would not be a prohibition from investigation, the NRC will be a party I. Introduction including SCWE corrective actions in a and therefore more in control of the A. Background settlement agreement if the parties negotiation timetable. wanted to consider them as a possible Stakeholders representing both the This section sets forth the interim element of a settlement. In fact, one of industry and whistleblowers have made enforcement policy that the NRC will the parties may find it appropriate to it clear that settlements resulting from follow to undertake a pilot program consider such actions as part of the the Early ADR process will take the testing the use of Alternative Dispute settlement. While the inspection process form of an agreement resolving the Resolution (ADR) in the enforcement alone would allow the NRC an avenue conflict between the two parties, i.e., the program. to suggest necessary SCWE actions, the complainant and the licensee (or the B. Scope suggestions would not be binding as licensee’s contractor). This may give they may be if included in a settlement Early ADR the appearance of a The pilot program scope consists of agreement. Department of Labor (DOL) proceeding. the trial use of ADR for cases involving: Whistleblower representatives and However, the NRC, which is not a party (1) Alleged discrimination for engaging several internal stakeholders have to the negotiation, will not take any in protected activity prior to an NRC concerns regarding cases where position on the merits of the case, and investigation; and (2) both deliberate misconduct appeared to have will not impose any personal remedy. discrimination and other wrongdoing played a role in a discrimination case. In order to provide additional cases after the Office of Investigations The industry has suggested that the assurance to a whistleblower that the has competed an investigation. Specific process will take care of the issue, e.g. pressure of a negotiation does not result points in the enforcement process where the industry does not want management in an agreement the whistleblower later ADR may be requested are specified engaged in deliberate misconduct either regrets, a 3 day waiting period is below. Mediation will be the form of and will independently take appropriate included prior to a settlement in Early ADR typically utilized. Certain cases corrective action as warranted. On an ADR going into full effect. may only require facilitation, a process individual case basis, the NRC believes One representative of the public was where the neutral’s function is primarily that such abuse may be prevented by the concerned that Early ADR could reveal to support the communication process whistleblowers who believe they have the existence of documentation to a rather than focusing on the parties been wronged in a deliberate or licensee that, if the ADR session failed, reaching a settlement. malicious manner and therefore do not could be destroyed prior to an Note: Although the NRC’s ADR program agree to Early ADR. The NRC believes investigation. The suggestion was to may cause the parties to negotiate issues that on an overall program basis, require an index of documents used (if which may also form the basis for a claim particularly egregious scenarios where any) during the ADR session. This list under Section 211 of the Energy discrimination could eventually be could be provided to the NRC as Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) timeliness identified through the number of evidence of existence of those requirements for filing a claim are in no way allegations at a particular facility. On documents. After consideration, the altered by the NRC’s program. average, only a few percent of the cases staff concluded that maintaining records investigated each year result in a and documents produced during In cases involving an allegation of determination of deliberate confidential ADR sessions may be discrimination, any underlying discrimination. While the NRC problematic and the proposed scenario technical issue will be treated as a recognizes that settlements in an Early was unlikely. Both internal and external separate issue, or concern, within the ADR case have the potential to involve expert neutrals indicated that copies of allegation program. The allegation deliberate misconduct, the NRC believes all documents used in a joint session are program will be used to resolve that early settlements and corrective routinely provided to all parties and concerns (typically safety concerns) and actions will limit the potential chilling that it is unlikely a ‘‘sensitive’’ issues other than the discrimination effect at the site, thereby furthering the document of this type would be offered complaint.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21169

II. General services of neutrals could be obtained. day limit to allow for completion of a The parties may select a mediator from settlement agreement. A. Responsibilities and Program any of these organizations; however, the Settlement agreements in Early ADR Administration parties are not required to use the will not be final until 3 days after the The Director, OE, is responsible for organizations provided and any neutral agreement has been signed. Either party the overall program. In addition, the mutually agreeable to the parties is may reconsider the settlement Director, OE, will serve as the lead NRC acceptable. agreement during the 3 day period. negotiator for cases involving 4. Mediator selection. If the parties Subsequent concerns regarding discrimination after OI completes an have not selected a mediator within implementation of the settlement investigation. The Director, OE, may fourteen days, the Program agreement should be directed to the also designate the Deputy Director, OE, Administrator or OAC may propose a neutral, or if necessary, the OAC. to act as the lead negotiator. mediator for the parties’ consideration. 7. Confidentiality. The mediator will Regional Administrators are 5. Neutrality. Mediators are neutral. specifically inform all parties and other designated as the lead NRC negotiator The role of the mediator is to provide attendees that all mediation activities for cases involving wrongdoing other an environment where all participants under the Program are subject to the than discrimination. The Regional will have an opportunity to resolve their confidentiality provisions of the Administrator may designate the Deputy differences. The parties should each Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, Regional Administrator to act as the consult an attorney or other professional 5 U.S.C. Sections 571–584; the Federal lead negotiator or the Director or Deputy if any question of law, content of a ADR Council’s guidance document ‘‘ Director, OE, may also serve as the lead proposed agreement on issues in entitled Confidentiality in Federal ADR negotiator for other wrongdoing cases. controversy, or other issues exists. Programs;’’ and the explicit The Program Administrator will confidentiality terms set forth in the For Early ADR, the OAC will serve as provide program oversight and support Agreement to Begin Voluntary an intake neutral. Should any party seek for each region and headquarters Mediation signed by the parties. The to discuss the NRC’s enforcement ADR program offices. Program and neutral mediator will explain these process in detail, the party should be evaluations will be provided to the confidentiality terms and offer to referred to the OAC. The OAC will Program Administrator. The Program answer questions regarding them. initiate discussion of the option to Administrator will serve as the intake 8. Good Faith. All participants will mediate and process the necessary neutral for post investigation ADR. An participate in good faith in the documentation. Subsequently, for post ‘‘intake neutral’’ develops information mediation process and explore investigation ADR, the program and processes information for potentially feasible options that could administrator will serve as the intake mediation. As an intake neutral, the lead to the management or resolution of neutral. Due to the nature of confidentiality provisions discussed issues in controversy. conversations that typically occur below will apply. 9. Not legal representation. A between an intake neutral and the The Office Allegation Coordinators mediator is not a legal representative or parties, these conversations will also be (OACs) are normally a complainant’s legal counsel. The mediator will not considered confidential. first substantive contact when a concern represent any party in the instant case regarding discrimination is raised. As 6. Mediation sessions. Once selected or any future proceeding or matter such, the OACs will also serve as an by the parties and contracted by the relating to the issues in controversy in intake neutral who develops OAC, the mediator will promptly this case. The mediator is not either information and processes the necessary contact each of the parties to discuss the party’s lawyer and no party should rely information for mediation under Early mediation process under the Program, on the mediator for legal advice. ADR. The confidentiality provisions in reconfirm party interest in proceeding, 10. Mediator Fees. If Early ADR Section II.B.7 will apply to the OAC and establish a date and location for the (defined below) is utilized, the NRC, Program Administrator. The OAC will mediation session and obtain any other subject to the availability of funds, will also process documentation necessary to information s/he believes likely to be pay the mediator’s entire fee. For cases operate the program. useful. The mediator will preside over where a licensee requests ADR all mediation sessions, and will be subsequent to the completion of an OI B. General Rules/Principles expected to complete the mediation report, the licensee requesting ADR will Unless specifically addressed in a within 90 days after referral unless the pay half of the mediator’s fee and the subsequent section, the rules described parties, and the NRC if not a party, agree NRC, subject to the availability of funds, in this section apply generally otherwise. At the conclusion of the will pay half. The NRC will recover the throughout the ADR program, regardless mediation, parties will be asked to fill mediator fees it pays through annual of where in the overall enforcement out and submit an evaluation form for fees assessed to licensees under 10 CFR process the ADR sessions occur. the mediator that will be sent to the Part 171. 1. Voluntary. Use of the NRC ADR Program Administrator. 11. Exceptions. The only exception to program is voluntary, and any Normally, a settlement is expected to the offering of Early ADR by the NRC participant may end the mediation at be reached and signed within 90 days will be abuse of the program, e.g., a any time. The goal is to obtain an from when the parties agree to attempt large number of repetitive requests for agreement satisfactory to all participants ADR. A principal reason for Early ADR ADR by a particular facility, contractor on issues in controversy. is the quick resolution of the claim, or whistleblower. Should the NRC 2. Neutral qualification. Generally, a thereby improving the SCWE. If the believe the ADR program has been neutral should be knowledgeable and parties cannot agree to a settlement abused in some manner by one of the experienced with nuclear matters or within 90 days, the NRC must assume parties potentially involved, the labor and employment law. However, a settlement will not be reached and Director, OE will be notified. any neutral that is satisfactory to the continue with the investigation and To maximize the potential use of the parties is acceptable. enforcement process. Where good cause ADR pilot program, for cases after an OI 3. Roster of neutrals. OE will maintain is shown and all parties agree, the NRC investigation is completed, the NRC will a list of organizations from which may allow a small extension to the 90 at least consider negotiating a settlement

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21170 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

with a licensee for any wrongdoing case consideration. Exceptions will be agency records, and while not generally if requested. However, there may be approved by the Director, OE, prior to publicly available, still subject to the certain circumstances where it may not initiating an investigation based on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). be appropriate for the NRC to engage in denial of ADR. Documents associated with ADR. Early ADR cases will be tracked in the processing an Early ADR case will not 12. Number of settlement attempts. Allegation Management System (AMS). generally be publicly available, Each case will be afforded a maximum However, the allegation process consistent with the allegation program. of two attempts to reach a settlement on timeliness measurement will be stayed However, documents may be subject to the same underlying issue through the once the ARB determines that ADR the FOIA and may be released, subject use of ADR. An ‘‘attempt’’ is defined as should be offered until the point in time to redaction, pursuant to a FOIA one or more mediated sessions ADR is declined by either party or the request. conducted at a specific point in the case is settled. Some negotiations may fail to settle NRC’s enforcement process (generally When an agreement is reached, the the case. When a settlement is not within a 90 day period). However, in mediator will record the terms of that reached, the appropriate intake neutral general, settlement at any time without agreement. The parties may sign the will be notified, typically by the the use of a neutral is not precluded by agreement at the mediation session, or mediator, and an ARB will determine the ADR program. any party may review the agreement the appropriate action in accordance 13. Finality. Cases that reach a with his/her attorney before the with the allegation program. settlement (and are acceptable to the document is placed in final form and NRC), either in Early ADR or after an OI signed. However, as noted above, C. Post-Investigation ADR investigation is complete, constitute a settlement agreements in Early ADR will Post-investigation ADR refers to the final enforcement decision on the case not be final until at least 3 days after the use of ADR anytime after an OI by the NRC. agreement has been signed. No investigation is complete and an participant will hold the NRC liable for III. ADR Opportunities enforcement panel concludes that the results of the mediation, whether or pursuit of an enforcement action A. Licensee Sponsored Programs not a resolution is reached. appears warranted. Generally, post- A settlement agreement between the investigation ADR processes will Licensees are encouraged to develop parties will be reviewed by the NRC. OE parallel and work in conjunction with ADR programs of their own for use in will coordinate the review with the the NRC enforcement program. conjunction with an employee concerns Office of the General Counsel (OGC). type program. If an employee who The review will ensure that no After an investigation is complete, alleges retaliation for engaging in restrictive agreements in violation of 10 there are generally three issues that can protected activity utilizes a licensee’s CFR 50.7(f) et al, are contained in the be resolved using ADR; whether a program to settle the discrimination settlement and will normally be violation occurred, the appropriate concern, either before or after contacting completed within 5 working days of enforcement action, and the appropriate the NRC, the licensee may voluntarily receipt. Given an acceptable settlement, corrective actions for the violation(s). If report the settlement to the NRC as a the NRC will not investigate or take the parties agree, any or all three may settlement within the NRC’s enforcement action. be considered in an ADR session. jurisdiction. If notified of the settlement, The NRC expects that parties to Early Two different types of enforcement the NRC will review the settlement for ADR will agree to some form of cases will be eligible for ADR after an restrictive agreements potentially in confidentiality. However, that investigation is complete, violation of 10 CFR 50.7(f), et al. agreement cannot extend to the discrimination and other wrongdoing Assuming no such restrictive reporting of any safety concerns cases. ADR will normally be considered agreements exist, the NRC will not potentially discussed during the ADR at three places in the enforcement investigate or take enforcement action. sessions if one of the parties desires to process after OI has completed an report the concern. Either party may investigation: (1) After an enforcement B. Early ADR report safety concerns discussed during panel has concluded there is the need The term ‘‘Early ADR’’ refers to the ADR sessions to the NRC without regard to continue pursuing potential use of ADR prior to an OI investigation. to confidentiality agreements. Safety enforcement action based on an OI case The parties to Early ADR will normally concerns and their disposition may be and prior to the conduct of a be the complainant and the licensee. If discussed between the parties if desired. predecisional enforcement conference the complainant is an employee of a In cases where an Early ADR negotiation (PEC); (2) after the initial enforcement licensee contractor, the parties will be is between a licensee contractor and the action is taken, typically a Notice of the complainant and the contractor. contractor’s employee, the NRC expects Violation (NOV) and potentially a Generally, the Early ADR process will the contractor to ensure the licensee is proposed civil penalty; and (3) after parallel and work in conjunction with aware of any safety issues discussed imposition of a civil penalty and prior the NRC allegation program. during the negotiations. to a hearing request. The allegation process will be used In addition to the settlement The parties to an ADR session after an through the determination of a prima agreement, the licensee should provide OI investigation is complete will be the facie case. If an Allegation Review the NRC with any planned or completed licensee and the NRC. Fees associated Board (ARB) determines a prima facie actions relevant to the safety conscious with the neutral will be divided case exists, the ARB will normally work environment that the licensee has between the NRC and the licensee, each recommend the parties be offered the determined to be appropriate. paying half of the total cost. opportunity to use Early ADR. Generally no press release or other Settlement discussions are expected Exceptions to such a recommendation public announcement will be made by to be complete within 90 days of should be rare and be based solely on the NRC for cases settled by early ADR. initiating ADR prior to a PEC. The NRC an identified and articulated abuse of However, all documents, including the may withdraw from settlement the ADR process by a party who would proposed settlement agreement, discussions if negotiations have not be involved in the case under submitted to the NRC will be official completed in a timely manner.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21171

The terms of a settlement agreement that the Director would be the utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB’s will normally be confirmed by order. appropriate negotiator. estimate of the burden of the collection Typically, the specific terms of Typically, an enforcement panel will of the information; (c) ways to enhance settlement will be agreed to during the be conducted to discuss the NRC’s the quality, utility, and clarity of the negotiation. The staff will then specific interests in the case prior to the information to be collected; and (d) incorporate appropriate terms into a regional administrator attending the ways to minimize the burden related to confirmatory order, a draft of which will settlement discussions. A limited the collection of information on then be agreed to by the licensee prior review of the settlement terms may be respondents, including the use of to issuance. conducted in conjunction with the automated collection techniques or If an attempt to resolve a case using preparation of the confirmatory order. other forms of information technology. ADR prior to the conduct of a PEC fails, The OI report will not routinely be Title and Purpose of information a predecisional enforcement conference offered to the licensee prior to ADR. collection: Designation of Contact will normally be offered to the licensee. However, the OI report may be Officials; New information collection. The PEC will be conducted as described provided, as necessary, during the Coordination between railroad in the Enforcement Policy. negotiations with the licensee. employers and the RRB is essential to For cases within the scope of the pilot properly administer the payment of program, after a panel concludes that a IV. Integration With Traditional Enforcement Policy benefits under the Railroad Retirement case warrants continuation of the Act (RRA) and the Railroad enforcement process, the responsible A. Potential Future Enforcement Actions Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA). region or office will contact the licensee Civil Penalty Assessments In order to enhance timely coordination and offer either a PEC or ADR. Section VI.C.2 of the Enforcement activity, the RRB proposes the Consistent with the Enforcement Policy, Policy provides the method for implementation of Form G–117a, a written response could be offered at determination of a civil penalty amount. Designation of Contact Officials. Form the staff’s discretion. One aspect of the determination uses G–117a will be used by railroad Public notification of the settlement enforcement history as a factor. If the employers to designate employees who will normally be a press release and the staff considers a civil penalty for a are to act as point of contact with the confirmatory order will be published in future escalated enforcement action, RRB on a variety of RRA and RUIA- the Federal Register. related matters. Confidentiality with the NRC as a settlements under the enforcement ADR party will be determined by the parties program occurring after a formal The RRB estimates that about 100 G– as allowed by the ADR Act. enforcement action is taken (e.g. an 117a’s will be submitted annually. NOV is issued) will count as an Completion is voluntary. One response 1. Discrimination Cases enforcement case for purposes of is requested from each respondent. Consistent with centralization of the determining whether identification Completion time is estimated at 15 discrimination enforcement process, the credit is considered. Settlements minutes. Director, Office of Enforcement, will occurring prior to an OI investigation will not count as previous enforcement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To normally negotiate for the NRC. request more information or to obtain a Normally the NRC will coordinate The status of settlement agreements copy of the information collection participation of the complainant. While occurring after an investigation is justification, forms, and/or supporting the complainant will not be a party to completed but prior to an NOV being material, please call the RRB Clearance the ADR process after OI issues an issued will be established as part of the Officer at (312) 751–3363 or send an e- investigation report, the NRC will negotiation between the parties. mail request to typically seek the complainant’s input Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day [email protected]. Comments to the process. Normally, the NRC will of April, 2004. regarding the information collection at least seek input from the complainant For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. should be addressed to Ronald J. regarding suggested corrective actions Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 aimed at improving the safety conscious Secretary of the Commission. N. Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611– work environment. [FR Doc. 04–8872 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] 2092 or send an e-mail to OI reports (not including exhibits) BILLING CODE 7590–01–P will normally be provided to the [email protected]. Written licensee when the choice of ADR or a comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. PEC is offered. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD A licensee may request ADR for Charles Mierzwa, discrimination violations based solely Proposed Collection, Comment Clearance Officer. on a finding by DOL. However, the staff Request [FR Doc. 04–8898 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] will not negotiate the finding by DOL. BILLING CODE 7905–01–P The appropriate enforcement sanction SUMMARY: In accordance with the and corrective actions will be the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of typical focus of settlement discussions. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD which provides opportunity for public 2. Other Than Discrimination comment on new or revised data Proposed Collection; Comment Wrongdoing collections, the Railroad Retirement Request The regional administrator will Board will publish periodic summaries normally be the principal negotiator for of proposed data collections. Summary: In accordance with the the NRC in ADR sessions on other Comments are invited on: (a) Whether requirement of section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of wrongdoing cases. After imposition of a the proposed information collection is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 civil penalty or other order, the Director, necessary for the proper performance of which provides opportunity for public Office of Enforcement and applicable the functions of the agency, including comment on new or revised data regional administrator may determine whether the information has practical collections, the Railroad Retirement

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21172 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Board (RRB) will publish periodic [email protected]. Written Room 10230, New Executive Office summaries of proposed data collections. comments should be received within 60 Building, Washington, DC 20503. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether days of this notice. the proposed information collection is Charles Mierzwa, necessary for the proper performance of Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. the functions of the agency, including Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 04–8900 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] whether the information has practical [FR Doc. 04–8899 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905–01–P utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB’s BILLING CODE 7905–01–P estimate of the burden of the collection of the information; (c) ways to enhance SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE the quality, utility, and clarity of the RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD COMMISSION information to be collected; and (d) Agency Forms Submitted for OMB [Release No. 34–49556; File No. SR–NASD– ways to minimize the burden related to 2004–059] the collection of information on Review respondents, including the use of SUMMARY:In accordance with the Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice automated collection techniques or Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness other forms of information technology. of a Proposed Rule Change by the Title and purpose of information U.S.C. chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted National Association of Securities collection: Employer Service and Dealers, Inc. Regarding an Compensation Reports; OMB 3220– the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office of Interpretation to Its Trade Through 0070. Section 2(c) of the Railroad Rule for Exchange-Listed Securities Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) Management and Budget for review and specifies the maximum normal approval. April 12, 2004. unemployment and sickness benefits Summary of Proposal(s) Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the that may be paid in a benefit year. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 2(c) further provides for (1) Collection title: Withholding (’’Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 extended benefits for certain employees Certificate for Railroad Retirement notice is hereby given that on April 2, and for beginning a benefit year early for Monthly Annuity Payments. 2004, the National Association of other employees. The conditions for (2) Form(s) submitted: RRB–W–4P. Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’), these actions are prescribed in 20 CFR (3) OMB Number: 3220–0149. through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq part 302. Stock Market, Inc. (‘‘Nasdaq’’), filed with All information about creditable (4) Expiration date of current OMB clearance: 07/31/2004. the Securities and Exchange railroad service and compensation Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the needed by the RRB to administer section (5) Type of request: Extension of a proposed rule change as described in 2(c) is not always available from annual currently approved collection. Items I, II, and III below, which Items reports filed by railroad employers with (6) Respondents: Individuals or have been prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq the RRB (OMB 3220–0008). When this households. has designated this proposal as a stated occurs, the RRB must obtain (7) Estimated annual number of policy, practice, or interpretation with supplemental information about service respondents: 20,000. respect to the meaning, administration, and compensation. (8) Total annual responses: 20,000. or enforcement of an existing rule The RRB utilizes Form UI–41, pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Supplemental Report of Service and (9) Total annual reporting hours: 1. Act,3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(1) 4 thereunder, Compensation, and Form UI–41a, (10) Collection description: Under which renders the proposal effective Supplemental Report of Compensation, Public Law 98–76, railroad retirement upon filing with the Commission. The to obtain the additional information beneficiaries’ Tier II, dual vested and Commission is publishing this notice to about service and compensation from supplemental benefits are subject to solicit comments on the proposed rule railroad employers. Completion of the income tax under private pension rules. change from interested persons. forms is mandatory. One response is Under Public Law 99–514, the non- required of each respondent. social security equivalent benefit I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s The RRB proposes no changes to portion of Tier 1 is also taxable under Statement of the Terms of Substance of Form UI–41 and UI–41a. The private pension rules. The collection the Proposed Rule Change completion time for Form UI–41 and obtains the information needed by the Nasdaq proposes an interpretation to UI–41a is estimated at 8 minutes per Railroad Retirement Board to implement Rule 5262 (‘‘Trade-Throughs’’) response. The RRB estimates that the income tax withholding provisions. establishing that certain executions in approximately 3,000 responses are exchange-listed securities will not be received annually. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the forms and supporting considered trade-throughs if a For Further Information Contact: To commitment to trade is sent request more information or to obtain a documents can be obtained from Charles Mierzwa, the agency clearance contemporaneously via the Intermarket copy of the information collection Trading System (‘‘ITS’’) with the justification, forms, and/or supporting officer (312) 751–3363 or [email protected]. execution to another market center to material, please call the RRB Clearance fully satisfy that other market’s Officer at (312) 751–3363 or send an e- Comments regarding the information quotation. mail request to collection should be addressed to The text of the proposed rule change [email protected]. Comments Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement is below. Proposed new language is regarding the information collection Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, should be addressed to Ronald J. Illinois 60611–2092 or 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 [email protected] and to the 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the 3 15 U.S.C 78s(b)(3)(A). 60611–2092 or send an e-mail to Office of Management and Budget, 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(1).

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21173

italicized; proposed deletions are in requires each participant, including Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule brackets. Nasdaq, to adopt a rule—Rule 5262— change is consistent with these * * * * * prohibiting participants from trading requirements because it will facilitate ITS securities at a price which is lower transactions in securities, remove Rule 5262. Trade-Throughs than the bid or higher than the offer impediments to a free and open market, (a)–(c) No Change. displayed from an ITS Participant and protect investors by improving the 6 * * * * * Exchange or ITS/CAES Market Maker. transparency and efficiency of The rationale for the so-called ‘‘Trade- transactions. IM 5262–1. Contemporaneous Sending Through Rule’’ is that superior priced of Commitments quotations in a security displayed from B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement on Burden on Competition The terms ‘‘trade-through’’ and ‘‘third other participant markets should be participating market center trade- protected or satisfied if, in another Nasdaq does not believe that the through’’ do not include the situation participant market, an execution in the proposed rule change will result in any where a member who initiates the security occurs at an inferior price. burden on competition that is not purchase (sale) of an ITS Security, at a Under Rule 5262, one remedy for a necessary or appropriate in furtherance price which is higher (lower) than the trade-through is that, upon a valid of the purposes of the Act. price at which the security is being complaint of a trade-through, a commitment to trade, at the price and C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s offered (bid) in another ITS Statement on Comments on the participating market, sends for the number of shares in the disseminated quotation, must be sent to Proposed Rule Change Received From contemporaneously through ITS to such Members, Participants or Others ITS participating market a commitment the other participant market to fully to trade at such offer (bid) price or better satisfy such quotation. Written comments were neither and for at least the number of shares The proposed interpretation of Rule solicited nor received. 5262 recognizes that superior quotations displayed with that market center’s III. Date of Effectiveness of the better-priced offer (bid). A trade-through are fully protected/satisfied if an ITS commitment is sent to trade with a bid/ Proposed Rule Change and Timing for complaint sent in these circumstances is Commission Action not valid, even if the commitment sent offer that would otherwise appear to in satisfaction cancels or expires, and have been traded through. That is, a The foregoing rule change has become trade will not be considered a trade- effective pursuant to section even if there is more stock behind the 8 quote in the other market. through if an ITS commitment is sent 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, and contemporaneously from the participant subparagraph (f)(1) of Rule 19b–4 * * * * * executing the trade for the purpose of thereunder,9 because it is concerned II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s being executed against the better-priced solely with the interpretation of the Statement of the Purpose of, and displayed bid or offer. A complaint is meaning, administration or enforcement Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule not valid even if a commitment cancels of existing NASD Rule 5262. Change or expires and even if there is more At any time within 60 days of the stock behind the quote in the other In its filing with the Commission, filing of a rule change pursuant to market. Furthermore, the interpretation Nasdaq included statements concerning section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, the recognizes the impracticality of having the purpose of, and basis for, the Commission may summarily abrogate to wait for the other market to revise its proposed rule change and discussed any the rule change if it appears to the quotation as a result of trading with a comments it received on the proposed Commission that such action is satisfying commitment before trading rule change. The text of these statements necessary or appropriate in the public activity may occur in other markets. may be examined at the places specified interest, for the protection of investors, in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared 2. Statutory Basis or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. summaries, set forth in sections A, B, Nasdaq believes that the proposed and C below, of the most significant rule change is consistent with the Act, IV. Solicitation of Comments aspects of such statements. 7 including section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, Interested persons are invited to A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s which requires, among other things, that submit written data, views, and Statement of the Purpose of, and the a registered national securities arguments concerning the foregoing, Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule association’s rules be designed to including whether the proposed rule Change promote just and equitable principles of change is consistent with the Act. trade, to foster cooperation and Comments may be submitted by any of 1. Purpose coordination with persons engaged in the following methods: The Nasdaq market center operates regulating, clearing, settling, processing Electronic comments: facilities for quoting and trading information with respect to, and • Use the Commission’s Internet exchange-listed securities. Nasdaq’s facilitating transactions in securities, to comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ facilities are linked with exchanges that remove impediments to and perfect the rules/sro.shtml); or trade these securities via the Intermarket mechanisms of a free and open market • Send an e-mail to rule- Trading System (‘‘ITS’’), which is and a national market system, and to [email protected]. Please include File governed by a national market system protect investors and the public interest. Number SR–NASD–2004–059 on the plan (‘‘ITS Plan’’).5 The ITS Plan the Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc. (now known as subject line. 5 The ITS Plan was approved on a permanent the National Securities Exchange), the NASD, the Paper comments: basis on January 27, 1983. See Securities Exchange New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’), the • Send paper comments in triplicate Act Release No. 19456 (January 27, 1983), 48 FR Pacific Exchange, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock 4938. Signatories to the ITS Plan include the Exchange, Inc. to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, American Stock Exchange, LLC, the Boston Stock 6 Capitalized terms are defined in NASD Rule Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options 5210. 8 15 U.S.C 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 7 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). 9 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(1).

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21174 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Securities and Exchange Commission, information that you wish to make Items I, II, and III, below, which Items 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC available publicly. All submissions have been prepared by the PCX. On 20549–0609. should refer to File Number SR–NASD– April 1, 2004, the PCX filed All submissions should refer to File 2004–059 and should be submitted on Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule Number SR–NASD–2004–059. This file or before May 11, 2004. change, which replaces the original 3 number should be included on the For the Commission, by the Division of filing in its entirety. The PCX filed the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) Commission process and review your authority.10 of the Act,4 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) comments more efficiently, please use Margaret H. McFarland, thereunder,5 which renders the proposal only one method. The Commission will Deputy Secretary. effective upon filing with the post all comments on the Commission’s [FR Doc. 04–8861 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Commission. The Commission is Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ publishing this notice to solicit BILLING CODE 8010–01–P rules/sro.shtml). comments on the proposed rule change, Copies of the submission, all as amended, from interested persons. subsequent amendments, all written SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s statements with respect to the proposed COMMISSION Statement of the Terms of Substance of rule change that are filed with the the Proposed Rule Change Commission, and all written [Release No. 34–49560; File No. SR–PCX– communications relating to the 2004–23] The PCX, through its wholly-owned proposed rule change between the Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice subsidiary PCX Equities, Inc. (’’PCXE’’), Commission and any person, other than proposes to amend its fee schedule for of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness 6 those that may be withheld from the of Proposed Rule Change and services provided to ETP Holders that public in accordance with the Amendment No. 1 Thereto by the use the Archipelago Exchange ‘‘ provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Pacific Exchange, Inc. Relating to ( ArcaEx’’) in order to correct a available for inspection and copying in Exchange Fees and Charges technical error in the fee schedule. The the Commission’s Public Reference text of the proposed rule change, as Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., April 13, 2004. amended, is set forth below. Proposed Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the new language is in italics; proposed filing also will be available for Securities Exchange Act of 1934 deletions are in [brackets]. inspection and copying at the principal (’’Act’’) 1, and Rule 19b–4 2 thereunder, * * * * * office of the NASD. All comments notice is hereby given that on March 24, received will be posted without change; 2004, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (‘‘PCX’’) SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES the Commission does not edit personal filed with the Securities and Exchange FOR EXCHANGE SERVICES identifying information from Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the ARCHIPELAGO EXCHANGE: TRADE submissions. You should submit only proposed rule change as described in RELATED CHARGES

EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS ETP Holders [and Sponsored Participants] 1

*******

ARCHIPELAGO EXCHANGE: OTHER FEES AND CHARGES

*******

[USER] ETP HOLDER TRANSACTION CREDIT

*******

MARKET DATA REVENUE SHARING CREDIT 2 Tape A Securities: Cross Order ...... 50% tape revenue credit per qualifying trade (applicable to any Cross Order, as defined in PCXE Rule 7.31(s), where the ETP Holder [or Sponsored Participant] represents all of one side of the transaction and all or a portion of the other side). Tape B Securities: Liquidity Provider Credit ...... 50% tape revenue credit per qualifying trade (applicable to limit orders that are residing in the Book and that execute against inbound marketable orders). Directed Order ...... 50% tape revenue credit per qualifying trade (applicable to any market maker that executes against a Directed Order within the Directed Order Process, as defined in PCXE Rule 7.37(a)). Cross Order ...... 50% tape revenue credit per qualifying trade (applicable to any Cross Order, as defined in PCXE Rule 7.31(s), where the ETP Holder [or Sponsored Participant] represents all of one side of the transaction and all or a portion of the other side.

10 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation text. The substance of Amendment No. 1 is 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). (‘‘Division’’), Commission, dated March 31, 2004. In incorporated in this notice. Amendment No. 1, the PCX redesignated the filing 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). from a filing under subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b– 5 3 See letter from Tania Blanford, Staff Attorney, 4 to a filing under subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b– 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). Regulatory Policy, PCX, to Nancy J. Sanow, 4, as well as made a technical correction to the rule 6 See PCXE Rule 1.1(n) (defining ‘‘ETP Holder’’).

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21175

‘‘Drop Copy’’ 3 Processing Fee ...... $0.001 per share (applicable to off-board trades in listed and Nasdaq securities) 1 These transaction fees do not apply to: (1) Directed Orders, regardless of account type, that are matched within the Directed Order Proc- ess; (2) Directed Orders for the account of a retail public customer that are executed partially or in their entirety via the Directed Order, Display Order, Working Order, and Tracking Order processes (however, any unfilled or residual portion of a retail customer’s order that is routed away and executed by another market center or participant will incur this transaction fee); (3) orders executed in the Opening Auc- tion and the Market Order Auction; (4) Cross Orders; (5) commitments received through ITS; and (6) participants in the Nasdaq UTP Plan that transmit orders via telephone. 2 For exchange-listed securities, an ETP Holder [User] that submits a Tracking Order instruction that subsequently matches against an in- bound marketable order will not be entitled to receive the Liquidity Provider Credit. 3 A ‘‘drop copy’’ is an electronic report of a transaction for an ETP Holder’s account that is executed on another market center and that has been prepared for informational purposes (e.g., Market Maker inventory tracking, surveillance audit trail). Market Maker transactions that are subject to this fee will not be eligible to receive the Market Maker Transaction Credit or [User] ETP Holder Transaction Credit. *******

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 2. Statutory Basis necessary or appropriate in the public Statement of the Purpose of, and The PCX believes that its proposal is interest, for the protection of investors, Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 10 or otherwise in furtherance of the 14 Change in general, and furthers the objectives of purposes of the Act. As required Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 11 in under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii), the PCX In its filing with the Commission, the particular, in that it is designed to provided the Commission with written PCX included statements concerning the perfect the mechanisms of a free and notice of its intent to file the proposed purpose of and basis for the proposed open market and a national market rule change at least five business days rule change and discussed any system, and to protect investors and the prior to filing the proposal with the comments it received on the proposed public interest. Commission, or such shorter period as rule change. The text of these statements designated by the Commission. may be examined at the places specified B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s The PCX has requested that the in Item IV below. The PCX has prepared Statement on Burden on Competition Commission waive the 30-day operative summaries, set forth in Sections A, B The PCX does not believe that the delay. The Commission believes and C below, of the most significant proposed rule change will impose any waiving the 30-day operative delay is aspects of such statements. burden on competition that is not consistent with the protection of necessary or appropriate in furtherance investors and the public interest. Such A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s of the purposes of the Act. waiver will permit the PCX to correct a Statement of the Purpose of, and technical error in its fee schedule and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s accordingly clarify the fees charged for Change Statement on Comments on the services provided to ETP Holders. For Proposed Rule Change Received From 1. Purpose these reasons, the Commission Members, Participants, or Others designates the proposal to be effective The PCX is proposing to correct a Written comments on the proposed and operative upon filing with the technical error in the fee schedule by rule change were neither solicited nor Commission.15 received. deleting all references to the term IV. Solicitation of Comments ‘‘Sponsored Participant’’ 7 in the fee III. Date of Effectiveness of the Interested persons are invited to schedule. Pursuant to PCXE Rule 2.17, Proposed Rule Change and Timing for submit written data, views, and the PCX imposes certain dues, charges Commission Action arguments concerning the foregoing, or fees upon an ETP Holder for the use The PCX has filed the proposed rule including whether the proposed rule of equipment or facilities or for services change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) change is consistent with the Act. or privileges granted by the PCX. A of the Act 12 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Comments may be submitted by any of Sponsored Participant may obtain Rule 19b–4 thereunder.13 the following methods: authorized access to the ArcaEx by Because the foregoing proposed rule Electronic comments: entering into a customer agreement with change does not: • Use the Commission’s Internet an ETP Holder.8 The PCX, however, (i) significantly affect the protection of comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ does not impose any fees, dues or investors or the public interest; rules/sro.shtml); or charges on the Sponsored Participant. (ii) impose any significant burden on • Send an E-mail to rule- Currently, the ‘‘Exchange competition; and [email protected]. Please include File Transactions’’ and ‘‘Market Data (iii) become operative for 30 days Number SR–PCX–2004–23 on the Revenue Sharing Credit’’ portions of the from the date on which it was filed, or subject line. such shorter time as the Commission fee schedule incorrectly reference Paper comments: may designate, it has become effective • Send paper comments in triplicate Sponsored Participants as entities billed pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, or credited by the PCX.9 Thus, the PCX Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder. At Securities and Exchange Commission, wishes to delete references to Sponsored any time within 60 days of the filing of 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC Participants in the fee schedule at this the proposed rule change, the 20549–0609. time. Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the 14 For the purposes of calculating the 60-day 7 See PCXE Rule 1.1(tt) (defining ‘‘Sponsored Commission that such action is abrogation period, the Commission considers the Participant’’). proposed rule change to have been filed on April 8 See PCXE Rule 7.29. 1, 2004, the date the PCX filed Amendment No. 1. 10 9 Telephone conversation between Tania 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 15 For purposes only of waiving the operative date Blanford, Staff Attorney, Regulatory Policy, PCX, 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). of this proposal, the Commission has considered and Elizabeth MacDonald, Attorney, Division, 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). the proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, Commission, April 13, 2004. 13 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21176 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

All submissions should refer to File Type of meeting: This is a quarterly be called on by the Chair in the order Number SR–PCX–2004–23. This file meeting open to the public. The public in which they are scheduled to testify number should be included on the is invited to participate by coming to the and is limited to a maximum five- subject line if e-mail is used. To help the address listed above. Public comment minute verbal presentation. Full written Commission process and review your will be taken during the quarterly testimony on TWWIIA Implementation, comments more efficiently, please use meeting. The public is also invited to no longer than 5 pages, may be only one method. The Commission will submit comments in writing on the submitted in person or by mail, fax or post all comments on the Commission’s implementation of the Ticket to Work email on an on-going basis to the Panel Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ and Work Incentives Improvement Act for consideration. rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the (TWWIIA) of 1999 at any time. Since seating may be limited, persons submission, all subsequent Purpose: In accordance with section interested in providing testimony at the amendments, all written statements 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory meeting should contact the Panel staff with respect to the proposed rule Committee Act, SSA announces a by e-mailing Monique Fisher, at change that are filed with the meeting of the Ticket to Work and Work [email protected] or calling (202) Commission, and all written Incentives Advisory Panel (the Panel). 358–6435. communications relating to the Section 101(f) of Pub. L. 106–170 The full agenda for the meeting will proposed rule change between the establishes the Panel to advise the be posted on the Internet at http:// Commission and any person, other than President, the Congress and the www.ssa.gov/work/panel approximately those that may be withheld from the Commissioner of Social Security on one week before the meeting or can be public in accordance with the issues related to work incentives received in advance electronically or by provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be programs, planning and assistance for fax upon request. available for inspection and copying in individuals with disabilities as provided Contact Information: Anyone the Commission’s Public Reference under section 101(f)(2)(A) of the requiring information regarding the Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., TWWIIA. The Panel is also to advise the Panel should contact the TWWIIA Panel Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such Commissioner on matters specified in staff. Records are being kept of all Panel filing also will be available for section 101(f)(2)(B) of that Act, proceedings and will be available for inspection and copying at the principal including certain issues related to the public inspection by appointment at the office of the PCX. All comments Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Panel office. Anyone requiring received will be posted without change; Program established under section information regarding the Panel should the Commission does not edit personal 101(a) of that Act. contact the Panel staff by: identifying information from Interested parties are invited to attend • Mail addressed to Social Security submissions. You should submit only the meeting. The Panel will use the Administration, Ticket to Work and meeting time to receive briefings, hear information that you wish to make Work Incentives Advisory Panel Staff, presentations, conduct full Panel available publicly. All submissions 400 Virginia Avenue, SW., Suite 700, deliberations on the implementation of should refer to File Number SR–PCX– Washington, DC, 20024. TWWIIA and receive public testimony. • 2004–23 and should be submitted on or Telephone contact with Monique The topics for the meeting will include before May 11, 2004. Fisher at (202) 358–6435. presentations on mental health, SSA • Fax at (202) 358–6440. For the Commission, by the Division of work incentives, employment supports, • E-mail to [email protected]. Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated advocacy and the Ticket, and agency 16 Dated: April 12, 2004. authority. updates from SSA. Margaret H. McFarland, The Panel will meet in person Carol Brenner, Deputy Secretary. commencing on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 Designated Federal Official. [FR Doc. 04–8891 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] from 9 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. (standing [FR Doc. 04–8946 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010–01–P committee meetings from 4:45 p.m. to 6 BILLING CODE 4191–02–P p.m.); Wednesday, May 19, 2004 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Thursday, May 20, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 2004 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Agenda: The Panel will hold a [Public Notice 4658] The Ticket to Work and Work quarterly meeting. Briefings, Incentives Advisory Panel Meeting presentations, full Panel deliberations Cultural Property Advisory Committee and other Panel business will be held Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Social Security Administration Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, (SSA). May 18, 19, and 20, 2004. Public In accordance with the provisions of ACTION: Notice of meeting. testimony will be heard in person the Convention on Cultural Property Tuesday, May 18, 2004 from 3:45 p.m. Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2601 et DATES: May 18, 2004, 9 a.m.–4:45 p.m.*; to 4:45 p.m. and on Thursday, May 20, seq.) there will be a meeting of the May 19, 2004, 9 a.m.–5 p.m.; May 20, 2004 from 9 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Members Cultural Property Advisory Committee 2004, 9 a.m.–1 p.m. of the public must schedule a timeslot on Thursday, May 6, 2004, from *The full deliberative panel meeting in order to comment. In the event that approximately 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., at the ends at 4:45 p.m. The standing the public comments do not take up the United States Department of State, committees of the Panel will meet from scheduled time period for public Annex 44, 301 4th St., SW., 4:45 p.m. until 6 p.m. comment, the Panel will use that time Washington, DC. ADDRESSES: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, to deliberate and conduct other Panel Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2605(g), the One Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, business. Committee will conduct a review of the MD 20814, Phone: (301) 657–1234. Individuals interested in providing ‘‘Agreement between the Government of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: testimony in person should contact the the United States of America and the Panel staff as outlined below to Government of the Republic of Italy 16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). schedule time slots. Each presenter will Concerning the Imposition of Import

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21177

Restrictions on Certain Categories of the United States as well as other likely Committee on Finance of the Senate on Archaeological Material Representing labor market impacts of the FTA. such review, and make that report the Pre-Classical and Imperial Roman DATES: USTR and Labor will accept any available to the public.’’ USTR and the Periods of Italy.’’ The Committee’s comments received during the course of Department of Labor will conduct the review will focus primarily on Article II the negotiations of the FTA. However, employment reviews through the TPSC. of the agreement. comments should be received by noon, The employment impact review will Portions of the meeting will be closed May 24, 2004, to be assured of timely be based on the following elements, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B). consideration in the preparation of the which are modeled to the extent There will also be an open session to report. appropriate after those in E.O. 13141. The review will be: (1) Written; (2) receive comments from interested ADDRESSES: Submissions by electronic initiated through a Federal Register parties regarding this agreement. The mail: [email protected]. Submissions by notice soliciting public comment and open portion of the meeting will be held facsimile: Gloria Blue, Executive information on the employment impact from approximately 11 a.m. to 12 noon. Secretary, Trade Policy Staff Committee, of the FTA in the United States; (3) Seating is limited. Persons wishing to at (202) 395–6143. attend this open portion of the meeting made available to the public in draft FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For must notify the Cultural Property office form for public comment, to the extent procedural questions concerning public practicable; and (4) made available to at (202) 619–6612 by 5 p.m. (e.d.t.) comments, contact Gloria Blue, Thursday, April 29, 2004, to arrange for the public in final form. Executive Secretary, TPSC, Office of the Comments may be submitted on admission. Persons wishing to make an USTR, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, oral presentation based on written potentially significant sectoral or DC 20508, telephone (202) 395–3475. regional employment impacts (both comments at the open portion of the Substantive questions concerning the meeting, or to submit written comments positive and negative) in the United employment impact review should be States as well as other likely labor for the Committee’s consideration, must addressed to Jorge Perez-Lopez, provide these comments in writing by 5 market impacts of the FTA. Persons Director, Office of International submitting comments should provide as p.m., (e.d.t.) April 29, 2004. All written Economic Affairs, Bureau of comments may be faxed to (202) 260– much detail as possible in support of International Labor Affairs, U.S. their submissions. 4893. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Oral presentations will be limited to Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, 3. Requirements for Submissions ensure time for the Committee to pose telephone (202) 693–4883; or William To ensure prompt and full questions. Clatanoff, Assistant U.S. Trade consideration of responses, the TPSC Information about the Convention on Representative for Labor, telephone strongly recommends that interested Cultural Property Implementation Act (202) 395–6120. persons submit comments by electronic and this agreement may be found at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: mail to the following e-mail address: http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop. [email protected]. Persons making Dated: April 15, 2004. 1. Background Information submissions by e-mail should use the Miller Crouch, On November 18, 2003, in accordance following subject line: ‘‘Panama Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational with section 2104(a)(1) of the Trade Act Employment Review.’’ Documents and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. of 2002, the United States Trade should be submitted in WordPerfect, [FR Doc. 04–9020 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Representative notified the Congress of MSWord, or text (.TXT) files. BILLING CODE 4710–05–P the President’s intent to enter into Supporting documentation submitted as negotiations on a free trade agreement spreadsheets is acceptable in Quattro with Panama. The notification letters to Pro or Excel format. For any document containing business confidential OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES the Congress can be found on the USTR information submitted electronically, TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Web site at http://www.ustr.gov/new/ fta/Panama/2003–11–18- the file name of the business _ Trade Policy Staff Committee; Request notification letter.pdf. We intend to confidential version should begin with for Public Comment on Review of launch negotiations the week of April the characters ‘‘BC-’’, and the file name Employment Impact of United States– 26, 2004. of the public version should begin with Panama Free Trade Negotiations In January 2004, the USTR requested the character ‘‘P-’’. The ‘‘P-’’ or ‘‘BC-’’ the U.S. International Trade should be followed by the name of the AGENCIES: Office of the United States Commission (ITC) provide advice on submitter. Persons who make Trade Representative, Department of probable economic effects. The ITC submissions by e-mail should not Labor. intends to provide this advice during provide separate cover letters; ACTION: Request for comments. the month of April 2004, prior to information that might appear in a cover initiation of the negotiations. letter should be included in the SUMMARY: The Trade Policy Staff submission itself. To the extent Committee (TPSC) gives notice that the 2. Employment Impact Review possible, any attachments to the Office of the United States Trade Section 2102(c)(5) of the Bipartisan submission should be included in the Representative (USTR) and the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, same file as the submission itself, and Department of Labor (Labor) are 19 U.S.C. 3802(c)(5), directs the not as separate files. initiating a review of the impact of the President to ‘‘review the impact of future Written comments will be placed in a proposed U.S.-Panama free trade trade agreements on United States file open to public inspection pursuant negotiations on United States employment, including labor markets, to 15 CFR 2003.5, except confidential employment, including labor markets. modeled after Executive Order 13141 to business information exempt from This notice seeks written public the extent appropriate in establishing public inspection in accordance with 15 comment on potentially significant procedures and criteria, report to the CFR 2003.6. Confidential business sectoral or regional employment Committee on Ways and Means of the information submitted in accordance impacts (both positive and negative) in House of Representatives and the with 15 CFR 2003.6 must be clearly

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21178 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’ USTR, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, Comments may be submitted on at the top of each page, including any DC 20508, telephone (202) 395–3475. potentially significant sectoral or cover letter or cover page, and must be Substantive questions concerning the regional employment impacts (both accompanied by a non-confidential employment impact review should be positive and negative) in the United summary of the confidential addressed to Jorge Perez-Lopez, States as well as other likely labor information. All public documents and Director, Office of International market impacts of the FTA. Persons non-confidential summaries shall be Economic Affairs, Bureau of submitting comments should provide as available for public inspection in the International Labor Affairs, U.S. much detail as possible in support of USTR Reading Room in Room 3 of the Department of Labor, 200 Constitution their submissions. Annex of the Office of the USTR, 1724 Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. telephone (202) 693–4883; or William 3. Requirements for Submissions Clatanoff, Assistant U.S. Trade An appointment to review the file may To ensure prompt and full Representative for Labor, telephone be made by calling (202) 395–6186. The consideration of responses, the TPSC (202) 395–6120. USTR Reading Room is generally open strongly recommends that interested SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to the public from 10 a.m–12 noon and persons submit comments by electronic 1–4 p.m. Monday through Friday. 1. Background Information mail to the following e-mail address: Appointments must be scheduled at [email protected]. Persons making least 48 hours in advance. On February 12, 2004, in accordance with section 2104(a)(1) of the Trade Act submissions by e-mail should use the Carmen Suro-Bredie, of 2002, the United States Trade following subject line: ‘‘Thailand Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee. Representative notified the Congress of Employment Review.’’ Documents [FR Doc. 04–8919 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] the President’s intent to enter into should be submitted in WordPerfect, BILLING CODE 3190–01–P negotiations on a free trade agreement MSWord, or text (.TXT) files. with Thailand. The notification letters Supporting documentation submitted as to the Congress can be found on the spreadsheets is acceptable in Quattro OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES USTR Web site at http://www.ustr.gov/ Pro or Excel format. For any document TRADE REPRESENTATIVE releases/2004/02/2004–02–12-letter- containing business confidential thailand-house.pdf and http:// information submitted electronically, Trade Policy Staff Committee; Request www.ustr.gov/releases/2004/02/2004– the file name of the business for Public Comment on Review of 02–12-letter-thailand-senate.pdf confidential version should begin with Employment Impact of United States— respectively. We intend to launch the characters ‘‘BC-’’, and the file name Thailand Free Trade Negotiations negotiations in June 2004. of the public version should begin with ‘‘ ‘‘ ‘‘ AGENCIES: Office of the United States On February 19, 2004, the USTR the character P-’’. The P-’’ or BC-’’ Trade Representative. Department of requested the U.S. International Trade should be followed by the name of the Labor. Commission (ITC) to provide advice on submitter. Persons who make probable economic effects. The ITC submissions by e-mail should not ACTION: Request for comments. intends to provide this advice within six provide separate cover letters; SUMMARY: The Trade Policy Staff months of receipt of this request. information that might appear in a cover Committee (TPSC) gives notice that the 2. Employment Impact Review letter should be included in the Office of the United States Trade submission itself. To the extent Section 2102(c)(5) of the Bipartisan Representative (USTR) and the possible, any attachments to the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, Department of Labor (Labor) are submission should be included in the 19 U.S.C. 3802(c)(5), directs the initiating a review of the impact of the same file as the submission itself, and President to ‘‘review the impact of future proposed United States-Thailand free not as separate files. trade agreements on United States trade agreement (FTA) on United States employment, including labor markets, Written comments will be placed in a employment, including labor markets. modeled after Executive Order 13141 to file open to public inspection pursuant This notice seeks written public the extent appropriate in establishing to 15 CFR 2003.5, except confidential comment on potentially significant procedures and criteria, report to the business information exempt from sectoral or regional employment Committee on Ways and Means of the public inspection in accordance with 15 impacts (both positive and negative) in House of Representatives and the CFR 2003.6. Confidential business the United States as well as other likely Committee on Finance of the Senate on information submitted in accordance labor market impacts of the FTA. such review, and make that report with 15 CFR 2003.6 must be clearly DATES: USTR and Labor will accept any available to the public.’’ USTR and the marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’ comments received during the course of Department of Labor will conduct the at the top of each page, including any the negotiations of the FTA. However, employment reviews through the TPSC. cover letter or cover page, and must be comments should be received by noon, The employment impact review will accompanied by a non-confidential May 24, 2004, to be assured of timely be based on the following elements, summary of the confidential consideration in the preparation of the which are modeled to the extent information. All public documents and report. appropriate after those in EO 13141. The non-confidential summaries shall be ADDRESSES: Submissions by electronic review will be: (1) Written; (2) initiated available for public inspection in the mail: [email protected]. Submissions by through a Federal Register notice USTR Reading Room in Room 3 of the facsimile: Gloria Blue, Executive soliciting public comment and Annex of the Office of the USTR, 1724 Secretary, Trade Policy Staff Committee, information on the employment impact F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. at (202) 395–6143. of the FTA in the United States; (3) An appointment to review the file may FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For made available to the public in draft be made by calling (202) 395–6186. The procedural questions concerning public form for public comment, to the extent USTR Reading Room is generally open comments, contact Gloria Blue, practicable; and (4) made available to to the public from 10 a.m–12 noon and Executive Secretary, TPSC, Office of the the public in final form. 1–4 p.m. Monday through Friday.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21179

Appointments must be scheduled at aeromedical certification of pilots, and number involved and must be received least 48 hours in advance. certain other personnel in safety-related on or before May 10, 2004. positions, to ensure that they are Carmen Suro-Bredie, ADDRESSES: medically qualified to perform their You may submit comments Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee. duties safely. In the accomplishment of [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number [FR Doc. 04–8920 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] this responsibility, OAM provides a FAA–200X–XXXXX] by any of the BILLING CODE 3190–01–P number of services to pilots, and has following methods: established goals for the performance of • Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. those services. This proposed Follow the instructions for submitting DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION information collection activity is comments on the DOT electronic docket designed to provide data describing site. Federal Aviation Administration customer satisfaction with the • Fax: 1–202–493–2251. aeromedical certification services Notice of Proposed Information • Mail: Docket Management Facility; Collection provided by or on behalf of the FAA to pilots. The completion of the survey is U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 AGENCY: Federal Aviation voluntary and the information Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Administration (FAA), DOT. collection will be conducted Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– ACTION: Notice. anonymously. The respondents will be 001. an estimated 48,000 pilots over a six • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on SUMMARY: In compliance with the year timeframe. The survey will be the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. conducted once every two years, for 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 3501 et seq.), the FAA invites public three rounds. Assuming a 30% response DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday comment on one new public rate and a 15 minute completion time information collection which will be through Friday, except Federal for each survey, this will total 3,600 Holidays. submitted to OMB for approval. hours over the six years. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to DATES: Comments must be received on Issued in Washington, DC, on April 14, or before June 21, 2004. 2004. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed Judith D. Street, comments. or delivered to the FAA at the following FAA Information Collection Clearance address: Ms. Judy Street, Room 613, Officer, APF–100. Docket: For access to the docket to Federal Aviation Administration, [FR Doc. 04–8924 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] read background documents or Standards and Information Division, BILLING CODE 4910–13–M comments received, go to http:// APF–100, 800 Independence Ave., SW., dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL– Washington, DC 20591. 401 on the plaza level of the Nassif FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Judy Street at the above address or on Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 (202) 267–9895. Federal Aviation Administration p.m., Monday through Friday, except SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In [Summary Notice No. PE–2004–11A] Federal Holidays. accordance with the Paperwork FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Tim not conduct or sponsor, and a person is Petitions Received Adams (202) 267–8033, Sandy not required to respond to a collection Buchanan-Sumter (202) 267–7271, AGENCY: of information unless it displays a Federal Aviation Office of Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal currently valid OMB control number. Administration (FAA), DOT. Aviation Administration, 800 Therefore, the FAA solicits comments ACTION: Notice of petitions for Independence Avenue, SW., on the following collection of exemption received and of dispositions Washington, DC 20591. information in order to evaluate the of prior petitions. This notice is published pursuant to necessity of the collection, the accuracy SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking 14 CFR §§ 11.85 and 11.91. of the agency’s estimate of the burden, provisions governing the application, Issued in Washington, DC, on April 15, the quality, utility, and clarity of the processing, and disposition of petitions 2004. information to be collected; and for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code possible ways to minimize the burden of Donald P. Byrne, of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations. the collection in preparation for notice contains a summary of certain submission to approve the clearance of petitions seeking relief from specified Petitions for Exemption the following information collection. requirements of 14 CFR, dispositions of Following is a summary of the new certain petitions previously received, Docket No.: FAA–2004–17285. collection: Title: Pilot Medical Certification and corrections. The purpose of this Petitioner: John Filippi. Customer Service Survey. notice is to improve the public’s Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR Abstract: This proposed information awareness of, and participation in, this 105.45(a)(1)(i) aspect of FAA’s regulatory activities. collection activity will be conducted to Description of Relief Sought: To allow comply with Executive Order 12862, Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information Mr. John Filippi to act as the parachutist Setting Customer Service Standards, in command for tandem jumps without and the Government Performance and in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final meeting the requirements of 3 years in Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). The Federal the sport of skydiving. Aviation Administration (FAA), through disposition. the Office of Aerospace Medicine DATES: Comments on petitions received [FR Doc. 04–8923 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] (OAM) is responsible for the must identify the petition docket BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21180 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION by the Superintendent of Documents, remaining SIAPs, an effective date at U.S. Government Printing Office, least 30 days after publication is Federal Aviation Administration Washington, DC 20402. provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further, the SIAPs contained in this 14 CFR Part 97 Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure amendment are based on the criteria [Docket No. 30410; Amdt. No. 3094] Standards Branch (AMCAFS–420), contained in the U.S. Standard for Flight Technologies and Programs Terminal Instrument Procedures Standard Instrument Approach Division, Flight Standards Service, (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the Procedures; Miscellaneous Federal Aviation Administration, Mike TERPS criteria were applied to the Amendments Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 conditions existing or anticipated at the South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, affected airports. Because of the close AGENCY: Federal Aviation OK 73169 (Mail Address: PO Box 25082, and immediate relationship between Administration (FAA), DOT. Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, ACTION: Final rule. (405) 954–4164. I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, This impracticable and contrary to the public amends, suspends, or revokes Standard amendment to part 97 of the Federal interest and, where applicable, that Instrument Approach Procedures Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) good cause exists for making some (SIAPs) for operations at certain establishes, amends, suspends, or SIAPs effective in less than 30 days. airports. These regulatory actions are revokes Standard Instrument Approach needed because of the adoption of new Procedures (SIAPs). The complete Conclusion or revised criteria, or because of changes regulatory description of each SIAP is The FAA has determined that this occurring in the National Airspace contained in official FAA form regulation only involves an established System, such as the commissioning of documents which are incorporated by body of technical regulations for which new navigational facilities, addition of reference in this amendment under 5 frequent and routine amendments are new obstacles, or changes in air traffic U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 necessary to keep them operationally requirements. These changes are of the Federal Aviation Regulations current. It, therefore—(1) is not a designed to provide safe and efficient (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under use of the navigable airspace and to identified as FAA Forms 8260–3, 8260– Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a promote safe flight operations under 4, and 8260–5. Materials incorporated ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Regulatory instrument flight rules at the affected by reference are available for Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; airports. examination or purchase as stated February 26, 1979); and (3) does not above. warrant preparation of a regulatory DATES: This rule is effective April 20, The large number of SIAPs, their evaluation as the anticipated impact is 2004. The compliance date for each complex nature, and the need for a SIAP is specified in the amendatory so minimal. For the same reason, the special format make their verbatim FAA certifies that this amendment will provisions. publication in the Federal Register The incorporation by reference of not have a significant economic impact expensive and impractical. Further, on a substantial number of small entities certain publications listed in the airmen do not use the regulatory text of regulations is approved by the Director under the criteria of the Regulatory the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic Flexibility Act. of the Federal Register as of April 20, depiction on charts printed by 2004. publishers of aeronautical materials. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97 ADDRESSES: Availability of matters Thus, the advantages of incorporation Air traffic control, Airports, incorporated by reference in the by reference are realized and Incorporation by reference, and amendment is as follows: publication of the complete description Navigation (air). For Examination— of each SIAP contained in FAA form Issued in Washington, DC on April 9, 2004. 1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA documents is unnecessary. The James J. Ballough, Headquarters Building, 800 provisions of this amendment state the Director, Flight Standards Service. Independence Avenue, SW., affected CFR (and FAR) sections, with Washington, DC 20591; the types and effective dates of the Adoption of the Amendment 2. The FAA Regional Office of the SIAPs. This amendment also identifies Accordingly, pursuant to the region in which the affected airport is the airport, its location, the procedure authority delegated to me, part 97 of the located; identification and the amendment Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 3. The Flight Inspection Area Office number. part 97) is amended by establishing, which originated the SIAP; or, The Rule amending, suspending, or revoking 4. The Office of Federal Register, 800 Standard Instrument Approach North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, This amendment to part 97 is effective Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on Washington, DC. upon publication of each separate SIAP the dates specified, as follows: For Purchase—Individual SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some copies may be obtained from: SIAP amendments may have been PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT 1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA– previously issued by the FAA in a APPROACH PROCEDURES 200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Independence Avenue, SW., Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an 1. The authority citation for part 97 Washington, DC 20591; or emergency action of immediate flight continues to read as follows: 2. The FAA Regional Office of the safety relating directly to published Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, region in which the affected airport is aeronautical charts. The circumstances 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, located. which created the need for some SIAP 44719, 44721–44722. By Subscription—Copies of all SIAPs, amendments may require making them 2. Part 97 is amended to read as mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale effective in less than 30 days. For the follows:

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21181

* * * Effective May 13, 2004 Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, ILS OR Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, RNAV (GPS) Erwin, NC, Harnett County, RNAV LOC RWY 13, Amdt 9 RWY 19, Orig (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1 Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, ILS OR [FR Doc. 04–8808 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] LOC RWY 31, Amdt 22, ILS RWY 31 Erwin, NC, Harnett County, RNAV BILLING CODE 4910–13–P (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1 (CAT II, III) Amdt 22 Erwin, NC, Harnett County, NDB RWY Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, RNAV 23, Amdt 2 (GPS) RWY 5, Orig DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, RNAV * * * Effective June 10, 2004 (GPS) RWY 13, Orig Maritime Administration Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, RNAV Headland, AL, Headland Muni, RNAV [Docket Number 2004 17552] (GPS) RWY 9, Orig (GPS) RWY 23, Orig Headland, AL, Headland Muni, RNAV Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, RNAV Requested Administrative Waiver of (GPS) RWY 27, Orig (GPS) RWY 31, Orig the Coastwise Trade Laws Kipnuk, AK, Kipnuk, RNAV (GPS) RWY Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, NDB 15, Orig RWY 31, Amdt 20 AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Kipnuk, AK, Kipnuk, RNAV (GPS) RWY Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, VOR/ Department of Transportation. 33, Orig DME RWY 23, Orig ACTION: Invitation for public comments Kipnuk, AK, Kipnuk, GPS RWY 15, Des Moines, IA, Des Moines Intl, VOR on a requested administrative waiver of Orig-A, CANCELLED OR GPS RWY 23, Amdt 2A, the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel Ruby, AK, Ruby, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, CANCELLED BLUE MOON. Orig Rexburg, ID, Rexburg-Madison County, Ruby, AK, Ruby, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1 SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105– Orig Paola, KS, Miami County, RNAV (GPS) 383 and Pub. L. 107–295, the Secretary Russian Mission, AK, Russian Mission, RWY 3, ORIG of Transportation, as represented by the RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig Paola, KS, Miami County, RNAV (GPS) Maritime Administration (MARAD), is Russian Mission, AK, Russian Mission, RWY 21, ORIG authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.- RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig Hamilton, MT, Ravalli County, RNAV build requirement of the coastwise laws Russian Mission, AK, Russian Mission, (GPS)–B, Orig under certain circumstances. A request GPS RWY 17, Orig, CANCELLED Hamilton, MT, Ravalli County, RNAV for such a waiver has been received by Russian Mission, AK, Russian Mission, (GPS)–A, Orig MARAD. The vessel, and a brief GPS RWY 35, Orig, CANCELLED Piqua, OH, Piqua Airport-Hartzell Field, description of the proposed service, is Ontario, CA, Ontario Intl, ILS RWY 8L, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig listed below. The complete application Amdt 8 Piqua, OH, Piqua Airport-Hartzell Field, is given in DOT docket 2004–17552 at Daytona Beach, FL, Daytona Beach Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties RNAV (GPS) RWY 7R, Orig Piqua, OH, Piqua Airport-Hartzell Field, may comment on the effect this action Daytona Beach, FL, Daytona Beach Intl, VOR–A, Amdt 13 may have on U.S. vessel builders or RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 7L, Orig Piqua, OH, Piqua Airport-Hartzell Field, businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag Daytona Beach, FL, Daytona Beach Intl, VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 26, vessels. If MARAD determines, in RNAV (GPS) RWY 25L, Orig Amdt 7, CANCELLED accordance with Pub. L. 105–383 and Daytona Beach, FL, Daytona Beach Intl, Urbana, OH, Grimes Field, VOR–A, MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR part RNAV (GPS) RWY 25R, Orig Amdt 5C 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that Daytona Beach, FL, Daytona Beach Intl, Urbana, OH, Grimes Field, RNAV (GPS) the issuance of the waiver will have an RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig RWY 2, Orig unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel Daytona Beach, FL, Daytona Beach Intl, Urbana, OH, Grimes Field, RNAV (GPS) builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1 RWY 20, Orig vessels in that business, a waiver will Daytona Beach, FL, Daytona Beach Intl, Idabel, OK, McCurtain County Regional, not be granted. Comments should refer RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 7L, Orig RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Orig to the docket number of this notice and Daytona Beach, FL, Daytona Beach Intl, Idabel, OK, McCurtain County Regional, the vessel name in order for MARAD to VOR RWY 16, Amdt 18A RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig properly consider the comments. Daytona Beach, FL, Daytona Beach Intl, Buckhannon, WV, Upshur County Comments should also state the NDB RWY 7L, Amdt 26A Regional, VOR–A, Orig commenter’s interest in the waiver Bainbridge, GA, Decatur County Buckhannon, WV, Upshur County application, and address the waiver Industrial Air Park, RNAV (GPS) RWY Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Orig criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s 9, Orig Buckhannon, WV, Upshur County regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. Bainbridge, GA, Decatur County Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig DATES: Submit comments on or before Industrial Air Park, RNAV (GPS) RWY Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, VOR/DME May 20, 2004. 27, Orig RWY 1, Orig ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Bainbridge, GA, Decatur County Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, VOR/DME docket number MARAD–2004–17552. Industrial Air Park, LOC/NDB RWY RWY 19, Orig Written comments may be submitted by 27, Orig Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, VOR OR hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, Bainbridge, GA, Decatur County GPS–A, Amdt 6C, CANCELLED U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, Industrial Air Park, NDB RWY 27, Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, VOR/DME Department of Transportation, 400 7th Amdt 2 OR GPS RWY 36, Amdt 4B, St., SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. Bainbridge, GA, Decatur County CANCELLED You may also send comments Industrial Air Park, GPS RWY 9, Orig, Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, ILS OR LOC electronically via the Internet at http:// CANCELLED RWY 19, Amdt 9 dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments Bainbridge, GA, Decatur County Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, RNAV (GPS) will become part of this docket and will Industrial Air Park, VOR–A, Amdt 4 RWY 1, Orig be available for inspection and copying

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21182 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

at the above address between 10 a.m. waiver will not be granted. Comments DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through should refer to the docket number of Friday, except federal holidays. An this notice and the vessel name in order Maritime Administration electronic version of this document and for MARAD to properly consider the [Docket Number 2004 17557] all documents entered into this docket comments. Comments should also state is available on the World Wide Web at the commenter’s interest in the waiver Requested Administrative Waiver of http://dms.dot.gov. application, and address the waiver the Coastwise Trade Laws FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s AGENCY: Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. Maritime Administration, Transportation, Maritime Department of Transportation. Administration, MAR–830 Room 7201, DATES: Submit comments on or before ACTION: Invitation for public comments 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, May 20, 2004. on a requested administrative waiver of DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0760. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As docket number MARAD–2004 17555. ELOUISE. described by the applicant the intended Written comments may be submitted by SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law service of the vessel BLUE MOON is: hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, 105–383 and Public Law 107–295, the Intended Use: ‘‘Chartered Services.’’ U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, ‘‘ Secretary of Transportation, as Geographic Region: U.S. West Coast Department of Transportation, 400 7th except for S.E. Alaska and Washington represented by the Maritime St., SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. State.’’ Administration (MARAD), is authorized You may also send comments to grant waivers of the U.S.-build Dated: April 13, 2004. electronically via the Internet at http:// requirement of the coastwise laws under By order of the Maritime Administrator. dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments certain circumstances. A request for Joel C. Richard, will become part of this docket and will such a waiver has been received by Secretary, Maritime Administration. be available for inspection and copying MARAD. The vessel, and a brief [FR Doc. 04–8854 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] at the above address between 10 a.m. description of the proposed service, is BILLING CODE 4910–81–P and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through listed below. The complete application Friday, except Federal holidays. An is given in DOT docket 2004–17557 at electronic version of this document and http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION all documents entered into this docket may comment on the effect this action is available on the World Wide Web at may have on U.S. vessel builders or Maritime Administration http://dms.dot.gov. businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag [Docket Number 2004 17555] vessels. If MARAD determines, in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: accordance with Public Law 105–383 Requested Administrative Waiver of Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of and MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR the Coastwise Trade Laws Transportation, Maritime Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), Administration, MAR–830 Room 7201, that the issuance of the waiver will have AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.- Department of Transportation. DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366–0760. vessel builder or a business that uses ACTION: Invitation for public comments U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: on a requested administrative waiver of As waiver will not be granted. Comments the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel described by the applicant the intended should refer to the docket number of CONSIGLIRE. service of the vessel CONSIGLIRE is: this notice and the vessel name in order Intended Use: ‘‘Day sailing, cruising, SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law for MARAD to properly consider the 105–383 and Public Law 107–295, the basic through offshore sailing comments. Comments should also state Secretary of Transportation, as instruction. I have no intent of operating the commenter’s interest in the waiver represented by the Maritime in Alaska. Nor do I intend on operating application, and address the waiver Administration (MARAD), is authorized in the State of Washington, with the criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s to grant waivers of the U.S.-build Exception of San Juan County. regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. requirement of the coastwise laws under Hopefully, that limited portion of the DATES: Submit comments on or before certain circumstances. A request for state will not pose a problem. If so, I May 20, 2004. such a waiver has been received by suppose I could live with that exclusion ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to MARAD. The vessel, and a brief also.’’ docket number MARAD–2004 17557. description of the proposed service, is Geographic Region: ‘‘US West Coast Written comments may be submitted by listed below. The complete application excluding Alaska, but including Hawaii hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, is given in DOT docket 2004–17555 at and San Juan County, Washington U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties State.’’ Department of Transportation, 400 7th may comment on the effect this action St., SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. may have on U.S. vessel builders or Dated: April 13, 2004. You may also send comments businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag By order of the Maritime Administrator. electronically via the Internet at http:// vessels. If MARAD determines, in Joel C. Richard, dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments accordance with Public Law 105–383 Secretary, Maritime Administration. will become part of this docket and will and MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR [FR Doc. 04–8850 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] be available for inspection and copying part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), at the above address between 10 a.m. that the issuance of the waiver will have BILLING CODE 4910–81–P and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.- Friday, except federal holidays. An vessel builder or a business that uses electronic version of this document and U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a all documents entered into this docket

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21183

is available on the World Wide Web at criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s description of the proposed service, is http://dms.dot.gov. regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. listed below. The complete application FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DATES: Submit comments on or before is given in DOT docket 2004–17558 at Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of May 20, 2004. http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties Transportation, Maritime ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to may comment on the effect this action Administration, MAR–830 Room 7201, docket number MARAD–2004 17554. may have on U.S. vessel builders or 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, Written comments may be submitted by businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0760. hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, vessels. If MARAD determines, in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, accordance with Pub. L. 105–383 and described by the applicant the intended Department of Transportation, 400 7th MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR part service of the vessel ELOUISE is: St., SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. 388 (68 FR 23084, April 30, 2003), that Intended Use: ‘‘Charter Vessel.’’ You may also send comments the issuance of the waiver will have an Geographic Region: ‘‘Great Lakes.’’ electronically via the Internet at http:// unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel Dated: April 13, 2004. dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag By order of the Maritime Administrator. will become part of this docket and will vessels in that business, a waiver will Joel C. Richard, be available for inspection and copying not be granted. Comments should refer at the above address between 10 a.m. Secretary, Maritime Administration. to the docket number of this notice and and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through [FR Doc. 04–8848 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] the vessel name in order for MARAD to Friday, except federal holidays. An properly consider the comments. BILLING CODE 4910–81–P electronic version of this document and Comments should also state the all documents entered into this docket commenter’s interest in the waiver is available on the World Wide Web at DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION application, and address the waiver http://dms.dot.gov. criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s Maritime Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: regulations at 46 CFR part 388. Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of [Docket Number 2004 17554] Transportation, Maritime DATES: Submit comments on or before May 20, 2004. Requested Administrative Waiver of Administration, MAR–830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, the Coastwise Trade Laws ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0760. docket number MARAD–2004 17558. AGENCY: Maritime Administration, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As Written comments may be submitted by Department of Transportation. described by the applicant the intended hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, ACTION: Invitation for public comments service of the vessel EUPHORIA is: U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, Intended Use: ‘‘Sailboat rides for hire on a requested administrative waiver of Department of Transportation, 400 7th within 5 miles of Hailing Port. the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel St., SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. EUPHORIA. Geographic Region: ‘‘Barnegat Bay, New Jersey.’’ You may also send comments SUMMARY: electronically via the Internet at http:// As authorized by Public Law Dated: April 13, 2004. 105–383 and Public Law 107–295, the dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments By order of the Maritime Administrator. Secretary of Transportation, as will become part of this docket and will represented by the Maritime Joel C. Richard, be available for inspection and copying Administration (MARAD), is authorized Secretary, Maritime Administration. at the above address between 10 a.m. to grant waivers of the U.S.-build [FR Doc. 04–8851 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, requirement of the coastwise laws under BILLING CODE 4910–81–P except Federal holidays. An electronic certain circumstances. A request for version of this document and all such a waiver has been received by documents entered into this docket is MARAD. The vessel, and a brief DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov. description of the proposed service, is Maritime Administration listed below. The complete application FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: is given in DOT docket 2004–17554 at [Docket Number 2004 17558] Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties Transportation, Maritime may comment on the effect this action Requested Administrative Waiver of Administration, MAR–830 Room 7201, may have on U.S. vessel builders or the Coastwise Trade Laws businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0760. vessels. If MARAD determines, in Department of Transportation. accordance with Public Law 105–383 ACTION: Invitation for public comments SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As and MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR on a requested administrative waiver of described by the applicant the intended Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel service of the vessel LOAFER’S GLORY that the issuance of the waiver will have LOAFER’S GLORY. is: an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.- Intended Use: ‘‘Day sail charter.’’ vessel builder or a business that uses SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105– U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a 383 and Pub. L. 107–295, the Secretary Geographic Region: ‘‘North Carolina.’’ waiver will not be granted. Comments of Transportation, as represented by the Dated: April 13, 2004. should refer to the docket number of Maritime Administration (MARAD), is By order of the Maritime Administrator. this notice and the vessel name in order authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.- for MARAD to properly consider the build requirement of the coastwise laws Joel C. Richard, comments. Comments should also state under certain circumstances. A request Secretary, Maritime Administration. the commenter’s interest in the waiver for such a waiver has been received by [FR Doc. 04–8855 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] application, and address the waiver MARAD. The vessel, and a brief BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21184 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. Maritime Administration Transportation, Maritime DATES: Submit comments on or before [Docket Number 2004 17759] Administration, MAR–830 Room 7201, May 20, 2004. 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Requested Administrative Waiver of DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0760. docket number MARAD–2004 17556. the Coastwise Trade Laws SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As Written comments may be submitted by described by the applicant the intended AGENCY: Maritime Administration, hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, Department of Transportation. service of the vessel SOJOURN is: U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, Intended Use: ‘‘Minor chartering for Department of Transportation, 400 7th ACTION: Invitation for public comments private individuals.’’ St., SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. on a requested administrative waiver of Geographic Region: ‘‘Narraganset Bay- You may also send comments the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel Block Island Sound.’’ SOJOURN. electronically via the Internet at http:// Dated: April 14, 2004. dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105– By order of the Maritime Administrator. will become part of this docket and will 383 and Pub. L. 107–295, the Secretary Joel C. Richard, be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. of Transportation, as represented by the Secretary, Maritime Administration. Maritime Administration (MARAD), is and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through [FR Doc. 04–8853 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.- Friday, except federal holidays. An build requirement of the coastwise laws BILLING CODE 4910–81–P electronic version of this document and under certain circumstances. A request all documents entered into this docket for such a waiver has been received by DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION is available on the World Wide Web at MARAD. The vessel, and a brief http://dms.dot.gov. description of the proposed service, is Maritime Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: listed below. The complete application Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of is given in DOT docket 2004–17559 at [Docket Number 2004–17556] Transportation, Maritime http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties Requested Administrative Waiver of Administration, MAR–830 Room 7201, may comment on the effect this action the Coastwise Trade Laws 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, may have on U.S. vessel builders or DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0760. businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag AGENCY: Maritime Administration, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As vessels. If MARAD determines, in Department of Transportation. described by the applicant the intended accordance with Pub. L. 105–383 and ACTION: Invitation for public comments service of the vessel STV UNICORN is: MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR part on a requested administrative waiver of Intended Use: ‘‘Executive leadership 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel development, sail training on traditional the issuance of the waiver will have an STV UNICORN. wind ship, tall ship event vessel.’’ unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel Geographic Region: ‘‘East Coast, New builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law England including Long Island Sound.’’ vessels in that business, a waiver will 105–383 and Public Law 107–295, the not be granted. Comments should refer Dated: April 13, 2004. Secretary of Transportation, as By order of the Maritime Administrator. to the docket number of this notice and represented by the Maritime Joel C. Richard, the vessel name in order for MARAD to Administration (MARAD), is authorized properly consider the comments. to grant waivers of the U.S.-build Secretary, Maritime Administration. Comments should also state the requirement of the coastwise laws under [FR Doc. 04–8849 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] commenter’s interest in the waiver certain circumstances. A request for BILLING CODE 4910–81–P application, and address the waiver such a waiver has been received by criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s MARAD. The vessel, and a brief regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. description of the proposed service, is DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATES: Submit comments on or before listed below. The complete application Maritime Administration May 20, 2004. is given in DOT docket 2004–17556 at ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties [Docket Number 2004 17553] docket number MARAD–2004 17559. may comment on the effect this action Written comments may be submitted by may have on U.S. vessel builders or Requested Administrative Waiver of hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag the Coastwise Trade Laws U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, vessels. If MARAD determines, in AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 7th accordance with Public Law 105–383 Department of Transportation. St., SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. and MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR ACTION: Invitation for public comments You may also send comments Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), on a requested administrative waiver of electronically via the Internet at http:// that the issuance of the waiver will have the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.- WHISPER. will become part of this docket and will vessel builder or a business that uses be available for inspection and copying U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105– at the above address between 10 a.m. waiver will not be granted. Comments 383 and Pub. L. 107–295, the Secretary and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through should refer to the docket number of of Transportation, as represented by the Friday, except federal holidays. An this notice and the vessel name in order Maritime Administration (MARAD), is electronic version of this document and for MARAD to properly consider the authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.- all documents entered into this docket comments. Comments should also state build requirement of the coastwise laws is available on the World Wide Web at the commenter’s interest in the waiver under certain circumstances. A request http://dms.dot.gov. application, and address the waiver for such a waiver has been received by

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21185

MARAD. The vessel, and a brief DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION case the same manufacturer’s logo that description of the proposed service, is should be on the fittings is printed on listed below. The complete application National Highway Traffic Safety all of the hose that is part of the same is given in DOT docket 2004–17553 at Administration assembly. Delphi states that, since S5.2.4 allows http://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties [Docket No. NHTSA–2004–17539; Notice 1] may comment on the effect this action a band to be placed around the hose as may have on U.S. vessel builders or Delphi Corporation, Receipt of Petition an alternative to embossing the logo on businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag for Decision of Inconsequential one of the fittings, if the S5.2.4 option vessels. If MARAD determines, in Noncompliance had been used, the band would be accordance with Pub. L. 105–383 and placed on top of the brake hose which MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR part Delphi Corporation (Delphi), has already contains the same logo, which 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that determined that at least one of the appears to be redundant. Delphi also the issuance of the waiver will have an fittings on the ends of certain brake hose asserts that, since the brake hose unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel assemblies that it produced between assemblies at issue are only sold by the builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag January 2001 and February 2004 do not vehicle manufacturer’s parts division, if vessels in that business, a waiver will comply with S5.2.4 and S5.2.4.1 of 49 the vehicle owner desired to know the not be granted. Comments should refer CFR 571.106, Federal Motor Vehicle brake hose assembly manufacturer, the to the docket number of this notice and Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, vehicle manufacturer could provide this the vessel name in order for MARAD to ‘‘Brake hoses.’’ Delphi has filed an information. Delphi states that since properly consider the comments. appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR these brake hoses are specific to a Comments should also state the Part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance specific vehicle, and are not sold at commenter’s interest in the waiver Reports.’’ normal consumer automotive retail application, and address the waiver Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and outlets, the person desiring to replace criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s 30120(h), Delphi has petitioned for an the brake hose assembly could only find regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. exemption from the notification and them at the vehicle manufacturer’s remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. authorized outlet. DATES: Submit comments on or before Chapter 301 on the basis that this Delphi also states: May 20, 2004. noncompliance is inconsequential to There is precedence [sic] for finding that motor vehicle safety. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to label requirements that are required by Crash This notice of receipt of Delphi’s docket number MARAD–2004–17553. Avoidance Standards (the 100 series) do not petition is published under 49 U.S.C. rise to the level of an unreasonable risk to Written comments may be submitted by 30118 and 30120 and does not represent motor vehicle safety. For example, in the tire hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, any agency decision or other exercise of standards it often happens that the tire is U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, judgment concerning the merits of the either not labeled or even mislabeled. Department of Transportation, 400 7th NHTSA has consistently found that petition. St., SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. knowledgeable mechanics would not be Affected are a total of approximately You may also send comments misled in such cases and would install the 1534 aftermarket brake hoses produced electronically via the Internet at http:// proper tires even if the tire on the vehicle between January 2001 and February were mislabeled. In this case the vehicle dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments 2004. S5.2.4 requires that: manufacturer’s outlet in most cases * * * is will become part of this docket and will the automotive dealer [who] would look up be available for inspection and copying Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, the part number based on the model, the at the above address between 10 a.m. except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, model year, and perhaps with specific and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, shall be labeled by means of a band around equipment. The identification of the brake the brake hose assembly as specified in this hose assembly manufacturer would not even except federal holidays. An electronic paragraph or, at the option of the version of this document and all come into play. manufacturer, by means of labeling as The Motor Vehicle Safety Act S30117(b) documents entered into this docket is specified in S5.4.1. requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and available on the World Wide Web at S5.4.1 states that: tires to maintain records of purchasers; http://dms.dot.gov. however, no such requirement exists for At least one end fitting of a hydraulic brake other types of equipment. In those cases FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: hose assembly shall be etched, stamped or where a brake hose is replaced in a Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of embossed with a designation at least one- dealership, it might be possible to identify Transportation, Maritime sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the the owners of those vehicles; assuming that Administration, MAR–830 Room 7201, manufacturer of the hose assembly. the vehicle was not sold after the brake hose 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, Delphi believes that the assembly was replaced. In other cases where DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0760. someone replaces the brake hose assembly noncompliance is inconsequential to oneself or after the warranty period has SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As motor vehicle safety, and that no expired using a garage or body shop to described by the applicant the intended corrective action is warranted. Delphi replace them, it is not likely that the owner service of the vessel WHISPER is: states that the subject brake hose could be determined. This means that a assemblies meet the functional percentage of the owners of the total brake Intended Use: ‘‘Sailing charters.’’ performance requirements of the hose assemblies replaced could not be Geographic Region: ‘‘Great Lakes and standard for the hose, the fittings, and identified for a recall. U.S. inland waters.’’ the assembly, and therefore will perform Delphi also states that it is not aware Dated: April 14, 2004. exactly as intended in the vehicle and of any vehicle customer complaints or By order of the Maritime Administrator. will not in any way affect the safety of any vehicle crashes that are a result of the vehicle. Delphi further states that the absence of the logo in question. Joel C. Richard, the label on the brake hose fitting is Interested persons are invited to Secretary, Maritime Administration. redundant to the label on the brake hose submit written data, views, and [FR Doc. 04–8852 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] itself when the manufacturer of the hose arguments on the petition described BILLING CODE 4910–81–P and the fitting are the same, and in this above. Comments must refer to the

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21186 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

docket and notice number cited at the to 49 CFR Part 573, ‘‘Defect and states that both the lettering and symbol beginning of this notice and be Noncompliance Reports.’’ identifications illuminate submitted by any of the following Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and simultaneously in red during the methods. Mail: Docket Management 30120(h), Hyundai has petitioned for an instrument cluster warning lamp Facility, U.S. Department of exemption from the notification and operation check, every time the parking Transportation, Nassif Building, Room remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. brake is applied, and also if a brake PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Chapter 301 on the basis that this system malfunction occurs. Hyundai Washington, DC 20590–0001. Hand noncompliance is inconsequential to further points out that although the Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza motor vehicle safety. ‘‘brake’’ lettering that appears below the level of the Nassif Building, 400 This notice of receipt of Hyundai’s ISO symbols is slightly smaller than 3.2 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It petition is published under 49 U.S.C. mm in height, the overall height of the is requested, but not required, that two 30118 and 30120 and does not represent ‘‘brake’’ warning lamp word and copies of the comments be provided. any agency decision or other exercise of symbols combination exceeds the The Docket Section is open on judgment concerning the merits of the standard. weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except petition. Hyundai asserts that this Federal Holidays. Comments may be S5.3.5 of FMVSS No. 105 requires that noncompliance is inconsequential as it submitted electronically by logging onto ‘‘Each indicator lamp shall display relates to motor vehicle safety for the the Docket Management System Web word, words or abbreviation * * * following five reasons: site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on which shall have letters not less than 1/ 1. The visual indicators in the ‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing 8-inch high.’’ S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 135 vehicles are visible to the driver under ‘‘ the document electronically. Comments requires that Each visual indicator shall all driving conditions and therefore may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or display a word or words * * * [which] meet the requirements of S5.3.4(a) of may be submitted to the Federal shall have letters not less than 3.2 mm FMVSS No. 101, ‘‘Controls and eRulemaking Portal: go to http:// (1/8 inch) high.’’ displays.’’ Approximately 237,994 vehicles are 2. Unlike FMVSS Nos. 105 and 135, www.regulations.gov. Follow the online affected. Approximately 142,667 other FMVSSs do not have specific instructions for submitting comments. vehicles do not meet the letter height height dimensions for the display such The petition, supporting materials, requirement for the abbreviation ‘‘ABS,’’ as FMVSS No. 108, ‘‘Lamps, reflective and all comments received before the where the letter height varies from 2.5 devices and associated equipment’’; close of business on the closing date mm to 3.1 mm. These include MY FMVSS No. 121, ‘‘Air brake systems’’; indicated below will be filed and will be 1998—2004 Accents, MY 1998—2004 and FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash considered. All comments and Elantras, MY 2002—2004 Tiburons, MY protection.’’ The requirement in these supporting materials received after the 1999—2004 Sonatas, MY 2001—2004 standards is that the indicator or telltale closing date will also be filed and will XGs, and MY 2001—2004 Santa Fes. be clearly visible, recognizable, or be considered to the extent possible. Approximately 95,327 vehicles do not discernible, or that the telltale is an When the petition is granted or denied, meet the letter height requirements for indicator to the driver. Hyundai states notice of the decision will be published the word ‘‘brake,’’ where the letter that the visual indicators in the subject in the Federal Register pursuant to the height varies from 2.9 mm to 3.1 mm. Hyundai vehicles are in full compliance authority indicated below. These include MY 1998—1999 Accents with these requirements. Comment closing date: May 20, 2004. and MY 1998—2001 Tiburons. 3. NHTSA issued a notice of proposed (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Hyundai believes that the rulemaking (NPRM) on September 23, delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and noncompliance is inconsequential to 2003, to update and expand FMVSS No. 501.8). motor vehicle safety and that no 101. In this NPRM, NHTSA proposed a Issued on: April 14, 2004. corrective action is warranted. Hyundai new definition of ‘‘telltale,’’ as well as Kenneth N. Weinstein, states that the International specific requirements for such telltales. Associate Administrator for Enforcement. Organization for Standardization (ISO) Specifically, the telltale must be visible [FR Doc. 04–8931 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] symbol for the ABS and the ‘‘ABS’’ to the driver under certain conditions, lettering are part of the same ABS BILLING CODE 4910–59–P must have certain illumination warning indicator, and both are characteristics, must have certain color simultaneously illuminated in yellow characteristics, and must be located in DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION by the same lighting source. Hyundai a specific place. The subject vehicles explains that both identifications have visual indicators (telltales) that are National Highway Traffic Safety illuminate simultaneously during the in full compliance with these proposed Administration instrument cluster warning lamp requirements. operation check, and also if an ABS [Docket No. NHTSA–2004–17440; Notice 1] 4. The owner’s manual for each model malfunction occurs. Hyundai further contain graphic depictions of the Hyundai Motor Company, Receipt of states that although the ABS lettering indicators, both lettering and ISO Petition for Decision of that appears within the ISO symbol is symbols, as they appear in the vehicles Inconsequential Noncompliance slightly smaller than 3.2 mm in height, with descriptions of their operations. the overall height of the ABS warning 5. Hyundai is not aware of any Hyundai Motor Company (Hyundai) lamp word/symbol combination consumer complaints, crashes, or has determined that certain vehicles significantly exceeds the standard on injuries associated with the size or that it produced do not comply with each of the affected models. visibility of the affected visual S5.3.5(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Hyundai says that on the two models indicators in the subject vehicles. Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, where the ‘‘brake’’ lettering is slightly Hyundai asserts that the measure of ‘‘Hydraulic and electric brake systems’’; smaller than 3.2 mm in height, the ISO inconsequentiality is whether there is and S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 135, symbol for the brake system and the any effect of the noncompliance on ‘‘Passenger car brake systems’’. Hyundai parking brake ISO symbol are part of the operational safety, and given the above has filed an appropriate report pursuant same brake warning indicator. Hyundai five factors, Hyundai states the subject

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21187

noncompliance is inconsequential as it through 2003 do not comply with S5.2(d), manufacturer identification; relates to motor vehicle safety. S5.2(a) and S5.2(c) of 49 CFR 571.120, and S5.2(e) month, day and year or Interested persons are invited to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard month and year of manufacture. The submit written data, views, and (FMVSS) No. 120, ‘‘Tire selection and rims are also marked with the Kia part arguments on the petition described rims for motor vehicles other than number. above. Comments must refer to the passenger cars.’’ Kia has filed an The tire size is marked on the tire docket and notice number cited at the appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR sidewalls, and the owner’s manual and beginning of this notice and be Part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance submitted by any of the following Reports.’’ tire inflation pressure label contain the methods. Mail: Docket Management Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and appropriate tire size to be installed on Facility, U.S. Department of 30120(h), Kia has petitioned for an the original equipment rims. Therefore, Transportation, Nassif Building, Room exemption from the notification and Kia does not believe there is a PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. possibility of a tire and rim mismatch as Washington, DC 20590–0001. Hand Chapter 301 on the basis that this a result of the missing rim markings. Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza noncompliance is inconsequential to Interested persons are invited to level of the Nassif Building, 400 motor vehicle safety. submit written data, views, and This notice of receipt of Kia’s petition Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It arguments on the petition described is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and is requested, but not required, that two above. Comments must refer to the copies of the comments be provided. 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of docket and notice number cited at the The Docket Section is open on beginning of this notice and be weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except judgment concerning the merits of the petition. submitted by any of the following Federal Holidays. Comments may be methods. Mail: Docket Management submitted electronically by logging onto Affected are a total of approximately 69,160 model year 2002 and 2003 Facility, U.S. Department of the Docket Management System Web Transportation, Nassif Building, Room site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on Sedona 4-door multipurpose passenger vehicles produced between May 1, 2001 PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., ‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing and October 2, 2003. Also affected are Washington, DC 20590–0001. Hand the document electronically. Comments a total of approximately 47,314 model may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza year 2003 and 2004 Sorento 4-door may be submitted to the Federal level of the Nassif Building, 400 multipurpose passenger vehicles eRulemaking Portal: go to http:// Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It produced between June 1, 2002 and www.regulations.gov. Follow the online is requested, but not required, that two October 2, 2003. S5.2 of FMVSS No. 120 instructions for submitting comments. copies of the comments be provided. requires that each rim be marked with The petition, supporting materials, The Docket Section is open on certain information on the weather side, and all comments received before the weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except including ‘‘A designation which Federal Holidays. Comments may be close of business on the closing date indicates the source of the rim’s indicated below will be filed and will be submitted electronically by logging onto published nominal dimensions’’ the Docket Management System Webs considered. All comments and (S5.2(a)), and ‘‘The symbol DOT’’ supporting materials received after the site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on (S5.2(c)). The rims installed on the ‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing closing date will also be filed and will affected vehicles do not contain the the document electronically. Comments be considered to the extent possible. markings required by S5.2(a) or S5.2(c). When the petition is granted or denied, Kia believes that the noncompliance may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or notice of the decision will be published is inconsequential to motor vehicle may be submitted to the Federal in the Federal Register pursuant to the safety and that no corrective action is eRulemaking Portal: go to http:// authority indicated below. warranted. Kia states that the affected www.regulations.gov. Follow the online Comment closing date: May 20, 2004. rims are 6JJ × 15″ (Sedona) aluminum instructions for submitting comments. (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: alloy and 7JJ × 16″ (Sorento), which are The petition, supporting materials, delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and commonly available and utilized in the and all comments received before the 501.8) United States. They are a correct close of business on the closing date Issued on: April 14, 2004. specification for mounting the 215/ indicated below will be filed and will be Kenneth N. Weinstein, 70R15 tires specified for all Sedona considered. All comments and Associate Administrator for Enforcement. models and the P245/70R16 tires supporting materials received after the [FR Doc. 04–8929 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] specified for all Sorento models, and are closing date will also be filed and will BILLING CODE 4910–59–P capable of carrying the GVWR of the be considered to the extent possible. vehicle. Kia first became aware of this When the petition is granted or denied, noncompliance on the Sedona and notice of the decision will be published DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Sorento vehicles during an internal in the Federal Register pursuant to the FMVSS compliance audit. authority indicated below. National Highway Traffic Safety Kia states that no accidents or injuries Administration have occurred, and no customer Comment closing date: May 20, 2004. complaints have been received related [Docket No. NHTSA–2004–17436; Notice 1] (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: to the lack of the markings or any delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and Kia Motor Corporation, Receipt of problem that may have resulted from 501.8) Petition for Decision of the lack of the markings. Kia further Issued on: April 14, 2004. states that the missing markings do not Inconsequential Noncompliance Kenneth N. Weinstein, affect the performance of the wheels or Kia Motor Corporation (Kia) has the tire and wheel assemblies. Associate Administrator for Enforcement. determined that the rims on certain The rims are marked in compliance [FR Doc. 04–8927 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] vehicles that it produced in 2001 with S5.2(b), rim size designation; BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21188 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION letter height of 2.2 mm and an ‘‘ABS’’ vehicles. Kia quotes from NHTSA’s letter height of 1.7 mm. notice of proposed rulemaking as National Highway Traffic Safety An additional 35,266 vehicles do not follows: ‘‘The ISO symbol set has existed Administration meet the letter height requirements for for many years. The great majority of the abbreviation ‘‘ABS.’’ These vehicles manufactured for sale in the [Docket No. NHTSA–2004–17439; Notice 1] noncompliant vehicles are 957 MY U.S. already use many of these symbols. 1995–1999 Sephias with an ‘‘ABS’’ letter As a result, U.S. drivers have become Kia Motors America, Inc. and Kia height of 2.8 mm, 33,023 MY 2003–2004 familiar with many of them through Motors Corp., Receipt of Petition for Sorentos with an ‘‘ABS’’ letter height of exposure in their current vehicles.’’ Decision of Inconsequential 1.9 mm, and 1286 MY 2001–2004 Rios Kia states that it believes the ISO Noncompliance with an ‘‘ABS’’ letter height of 2.0 mm. symbols which it uses in conjunction Kia Motors America, Inc. and Kia Kia believes that the noncompliance with the word ‘‘brake’’ and abbreviation Motors Corp. (Kia), have determined is inconsequential to motor vehicle ‘‘ABS’’ are commonly understood by the that certain vehicles that Kia produced safety, and that no corrective action is driving public. Kia says that, although do not comply with provisions of warranted. Kia states that the brake and the ‘‘brake’’ or ‘‘ABS’’ lettering within Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ABS system warning lights are the warning light is less than the (FMVSS) Nos. 101, ‘‘Controls and positioned for ready viewing by the minimum letter height standard of 3.2 displays;’’ 105, ‘‘Hydraulic and electric driver, and that they are illuminated in mm, the combined height of the entire brake systems;’’ and 135, ‘‘Passenger car red (brake warning light) or yellow (ABS brake or ABS warning light symbol and brake systems.’’ Kia has filed an light), colors that are generally lettering ranges from a low of 6 mm for appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR understood by vehicle users to be the brake light in the Kia Sephia to a part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance indicators of unsafe condition. high of 6.8 mm for the ABS light in the Reports.’’ Kia says that NHTSA has acted on Kia Sedona, which significantly exceeds Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and four petitions involving brake system the 3.2 mm standard of FMVSS Nos. 30120(h), Kia has petitioned for an warning lights that were in 101, 105, and 135. Kia asserts that all exemption from the notification and noncompliance with the labeling these factors (positioning, color, use of remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. requirements of FMVSS No. 101, 105, or the ISO symbol, and combined size of chapter 301 on the basis that this 135. Kia summarizes these actions as both the lettering and symbol) combine noncompliance is inconsequential to follows: to assure an easily identifiable and very motor vehicle safety. In 1982, NHTSA granted a Subaru of readable display. This notice of receipt of Kia’s petition America, Inc. petition involving passenger Kia asserts that, for the above reasons, is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and vehicles which used the ISO symbol in it is very unlikely that a vehicle user conjunction with the word ‘‘brake,’’ but 30120 and does not represent any where the lettering of ‘‘brake’’ was only 2.2 would either fail to see or fail to agency decision or other exercise of mm high. NHTSA agreed that the positioning understand the meaning of the brake or judgment concerning the merits of the of the warning light, combined with the ISO ABS warning light in the affected petition. symbol, was an easily identifiable and very vehicles. Nor, Kia says, has it received Affected are a total of approximately readable display. (47 FR 31347, 7/19/82). In any complaints regarding the size or 496,058 vehicles that do not meet the 1985, NHTSA denied a Volkswagen of visibility of either light. letter height requirements for brake America, Inc. petition involving passenger Interested persons are invited to system warning lights for the vehicles which also used the ISO symbol submit written data, views, and instead of the word ‘‘brake.’’ (50 FR 28678, abbreviation ‘‘ABS’’ and in some cases 7/15/85). In 1986, recognizing the then arguments on the petition described the word ‘‘brake.’’ FMVSS No. 101, growing use and acceptance of ISO symbols above. Comments must refer to the ‘‘Controls and displays,’’ Table 2, for vehicle controls and displays, NHTSA docket and notice number cited at the Column 3, ‘‘Identifying Words or granted an Alfa Romeo, Inc. petition beginning of this notice and be Abbreviation,’’ with regard to brake involving passenger vehicles which also used submitted by any of the following systems says, ‘‘* * * see FMVSS 105 the ISO symbol instead of the word ‘‘brake.’’ methods. Mail: Docket Management and 135.’’ S5.3.5 of FMVSS No. 105, (51 FR 36769, 10/15/86). In 1994, NHTSA Facility, U.S. Department of ‘‘Hydraulic and electric brake systems,’’ granted a Ford Motor Company petition Transportation, Nassif Building, Room involving passenger vehicles which, instead requires that ‘‘Each indicator lamp shall of having the brake system warning light PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., display word, words or abbreviation identified by the word ‘‘brake,’’ had it instead Washington, DC 20590–0001. Hand * * * which shall have letters not less identified by the ISO symbol. (59 FR 40409, Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza than 1⁄8-inch high.’’ S5.5.5 of FMVSS 8/8/94). In granting this petition, NHTSA level of the Nassif Building, 400 No. 135 requires that ‘‘Each visual commented that recognition of ISO symbols Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It indicator shall display a word or words among the public had been increasing and is requested, but not required, that two * * * [which] shall have letters not less was likely to increase still further over time. copies of the comments be provided. than 3.2 mm (1⁄8 inch) high.’’ Kia further states that the brake and The Docket Section is open on A total of 460,792 vehicles do not antilock system warning lights in all the weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except meet the letter height requirements for Kia vehicles involved in this petition Federal holidays. Comments may be the word ‘‘brake’’ and abbreviation include an ISO symbol combined with submitted electronically by logging onto ‘‘ABS’’ for brake warning systems. These the word ‘‘brake’’ or the abbreviation the Docket Management System Web noncompliant vehicles are 143,046 MY ‘‘ABS.’’ Kia asserts that NHTSA has site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on 2000–2001 Sephias with a ‘‘brake’’ letter stated that recognition of ISO symbols ‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing height of 2.2 mm and an ‘‘ABS’’ letter among the public has steadily increased the document electronically. Comments height of 1.7 mm, 128,565 MY 2002– over recent years, and NHTSA has may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or 2004 Sedonas with a ‘‘brake’’ letter recently proposed the adoption of ISO may be submitted to the Federal height of 1.9 mm and an ‘‘ABS’’ letter symbols for controls and displays in eRulemaking Portal: go to http:// height of 1.9 mm, and 189,181 MY motor vehicles, including the same ISO www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 2000–2004 Spectras with a ‘‘brake’’ symbols utilized by Kia in the affected instructions for submitting comments.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21189

The petition, supporting materials, malfunction on one or more towed Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza and all comments received before the vehicle(s).’’ level of the Nassif Building, 400 close of business on the closing date The affected vehicles have two types Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It indicated below will be filed and will be of fluorescent lights installed in the cab is requested, but not required, that two considered. All comments and sleeper. These lights create an copies of the comments be provided. supporting materials received after the electromagnetic interference (EMI) with The Docket Section is open on closing date will also be filed and will the trailer ABS malfunction signal weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except be considered to the extent possible. manufactured by Power Line Carrier Federal Holidays. Comments may be When the petition is granted or denied, (PLC). The fluorescent lights, when on, submitted electronically by logging onto notice of the decision will be published can interfere with the proper operation the Docket Management System Web in the Federal Register pursuant to the of the PLC signal, preventing the telltale site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on authority indicated below. from functioning. The PLC signal and ‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing Comment closing date: May 20, 2004. the telltale operate correctly when the the document electronically. Comments fluorescent light in the sleeper is off. may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: PACCAR believes that the delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and may be submitted to the Federal 501.8.) noncompliance is inconsequential to eRulemaking Portal: go to http:// motor vehicle safety, and that no Issued on: April 14, 2004. www.regulations.gov. Follow the online corrective action is warranted. PACCAR instructions for submitting comments. Kenneth N. Weinstein, states that the in-cab trailer ABS The petition, supporting materials, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. malfunction warning lamp is redundant and all comments received before the [FR Doc. 04–8926 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] to the existing trailer ABS malfunction close of business on the closing date BILLING CODE 4910–59–P indicator lamp located on the exterior of indicated below will be filed and will be the trailer and visible from the driver considered. All comments and side mirror. PACCAR explains, ‘‘Prior to supporting materials received after the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the in-cab warning lamp, the trailer closing date will also be filed and will mounted indicator was the only be considered to the extent possible. National Highway Traffic Safety warning available to drivers. The Administration When the petition is granted or denied, indicator on the exterior of the trailer is notice of the decision will be published [Docket No. NHTSA–2004–17437; Notice 1] not affected by this defect and would in the Federal Register pursuant to the continue to warn the driver in the event authority indicated below. PACCAR, Inc., Receipt of Petition for of a trailer ABS malfunction. All trailers Comment closing date: May 20, 2004. Decision of Inconsequential are required to be equipped with an (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Noncompliance external antilock malfunction indicator delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and lamp through March 1, 2009.’’ 501.8). PACCAR, Inc. (PACCAR), has PACCAR states that the in-cab Issued on: April 14, 2004. determined that the trailer antilock warning lamp will not function only if Kenneth N. Weinstein, brake system (ABS) warning lights on the fluorescent light in the sleeper is on. Associate Administrator for Enforcement. certain vehicles that were produced by PACCAR asserts that this is not likely to [FR Doc. 04–8930 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Peterbilt Motors Company (Peterbilt), a occur while the vehicle is being driven division of PACCAR, from April 3, 2003 and if so, it would be a small percentage BILLING CODE 4910–59–P to November 28, 2003 do not comply of the time. with S5.1.6.2(b) of Federal Motor PACCAR explains that not all suspect DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. vehicles will exhibit the behavior, 121, ‘‘Air brake systems.’’ PACCAR has because due to manufacturing variances, National Highway Traffic Safety filed an appropriate report pursuant to some fluorescent lights emit more EMI Administration 49 CFR Part 573, ‘‘Defect and than others. PACCAR states that the PLC Noncompliance Reports.’’ signal strength from the trailer is also a [Docket No. NHTSA–2004–17438; Notice 1] Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and factor. PACCAR explains that the Pirelli Tire North America., Receipt of 30120(h), PACCAR has petitioned for an telltale will operate normally in most Petition for Decision of exemption from the notification and cases with a strong trailer PLC signal Inconsequential Noncompliance remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. and only marginal EMI; however the Chapter 301 on the basis that this telltale will not operate with a normal Pirelli Pneumatici S.p.A has noncompliance is inconsequential to to marginal trailer PLC signal and high determined that certain tires it produced motor vehicle safety. EMI. in 2003 do not comply with S4.3(d) and This notice of receipt of PACCAR’s PACCAR also states that the S4.3(e) of 49 CFR 571.109, Federal petition is published under 49 U.S.C. foundation brakes on the trailer are not Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 30118 and 30120 and does not represent impacted. No. 109, ‘‘New pneumatic tires.’’ Pirelli any agency decision or other exercise of Interested persons are invited to Tire LLC (Pirelli), as agent for Pirelli judgment concerning the merits of the submit written data, views, and Pneumatici S.p.A, has filed an petition. arguments on the petition described appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Approximately 4009 Peterbilt models above. Comments must refer to the part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance 378, 379, 385, and 387 are affected. docket and notice number cited at the Reports.’’ S5.1.6.2(b) of FMVSS No. 121 requires beginning of this notice and be Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and that ‘‘Each * * * truck tractor * * * submitted by any of the following 30120(h), Pirelli has petitioned for an shall * * * be equipped with an methods. Mail: Docket Management exemption from the notification and indicator lamp * * * which is activated Facility, U.S. Department of remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. whenever the [antilock brake system] Transportation, Nassif Building, Room Chapter 301 on the basis that this malfunction signal circuit * * * PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., noncompliance is inconsequential to receives a signal indicating an ABS Washington, DC, 20590–0001. Hand motor vehicle safety.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21190 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

This notice of receipt of Pirelli’s closing date will also be filed and will OMB Reviewer: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., petition is published under 49 U.S.C. be considered to the extent possible. (202) 395–7316, Office of Management 30118 and 30120 and does not represent When the petition is granted or denied, and Budget, Room 10235, New any agency decision or other exercise of notice of the decision will be published Executive Office Building, Washington, judgment concerning the merits of the in the Federal Register pursuant to the DC 20503. petition. authority indicated below. A total of approximately 190 tires are Comment closing date: May 20, 2004. Lois K. Holland, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. involved. These are Pzero Asimmetrico (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: [FR Doc. 04–8885 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] 275/40ZR18 99Y (F) H405 tires, which delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and Pirelli Pneumatici S.p.A produced 501.8). BILLING CODE 4810–31–P intermittently during the period January Issued on: April 14, 2004. to April, 2003. They are marked Kenneth N. Weinstein, ‘‘reinforced’’ when in fact they are not, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Associate Administrator for Enforcement. and are marked as two ply when they are one ply. Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS [FR Doc. 04–8928 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Submission for OMB Review; No. 109 requires ‘‘each tire shall have BILLING CODE 4910–59–P Comment Request permanently molded into or onto both April 12, 2004. sidewalls * * * (d) The generic name of The Department of Treasury has DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY each cord material used in the plies submitted the following public * * * of the tire; and (e) Actual number information collection requirement(s) to of plies in the sidewall, and the actual Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request OMB for review and clearance under the number of plies in the tread area if Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, different.’’ April 12, 2004. Public Law 104–13. Copies of the Pirelli states that the incorrect The Department of Treasury has submission(s) may be obtained by sidewall inscription does not submitted the following public calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance compromise in any way the integrity or information collection requirement(s) to Officer listed. Comments regarding this the performance characteristics of the OMB for review and clearance under the information collection should be tires in question and does not constitute Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, addressed to the OMB reviewer listed any safety-related issue. Therefore, Public Law 104–13. Copies of the and to the Treasury Department Pirelli believes that the noncompliance submission(s) may be obtained by Clearance Officer, Department of the is inconsequential to motor vehicle calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance safety, and that no corrective action is Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Officer listed. Comments regarding this warranted. Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Interested persons are invited to information collection should be Washington, DC 20220. submit written data, views, and addressed to the OMB reviewer listed DATES: Written comments should be arguments on the petition described and to the Treasury Department received on or before May 20, 2004, to above. Comments must refer to the Clearance Officer, Department of the be assured of consideration. Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 docket and notice number cited at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) beginning of this notice and be Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., submitted by any of the following Washington, DC 20220. OMB Number: 1545–1589. methods. Mail: Docket Management DATES: Written comments should be Revenue Procedure Number: Revenue Facility, U.S. Department of received on or before May 20, 2004, to Procedure 98–19. Transportation, Nassif Building, Room be assured of consideration. Type of Review: Extension. Title: Exceptions to the Notice and PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Reporting Requirements of section Washington, DC 20590–0001. Hand Bureau (TTB) Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza 6033(e)(1) and the Tax Imposed by level of the Nassif Building, 400 OMB Number: New. section 6033(e)(2). Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It Form Number: TTB F 5000.31. Description: Revenue Procedure 98– Type of Review: New collection. is requested, but not required, that two 19 provides guidance to organizations Title: Pay.gov User Agreement. exempt from taxation under 501(a) of copies of the comments be provided. Description: The Pay.gov User The Docket Section is open on the Internal Revenue code of 1986 on Agreement will be used to identify, certain exceptions from the reporting weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except validate, approve, and register qualified Federal Holidays. Comments may be and notice requirements of section users to allow for submission of 6033(e)(1) and the tax imposed by submitted electronically by logging onto electronic forms using the Pay.gov the Docket Management System Web section 6033(e)(2). System. Respondents: Not-for-profit site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on Respondents: Business of other for- institutions, Individuals or households, ‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing profit. the document electronically. Comments Estimated Number of Respondents: Farms. may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or 5,800. Estimated Number of Respondents/ may be submitted to the Federal Estimated Burden Hours Per Recordkeepers: 15,000. eRulemaking Portal: go to http:// Respondent: 5 minutes. Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/ www.regulations.gov. Follow the online Frequency of Response: On occasion. Recordkeeper: 10 hours. instructions for submitting comments. Estimated Total Reporting Burden: Frequency of response: Annually. The petition, supporting materials, 483 hours. Estimated Total Reporting/ and all comments received before the Clearance Officer: William H. Foster, Recordkeeping Burden: 150,000 hours. close of business on the closing date (202) 927–8210, Alcohol and Tobacco OMB Number: 1545–1729. indicated below will be filed and will be Tax and Trade Bureau, Room 200 East, Regulation Project Number: REG– considered. All comments and 1310 G. Street, NW., Washington, DC 107186–00 NPRM and Temporary. supporting materials received after the 20005. Type of Review: Extension.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21191

Title: Electronic Payee Statements. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY depositaries. These regulations provide Description: In general, under these reporting and recordkeeping rules regulations, a person required to furnish Submission for OMB Review; relating to the use of Government a statement on Form W–2 under Code Comment Request depositaries for taxes imposed by sections 6041(d) or 6051, or Forms chapter 33 of the Code. April 13, 2004. 1098-T under Code section 6050S, may Respondents: Business or other for- furnish these statements electronically if The Department of Treasury has profit. the recipient consents to receive them submitted the following public Estimated Number of Respondents/ electronically, and if the person information collection requirement(s) to Recordkeepers: 9,000. furnishing the statement (1) makes OMB for review and clearance under the Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/ certain disclosures to the recipient, (2) Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Recordkeeper: 22 minutes. annually notifies the recipient that the Public Law 104–13. Copies of the Frequency of Response: On occasion, statement is available on a Web site, and submission(s) may be obtained by Quarterly. (3) provides access to the statement on calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Estimated Total Reporting/ that Web site for a prescribed period of Officer listed. Comments regarding this Recordkeeping Burden: 241,850 hours. information collection should be time. OMB Number: 1545–1577. addressed to the OMB reviewer listed Respondents: Business or other for- Regulation Project Number: REG– and to the Treasury Department profit, Individuals or households. 109704–97 NPRM. Clearance Officer, Department of the Estimated Number of Respondents/ Type of Review: Extension. Recordkeepers: 15,200. Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Title: HIPAA Mental Health Parity Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/ Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Act; (Temporary) Interim Rules for Recordkeeper: 6 minutes. Washington, DC 20220. Mental Health Parity. Frequency of response: Annually. DATES: Written comments should be Description: The regulations provide Estimated Total Reporting/ received on or before May 20, 2004, to guidance for group health plans with Recordkeeping Burden: 28,844,950 be assured of consideration. mental benefits about requirements hours. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) relating to parity in the dollar limits OMB Number: 1545–1836. imposed on mental health benefits and Form Number: IRS Form 8734. OMB Number: 1545–0927. medical/surgical benefits. Type of Review: Extension. Form Number: IRS Form 8390. Respondents: Business or other for- Title: Support Schedule for Advance Type of Review: Extension. profit, Not-for-profit institutions. Ruling Period. Title: Information Return for Estimated Number of Respondents/ Description: Form 8734 is sued by Determination of Life Insurance Recordkeepers: 7,053. charities to furnish financial Company Earnings Rate Under Section Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/ information that Exempt Organization 809. Recordkeeper: 28 minutes. Determinations of IRS can use to Description: Life insurance companies Frequency of Response: On occasion. classify a charity as a public charity. are required to provide data so the Estimated Total Reporting/ Respondents: Not-for-profit Secretary of the Treasury can compute Recordkeeping Burden: 3,280 hours. institutions. the (1) stock earnings rate of the 50 largest companies; and (2) average OMB Number: 1545–1592. Estimated Number of Respondents/ Revenue Procedure Number: Revenue Recordkeepers: 16,000. mutual earnings rate. These factors are used to compute the differential Procedure 98–20. Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/ Type of Review: Extension. earnings rate which will determine the Recordkeeper: Title: Certification for No Information tax liability for mutual life insurance Recordkeeping ...... 29 hr., 39 min. Reporting on the Sale of a Principal Learning about the law 1 hr., 27 min. companies. Respondents: Business or other for- Residence. or the form. Description: The revenue procedure Preparing the form ...... 2 hr., 56 min. profit. Estimated Number of Respondents/ applies only to the sale of a principal Copying, assembling, 16 min. residence for $250,000 or less ($500,000 and sending the form Recordkeepers: 300. to the IRS. Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/ or less if the seller is married). The Recordkeeper: revenue procedure provides the written Frequency of response: Other (one- assurances that are acceptable to the time only). Recordkeeping ...... 58 hr., 35 min. Service for exempting a real estate Learning about the law reporting person from information Estimated Total Reporting/ or the form ...... 2 hr., 28 min. Recordkeeping Burden: 549,120 hours. reporting requirements for the sale of a Preparing and sending principal residence. Clearance Officer: Glenn P. Kirkland, the form to the IRS ... 3 hr., 33 min. (202) 622–3428, Internal Revenue Respondents: Individuals or Service, Room 6411–03, 1111 households, Business or other for-profit. Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, Frequency of Response: Annually. Estimated Number of Respondents/ DC 20224. Estimated Total Reporting/ Recordkeepers: 2,390,000. OMB Reviewer: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., Recordkeeping Burden: 19,386 hours. Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/ (202) 395–7316, Office of Management OMB Number: 1545–1296. Recordkeeper: 10 minutes. and Budget, Room 10235, New Regulation Project Number: PS–27–91 Frequency of Response: On occasion. Executive Office Building, Washington, Final. Estimated Total Reporting/ DC 20503. Type of Review: Extension. Recordkeeping Burden: 420,500 hours. Title: Procedural Rules for Excise OMB Number: 1545–1595. Lois K. Holland, Taxes Currently Reportable on Form Revenue Procedure Number: Revenue Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. 720. Procedure 98–25. [FR Doc. 04–8886 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Description: Section 6302(c) Type of Review: Extension. BILLING CODE 4830–01–P authorizes the use of Government Title: Automatic Data Processing.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21192 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Description: Revenue Procedure 98– OMB Number: 1545–1873. 241–2008. Underwriting Limitation b/: 25 specifies the basic requirements that Revenue Procedure Number: Revenue $2,868,000. Surety Licenses c/: AL, AK, the IRS considers to be essential in cases Procedure 2004–15. AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, where a taxpayer’s records are Type of Review: Extension. HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, maintained within an Automatic Data Title: Waivers of Minimum Funding MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, Processing System (ADP). If machine- Standards. NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, sensible records are lost, stolen, Description: This revenue procedure PA, PI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, destroyed, or materially inaccurate, the describes the process for obtaining a WA, WV, WI, WY. Incorporated in: Revenue Procedure requires that a waiver from the minimum funding Nebraska. taxpayer promptly notify its District standards set forth in section 412 of the Certificates of Authority expire on Director and submit a plan to replace Code. June 30 each year, unless revoked prior the affected records. The District Respondents: Business or other for- to that date. The Certificates are subject Director will notify the taxpayer of any profit, Not-for-profit institutions, Farms, to subsequent annual renewal as long as objection(s) to the taxpayer’s plan. Also, State, local or tribal government. the companies remain qualified (31 CFR the Revenue Procedure provides that a Estimated Number of Respondents: part 223). A list of qualified companies taxpayer who maintains machine- 55. are published annually as of July 1 in sensible records may request to enter Estimated Burden Hours Respondent: Treasury Department Circular 570, with into a Record Retention Limitation 86 hours. details as to underwriting limitations, Frequency of Response: Other (one Agreement (RRLA) with its District areas in which licensed to transact response). Director. The taxpayer’s request must surety business and other information. Estimated Total Reporting Burden: identify and describe those records the The Circular may be viewed and 4,730 hours. taxpayer proposes not to retain and downloaded through the Internet at Clearance Officer: Glenn P. Kirkland, http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570. A hard explain why those records will not (202) 622–3428, Internal Revenue become material to the administration of copy may be purchased from the Service, Room 6411–03, 1111 Government Printing Office (GPO) any Internal Revenue law. The District Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, Director will notify the taxpayer Subscription Service, Washington, DC, DC 20224. Telephone (202) 512–1800. When whether or not the District Director will OMB Reviewer: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., enter into a RRLA. Finally, Revenue ordering the Circular from GPO, use the (202) 395–7316, Office of Management following stock number: 769–004– Procedure 98–25 provides that the and Budget, Room 10235, New District Director may conduct an 04643–2. Executive Office Building, Washington, Questions concerning this Notice may evaluation of a taxpayer’s machine- DC 20503. sensible records and may initiate testing be directed to the U.S. Department of to establish the authenticity, readability, Lois K. Holland, the Treasury, Financial Management completeness, and integrity of such Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. Service, Financial Accounting and records. [FR Doc. 04–8887 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F07, Respondents: Business of other for- BILLING CODE 4830–01–P profit, Individuals or households, Not- Hyattsville, MD 20782. for-profit institutions, Farms, Federal Dated: April 8, 2004. Government, State, local or tribal DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Rose Brewer, government. Acting Director, Financial Accounting and Estimated Number of Respondents/ Fiscal Service Services Division, Financial Management Recordkeepers: 3,000. Service. Surety Company Acceptable on Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/ [FR Doc. 04–8841 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Federal Bonds: Platte River Insurance Recordkeeper: 40 hours. Company BILLING CODE 4810–35–M Frequency of Response: On occasion. Estimated Total Reporting/ AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Recordkeeping Burden: 120.000 hours. Fiscal Service, Department of the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY OMB Number: 1545–1708. Treasury. Internal Revenue Service Publication Number: Publication ACTION: Notice. 1345. [EE–44–78] Type of Review: Revision. SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 14 to Title: Handbook for Authorized IRS e- the Treasury Department Circular 570; Proposed Collection; Comment file Providers. 2003 Revision, published July 1, 2003, Request for Regulation Project at 68 FR 39186. Description: Publication 1345 informs AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), those who participate in the IRS e-file FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Treasury. Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874–6850. Program for Individual Income Tax ACTION: Notice and request for Returns of their obligations to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A comments. Internal Revenue Service, taxpayers, Certificate of Authority as an acceptable and other participants. surety on Federal bonds is hereby SUMMARY: The Department of the Respondents: Business of other for- issued to the following Company under Treasury, as part of its continuing effort profit. 31 U.S.C. 9304 to 9308. Federal bond- to reduce paperwork and respondent Estimated Number of Respondents/ approving officers should annotate their burden, invites the general public and Recordkeepers: 145,000. reference copies of the Treasury Circular other Federal agencies to take this Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/ 570, 2003 Revision, on page 39216 to opportunity to comment on proposed Recordkeeper: 25 hours, 5 minutes. reflect this addition: Company Name: and/or continuing information Frequency of Response: On occasion. Platte River Insurance Company. collections, as required by the Estimated Total Reporting/ Business Address: P.O. Box 5900, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Recordkeeping Burden: 3,636,463 hours. Madison, WI 53705–0900. Phone: (860) Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C.

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21193

3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is public record. Comments are invited on: should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at soliciting comments concerning an (a) Whether the collection of (202) 622–6665, or at Internal Revenue existing final regulation, EE–44–78 (TD information is necessary for the proper Service, room 6407, 1111 Constitution 8100), Cooperative Hospital Service performance of the functions of the Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or Organizations (§ 1.501(e)–1). agency, including whether the through the Internet, at DATES: Written comments should be information shall have practical utility; [email protected]. received on or before June 21, 2004, to (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: be assured of consideration. of the burden of the collection of Title: Foreign Tax Credit; Notification ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments information; (c) ways to enhance the and Adjustment Due to Foreign Tax to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue quality, utility, and clarity of the Redeterminations. Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution information to be collected; (d) ways to OMB Number: 1545–1056. Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. minimize the burden of the collection of Regulation Project Number: REG– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information on respondents, including 209020–86 (formerly INTL–61–86). Requests for additional information or through the use of automated collection Abstract: This regulation relates to a copies of the information collection techniques or other forms of information taxpayer’s obligation under section should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at technology; and (e) estimates of capital 905(c) of the Internal Revenue Code to (202) 622–6665, or at Internal Revenue or start-up costs and costs of operation, file notification of a foreign tax Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution maintenance, and purchase of services redetermination, to make adjustments to Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or to provide information. a taxpayer’s pools of foreign taxes and through the Internet, at Approved: April 7, 2004. earnings and profits, and the imposition [email protected]. Glenn P. Kirkland, of the civil penalty for failure to file such notice or report such adjustments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IRS Reports Clearance Officer. Title: Cooperative Hospital Service [FR Doc. 04–8940 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Current Actions: There is no change to this existing regulation. Organizations. BILLING CODE 4830–01–P OMB Number: 1545–0814. Type of Review: Extension of a Regulation Project Number: EE–44– currently approved collection. 78. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Affected Public: Individuals and Abstract: This regulation establishes business or other for-profit the rules for cooperative hospital service Internal Revenue Service organizations. Estimated Number of Respondents: organizations which seek tax-exempt [REG–209020–86] status under section 501(e) of the 10,000. Internal Revenue Code. Such an Proposed Collection; Comment Estimated Time Per Respondent: 1 organization must keep records in order Request for Regulation Project hour. to show its cooperative nature and to Estimated Total Annual Burden AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), establish compliance with other Hours: 10,000. Treasury. requirements in Code section 501(c). The following paragraph applies to all Current Actions: There is no change to ACTION: Notice and request for of the collections of information covered this existing regulation. comments. by this notice: Type of Review: Extension of OMB An agency may not conduct or SUMMARY: The Department of the sponsor, and a person is not required to approval. Treasury, as part of its continuing effort Affected Public: Not-for-profit respond to, a collection of information to reduce paperwork and respondent unless the collection of information institutions. burden, invites the general public and The recordkeeping requirement does displays a valid OMB control number. other Federal agencies to take this not create any additional burden on Books or records relating to a collection opportunity to comment on proposed taxpayers because the records which the of information must be retained as long and/or continuing information regulations require would ordinarily be as their contents may become material collections, as required by the kept by a cooperative as a routine part in the administration of any internal Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, of its day-to-day business operations. revenue law. Generally, tax returns and Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. The following paragraph applies to all tax return information are confidential, 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is of the collections of information covered as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. soliciting comments concerning an by this notice: Request for Comments: Comments An agency may not conduct or existing notice of proposed rulemaking submitted in response to this notice will sponsor, and a person is not required to and temporary regulation, REG–209020– be summarized and/or included in the respond to, a collection of information 86 (TD 8210), Foreign Tax Credit; request for OMB approval. All unless the collection of information Notification and Adjustment Due to comments will become a matter of displays a valid OMB control number. Foreign Tax Redeterminations public record. Comments are invited on: Books or records relating to a collection (§§ 1.905–3T, 1.905–4T, 1.905–5T and (a) Whether the collection of of information must be retained as long 301.6689-IT). information is necessary for the proper as their contents may become material DATES: Written comments should be performance of the functions of the in the administration of any internal received on or before June 21, 2004, to agency, including whether the revenue law. Generally, tax returns and be assured of consideration. information shall have practical utility; tax return information are confidential, ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue of the burden of the collection of Request for Comments: Comments Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution information; (c) ways to enhance the submitted in response to this notice will Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. quality, utility, and clarity of the be summarized and/or included in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information to be collected; (d) ways to request for OMB approval. All Requests for additional information or minimize the burden of the collection of comments will become a matter of copies of the information collection information on respondents, including

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21194 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

through the use of automated collection Current Actions: There are no changes ACTION: Notice and request for techniques or other forms of information being made to the announcement at this comments. technology; and (e) estimates of capital time. or start-up costs and costs of operation, Type of Review: Extension of a SUMMARY: The Department of the maintenance, and purchase of services currently approved collection. Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to provide information. Affected Public: Business or other for- to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and Approved: April 8, 2004. profit organizations, and not-for-profit institutions. other Federal agencies to take this Glenn P. Kirkland, Estimated Number of Respondents: opportunity to comment on proposed IRS Reports Clearance Officer. 200. and/or continuing information [FR Doc. 04–8941 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] Estimated Time Per Respondent: 4 collections, as required by the BILLING CODE 4830–01–P hours. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Estimated Total Annual Burden Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. Hours: 800. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY The following paragraph applies to all soliciting comments concerning Form of the collections of information covered 1099–INT, Interest Income. Internal Revenue Service by this notice: DATES: Written comments should be An agency may not conduct or Proposed Collection; Comment received on or before June 21, 2004, to sponsor, and a person is not required to Request for Announcement 2004–38 be assured of consideration. respond to, a collection of information ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), unless the collection of information to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Treasury. displays a valid OMB control number. Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution ACTION: Notice and request for Books or records relating to a collection Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. comments. of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUMMARY: The Department of the in the administration of any internal Requests for additional information or Treasury, as part of its continuing effort revenue law. Generally, tax returns and copies of the form and instructions to reduce paperwork and respondent tax return information are confidential, should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at burden, invites the general public and as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. (202) 622–6665, or at Internal Revenue other Federal agencies to take this Request for Comments: Comments Service, room 6407, 1111 Constitution opportunity to comment on proposed submitted in response to this notice will Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, and/or continuing information be summarized and/or included in the or through the Internet, at collections, as required by the request for OMB approval. All [email protected]. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, comments will become a matter of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. public record. Comments are invited on: Title: Interest Income. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is (a) Whether the collection of OMB Number: 1545–0112. soliciting comments concerning information is necessary for the proper Form Number: 1099–INT. Announcement 2004–38, Election of performance of the functions of the Abstract: Form 1099–INT is used for Alternative Deficit Reduction agency, including whether the reporting interest income paid, as Contribution. information shall have practical utility; required by sections 6049 and 6041 of DATES: Written comments should be (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS uses received on or before June 21, 2004, to of the burden of the collection of the form to verify compliance with the be assured of consideration. information; (c) ways to enhance the reporting rules and to verify that the quality, utility, and clarity of the recipient has included the proper ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments amount of interest on his or her income to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue information to be collected; (d) ways to tax return. Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution minimize the burden of the collection of Current Actions: There are no changes Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection being made to the form at this time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: techniques or other forms of information Type of Review: Extension of a Requests for additional information or technology; and (e) estimates of capital currently approved collection. copies of the announcement should be or start-up costs and costs of operation, Affected Public: Business or other for- directed to Carol Savage at Internal maintenance, and purchase of services profit organizations, Federal Revenue Service, room 6407, 1111 to provide information. Government, individuals or households, Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, and not-for-profit institutions. Approved: April 14, 2004. DC 20224, or at (202) 622–3945, or Estimated Number of Responses: through the Internet at Glenn P. Kirkland, 275,797,664. [email protected]. IRS Reports Clearance Officer. Estimated Time Per Response: 12 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 04–8942 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] minutes. Title: Election of Alternative Deficit BILLING CODE 4830–01–P Estimated Total Annual Burden Reduction Contribution. Hours: 54,979,533. OMB Number: 1545–1883. The following paragraph applies to all Announcement Number: DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY of the collections of information covered Announcement 2004–38. by this notice: Abstract: Announcement 2004–38 Internal Revenue Service An agency may not conduct or describes the election that must be made Proposed Collection; Comment sponsor, and a person is not required to in order for certain employers to take Request for Form 1099–INT respond to, a collection of information advantage of the alternative deficit unless the collection of information reduction contribution described in AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), displays a valid OMB control number. section 102 of H.R. 3108. Treasury. Books or records relating to a collection

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices 21195

of information must be retained as long DATES: Written comments should be comments will become a matter of as their contents may become material received on or before June 21, 2004, to public record. Comments are invited on: in the administration of any internal be assured of consideration. (a) Whether the collection of revenue law. Generally, tax returns and ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments information is necessary for the proper tax return information are confidential, to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue performance of the functions of the as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution agency, including whether the Request for Comments: Comments Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. information shall have practical utility; submitted in response to this notice will FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate be summarized and/or included in the Requests for additional information or of the burden of the collection of request for OMB approval. All copies of the notices should be directed information; (c) ways to enhance the comments will become a matter of to Allan Hopkins, at (202) 622–6665, or quality, utility, and clarity of the public record. Comments are invited on: at Internal Revenue Service, room 6407, information to be collected; (d) ways to (a) Whether the collection of 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., minimize the burden of the collection of information is necessary for the proper Washington, DC 20224, or through the information on respondents, including performance of the functions of the Internet, at [email protected]. through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information agency, including whether the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: technology; and (e) estimates of capital information shall have practical utility; Title: Notice 88–30, Diesel Fuel and or start-up costs and costs of operation, (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate Aviation Fuel Taxes Imposed at maintenance, and purchase of services of the burden of the collection of Wholesale Level, and Notice 88–132, to provide information. information; (c) ways to enhance the Diesel and Aviation Fuel Taxes; Rules quality, utility, and clarity of the Effective 1/1/89. Approved: April 8, 2004. information to be collected; (d) ways to OMB Number: 1545–1043. Glenn P. Kirkland, minimize the burden of the collection of Notice Number: Notice 88–30 and IRS Reports Clearance Officer. information on respondents, including Notice 88–132. [FR Doc. 04–8944 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] through the use of automated collection Abstract: Notice 88–30 and Notice BILLING CODE 4830–01–P techniques or other forms of information 88–132 require certain persons involved technology; and (e) estimates of capital with diesel or aviation fuel (1) To be or start-up costs and costs of operation, registered with the Internal Revenue DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY maintenance, and purchase of services Service, (2) to maintain certain records, to provide information. and (3) to provide certificates to support Internal Revenue Service exempt purchases. Because of the Code Approved: April 14, 2004, Proposed Collection; Comment Glenn P. Kirkland, amendments made by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, these Request for Form 8866 IRS Reports Clearance Officer. requirements now apply only with [FR Doc. 04–8943 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), respect to aviation fuel. Treasury. BILLING CODE 4830–01–P Current Actions: There are no changes ACTION: being made to the notices at this time. Notice and request for Type of Review: Extension of a comments. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY currently approved collection. SUMMARY: The Department of the Affected Public: Business or other for- Internal Revenue Service Treasury, as part of its continuing effort profit organizations, not-for-profit to reduce paperwork and respondent Proposed Collection; Comment institutions, farms, and state, local or burden, invites the general public and Request for Notice 88–30 and Notice tribal governments. other Federal agencies to take this 88–132 Estimated Number of Respondents: opportunity to comment on proposed 3,500. and/or continuing information AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Estimated Time Per Respondent: 1 collections, as required by the Treasury. hour, 6 minutes. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Estimated Total Annual Burden Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. ACTION: Notice and request for Hours: 3,850. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is comments. The following paragraph applies to all soliciting comments concerning Form of the collections of information covered 8866, Interest Computation Under the SUMMARY: The Department of the by this notice: Look-Back Method for Property Treasury, as part of its continuing effort An agency may not conduct or Depreciated Under the Income Forecast to reduce paperwork and respondent sponsor, and a person is not required to Method. burden, invites the general public and respond to, a collection of information other Federal agencies to take this unless the collection of information DATES: Written comments should be opportunity to comment on proposed displays a valid OMB control number. received on or before June 21, 2004, to and/or continuing information Books or records relating to a collection be assured of consideration. collections, as required by the of information must be retained as long ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as their contents may become material to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. in the administration of any internal Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is revenue law. Generally, tax returns and Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. soliciting comments concerning two tax return information are confidential, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: existing notices, Notice 88–30, Diesel as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Requests for additional information or Fuel and Aviation Fuel Taxes Imposed Request for Comments: Comments copies of the form and instructions at Wholesale Level, and Notice 88–132, submitted in response to this notice will should be directed to Carol Savage at Diesel and Aviation Fuel Taxes; Rules be summarized and/or included in the Internal Revenue Service, room 6407, Effective 1/1/89. request for OMB approval. All 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 21196 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Notices

Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622– Affected Public: Individuals or request for OMB approval. All 3945, or through the Internet at households, and business or other for- comments will become a matter of [email protected]. profit organizations. public record. Comments are invited on: Estimated Number of Respondents: (a) Whether the collection of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5,000. information is necessary for the proper Title: Interest Computation Under the Estimated Time Per Respondent: 13 performance of the functions of the Look-Back Method for Property hours, 22 minutes. agency, including whether the Depreciated Under the Income Forecast Estimated Total Annual Burden information shall have practical utility; Method. Hours: 66,850. (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate The following paragraph applies to all of the burden of the collection of OMB Number: 1545–1622. of the collections of information covered information; (c) ways to enhance the Form Number: Form 8866. by this notice: quality, utility, and clarity of the Abstract: Taxpayers depreciating An agency may not conduct or information to be collected; (d) ways to property under the income forecast sponsor, and a person is not required to minimize the burden of the collection of method and placed in service after respond to, a collection of information information on respondents, including September 13, 1995, must use Form unless the collection of information through the use of automated collection 8866 to compute and report interest due displays a valid OMB control number. techniques or other forms of information or to be refunded under Internal Books or records relating to a collection technology; and (e) estimates of capital Revenue Code 167(g)(2). The Internal of information must be retained as long or start-up costs and costs of operation, Revenue Service uses the information as their contents may become material maintenance, and purchase of services on Form 8866 to determine if the in the administration of any internal to provide information. interest has been figured correctly. revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, Approved: April 14, 2004. Current Actions: There are no changes as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Glenn P. Kirkland, being made to the form at this time. Request for Comments: Comments IRS Reports Clearance Officer. Type of Review: Extension of a submitted in response to this notice will [FR Doc. 04–8945 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] currently approved collection. be summarized and/or included in the BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

VerDate mar<24>2004 15:15 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM 20APN1 Tuesday, April 20, 2004

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 63, 264, et al. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II); Proposed Rule

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21198 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION section 3005(c) of the Resource If you send an e-mail comment directly AGENCY Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), to EPA without going through which requires that each permit issued EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e- 40 CFR Parts 63, 264, 265, 266, 270, under RCRA contain such terms and mail address will be automatically and 271 conditions as are determined necessary captured and included as part of the [FRL–7644–1] to protect human health and the comment that is placed in the public environment. In that petition, the docket and made available on the RIN 2050–AE01 Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition Internet. If you submit an electronic requests that we repeal the existing site- comment, EPA recommends that you National Emission Standards for specific risk assessment policy and include your name and other contact Hazardous Air Pollutants: Proposed technical guidance for hazardous waste information in the body of your Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants combustors and that we promulgate the comment and with any disk or CD-ROM for Hazardous Waste Combustors policy and guidance as rules in you submit. If EPA cannot read your (Phase I Final Replacement Standards accordance with the Administrative comment due to technical difficulties and Phase II) Procedure Act if we continue to believe and cannot contact you for clarification, AGENCY: Environmental Protection that site-specific risk assessments may EPA may not be able to consider your Agency (EPA). be necessary. comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form ACTION: Proposed rule. DATES: Submit comments on or before July 6, 2004. of encryption, and be free of any defects SUMMARY: This action proposes national ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, or viruses. For additional information emission standards for hazardous air identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2004– about EPA’s public docket visit pollutants (NESHAP) for hazardous 0022 by one of the following methods: EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal waste combustors. These combustors • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). include hazardous waste burning www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line For additional instructions on incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight instructions for submitting comments. submitting comments, go to unit II of aggregate kilns, industrial/commercial/ • Agency Web site: http:// the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section institutional boilers and process heaters, www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s of this document. and hydrochloric acid production electronic public docket and comment Docket: All documents in the docket furnaces, known collectively as system, is EPA’s preferred method for are listed in the EDOCKET index at hazardous waste combustors (HWCs). receiving comments. Follow the on-line http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although EPA has identified these HWCs as major instructions for submitting comments. listed in the index, some information is sources of hazardous air pollutant • E-mail: http://www.epa.gov/ not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other (HAP) emissions. These proposed edocket. information whose disclosure is standards will, when final, implement • Fax: 202–566–1741. restricted by statute. Certain other section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act • Mail: OAR Docket, Environmental material, such as copyrighted material, (CAA) by requiring hazardous waste Protection Agency, Mailcode: B102, is not placed on the Internet and will be combustors to meet HAP emission 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., publicly available only in hard copy standards reflecting the application of Washington, DC 20460. Please include a form. Publicly available docket the maximum achievable control total of 2 copies. materials are available either technology (MACT). • Hand Delivery: EPA/DC, EPA West, electronically in EDOCKET or in hard The HAP emitted by facilities in the Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., copy at the OAR Docket, EPA/DC, EPA incinerator, cement kiln, lightweight NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution aggregate kiln, industrial/commercial/ are only accepted during the Docket’s Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public institutional boiler, process heater, and normal hours of operation, and special Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to hydrochloric acid production furnace arrangements should be made for 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, source categories include arsenic, deliveries of boxed information. excluding legal holidays. The telephone beryllium, cadmium, chromium, Instructions: Direct your comments to number for the Public Reading Room is dioxins and furans, hydrogen chloride Docket ID No. OAR–2004–0022. EPA’s (202) 566–1744, and the telephone and chlorine gas, lead, manganese, and policy is that all comments received number for the OAR Docket is (202) mercury. Exposure to these substances will be included in the public docket 566–1742. has been demonstrated to cause adverse without change and may be made FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For health effects such as irritation on the available online at http://www.epa.gov/ general information, call the RCRA Call lung, skin, and mucus membranes, edocket, including any personal Center at 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1– effects on the central nervous system, information provided, unless the 800–553–7672 (hearing impaired). kidney damage, and cancer. The adverse comment includes information claimed Callers within the Washington health effects associated with the to be Confidential Business Information Metropolitan Area must dial 703–412– exposure to these specific HAP are (CBI) or other information whose 9810 or TDD 703–412–3323 (hearing further described in the preamble. In disclosure is restricted by statute. Do impaired). The RCRA Call Center is general, these findings have only been not submit information that you open Monday–Friday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., shown with concentrations higher than consider to be CBI or otherwise eastern standard time. For more those typically in the ambient air. protected through EDOCKET, information about this proposal, contact This action also presents our tentative regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA Michael Galbraith at 703–605–0567, or decision regarding the February 28, EDOCKET and the federal [email protected]. 2002, petition for rulemaking submitted regulations.gov Web sites are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: by the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which to the Administrator, relating to EPA’s means EPA will not know your identity I. Regulated Entities implementation of the so-called or contact information unless you The promulgation of the proposed omnibus permitting authority under provide it in the body of your comment. rule would affect the following North

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21199

American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes:

Category NAICS code SIC code Examples of potentially regulated entities

Any industry that combusts hazardous waste as 562211 ...... 4953 Incinerator, hazardous waste. defined in the proposed rule. 327310 ...... 3241 Cement manufacturing, clinker production. 327992 ...... 3295 Ground or treated mineral and earth manufac- turing. 325 ...... 28 Chemical Manufacturers. 324 ...... 29 Petroleum Refiners. 331 ...... 33 Primary Aluminum. 333 ...... 38 Photographic equipment and supplies. 488, 561, 562 ...... 49 Sanitary Services, N.E.C. 421 ...... 50 Scrap and waste materials. 422 ...... 51 Chemical and Allied Products, N.E.C. 512, 541, 561, 812 ...... 73 Business Services, N.E.C. 512, 514, 541, 711 ...... 89 Services, N.E.C. 924 ...... 95 Air, Water and Solid Waste Management.

This table is not intended to be B. Follow directions—The agency E. What Are the Testing and Initial exhaustive, but rather provides a guide may ask you to respond to specific Compliance Requirements? for readers regarding entities likely to be questions or organize comments by F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements? regulated by this action. This table lists referencing a Code of Federal G. What Are the Notification, examples of the types of entries EPA is Regulations (CFR) part or section Recordkeeping, and Reporting now aware could potentially be number. Requirements? C. Explain why you agree or disagree; regulated by this action. Other types of Part Two: Rationale for the Proposed Rule entities not listed could also be affected. suggest alternatives and substitute To determine whether your facility, language for your requested changes. I. How Did EPA Determine Which Hazardous D. Describe any assumptions and Waste Combustion Sources Would Be company, business, organization, etc., is Regulated? regulated by this action, you should provide any technical information and/ A. How Are Area Sources Regulated? examine the applicability criteria in Part or data that you used. B. What Hazardous Waste Combustors Are II of this preamble. If you have any E. If you estimate potential costs or Not Covered by this Proposal? questions regarding the applicability of burdens, explain how you arrived at C. How Would Sulfuric Acid Regeneration this action to a particular entity, consult your estimate in sufficient detail to Facilities Be Regulated? the person listed in the preceding FOR allow for it to be reproduced. II. What Subcategorization Considerations Did EPA Evaluate? FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. F. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest A. What Subcategorization Options Did We II. What Should I Consider as I Prepare alternatives. Consider for Incinerators? My Comments for EPA? G. Explain your views as clearly as B. What Subcategorization Options Did We Consider for Cement Kilns? possible, avoiding the use of profanity 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this C. What Subcategorization Options Did We or personal threats. Consider for Lightweight Aggregate information to EPA through EDOCKET, H. Make sure to submit your regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark Kilns? comments by the comment period D. What Subcategorization Options Did We the part or all of the information that deadline identified. Consider for Boilers? you claim to be CBI. For CBI E. What Subcategorization Options Did We information in a disk or CD–ROM that Outline Consider for Hydrochloric Acid you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the Part One: Background and Summary Production Furnaces? disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then III. What Data and Information Did EPA identify electronically within the disk or I. Background Information Consider to Establish the Proposed A. What Criteria Are Used in the Standards? CD–ROM the specific information that Development of NESHAP? is claimed as CBI). In addition to one A. Data Base for Phase I Sources B. What Is the Regulatory Development B. Data Base for Phase II Sources complete version of the comment that Background of the Source Categories in C. Classification of the Emission Data includes information claimed as CBI, a the Proposed Rule? D. Invitation to Comment on Data Base copy of the comment that does not C. What Is the Statutory Authority for this IV. How Did EPA Select the Format for the contain the information claimed as CBI Standard? Proposed Rule? must be submitted for inclusion in the D. What Is the Relationship Between the A. What Is the Rationale for Generally public docket. Information so marked Proposed Rule and Other MACT Selecting an Emission Limit Format will not be disclosed except in Combustion Rules? Rather than a Percent Reduction Format? E. What Are the Health Effects Associated accordance with procedures set forth in B. What Is the Rationale for Selecting a with Pollutants Emitted by Hazardous Hazardous Waste Thermal Emissions 40 CFR part 2. Waste Combustors? Format for Some Standards, and an 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. II. Summary of the Proposed Rule Emissions Concentration Format for When submitting comments, remember A. What Source Categories Are Affected by Others? to: the Proposed Rule? C. What Is the Rationale for Selecting B. What HAP Are Emitted? Surrogates to Control Multiple HAP? A. Identify the rulemaking by docket C. Does Today’s Proposed Rule Apply to D. What Is the Rationale for Requiring number and other identifying My Source? Compliance with Operating Parameter information (subject heading, Federal D. What Emissions Limitations Must I Limits to Ensure Compliance with Register date and page number). Meet? Emission Standards?

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21200 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

V. How Did EPA Determine the Proposed D. What Are the Proposed Standards for C. How Would You Determine if Your Emission Limitations for New and Semivolatile Metals? Total Chlorine Emission Rate Meets the Existing Units? E. What Are the Proposed Standards for Eligibility Requirements Defined by the A. How Did EPA Determine the Proposed Low Volatile Metals? National Exposure Standards? Emission Limitations for New Units? F. What Are the Proposed Standards for D. What Is the Rationale for Caps on the B. How Did EPA Determine the Proposed Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine Gas? Risk-Based Emission Limits? Emission Limitations for Existing Units? G. What Are the Standards for E. What Would Your Risk-Based Eligibility VI. How Did EPA Determine the MACT Floor Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide? Demonstration Contain? for Existing and New Units? H. What Are the Standards for Destruction F. When Would You Complete and Submit A. What MACT Methodology Approaches and Removal Efficiency? Your Eligibility Demonstration? Are Used to Identify the Best Performers X. How Did EPA Determine the Proposed G. How Would the Risk-Based HCl- for the Proposed Floors, and When Are Emission Standards for Hazardous Waste Equivalent Emission Rate Limit Be They Applied? Burning Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers? Implemented? B. How Did EPA Select the Data to A. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed H. How Would You Ensure that Your Standards for Dioxin and Furan? Represent Each Source When Facility Remains Eligible for the Risk- B. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed Determining Floor Levels? Based Emission Limit? Standards for Mercury? C. How Did We Evaluate Whether It Is I. Request for Comment on an Alternative Appropriate to Issue Separate Emissions C. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed Standards for Particulate Matter? Approach: Risk-Based National Emission Standards for Various Subcategories? Standards D. How Did We Rank Each Source’s D. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed Standards for Semivolatile Metals? XIV. How Did EPA Determine Testing and Performance Levels to Identify the Best Monitoring Requirements for the Performing Sources for the Three MACT E. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed Proposed Rule? Methodologies? Standards for Low Volatile Metals? A. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed E. How Did EPA Calculate Floor Levels F. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed Testing Requirements? That Are Achievable for the Average of Standards for Total Chlorine? B. What Are the Dioxin/Furan Testing the Best Performing Sources? G. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed Requirements for Boilers that Would Not F. Why Did EPA Default to the Interim Standards for Carbon Monoxide or Be Subject to a Numerical Dioxin/Furan Standards When Establishing Floors? Hydrocarbons? Emission Standard? G. What Other Options Did EPA Consider? H. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed C. What Are the Proposed Test Methods? VII. How Did EPA Determine the Proposed Standard for Destruction and Removal D. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed Emission Standards for Hazardous Waste Efficiency? XI. How Did EPA Determine the Proposed Burning Incinerators? Continuous Monitoring Requirements? Emission Standards for Hazardous Waste A. What Are the Proposed Standards for E. What Are the Averaging Periods for the Burning Liquid Fuel-Fired Boilers? Dioxin and Furan? Operating Parameter Limits, and How A. What Are the Proposed Standards for B. What Are the Proposed Standards for Are Performance Test Data Averaged to Dioxin and Furan? Mercury? Calculate the Limits? B. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed F. How Would Sources Comply with C. What Are the Proposed Standards for Standards for Mercury? Particulate Matter? Emissions Standards Based on Normal C. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed Emissions? D. What Are the Proposed Standards for Standards for Particulate Matter? Semivolatile Metals? G. How Would Sources Comply with D. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed Emission Standards Expressed as E. What Are the Proposed Standards for Standards for Semivolatile Metals? Low Volatile Metals? Hazardous Waste Thermal Emissions? E. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed H. What Happens if My Thermal Emissions F. What Are the Proposed Standards for Standards for Chromium? Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine Gas? Standard Limits Emissions to Below the F. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed Detection Limit of the Stack Test G. What Are the Standards for Standards for Total Chlorine? Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide? Methods? G. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed I. Are We Concerned About Possible H. What Are the Standards for Destruction Standards for Carbon Monoxide or and Removal Efficiency? Negative Biases Associated With Making Hydrocarbons? Hydrogen Chloride Measurements in VIII. How Did EPA Determine the Proposed H. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed High Moisture Conditions? Emission Standards for Hazardous Waste Standard for Destruction and Removal J. What Are the Other Proposed Burning Cement Kilns? Efficiency? Compliance Requirements? A. What Are the Proposed Standards for XII. How Did EPA Determine the Proposed XV. How Did EPA Determine Compliance Dioxin and Furan? Emission Standards for Hazardous Waste B. What Are the Proposed Standards for Burning Hydrochloric Acid Production Times for this Proposed Rule? Mercury? Furnaces? XVI. How Did EPA Determine the Required C. What Are the Proposed Standards for A. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed Records and Reports for the Proposed Particulate Matter? Standards for Dioxin and Furan? Rule? D. What Are the Proposed Standards for B. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed A. Summary of Requirements Currently Semivolatile Metals? Standards for Mercury, Semivolatile Applicable to Incinerators, Cement E. What Are the Proposed Standards for Metals, and Low Volatile Metals? Kilns, and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns Low Volatile Metals? C. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed and that Would Be Applicable to Boilers F. What Are the Proposed Standards for Standards for Total Chlorine? and Hydrochloric Acid Production Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine Gas? D. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed Furnaces G. What Are the Standards for Standards for Carbon Monoxide or B. Why Is EPA Proposing Notification of Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide? Hydrocarbons? Intent to Comply and Compliance H. What Are the Standards for Destruction E. What Is the Rationale for the Proposed Progress Report Requirements? and Removal Efficiency? Standard for Destruction and Removal XVII. What Are the Title V and RCRA IX. How Did EPA Determine the Proposed Efficiency? Permitting Requirements for Phase I and Emission Standards for Hazardous Waste XIII. What Is the Rationale for Proposing An Phase II Sources? Burning Lightweight Aggregate Kilns? Alternative Risk-Based Standard for A. What Is the General Approach to A. What Are the Proposed Standards for Total Chlorine in Lieu of the MACT Permitting Hazardous Waste Combustion Dioxin and Furan? Standard? Sources? B. What Are the Proposed Standards for A. What Is the Legal Authority to Establish B. How Will the Replacement Standards Mercury? Risk-Based Standards? Affect Permitting for Phase I Sources? C. What Are the Proposed Standards for B. What Is the Rationale for the National C. What Permitting Requirements Is EPA Particulate Matter? Exposure Standards? Proposing for Phase II Sources?

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21201

D. How Would this Proposal Affect the I. How Is EPA Proposing to Ensure HAP—hazardous air pollutant(s) RCRA Site-Specific Risk Assessment Performance of Electrostatic ICR—Information Collection Request Policy? Precipitators, Ionizing Wet Scrubbers, XVIII. What Alternatives to the Particulate and Fabric Filters? kg/hr—kilograms per hour Matter Standard Is EPA Proposing or IV. Other Proposed Compliance Revisions kW-hour—kilo Watt hour Requesting Comment On? A. What Is the Proposed Clarification to the MACT—Maximum Achievable Control A. What Alternative to the Particulate Public Notice Requirement for Approved Technology Matter Standard Is EPA Proposing for Test Plans? mg/dscm—milligrams per dry standard Incinerators, Liquid Fuel-Fired Boilers, B. What Is the Proposed Clarification to the and Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers? Public Notice Requirement for the cubic meter B. What Alternative to the Particulate Petition to Waive a Performance Test? MMBtu—million British thermal unit Matter Standard Is EPA Requesting Part Four: Impacts of the Proposed Rule ng/dscm—nanograms per dry standard Comment On? I. What Are the Air Impacts? cubic meter XIX. What Are the Proposed RCRA State NESHAP—national emission standards Authorization and CAA Delegation II. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Requirements? Impacts? for HAP A. What Is the Authority for this Rule? III. What Are the Energy Impacts? ng—nanograms B. Are There Any Changes to the CAA IV. What are the Control Costs? POHC—principal organic hazardous Delegation Requirements for Phase I V. Can We Achieve the Goals of the Proposed Rule in a Less Costly Manner? constituent Sources? VI. What are the Economic Impacts? ppmv—parts per million by volume C. What Are the Proposed CAA Delegation A. Market Exit Estimates Requirements for Phase II Sources? ppmw—parts per million by weight B. Quantity of Waste Reallocated Pub. L.—Public Law Part Three: Proposed Revisions to C. Employment Impacts Compliance Requirements VII. What Are the Benefits of Reductions in RCRA—Resource Conservation and I. Why Is EPA Proposing to Allow Phase I Particulate Matter Emissions? Recovery Act Sources to Conduct the Initial VIII. What are the Social Costs and Benefits SRE—system removal efficiency Performance Test to Comply with the of the Proposed Rule? TEQ—toxicity equivalence Replacement Rules 12 Months After the A. Combustion Market Overview ug/dscm—micrograms per dry standard B. Baseline Specification Compliance Date? cubic meter II. Why Is EPA Requesting Comment on C. Analytical Methodology and Findings— Requirements Promulgated as Interim Social Cost Analysis U.S.C.—United States Code D. Analytical Methodology and Findings— Standards or as Final Amendments? Part One: Background and Summary A. Interim Standards Amendments to the Benefits Assessment Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction IX. How Does the Proposed Rule Meet the I. Background Information Plan Requirements RCRA Protectiveness Mandate? B. Interim Standards Amendments to the A. Background A. What Criteria Are Used in the Compliance Requirements for Ionizing B. Assessment of Risks Development of NESHAP? Wet Scrubbers Part Five: Administrative Requirements 1. What Information Is Covered in This C. Why Is EPA Requesting Comment on the I. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Preamble and How Is It Organized? Fugitive Emission Requirements? Planning and Review D. Why Is EPA Requesting Comment on II. Paperwork Reduction Act In this preamble, EPA summarizes the Bag Leak Detector Sensitivity? III. Regulatory Flexibility Act important features of these proposed E. Final Amendments Waiving Operating IV. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act standards that apply to hazardous waste Parameter Limits during Testing without V. Executive Order 13132: Federalism an Approved Test Plan burning incinerators, cement kilns, VI. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and lightweight aggregate kilns, boilers, and III. Why Is EPA Requesting Comment on Coordination with Indian Tribal Issues and Amendments that Were Governments hydrochloric acid production furnaces, Previously Proposed? VII. Executive Order 13045: Protection of known collectively as HWCs. This A. Definition of Research, Development, Children from Environmental Health and preamble describes: (1) The and Demonstration Source Safety Risks environmental, energy, and economic B. Identification of an Organics Residence VIII. Executive Order 13211: Actions that impacts of these proposed standards; (2) Time that Is Independent of, and Shorter Significantly Affect Energy Supply, the basis for each of the decisions made than, the Hazardous Waste Residence Distribution, or Use Time regarding the proposed standards; (3) IX. National Technology Transfer and requests public comments on certain C. Why Is EPA Not Proposing to Extend Advancement Act APCD Controls after the Residence Time X. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to issues; and (4) discusses administrative Has Expired when Sources Operate Address Environmental Justice in requirements relative to this action. under Alternative Section 112 or 129 Minority Populations and Low-Income 2. Where in the Code of Federal Standards? Populations D. Why Is EPA Proposing to Allow Use of XI. Congressional Review Regulations Will These Standards Be Method 23 as an Alternative to Method Codified? Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in 0023A for Dioxin/Furan? The Code of Federal Regulations E. Why Is EPA Not Proposing the This Document (CFR) is a codification of the general ‘‘Matching the Profile’’ Alternative acfm—actual cubic feet per minute Approach to Establish Operating and permanent rules published in the Btu—British thermal units Federal Register by the Executive Parameter Limits? CAA—Clean Air Act F. Why Is EPA Not Proposing to Allow departments and agencies of the Federal Extrapolation of OPLs? CFR—Code of Federal Regulations DRE—destruction and removal Government. The code is divided into G. Why Is EPA Proposing to Delete the 50 titles that represent broad areas Limit on Minimum Combustion efficiency dscf—dry standard cubic foot subject to Federal regulation. These Chamber Temperature for Dioxin/Furan proposed rules would be published in for Cement Kilns? dscm—dry standard cubic meter H. Why Is EPA Requesting Additional EPA—Environmental Protection Agency Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Comment on Whether to Add a FR—Federal Register Part 63, Subpart EEE: National Emission Maximum pH Limit for Wet Scrubbers to gr/dscf—grains per dry standard cubic Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Control Mercury Emissions? foot From Hazardous Waste Combustors.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21202 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

3. What Criteria Are Used in the relative to competitors with poorer A number of parties, representing Development of NESHAP? controls. interests of both industrial sources and of the environmental community, Section 112 of the Clean Air Act B. What Is the Regulatory Development sought judicial review of the Phase I (CAA) requires EPA to promulgate Background of the Source Categories in rule. On July 24, 2001, the United States regulations for the control of HAP the Proposed Rule? emissions from each source category Court of Appeals for the District of Today’s notice proposes standards for Columbia Circuit (the Court) granted listed by EPA under section 112(c). The controlling emissions of HAP from statute requires the regulations to reflect portions of the Sierra Club’s petition for hazardous waste combustors. Hazardous review and vacated the challenged the maximum degree of reduction in waste combustors comprise several emissions of HAP that is achievable portions of the standards. Cement Kiln categories of sources that burn Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 3d taking into consideration the cost of hazardous waste: incinerators, cement achieving the emission reduction, any 855 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The Court held that kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, EPA had not demonstrated that its nonair quality health and environmental boilers and hydrochloric acid calculation of MACT floors met the impacts, and energy requirements. This production furnaces. We call statutory requirement of being no less level of control is commonly referred to incinerators, cement kilns, and stringent than (1) the average emission as MACT (i.e., maximum achievable lightweight aggregate kilns Phase I limitation achieved by the best control technology). The MACT sources because we have already performing 12 percent of existing regulation can be based on the emission promulgated standards for those source sources and (2) the emission control reductions achievable through categories. We call boilers and achieved in practice by the best application of measures, processes, hydrochloric acid production furnaces controlled similar source for new methods, systems, or techniques Phase II sources because we intended to sources. 255 F.3d at 861, 865–66. As a including, but not limited to: (1) promulgate MACT standards for those remedy, the Court, after declining to Reducing the volume of, or eliminating source categories after promulgating rule on most of the issues presented in emissions of, such pollutants through MACT standards for Phase I sources. the industry petitions for review, process changes, substitutions of The regulatory background of Phase I vacated the ‘‘challenged regulations,’’ materials, or other modifications; (2) and Phase II source categories is stating that: ‘‘[W]e have chosen not to enclosing systems or processes to discussed below. reach the bulk of industry petitioners’ eliminate emissions; (3) collecting, 1. Phase I Source Categories claims, and leaving the regulations in capturing, or treating such pollutants place during remand would ignore when released from a process, stack, Phase I combustor sources are petitioners’ potentially meritorious storage or fugitive emission point; (4) regulated under the Resource challenges.’’ Id. at 872. Examples of the design, equipment, work practices, or Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), specific challenges the Court indicated operational standards as provided in which establishes a ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ might have merit were provisions subsection 112(h); or (5) a combination regulatory structure overseeing the safe relating to compliance during start up/ of the above. See section 112(d)(2) of the treatment, storage, and disposal of shut down and malfunction events, CAA. hazardous waste. We issued RCRA rules including emergency safety vent For new sources, MACT standards to control air emissions from openings, the dioxin/furan standard for cannot be less stringent than the incinerators in 1981, 40 CFR parts 264 lightweight aggregate kilns, and the emission control achieved in practice by and 265, subpart O, and from cement semivolatile metal standard for cement the best-controlled similar source. See kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns kilns. Id. However, the Court stated, section 112(d)(3) of the Act. The MACT that burn hazardous waste in 1991, 40 ‘‘[b]ecause this decision leaves EPA standards for existing sources can be CFR part 266, subpart H. These rules without standards regulating [hazardous less stringent than standards for new rely generally on risk-based standards to waste combustor] emissions, EPA (or sources, but they cannot be less achieve the RCRA protectiveness any of the parties to this proceeding) stringent than the average emission mandate. may file a motion to delay issuance of limitation achieved by the best- The Phase I source categories are also the mandate to request either that the performing 12 percent of existing subject to standards under section current standards remain in place or sources for categories and subcategories 112(d) of the Clean Air Act. We that EPA be allowed reasonable time to with 30 or more sources, or the best- promulgated standards for Phase I develop interim standards.’’ Id. performing 5 sources for categories or sources on September 30, 1999 (64 FR Acting on this invitation, all parties subcategories with fewer than 30 52828). This final rule is referred to as moved the Court jointly to stay the sources. Id. This level of control is the Phase I rule or 1999 final rule. These issuance of its mandate for four months usually referred to as the MACT ‘‘floor’’, emission standards created a to allow EPA time to develop interim the term used in the Legislative History. technology-based national cap for standards, which would replace the In essence, MACT standards ensure hazardous air pollutant emissions from vacated standards temporarily, until that all major sources of air toxic (i.e., the combustion of hazardous waste in final standards consistent with the HAP) emissions achieve the level of these devices. The rule regulates Court’s mandate are promulgated. The control already being achieved by the emissions of numerous hazardous air interim standards were published on better-controlled and lower-emitting pollutants: dioxin/furans, other toxic February 13, 2002 (67 FR 6792). EPA sources in each category. This approach organics (through surrogates), mercury, did not justify or characterize these provides assurance to citizens that each other toxic metals (both directly and standards as conforming to MACT, but major source of toxic air pollution will through a surrogate), and hydrogen rather as an interim measure to prevent be required to effectively control its chloride and chlorine gas. Where the adverse environmental and other emissions of air toxics. At the same necessary, section 3005(c)(3) of RCRA consequences that would result from the time, this approach provides a level provides the authority to impose regulatory gap resulting from no playing field, ensuring that facilities additional conditions in a RCRA permit standards being in place. Id. at 6795–96. that employ cleaner processes and good to protect human health and the The motion also indicates that EPA emission controls are not disadvantaged environment. will issue final standards which comply

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21203

with the Court’s opinion by June 14, determination that they may reasonably handling of hazardous waste prior to 2005, and it indicates that EPA and be anticipated to emit several of the 188 combustion (i.e., emissions from tanks, Petitioner Sierra Club intend to enter listed HAP in quantities sufficient to containers, equipment, and process into a settlement agreement requiring us designate them as major sources. vents) would continue to be regulated to promulgate final rules by that date, pursuant to either RCRA subpart AA, D. What Is the Relationship Between the and that date be judicially enforceable. BB, and CC or an applicable MACT that EPA and Sierra Club entered into that Proposed Rule and Other MACT applies to the before-mentioned material settlement agreement on March 4, 2002. Combustion Rules? handling devices. Emissions unrelated The joint motion also details other The proposed amendments to the to the hazardous waste operations may actions we agreed to take, including subpart EEE, part 63, standards for be regulated pursuant to other MACT issuing a one-year extension to the hazardous waste combustors would rulemakings. For example, Portland September 30, 2002, compliance date apply to the source categories that are cement manufacturing facilities that (66 FR 63313, December 6, 2001), and currently subject to that subpart— combust hazardous waste are subject to promulgating several of the compliance incinerators, cement kilns, and both subpart EEE and subpart LLL, and and implementation amendments to the lightweight aggregate kilns that burn hydrochloric acid production facilities rule which we proposed on July 3, 2001 hazardous waste. Today’s proposed that combust hazardous waste may be (66 FR 35126). These final amendments rule, however, would also amend subject to both subpart EEE and subpart were published on February 14, 2002 subpart EEE to establish MACT NNNNN.2 In these instances subpart (67 FR 6968). standards for the Phase II source EEE controls HAP emissions from the 2. Phase II Source Categories categories—those boilers and cement kiln and hydrochloric acid hydrochloric acid production furnaces production furnace stack, while Phase II combustors—boilers and that burn hazardous waste. subparts LLL and NNNNN would hydrochloric acid production Generally speaking, you are an control HAP emissions from other furnaces—are also regulated under the affected source pursuant to subpart EEE operations that are not directly related Resource Conservation and Recovery if you combust, or have previously to the combustion of hazardous waste Act (RCRA) pursuant to 40 CFR part combusted, hazardous waste in an (e.g., clinker cooler emissions for 266, subpart H, and (for reasons incinerator, cement kiln, lightweight cement production facilities, and discussed below) are also subject to the aggregate kiln, boiler, or hydrochloric hydrochloric acid product MACT standard setting process in acid production furnace. You continue transportation and storage for section 112(d) of the CAA. We delayed to be an affected source until you cease hydrochloric acid production facilities). promulgating MACT standards for these burning hazardous waste and initiate Note that if you temporarily cease source categories pending reevaluation closure requirements pursuant to RCRA. burning hazardous waste for any reason, of the MACT standard setting See § 63.1200(b). If you never previously you remain an affected source and are methodology following the Court’s combusted hazardous waste, or have still subject to the applicable Subpart decision to vacate the standards for the ceased burning hazardous waste and EEE requirements. However, even as an Phase I source categories. We have also initiated RCRA closure requirements, affected source, the proposed emission entered into a judicially enforceable you are not subject to subpart EEE. standards or operating limits derived consent decree with Sierra Club which Rather, EPA has promulgated or from the hazardous waste combustors requires EPA to promulgate MACT proposed separate MACT standards for do not apply if: (1) Hazardous waste is standards for the Phase II sources by sources that do not burn hazardous not in the combustion chamber and you June 14, 2005—the same date that (for waste within the following source elect to comply with other MACT (or independent reasons) is required for the categories: commercial and industrial CAA section 129) standards that replacement standards for Phase I solid waste incinerators (40 CFR part 60, otherwise would be applicable if you sources. subparts CCCC and DDDD); Portland were not burning hazardous waste, e.g., the nonhazardous waste burning C. What Is the Statutory Authority for cement manufacturing facilities (40 CFR Portland Cement Kiln MACT (subpart This Standard? part 63, subpart LLL); industrial/ LLL); or (2) you are in a startup, Section 112 of the Clean Air Act commercial/institutional boilers and process heaters (40 CFR part 63, shutdown, or malfunction mode of requires that the EPA promulgate operation. regulations requiring the control of HAP proposed subpart DDDDD); and emissions from major and certain area hydrochloric acid production facilities E. What Are the Health Effects sources. The control of HAP is achieved (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN). In Associated With Pollutants Emitted by through promulgation of emission addition, EPA considered whether to Hazardous Waste Combustors? standards under sections 112(d) and (in establish MACT standards for Today’s proposed rule protects air a second round of standard setting) (f) lightweight aggregate manufacturing quality and promotes the public health and, in appropriate circumstances, work facilities that do not burn hazardous by reducing the emissions of some of practice standards under section 112(h). waste, and determined that they are not the HAP listed in section 112(b)(1) of EPA’s initial list of categories of major major sources of HAP emissions. Thus, the CAA. Emissions data collected in and area sources of HAP selected for EPA has not established MACT the development of this proposed rule regulation in accordance with section standards for lightweight aggregate show that metals, particulate matter, 112(c) of the Act was published in the manufacturing facilities that do not burn hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas, Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR hazardous waste. dioxins and furans, and other organic 31576). Incinerators, cement kilns, Note that non-stack emissions points compounds are emitted from hazardous 1 lightweight aggregate kilns, industrial/ are not regulated under subpart EEE. waste combustors. The HAP that would commercial/institutional boilers and Emissions attributable to storage and process heaters, and hydrochloric acid 2 Hydrochloric acid production furnaces that 1 production furnaces are among the Note, however, that fugitive emissions combust hazardous waste would also be affected attributable to the combustion of hazardous waste sources subject to subpart NNNNN if they produce listed 174 categories of sources. The from the combustion device are regulated pursuant a liquid acid product that contains greater than 30% listing was based on the Administrator’s to subpart EEE. hydrochloric acid.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21204 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

be controlled with this rule are carcinogenicity of antimony and, cadmium in the kidneys that can cause associated with a variety of adverse accordingly, the carcinogenicity of kidney disease. Cadmium has been health affects. These adverse health antimony cannot be determined based shown to be a developmental toxicant in effects include chronic health disorders on available information. However, animals, resulting in fetal malformations (e.g., irritation of the lung, skin, and IARC (International Agency for Research and other effects, but no conclusive mucus membranes and effects on the on Cancer) in an earlier evaluation, evidence exists in humans. An blood, digestive tract, kidneys, and concluded that antimony trioxide is association between cadmium exposure central nervous system), and acute ‘‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’’ and an increased risk of lung cancer has health disorders (e.g., lung irritation and (Group 2B). been reported from human studies, but congestion, alimentary effects such as these studies are inconclusive due to Arsenic nausea and vomiting, and effects on the confounding factors. Animal studies central nervous system). Provided below Acute (short-term) high-level have demonstrated an increase in lung are brief descriptions of risks associated inhalation exposure to arsenic dust or cancer from long-term inhalation with HAP that are emitted from fumes has resulted in gastrointestinal exposure to cadmium. EPA has hazardous waste combustors. Note that effects (nausea, diarrhea, abdominal classified cadmium as a Group B1, a more detailed discussion of the risks pain), and central and peripheral probable carcinogen. associated with these emissions is nervous system disorders. Chronic Chlorine Gas included in Part Four. (long-term) inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic in humans is Acute exposure to high levels of Antimony associated with irritation of the skin and chlorine in humans can result in chest Antimony occurs at very low levels in mucous membranes. Human data pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis, and the environment, both in the soils and suggest a relationship between pulmonary edema. At lower levels foods. Higher concentrations, however, inhalation exposure of women working chlorine is a potent irritant to the eyes, are found at antimony processing sites, at or living near metal smelters and an the upper respiratory tract, and lungs. and in their hazardous wastes. The most increased risk of reproductive effects, Chronic exposure to chlorine gas in common industrial use of antimony is such as spontaneous abortions. workers has resulted in respiratory as a fire retardant in the form of Inorganic arsenic exposure in humans effects including eye and throat antimony trioxide. Chronic by the inhalation route has been shown irritation and airflow obstruction. occupational exposure to antimony to be strongly associated with lung Animal studies have reported decreased (generally antimony trioxide) is most cancer, while ingestion or inorganic body weight gain, eye and nose commonly associated with ‘‘antimony arsenic in humans has been linked to a irritation, nonneoplastic nasal lesions, pneumoconiosis,’’ a condition involving form of skin cancer and also to bladder, and respiratory epithelial hyperplasia fibrosis and scarring of the lung tissues. liver, and lung cancer. EPA has from chronic inhalation exposure to Studies have shown that antimony classified inorganic arsenic as a Group chlorine. No information is available on accumulates in the lung and is retained A, human carcinogen. the carcinogenic effects of chlorine in for long periods of time. Effects are not humans from inhalation exposure. We limited to the lungs, however, and Beryllium have not classified chlorine for potential myocardial effects (effects on the heart Beryllium is a hard, grayish metal carcinogenicity. muscle) and related effects (e.g., naturally found in minerals, rocks, coal, Chromium increased blood pressure, altered EKG soil, and volcanic dust. Beryllium dust readings) are among the best- enters the air from burning coal and oil. Chromium may be emitted in two characterized human health effects This beryllium dust will eventually forms, trivalent chromium (chromium associated with antimony exposure. settle over the land and water. It enters III) or hexavalent chromium (chromium Reproductive effects (increased water from erosion of rocks and soil, VI). The respiratory tract is the major incidence of spontaneous abortions and and from industrial waste. Some target organ for chromium VI toxicity, higher rates of premature deliveries) beryllium compounds will dissolve in for acute (short-term) and chronic (long- have been observed in female workers water, but most stick to particles and term) inhalation exposures. Shortness of exposed in antimony processing settle to the bottom. Most beryllium in breath, coughing, and wheezing have facilities. Similar effects on the heart, soil does not dissolve in water and been reported from acute exposure to lungs, and reproductive system have remains bound to soil. Beryllium does chromium VI, while perforations and been observed in laboratory animals. not accumulate in the food chain. ulcerations of the septum, bronchitis, EPA recently assessed the Beryllium can be harmful if you decreased pulmonary function, carcinogenicity of antimony and found breathe it. The effects depend on how pneumonia, and other respiratory effects the evidence for carcinogenicity to be much you are exposed to and for how have been noted from chronic exposure. weak, with conflicting evidence from long. If beryllium air levels are high Limited human studies suggest that inhalation studies with laboratory enough, an acute condition can result. chromium VI inhalation exposure may animals, equivocal data from the This condition resembles pneumonia be associated with complications during occupational studies, negative results and is called acute beryllium disease. pregnancy and childbirth, while animal from studies of oral exposures in Long-term exposure to beryllium can studies have not reported reproductive laboratory animals, and little evidence increase the risk of developing lung effects from inhalation exposure to of mutagenicity or genotoxicity.3 As a cancer. chromium VI. Human and animal consequence, EPA concluded that studies have clearly established that insufficient data are available to Cadmium inhaled chromium VI is a carcinogen, adequately characterize the The acute (short-term) effects of resulting in an increased risk of lung cadmium inhalation in humans consist cancer. EPA has classified chromium VI 3 See ‘‘Evaluating the Carcinogenicity of mainly of effects on the lung, such as as a Group A, human carcinogen. Antimony,’’ Risk Assessment Issue Paper (98–030/ pulmonary irritation. Chronic (long- Chromium III is less toxic than 07–26–99), Superfund Technical Support Center, National Center for Environmental Assessment, July term) inhalation or oral exposure to chromium VI. The respiratory tract is 26, 1999. cadmium leads to a build-up of also the major target organ for

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21205

chromium III toxicity, similar to Dioxins and Furans Lead chromium VI. Chromium III is an Exposures to 2,3,7,8- Lead is a very toxic element, causing essential element in humans, with a tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8- a variety of effects at low dose levels. daily intake of 50 to 200 micrograms per TCDD) at levels 10 times or less above Brain damage, kidney damage, and day recommended for an adult. The those modeled to approximate average gastrointestinal distress may occur from body can detoxify some amount of background exposure have resulted in acute (short-term) exposure to high chromium VI to chromium III. EPA has adverse non-cancer health effects in levels of lead in humans. Chronic (long- not classified chromium III with respect animals. These effects include changes term) exposure to lead in humans to carcinogenicity. in hormone systems, alterations in fetal results in effects on the blood, central Cobalt development, reduced reproductive nervous system (CNS), blood pressure, capacity, and immunosuppression. and kidneys. Children are particularly Cobalt is a relatively rare metal that is Effects that may be linked to dioxin and sensitive to the chronic effects of lead, produced primarily as a by-product furan exposures at low dose in humans with slowed cognitive development, during refining of other metals, include changes in markers of early reduced growth and other effects primarily copper. Cobalt has been development and hormone levels. reported. Reproductive effects, such as widely reported to cause respiratory Dioxin and furan exposures are decreased sperm count in men and effects in humans exposed by associated with altered liver function spontaneous abortions in women, have inhalation, including respiratory and lipid metabolism changes in been associated with lead exposure. The irritation, wheezing, asthma, and activity of various liver enzymes, developing fetus is at particular risk pneumonia. Cardiomyopathy (or depression of the immune system, and from maternal lead exposure, with low damage to the heart muscle) has also endocrine and nervous system effects. birth weight and slowed postnatal been reported, although this effect is EPA in its 1985 dioxin assessment neurobehavioral development noted. better known from oral exposure. Other classified 2,3,7,8-TCDD as a probable Human studies are inconclusive effects of oral exposure in humans are human carcinogen. The International regarding lead exposure and cancer, polycythemia (an abnormally high Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) while animal studies have reported an number of red blood cells) and the concluded in 1997 that the overall increase in kidney cancer from lead blocking of uptake of iodine by the weight of the evidence was sufficient to exposure by the oral route. EPA has thyroid. In addition, cobalt is a characterize 2,3,7,8-TCDD as a known classified lead as a Group B2, probable sensitizer in humans by any route of 5 human carcinogen. In 2001 the U.S. human carcinogen. exposure. Sensitized individuals may Department of Health and Human react to inhalation of cobalt by Services National Toxicology Program Manganese developing asthma or to ingestion or in their 9th Report on Carcinogens Health effects in humans have been dermal contact with cobalt by classified 2,3,7,8-TCDD as a known associated with both deficiencies and developing dermatitis. Cobalt is a vital human carcinogen.6 excess intakes of manganese. Chronic component of vitamin B12, though there Hydrogen Chloride/Hydrochloric Acid (long-term) exposure to low levels of is no evidence that intake of cobalt is manganese in the diet is considered to ever limiting in the human diet. Hydrogen chloride, also called be nutritionally essential in humans, A number of epidemiological studies hydrochloric acid, is corrosive to the with a recommended daily allowance of have found that exposures to cobalt are eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. 2 to 5 milligrams per day (mg/d). associated with an increased incidence Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure Chronic exposure to high levels of of lung cancer in occupational settings. may cause eye, nose, and respiratory manganese by inhalation in humans The International Agency for Research tract irritation and inflammation and results primarily in central nervous on Cancer (IARC, part of the World pulmonary edema in humans. Chronic system (CNS) effects. Visual reaction Health Organization) classifies cobalt (long-term) occupational exposure to time, hand steadiness, and eye-hand and cobalt compounds as ‘‘possibly hydrochloric acid has been reported to coordination were affected in carcinogenic to humans’’ (Group 2B). cause gastritis, bronchitis, and chronically-exposed workers. The American Conference of dermatitis in workers. Prolonged Manganism, characterized by feelings of Governmental Industrial Hygienists exposure to low concentrations may weakness and lethargy, tremors, a mask- (ACGIH) has classified cobalt as a also cause dental discoloration and like face, and psychological confirmed animal carcinogen with erosion. No information is available on disturbances, may result from chronic unknown relevance to humans (category the reproductive or developmental exposure to higher levels. Impotence A3). An EPA assessment concludes that effects of hydrochloric acid in humans. and loss of libido have been noted in under EPA’s 1986 guidelines, cobalt In rats exposed to hydrochloric acid by male workers afflicted with manganism would be classified as a probable human inhalation, altered estrus cycles have attributed to inhalation exposures. EPA carcinogen (group B1) based on limited been reported in females and increased has classified manganese in Group D, evidence of carcinogenicity in humans fetal mortality and decreased fetal not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in and sufficient evidence of weight have been reported in offspring. humans. carcinogenicity in animals, as evidenced EPA has not classified hydrochloric acid by an increased incidence of alveolar/ for carcinogenicity. Mercury bronchiolar tumors in recent studies of Mercury exists in three forms: both rats and mice. Under EPA’s Center for Environmental Assessment, January 15, elemental mercury, inorganic mercury proposed cancer guidelines, cobalt is 2002. 5 IARC (International Agency for Research on compounds (primarily mercuric considered likely to be carcinogenic to Cancer). (1997) IARC monographs on the evaluation chloride), and organic mercury 4 humans. of carcinogenic risks to humans. Vol. 69. compounds (primarily methyl mercury). Polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins and Each form exhibits different health 4 See ‘‘Derivation of a Provisional Carcinogenicity polychlorinated dibenzofurans. Lyon, France. Assessment for Cobalt and Compounds,’’ Risk 6 The U.S. Department of Health and Human effects. Various sources may release Assessment Issue Paper (00–122/1–15–02), Services, National Toxicology Program 9th Report elemental or inorganic mercury; Superfund Technical Support Center, National on Carcinogens, Revised January 2001. environmental methyl mercury is

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21206 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

typically formed by biological processes respiratory and gastrointestinal systems, Particulate Matter 8 after mercury has precipitated from the heart, blood, liver, kidney, and body Atmospheric PM is composed of air. weight from oral exposure to nickel, as sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, and other Acute (short-term) exposure to high well as to the fetus. ions, elemental carbon, particle-bound levels of elemental mercury in humans EPA currently classifies nickel water, a wide variety of organic results in central nervous system (CNS) compounds, and a large number of effects such as tremors, mood changes, refinery dust and nickel subsulfide (a major component of nickel refinery elements contained in various and slowed sensory and motor nerve compounds, some of which originate function. High inhalation exposures can dust) as class A human carcinogens from crustal materials and others from also cause kidney damage and effects on based on increased risks of lung and combustion sources. Combustion the gastrointestinal tract and respiratory nasal cancer in human epidemiological sources are the primary origin of trace system. Chronic (long-term) exposure to studies of occupational exposures to metals found in fine particles in the elemental mercury in humans also nickel refinery dust, increased tumor atmosphere. Ambient PM can be of affects the CNS, with effects such as incidences in animals by several routes primary or secondary origin.9 increased excitability, irritability, of administration in several animal A large body of evidence exists from excessive shyness, and tremors. EPA has species, and positive results in epidemiological studies that not classified elemental mercury with genotoxicity assays. More recently, a demonstrates a relationship between respect to cancer. pair of inhalation studies performed ambient particulate matter (PM) and Acute exposure to inorganic mercury under the auspices of the National mortality and morbidity in the general by the oral route may result in effects Toxicology Program (NTP) of the such as nausea, vomiting, and severe population and, when combined with National Institutes of Health concluded evidence from other studies (e.g., abdominal pain. The major effect from that there was no evidence of chronic exposure to inorganic mercury clinical and animal studies), indicates carcinogenic activity of soluble nickel is kidney damage. Reproductive and that exposure to PM is a probable salts in rats or mice and that there was developmental animal studies have contributing cause to the adverse human reported effects such as alterations in some evidence of carcinogenic activity health effects that have been observed. testicular tissue, increased embryo of nickel oxide in male and female rats For example, many different studies resorption rates, and abnormalities of based on increased incidence of report that increased cardiovascular and development. Mercuric chloride (an alveolar/bronchiolar adenoma or respiratory-related mortality risks are inorganic mercury compound) exposure carcinoma and increased incidence of significantly associated with various has been shown to result in benign or malignant pheochromocytoma measures (both long-term and short- forestomach, thyroid, and renal tumors (a tumor of the adrenal gland) and term) of ambient PM. Some studies in experimental animals. EPA has equivocal evidence in mice based on suggest that a portion of the increased classified mercuric chloride as a Group marginally increased incidence of mortality may be associated with C, possible human carcinogen. alveolar/bronchiolar adenoma or concurrent exposures to PM and other criteria pollutants, such as SO2. Much Nickel carcinoma in females and no evidence in males. The Tenth Annual Report on evidence exists of positive associations Nickel is a commonly used industrial Carcinogens classifies nickel between ambient PM concentrations and increased respiratory-related metal, and is frequently associated with compounds as ‘‘known to be human iron and copper ores. Contact dermatitis hospital admissions, emergency room, carcinogens.’’ 7 This is consistent with is the most common effect in humans and other medical visits. Additional the International Agency for Cancer from exposure to nickel, whether via findings implicate PM as likely inhalation, oral, or dermal exposure. Research (IARC) which classifies nickel associated with an increased occurrence Cases of nickel-contact dermatitis have compounds as Group 1 human of chronic bronchitis and a contributing been reported following occupational carcinogens. factor in the exacerbation of asthmatic and non-occupational exposure, with Organic HAP conditions. Recent reports from symptoms of itching of the fingers, prospective cohort studies of long-term wrists, and forearms. Many studies have Organic HAPs include halogenated ambient PM exposures provide also demonstrated dermal effects in and nonhalogenated organic classes of substantial evidence of an association sensitive humans from ingested nickel, compounds such as polycyclic aromatic between increased risk of lung cancer invoking an eruption or worsening of hydrocarbons (PAHs) and and PM, especially exposure to fine PM eczema. Chronic inhalation exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Both or its components. nickel in humans results in direct PAHs and PCBs are classified as PM has other effects, beyond the respiratory effects, such as asthma due potential human carcinogens, and are health effects to human beings. The to primary irritation, or an allergic considered toxic, persistent and major effect of atmospheric PM on response and an increased risk of bioaccumulative. They include ecosystems is indirect and occurs chronic respiratory tract infections. compounds such as benzene, methane, through the deposition of nitrates and Animal studies have reported a propane, chlorinated alkanes and sulfates and the acidifying effects of the variety of inflammatory effects on the alkenes, phenols and chlorinated associated hydrogen ions contained in lungs, as well as effects on the kidneys aromatics. Adverse health effects of 8 The discussion of PM effects is drawn from the and immune system from inhalation HAPs include damage to the immune exposure to nickel. Significant executive summary of the ‘‘Fourth External Review system, as well as neurological, Draft of Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter,’’ differences in inhalation toxicity among reproductive, developmental, National Center for Environmental Assessment, the various forms of nickel have been respiratory and other health problems. Office of Research and Development, U.S. documented, with soluble nickel Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/P–99/ compounds being more toxic to the 002aD, June, 2003. 7 Report on Carcinogens, Tenth Edition; U.S. 9 Secondary PM is not emitted directly but is respiratory tract than less soluble Department of Health and Human Services, Public formed in the atmosphere by gas phase or aqueous compounds (e.g., nickel oxide). Animal Health Service, National Toxicology Program, phase reactions of emissions of various precursor studies have also reported effects on the December 2002. compounds.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21207

wet and dry deposition.10 Acidification wet and dry deposition.11 Acidification II. Summary of the Proposed Rule of surface waters can have long-term of surface waters can have long-term A. What Source Categories Are Affected adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems, adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems, by the Proposed Rule? including effects on fish populations, including effects on fish populations, macro invertebrates, species richness, macro invertebrates, species richness, 1. Incinerators That Burn Hazardous and zooplankton abundance. In the soil and zooplankton abundance. In the soil Waste environment, acid deposition has the environment, acid deposition has the A hazardous waste burning potential to inhibit nutrient uptake, alter potential to inhibit nutrient uptake, alter incinerator is defined under § 63.1201(a) the ecological processes of energy flow the ecological processes of energy flow as a device that meets the definition of and nutrient cycling, change ecosystem and nutrient cycling, change ecosystem an incinerator in 40 CFR part 260.10 structure, and affect ecosystem structure, and affect ecosystem and that burns hazardous waste at any biodiversity. In addition, ambient fine biodiversity. In addition, ambient fine time. Hazardous waste incinerators are particles are well known as the major particles are well known as the major currently subject to the emission cause of visibility impairment. Visibility cause of visibility impairment. Visibility standards of part 63, subpart EEE.12 impairment (or haziness) is widespread impairment (or haziness) is widespread Hazardous waste incinerator design in the U.S. and is greatest in the eastern in the U.S. and is greatest in the eastern types include rotary kilns, liquid United States and southern California. United States and southern California. injection incinerators, fluidized bed In addition, PM exerts important effects In addition, PM exerts important effects incinerators, and fixed hearth on materials, such as soiling, corrosion, on materials, such as soiling, corrosion, incinerators. Most incinerators have air and degradation of surfaces, and pollution control equipment to capture accelerates weathering of man-made and and degradation of surfaces, and natural materials. accelerates weathering of man-made and particulate matter (and nonvolatile A large body of evidence exists from natural materials. metals) and scrubbing equipment for the capture of acid gases. At least four epidemiological studies that Selenium demonstrates a relationship between incinerators are equipped with activated ambient particulate matter (PM) and Selenium occurs naturally in soils, is carbon injection systems or carbon beds mortality and morbidity in the general associated with copper refining, and to control dioxin/furan emissions (as population and, when combined with several industrial processes, and has well as other HAP emissions). Incinerators can be further classified evidence from other studies (e.g., been used in pesticides. It is an essential as either commercial or onsite. clinical and animal studies), indicates element and bioaccumulates in certain Commercial incinerators accept and that exposure to PM is a probable plant species, and has been associated treat, for a tipping fee, wastes that have contributing cause to the adverse human with toxic effects in livestock (blind been generated off-site. The purpose of health effects that have been observed. staggers syndrome). Soils containing For example, many different studies commercial incinerators is to generate high levels of selenium (seleniferous profit from treating hazardous wastes. report that increased cardiovascular and soils can lead to high concentration of respiratory-related mortality risks are On-site facilities treat only wastes that selenium in certain plants, and pose a have been generated at the facility to significantly associated with various hazard to livestock and other species. measures (both long-term and short- avoid the costs of off-site treatment. In Bioaccumulation and magnification of 2003, there were approximately 107 term) of ambient PM. Some studies selenium has also been observed in suggest that a portion of the increased hazardous waste incinerators in aquatic organisms and has been shown mortality may be associated with operation, 15 of which were commercial to be toxic to piscivorous fish. In concurrent exposures to PM and other facilities, the remaining being on-site humans, selenium partitions to the criteria pollutants, such as SO . Much facilities. 2 kidneys and liver, and is excreted evidence exists of positive associations through the urine and feces. Selenium 2. Cement Kilns That Burn Hazardous between ambient PM concentrations Waste and increased respiratory-related intoxication in humans causes a hospital admissions, emergency room, syndrome known as selenosis. The A hazardous waste burning cement and other medical visits. Additional condition is characterized by chronic kiln is defined under § 63.1201(a). findings implicate PM as likely dermatitis, fatigue, anorexia, Cement kilns that burn hazardous waste associated with an increased occurrence gastroenteritis, hepatic degeneration, are currently subject to the emission 13 of chronic bronchitis and a contributing enlarged spleen and increased standards of part 63, subpart EEE. factor in the exacerbation of asthmatic concentrations of Se in the hair and Cement kilns are long, cylindrical, conditions. Recent reports from nails. Clinical signs of selenosis include slightly inclined rotating furnaces that prospective cohort studies of long-term a characteristic ‘‘garlic odor’’ of excess are lined with refractory brick to protect ambient PM exposures provide selenium excretion in the breath and the steel shell and retain heat within the substantial evidence of an association urine, thickened and brittle nails, hair 12 between increased risk of lung cancer and nail loss, lowered hemoglobin Incinerators that burn hazardous waste will levels, mottled teeth, skin lesions and also remain subject to the RCRA hazardous waste and PM, especially exposure to fine PM incinerator emission limitations pursuant to § 264 or its components. CNS abnormalities (peripheral subpart O until they demonstrate compliance with PM has other effects, beyond the anesthesia, acroparesthesia and pain in the interim MACT standards and remove the health effects to human beings. The the extremities). Aquatic birds are emission limitations from their RCRA permit. See extremely sensitive to selenium; toxic § 270.42 appendix I, section a.8 and introductory major effect of atmospheric PM on paragraph to § 270.62. ecosystems is indirect and occurs effects include teratogenesis. Based on 13 Cement kilns that burn hazardous waste will through the deposition of nitrates and available data, both aquatic birds and also remain subject to the RCRA Boilers and sulfates and the acidifying effects of the aquatic mammals are sensitive Industrial Furnace emission limitations pursuant to ecological receptors. § 266 subpart H until they demonstrate compliance associated hydrogen ions contained in with the interim MACT standards and remove the emission limitations from their RCRA permit. See 10 Nitrates and sulfates in PM are derived 11 Nitrates and sulfates in PM are derived § 270.42 appendix I, section a.8 and introductory primarily from emissions of SOX and NOX. primarily from emissions of SOX and NOX. paragraph to § 270.66.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21208 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

kiln. Cement kilns are designed to semi-plastic state and begins to generate industrial wastes. Firetube boilers are calcine, or expel carbon dioxide by gases that serve as the bloating or similar to watertube type, except the roasting, a blend of raw materials such expanding agent. As temperatures reach placement of the water and combustion as limestone, shale, clay, or sand to their maximum, the semi-plastic raw gas is reversed. Here the hot combustion produce Portland cement. The raw material becomes viscous and entraps gas flows through the tubes, while the materials enter the kiln at the elevated the expanding gases. This bloating water surrounds the tubes. This design end, and the combustion fuels generally action produces small, unconnected gas does have some disadvantages, are introduced into the lower end of the cells, which remain in the material after however, in that they work well with kiln where the clinker product is it cools and solidifies. Lightweight only gas and liquid fuels. discharged. The materials are aggregate kilns are designed to expand Process heaters are similar to boilers continuously and slowly moved to the the raw material by thermal processing (as conventionally defined), except they lower end by rotation of the kiln. As into a coarse aggregate used in the heat a fluid other than water. This fluid they move down the kiln, the raw production of lightweight concrete is often an oil or some other fluid with materials are changed to cementitious products such as concrete block, more suitable heating properties. minerals as a result of increased structural concrete, and pavement. Process heaters are often used in temperatures within the kiln. The lightweight aggregate kilns circumstances where the amount of heat Portland cement is a fine powder, affected by this proposal burn needed is greater than what can be usually gray in color, that consists of a hazardous waste-derived fuels to delivered by steam. For the purposes of mixture of minerals comprising replace some or all of normal fossil this rulemaking and consistent with primarily calcium silicates, aluminates, fuels. Two of the facilities burn only current RCRA regulations, process and aluminoferrites, to which small liquid hazardous wastes, while the third heaters would be classified as boilers. facility burns both liquid and solid amounts of gypsum have been added Descriptions of liquid and solid fuel- wastes. The annual hazardous waste during the finish grinding operations. fired boilers that burn hazardous waste fuel replacement rate is 100 percent. Portland cement is the key ingredient in are provided below. Portland cement concrete, which is used In 2003, there were three lightweight aggregate kiln facilities in two states a. Liquid Fuel-Fired Boilers. A liquid in almost all construction applications. fuel-fired boiler is a device that meets Cement kilns covered by this proposal operating a total of seven hazardous waste-fired kilns. All lightweight the definition of a boiler under 40 CFR burn hazardous waste-derived fuels to 260.10 and that burns any combination replace some or all of normal fossil aggregate kilns use baghouses to control particulate matter and one facility also of liquid and gas fuels, but no solids. fuels, typically coal. Most kilns burn See proposed definition in § 63.1201(a). liquid waste; however, cement kilns uses a venturi scrubber to control acid gas emissions. A liquid fuel is defined as a fuel that is also may burn solids and small pumpable (e.g., liquid wastes, sludges, containers containing viscous or solid 4. Boilers That Burn Hazardous Waste or slurries). Most liquid hazardous hazardous waste fuels. The annual Boilers that burn hazardous waste are waste burning boilers co-fire natural gas, hazardous waste fuel replacement rate currently regulated under RCRA at part fuel oil, or process gases to achieve the varies considerably across sources from 266, subpart H. We propose to use the proper combustion temperatures and a approximately 25 to 85 percent. RCRA definition of boiler under 40 CFR consistent steam supply. In 2003, there were 14 Portland 260.10 for purposes of today’s There are approximately 104 liquid cement plants in nine states operating a rulemaking for simplicity and fuel-fired boilers that burn hazardous total of 25 hazardous waste burning continuity. This definition includes waste, 85 of which have not installed kilns. All cement kilns use either bag industrial, commercial, and institutional back-end air pollution control houses or electrostatic precipitators to boilers as well as thermal units known equipment. The rest of the liquid boilers control particulate matter emissions. in industry as process heaters. We use either a wet scrubber, electrostatic 3. Lightweight Aggregate Kilns That propose to subcategorize boilers based precipitator, or fabric filter. These Burn Hazardous Waste on the type of fuel that is burned, which boilers co-fire liquid hazardous waste A hazardous waste burning would result in separate emission with either natural gas or heating oil at lightweight aggregate kiln is defined standards for solid fuel-fired boilers and heat input rates of 10% to 100%. under § 63.1201(a). Lightweight liquid fuel-fired boilers. We discuss b. Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers. A solid aggregate kilns that burn hazardous subcategorization options in more detail fuel-fired boiler is a device that meets waste are currently subject to the in Part Two, Section II. the definition of a boiler under 40 CFR emission standards of part 63, subpart Boilers are typically described by 260.10 and that burns solid fuels, either their design or type of fuel EEE.14 Raw materials such as shale, including both pulverized and stoker burned. Hazardous waste burning 15 clay, and slate are crushed and coal. See proposed definition in boilers comprise two basic different introduced at the upper end of the § 63.1201(a). Boilers that co-fire solid boiler designs—watertube and firetube. rotary kiln. In passing through the kiln, fuel with liquid or gaseous fuels are The choice of which design to use the materials reach temperatures of solid fuel-fired boilers. depends on factors such as the desired 1,900–2,100 ° F. Heat is provided by a There are 12 solid fuel-fired boilers steam quality, thermal efficiency, size, burner at the lower end of the kiln that burn hazardous waste. These economics, fuel type, and where the product is discharged. As the boilers co-fire liquid hazardous waste responsiveness. Watertube boilers are raw material is heated, it melts into a with coal at heat input rates of 6% to those that flow the water through tubes 33%. Nine of these boilers are stoker- 14 Lightweight aggregate kilns that burn running the length of the boiler. The hot fired, and three burn pulverized coal. hazardous waste will also remain subject to the combustion gas surrounds these tubes, Two boilers are equipped with fabric RCRA Boilers and Industrial Furnace emission causing the water inside to get hot. Most filters to control particulate matter and limitations pursuant to § 266 subpart H until they hazardous waste burning boilers use demonstrate compliance with the interim MACT standards and remove the emission limitations from this design. Watertube boilers can also 15 Please note that the RCRA definition of boiler their RCRA permit. See § 270.42 appendix I, section burn a variety of fuel types including includes devices defined under part 63 as boilers a.8 and introductory paragraph to § 270.66. coal, oil, gas, wood, and municipal or and process heaters.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21209

metals, and 10 are equipped with hydrochloric acid production furnaces 266.100(c); (2) research, development, electrostatic precipitators. that burn hazardous waste can emit high and demonstration sources exempt levels of dioxin/furans depending on under § 63.1200(b); and (3) boilers 5. Hydrochloric Acid Production the design and operation of the emission exempt from regulation under 40 CFR Furnaces That Process Hazardous Waste control equipment, and, for incinerators, part 266, subpart H, because they meet Hydrochloric acid production whether a waste heat recovery boiler is the definition of small quantity burner furnaces that burn hazardous waste are used. Our data base shows that boilers under 40 CFR 266.108. See § 63.1200(b). currently regulated under RCRA at part that burn hazardous waste generally do Affected sources also do not include 266, subpart H. We propose to use the not emit high levels of dioxin/furans. emission points that are unrelated to the RCRA definition of hydrochloric acid All hazardous waste combustors can combustion of hazardous waste (e.g., production furnace under 40 CFR emit high levels of other organic HAP if cement kiln clinker cooler stack 260.10 for purposes of today’s they are not designed, operated, and emissions, hydrochloric acid production rulemaking for simplicity and maintained to operate under good facility emissions originating from continuity. See proposed definition in combustion conditions. product or waste storage tanks and § 63.1201(a). Hazardous waste combustors can also transfer operations, etc.). This is because Hydrochloric acid production emit high levels of metal HAP, subpart EEE only controls HAP furnaces burn chlorinated hazardous depending on the level of metals in the emission points that are directly related wastes to make an aqueous hydrochloric waste feed and the design and operation to the combustion of hazardous waste. acid for on-site use as an ingredient in of air emissions control equipment. Under separate rulemakings, the Agency a manufacturing process. The hazardous Hydrochloric acid production furnaces, has or will establish MACT standards, waste feedstocks have a chlorine however, generally feed and emit low where warranted, to control HAP content of over 20% by weight. The levels of metal HAP. emissions from non-hazardous waste hydrochloric acid produced by burning Hazardous waste combustors can also related emission points. the chlorinated byproducts dissolves in emit high levels of particulate matter, Hazardous waste combustors are the scrubber water to produce an acid except that hydrochloric acid affected sources irrespective of whether product containing hydrochloric acid production furnaces generally feed they are major sources or area sources. greater than 3% by weight. There are 17 wastes with low ash content and emit As discussed in Part Two, Section I.A, hazardous waste burning hydrochloric low levels of particulate matter.16 The we are proposing to subject area sources acid production furnaces currently in operation. majority of particulate matter emissions of boilers and hydrochloric acid Chlorine-bearing feedstreams, wastes, from hazardous waste combustors is in production furnaces to the major source and auxiliary fuels (usually natural gas) the form of fine particulate (i.e., 50% or MACT standards for mercury, dioxin/ are burned in these hydrochloric acid more of the particulate matter emitted is furans, carbon monoxide/hydrocarbons, 17 production furnaces in a refractory lined 2.5 microns in diameter or less). and destruction and removal efficiency chamber similar to a liquid waste Particulate emissions from incinerators pursuant to section 112(c)(6). As incinerator chamber. Combustion is and liquid fuel-fired boilers depend on promulgated in the 1999 rule, both area maintained at a high temperature, with the ash content of the waste feed and source and major source incinerators, adequate excess hydrogen to ensure the the design and operation of air emission cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate conversion of chlorine in the control equipment. Particulate kilns will continue to be subject to the feedstreams to hydrogen chloride in the emissions from cement kilns and full suite of Subpart EEE emission combustion gases. Many furnaces also lightweight aggregate kilns are not standards. significantly affected by the ash content have waste heat boilers, similar to those D. What Emissions Limitations Must I of the hazardous waste fuel because used by some incinerators, to recover Meet? heat and return it to the production uncontrolled particulate emissions are process. Others use a water spray attributable primarily to raw material Under today’s proposal, you would quench to cool the combustion gases. entrained in the combustion gas. Thus, have to comply with the emission limits The cooled combustion flue gas is particulate emissions from kilns depend in Tables 1 and 2. Note that these routed to an acid recovery system, on operating conditions that affect emission limitations are discussed in consisting of multiple wet scrubbing entrainment of raw material, and the greater detail for each source category absorption units. These units are design and operation of the emission (and subcategory) in Part Two, Section usually packed tower or film tray control equipment. VII thru XII. Note also that we are scrubbers which operate with an acidic proposing several alternative emission C. Does Today’s Proposed Rule Apply to standards: (1) You may elect to comply scrubbing solution. The scrubbing My Source? solution is recycled to concentrate the with an alternative to the particulate acid until it reaches the desired The following sources that burn matter standard for incinerators and concentration level, at which point it is hazardous waste are considered to be liquid fuel-fired boilers that would limit recovered for use as a valuable product. affected sources subject to today’s emissions of total metal HAP; and (2) A final polishing scrubber, operated proposed rule: Incinerators, cement you may elect to comply with an with a caustic liquid solution, is used to kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, alternative to the total chlorine standard control emissions of hydrogen chloride boilers, and hydrochloric acid applicable to all source categories, and chlorine gas. production furnaces. Affected sources except hydrochloric acid production do not include: (1) Sources exempt from furnaces, under which you may B. What HAP Are Emitted? regulation under 40 CFR part 266, establish site-specific, risk-based Incinerators, cement kilns, subpart H, because the only hazardous emission limits for hydrogen chloride lightweight aggregate kilns, and waste they burn is listed under 40 CFR and chlorine gas based on national

16 Emissions of particulate matter are of interest 17 Particulate size distributions are somewhat Emission Estimates and Engineering Costs,’’ March because metal HAP, except notably for mercury, are dependent on the type of combustor. See USEPA 2004, Chapter 7 for more information. in the particulate form in stack gas. Thus, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document for HWC controlling particulate matter controls metal HAP. MACT Replacement Standards, Volume V:

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21210 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

exposure standards. These alternative Section XVIII and Section XIII, standards are discussed in Part Two, respectively.

TABLE 1.—PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

Hydrochloric acid Liquid fuel-fired Incinerators Cement kilns Lightweight aggre- Solid fuel-fired production fur- gate kilns boilers 1 boilers 1 naces 1

Dioxin/Furans ( ng 0.28 for dry APCD 0.20 or 0.40 + 0.40 ...... CO or THC stand- 0.40 for dry APCD 0.40 TEQ/dscm). and WHB 400°F at APCD ard as a surro- sources; CO or sources; 6 0.40 inlet. gate. HC standard as for others. surrogate for others. Mercury ...... 130 ug/dscm ...... 64 ug/dscm 2 ...... 67 ug/dscm 2 ...... 10 ug/dscm ...... 3.7E–6 lb/ Total chlorine MMBtu 2, 5. standard as surrogate Particulate Matter ... 0.015 gr/dscf 8 ..... 0.028 gr/dscf ...... 0.025 gr/dscf ...... 0.030 gr/dscf 8 ..... 0.032 gr/dscf 8 ..... Total chlorine standard as surrogate Semivolatile Metals 59 ug/dscm ...... 4.0E–4 lbs/ 3.1E–4 lb/ 170 ug/dscm ...... 1.1E–5 lb/ Total chlorine (lead + cadmium). MMBtu 5. MMBtu 5 and MMBtu 2, 5. standard as 250 ug/dscm 3. surrogate Low Volatile Metals 84 ug/dscm ...... 1.4E–5 lbs/ 9.5E–5 lbs/ 210 ug/dscm ...... 1.1E–4 lb/ Total chlorine (arsenic + beryl- MMBtu 5. MMBtu 5 and MMBtu 4, 5. standard as lium + chromium). 110 ug/dscm 3. surrogate Total Chlorine (hy- 1.5 ppmv 7 ...... 110 ppmv 7 ...... 600 ppmv 7 ...... 440 ppmv 7 ...... 2.5E–2 lb/ 14 ppmv or drogen chloride + MMBtu 5, 7. 99.9927% sys- chlorine gas). tem removal ef- ficiency Carbon Monoxide 100 ppmv CO or See Part Two, 100 ppmv CO or (2) 100 ppmv CO or 10 ppmv HWC (CO) or Hydro- 10 ppmv HWC. Section VIII. 20 ppmv HWC. carbons HWC. Destruction and Re- 99.99% for each principal organic hazardous pollutant. For sources burning hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, moval Efficiency F026, or F027, however, 99.9999% for each principal organic hazardous pollutant. (DRE). Notes: 1 Particulate matter, semivolatile metal, low volatile, and total chlorine standards apply to major sources only for solid fuel-fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. 2 Standard is based on normal emissions data. 3 Sources must comply with both the thermal emissions and emission concentration standards. 4 Low volatile metal standard for liquid fuel-fired boilers is for chromium only. Arsenic and beryllium are not included in the low volatile metal total for liquid fuel-fired boilers. 5 Standards are expressed as mass of pollutant contributed by hazardous waste per million Btu contributed by the hazardous waste. 6 APCD denotes ‘‘air pollution control device’’, WHB denotes ‘‘waste heat boiler’’. 7 Sources may elect to comply with site-specific, risk-based emission limits for hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas based on national exposure standards. See Part Two, Section XIII. 8 Sources may elect to comply with an alternative to the particulate matter standard. See Part Two, Section XVIII.

TABLE 2.—PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES

Hydrochloric acid Lightweight aggre- Liquid fuel boil- Incinerators Cement kilns Solid fuel boilers 1 production fur- gate kilns ers 1 naces 1

Dioxin/Furans ( ng 0.11 for dry APCD 0.20 or 0.40 + 0.40 ...... Carbon monoxide 0.015 or 400°F at 0.40 TEQ/dscm). or WHBs 5; 0.2 400°F at inlet to (CO) or hydro- the inlet to par- for others. particulate mat- carbon (HC) as ticulate matter ter control de- a surrogate. control device vice. for dry APCD; CO or HC standard as surrogate for others. Mercury ...... 8 ug/dscm ...... 35 ug/dscm 2 ...... 67 ug/dscm 2 ...... 10 ug/dscm ...... 3.8E–7 lb/ Tcl as surrogate MMBtu 2, 4. Particulate matter ... 0.00070 gr/dscf 7 0.0058 gr/dscf ..... 0.0099 gr/dscf ..... 0.015 gr/dscf 7 .... 0.0076 gr/dscf 7 .. TCL as surrogate Semivolatile Metals 6.5 ug/dscm ...... 6.2E–5 lb/ 2.4E–5 lb/ 170 ug/dscm ...... 4.3E–6 lb/ TCL as surrogate (lead + cadmium). MMBtu 4. MMBtu 4. MMBtu 2, 4. Low Volatile Metals 8.9 ug/dscm ...... 1.4E–5 lb/ 3.2E–5 lb/ 190 ug/dscm ...... 3.6E–5 lb/MMBtu TCL as surrogate (arsenic + beryl- MMBtu 4. MMBtu 4. in HW 3, 4. lium + chromium). Total Chlorine (Hy- 0.18 ppmv 6 ...... 78 ppmv 6 ...... 600 ppmv 6 ...... 73 ppmv 6 ...... 7.2E–4 lb/ 1.2 ppmv or drogen chloride + MMBtu 4, 6. 99.99937% chlorine gas). SRE

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21211

TABLE 2.—PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES—Continued

Hydrochloric acid Lightweight aggre- Liquid fuel boil- Incinerators Cement kilns Solid fuel boilers 1 production fur- gate kilns ers 1 naces 1

Carbon monoxide 100 ppmv (CO) or See Part Two, 100 ppmv CO or 100 ppmv CO or 10 ppmv HWC CO or Hydro- 10 ppmv HWC. Section VIII. 20 ppmv HWC. carbons (HWC). Destruction and Re- 99.99% for each principal organic hazardous pollutant. For sources burning hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, moval Efficiency. F026, or F027, however, 99.9999% for each principal organic hazardous pollutant. Notes: 1 Particulate matter, semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, and total chlorine standards apply to major sources only for solid fuel-fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. 2 Standard is based on normal emissions data. 3 Low volatile metal standard for liquid fuel-fired boilers is for chromium only. Arsenic and beryllium are not included in the low volatile metal total for liquid fuel-fired boilers. 4 Standards are expressed as mass of pollutant contributed by hazardous waste per million Btu contributed by the hazardous waste. 5 APCD denotes ‘‘air pollution control device’’, WHB denotes ‘‘waste heat boiler’’. 6 Sources may elect to comply with site-specific, risk-based emission limits for hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas based on national exposure standards. See Part Two, Section XIII. 7 Sources may elect to comply with an alternative to the particulate matter standard. See Part Two, Section XVIII.

E. What Are the Testing and Initial establish limits on operating parameters for dioxin/furans; and (4) either Method Compliance Requirements? that would be monitored by continuous 5 or 5i for particulate matter. We are proposing testing and initial monitoring systems. The following is a proposed time-line compliance requirements for solid fuel- Owners and operators of liquid fuel- for testing and initial compliance fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers fired boilers equipped with a dry air requirements for owners and operators and hydrochloric acid production pollution control device and of solid fuel-fired boilers, liquid fuel- furnaces that are identical to those that hydrochloric acid production furnaces fired boilers and hydrochloric acid are applicable to incinerators, cement would be required to conduct a dioxin/ production furnaces: (1) The kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns furan confirmatory performance test 2.5 compliance date is three years from already in place at §§ 63.1206, 63.1207, years after each comprehensive publication of the final rule; (2) you and 63.1208. Please note also that in performance test (i.e., midway between must place in the operating record a Part Three of today’s preamble we comprehensive performance tests). The Documentation of Compliance by the request comment on, or propose purpose of the dioxin/furan compliance date identifying that the revisions to, several testing and initial confirmatory performance test is to operating parameter limits you have compliance requirements. Any document compliance with the dioxin/ determined using available information amendments to the testing and furan standard when operating within will ensure compliance with the compliance requirements that we the range of normal operations. Owners emission standards; (3) you must promulgate as a result of those and operators of solid fuel-fired boilers, commence the initial comprehensive discussions would be applicable to all and liquid fuel-fired boilers that are not performance test within six months of hazardous waste combustors. subject to a numerical dioxin/furan the compliance date; (4) you must In addition, we are proposing to emission standard (i.e., liquid fuel-fired complete the initial comprehensive revise the existing initial compliance boilers other than those equipped with performance test within 60 days of requirements for incinerators, cement an electrostatic precipitator or fabric commencing the test; and (5) you must kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns. filter), would be required to conduct a submit a Notification of Compliance Under the proposed revision, owners one-time dioxin/furan test to enable the within 90 days of completing the test and operators of incinerators, cement Agency to evaluate the effectiveness of documenting compliance with emission kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns the carbon monoxide/hydrocarbon standards and CMS requirements. would be required to conduct the initial standard and destruction and removal F. What Are the Continuous Compliance comprehensive performance test to efficiency standard in controlling Requirements? document compliance with the dioxin/furan emissions for those replacement standards proposed today sources. The Agency would use those We are proposing continuous (§§ 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221) emissions data when reevaluating the compliance requirements for solid fuel- within 12 months of the compliance MACT standards under section fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers date. Owners and operators of solid 112(d)(6) and when determining and hydrochloric acid production fuel-fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired whether to develop residual risk furnaces that are identical to those boilers and hydrochloric acid standards for these sources pursuant to already in place at § 63.1209 and production furnaces would be required CAA section 112(f)(2). applicable to incinerators, cement kilns, to conduct an initial comprehensive Owners and operators of solid fuel- and lightweight aggregate kilns. Please performance test within six months of fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers note, however, that in Part Three of the compliance date, and periodic and hydrochloric acid production today’s preamble we request comment comprehensive performance tests every furnaces would be required to use the on, or propose revisions to, several five years. The purpose of the following stack test methods to continuous compliance requirements. comprehensive performance test is to document compliance: (1) Method 29 Any amendments to the continuous document compliance with the for mercury, semivolatile metals, and compliance requirements that we emission standards, document that low volatile metals; and (2) Method 26A promulgate as a result of those continuous monitoring systems meet for hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas; discussions would be applicable to all performance requirements, and (3) either Method 0023A or Method 23 hazardous waste combustors.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21212 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Owners and operators of solid fuel- pursuant to section 112(c)(6).18 Both hydrochloric acid furnace area sources fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers area source and major source to the major source MACT standards for and hydrochloric acid production incinerators, cement kilns, and mercury, dioxin/furan, carbon furnaces would be required to use lightweight aggregate kilns will monoxide/hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon continue to be subject to the full suite destruction and removal efficiency continuous emissions monitors (as well of Subpart EEE emission standards.19 pursuant to section 112(c)(6). as an oxygen continuous emissions Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires We are proposing that only major monitor to correct the carbon monoxide EPA to list and promulgate section source boilers and hydrochloric acid or hydrocarbon values to 7% oxygen) to 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) standards (i.e., furnaces would be subject to the full ensure compliance with the carbon standards reflecting MACT) for suite of subpart EEE emission standards monoxide or hydrocarbon emission categories and subcategories of sources we propose today. Section 112(c)(3) of limits. emitting seven specific pollutants. Four the CAA requires us to subject area of those listed pollutants are emitted by sources to the full suite of standards Owners and operators of solid fuel- boilers and hydrochloric acid applicable to major sources if we find ‘‘a fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers production furnaces: mercury, 2,3,7,8- threat of adverse effects to human health and hydrochloric acid production tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8- or the environment’’ that warrants such furnaces would also be required to tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, and action. We cannot make this finding for establish limits on the feedrate of polycyclic organic matter. EPA must area source boilers and halogen acid metals, chlorine, and (for some source assure that source categories accounting production furnaces.21 Consequently, categories) ash, key combustor operating for not less than 90 percent of the area sources in these categories would parameters, and key operating aggregated emissions of each be subject to the MACT standards for parameters of the control device based enumerated pollutant are subject to mercury, dioxin/furan, carbon on operations during the comprehensive MACT standards. Congress singled out monoxide/hydrocarbons, and performance test. You must the pollutants in section 112(c)(6) as destruction and removal efficiency continuously monitor these parameters being of ‘‘specific concern’’ not just standards only to control the HAP listed with continuous monitoring systems. because of their toxicity but because of under section 112(c)(6). RCRA standards See Part Two, Section XIV.C for a their propensity to cause substantial under Part 266, Subpart H for discussion of the specific parameters for harm to human health and the particulate matter, metals other than which you must establish limits. environment via indirect exposure mercury, and hydrogen chloride and pathways (i.e., from the air through chlorine gas would continue to apply to G. What Are the Notification, other media, such as water, soil, food these area sources unless an area source Recordkeeping, and Reporting uptake, etc.). Furthermore, these elects to comply with the major source Requirements? pollutants have exhibited special standards in lieu of the RCRA standards. potential to bioaccumulate, causing See proposed § 266.100(b)(3) and the We are proposing notification, pervasive environmental harm in biota proposed revisions to §§ 270.22 and recordkeeping, and reporting and, ultimately, human health risks. 270.66. requirements for solid fuel-fired boilers, We estimate that approximately 1,800 liquid fuel-fired boilers and pounds of mercury are emitted annually B. What Hazardous Waste Combustors hydrochloric acid production furnaces in aggregate from hazardous waste Are Not Covered by This Proposal? that are identical to those already in burning boilers in the United States.20 1. Small Quantity Burners place at §§ 63.1210 and 63.1211 and Also, we estimate that hazardous waste applicable to incinerators, cement kilns, Boilers that are exempt from the burning boilers and hydrochloric acid RCRA hazardous waste-burning boilers and lightweight aggregate kilns. Please production furnaces emit in aggregate note, however, that we are proposing a rule under 40 CFR 266.108 because they approximately 1.1 and 1.6 grams TEQ burn small quantities of hazardous new requirement applicable to all per year of dioxin/furan, respectively. hazardous waste combustors that would waste fuel would also be exempt from The Agency has already counted on the today’s proposed rule. Those boilers require you to submit a Notification of control of these pollutants from area Intent to Comply and a Compliance would be subject, however, to the sources in the industrial/commercial/ MACT standards the Agency has Progress Report. See Part Two, Section institutional boiler source category XVI.B. proposed for industrial/commercial/ when we accounted for at least 90 institutional boilers. See 68 FR 1660, The proposed notification, percent of the emissions of these January 13, 2003. recordkeeping, and reporting hazardous air pollutants as being subject The type and concentration of HAP requirements are summarized in Part to standards under section 112(c)(6). See emissions from boilers that co-fire small Two, Section XVI. 63 FR 17838; April 10, 1998. Therefore, quantities of hazardous waste fuel with we are proposing to subject boiler and other fuels under § 266.108 should be Part Two: Rationale for the Proposed characterized more by the metals and Rule 18 We are using carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons and destruction and removal chlorine levels in the primary fuels and I. How Did EPA Determine Which efficiency as surrogates for control of polycyclic the effect of combustion conditions on Hazardous Waste Combustion Sources organic matter emissions. the primary fuels than by the Would Be Regulated 19 In support of the 1999 Final Rule, EPA composition and other characteristics of determined incinerators, cement kilns, and the hazardous waste fuel. Under A. How Are Area Sources Regulated? lightweight aggregate kilns that are area sources can emit HAP at levels that pose a hazard to human § 266.108, boilers that burn small We are proposing to subject area health and the environment. Accordingly, EPA quantities of hazardous waste fuel subjected area sources within those source cannot fire hazardous waste at any time source boilers and hydrochloric acid categories to the same emission standards that production furnaces to the major source apply to major sources. See 64 FR at 52837–38. at a rate greater than 1 percent of the MACT standards for mercury, dioxin/ 20 See USEPA ‘‘Draft Technical Support 21 furan, carbon monoxide/hydrocarbons, Document for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, We believe that two or fewer boilers are area Volume V: Emission Estimates and Engineering sources. We do not believe any hydrochloric acid and destruction and removal efficiency Costs,’’ March, 2004, Chapter 3. production furnaces are area sources.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21213

total fuel requirements for the boiler. In emissions from these sources would be process leading to different emissions addition, a boiler with a stack height of more appropriately regulated by other and different types of control 20 meters or less cannot fire more than promulgated MACT standards that strategies—the specific example being 84 gallons of hazardous waste fuel a specifically address emissions from Soderberg and prebaked anode primary month, which would equate to an these sources. aluminum processes. See ‘‘A Legislative average firing rate of 0.5 quarts per hour. 3. Research, Development, and History of the Clean Air Act Finally, the hazardous waste fuel must Demonstration Sources Amendments of 1990,’’ vol. 1 at 1138– have a heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb to 39 (floor debates on Conference Report). ensure it is a bonafide fuel, and cannot Consistent with the Phase I Hazardous If we determine, for instance, that a contain hazardous wastes that are listed Waste Combustor MACT rule given source category includes sources because they contain chlorinated promulgated in 1999, we would not that are designed differently such that dioxins/furans. Given these restrictions, subject boilers and hydrochloric acid the type or concentration of HAP we believe that HAP emissions are not production furnaces that are research, emissions are different we may substantially related to the hazardous development, and demonstration subcategorize these sources and issue waste fuels these boilers burn. Thus, sources to today’s proposed separate standards. these boilers are more appropriately requirements. We explained at We have determined that it is regulated under the MACT standards promulgation of the Phase I MACT appropriate to subcategorize sources proposed at part 63, subpart DDDDD, standards that the hazardous waste that combust hazardous waste from than the MACT standards proposed combustor emission standards may not those sources that do not. EPA today for hazardous waste combustors. be appropriate for research, published an initial list of categories of Boilers that burn small quantities of development, and demonstration major and area sources of HAP selected hazardous waste fuel under § 266.108 sources because of their typically for regulation in accordance with would become subject to part 63, intermittent operations and small size. section 112(c) of the Act on July 16, subpart DDDDD, three years after See 64 FR at 52839. Given that 1992 (57 FR 31576). Hazardous waste publication of the final rule for emissions from these sources are incineration, Portland cement hazardous waste combustors (i.e., the addressed under RCRA on case-by-case manufacturing, clay products rules we are proposing today). Subpart basis pursuant to § 270.65, we continue manufacturing (including lightweight DDDDD exempts ‘‘a boiler or process to believe this is appropriate, and we are aggregate manufacturing), industrial/ heater required to have a permit under today proposing the same exemption for commercial/institutional boilers and boilers and hydrochloric acid section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal process heaters, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. Act [i.e., RCRA] or covered by 40 CFR production are among the listed 174 part 63, subpart EEE (e.g., hazardous C. How Would Sulfuric Acid categories of sources. Although some waste combustors).’’ See 40 CFR Regeneration Facilities Be Regulated? cement kilns, lightweight aggregate 63.7491(d). Boilers that burn small Sulfuric acid regeneration facilities kilns, boilers and process heaters, and quantities of hazardous waste fuel under hydrochloric acid production furnaces § 266.108 are exempt from the burn spent sulfuric acid and sulfur- bearing hazardous wastes or hazardous burn hazardous waste, EPA did not list substantive emission standards of part hazardous waste burning sources as 266, subpart H, and the permit waste fuel to produce sulfuric acid and are subject to 40 CFR part 266, subpart separate source categories. Nonetheless, requirements of 40 CFR part 270 we generally believe that hazardous (establishing RCRA permit H, (i.e., the RCRA Boiler and Industrial waste combustion sources can emit requirements). In addition, owners and Furnace Rule) as a listed industrial different types or concentrations of HAP operators of such boilers would not furnace. We are not proposing MACT emissions because hazardous waste know whether they are covered by part standards for these sources because EPA combustors: (1) Have different fuel HAP 63, subpart EEE, until we promulgate did not list sulfuric acid regeneration concentrations; (2) use different control the final rule for hazardous waste facilities as a category of major sources techniques (e.g., feed control); and (3) combustors. Thus, it is appropriate to of HAP emissions. See 57 FR 31576 have a different regulatory history given require that these boilers begin (July 16, 1992). We obtained emissions that their toxic emissions were regulated complying with subpart DDDDD three and other data on these sources and pursuant to RCRA standards. As a years after we publish the final rule for confirmed that they emit very low levels hazardous waste combustors. of HAP.22 Accordingly, these result, we believe it is appropriate to combustors will remain subject to RCRA subcategorize each source category 2. Sources Exempt From RCRA regulations under part 266, subpart H. listed above to define sources that burn Emission Regulation Under 40 CFR Part hazardous waste as a separate classes of 266.100(c) II. What Subcategorization combustors. We also assessed if further Considerations Did EPA Evaluate? Consistent with the Phase I Hazardous subdividing each class of hazardous Waste Combustor MACT rule CAA section 112(d)(1) allows us to waste burning combustors is warranted promulgated in 1999, we would not distinguish amongst classes, types, and using both engineering judgement and subject boilers and hydrochloric acid sizes of sources within a category when statistical analysis. In our proposed production furnaces to today’s proposed establishing floor levels. approach, we first use engineering requirements if the only hazardous Subcategorization typically reflects information and principles to identify waste combusted is exempt from ‘‘differences in manufacturing process, potential subcategorization options. We regulation pursuant to § 266.100(c), emission characteristics, or technical then determine if there is a statistical including certain types of used oil, feasibility.’’ See 67 FR 78058. A classic difference in the emission landfill gas, and otherwise exempt or example, provided in the legislative characteristics between these options. excluded waste. This is appropriate history to CAA 112(d), is of a different See Part Two, Section VI.C for a because HAP emissions from sources discussion of this statistical analysis. 22 See U.S. EPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Finally, we review the results of the that qualify for this exemption would Document for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, not be significantly impacted by the Volume II: HWC Emissions Data Base,’’ March statistical analysis to determine whether combustion of hazardous waste. Thus, 2004. they are an appropriate basis for

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21214 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

subcategorization.23 We describe below difference is the product of less effective incinerators with waste heat boilers are the subcategorization options we back-end air pollution control. not statistically different from those considered for each source category. Third, we assessed whether equipped with dry air pollution control incinerators equipped with dry air devices.26 We conclude that further A. What Subcategorization Options Did pollution control devices and/or waste We Consider for Incinerators? subcategorization is not necessary. See heat boilers have different dioxin/furan Part Two, Section VII.A for more We considered whether to propose emission characteristics when compared discussion on the proposed dioxin/ separate standards for three hazardous to other sources, i.e., sources with either furan standards for incinerators. waste incinerator subcategory options. wet air pollution control or no air First, we assessed whether government- pollution control devices. Our statistical B. What Subcategorization Options Did owned incinerator facilities had analysis determined that dioxin/furan We Consider for Cement Kilns? different emission characteristics when emissions from sources equipped with We considered subdividing hazardous compared to non-government facilities waste heat boilers and/or dry air waste burning cement kilns by the for the mercury, semivolatile metal, low pollution control devices are higher.25 clinker manufacturing process: wet volatile metal, particulate matter, and We believe use of wet air pollution process kilns without in-line raw mills total chlorine floors. After evaluating control systems (and use of no air versus preheater/precalciner kilns with the data, we determined that emission pollution control system) can result in in-line raw mills. All cement kilns that characteristics from these two different dioxin/furan emission burn hazardous waste use one of these subcategories are not statistically characteristics because they have clinker manufacturing processes. Based different, and, therefore are not different post-combustion particle on available emissions data, we proposing separate emission standards. residence times and temperature evaluated design and operating features Second, we assessed whether liquid profiles, which can affect dioxin/furan of each process to determine if the injection incinerators emitted surface catalyzed formation reaction features could have a significant impact significantly different levels of metals rates. As a result, we believe that it is on emissions. For the reasons discussed and particulate matter compared to appropriate to subcategorize these below, we believe that subcategorization incinerators that feed solid wastes (e.g., different types of combustors. is not warranted. rotary kilns, fluid bed units, and hearth Note that we do not subcategorize In the wet process, raw materials are fired units). We define liquid injection based on the type of air pollution ground, wetted, and fed into the kiln as units as those incinerators that control device used. See 69 FR 394 a slurry. Twenty-two of the 25 cement exclusively feed pumpable waste (January 5, 2004). Dioxin/furan emission kilns that burn hazardous waste use the streams and solid feed units as those characteristics are unique in that they wet process to manufacture clinker. In that feed a combination of liquid and are not typically fed into the the preheater/precalciner kilns, raw solid wastes. We determined that combustion device, but rather are materials are ground dry in a raw mill emissions of metal HAP from these formed in the combustor or post and fed into the kiln dry. The remaining potential subcategories are not combustion within ductwork, a heat three of the 25 cement kilns burning statistically different.24 We, therefore, recovery boiler, or the air pollution hazardous waste use preheater/ are not proposing separate emission control system. Wet and dry air precalciner kilns with in-line raw mills. standards for metal HAP. The statistical pollution control systems are generally Combustion gases and raw materials analysis for particulate matter shows not considered to be dioxin/furan move in a counterflow direction inside that emissions from liquid feed injection control systems because their primary a cement kiln for both processes. The incinerators are higher than emissions function is to remove metals and/or kiln is inclined, and raw materials are from solid feed injection units. However, we believe that separate total chlorine from the combustion gas. fed into the upper end while fuels are standards for particulate matter are not They generally do not remove dioxin/ typically fired into the lower end. warranted because the difference in furans from the incinerator flue gas Combustion gases move up the kiln emissions was more a factor of the types unless they are used in tandem with counter to the flow of raw materials. of back-end air pollution devices used carbon injection systems or carbon beds. The raw materials get progressively by the sources rather than incinerator (In contrast, carbon injection systems hotter as they travel down the length of design. We would expect particulate and carbon beds are considered to be the kiln. The raw materials begin to dioxin/furan air pollution control soften and fuse at temperatures between emissions to be potentially higher for ° solid feed units, not lower, because systems). Thus, the differences in dioxin 2,250 and 2,700 F to form the clinker solid feed units have higher ash formation here reflect something more product. feedrates and air pollution control akin to a process difference resulting in Wet process kilns are longer than the device inlet particulate matter loadings. different emission characteristics, rather preheater/precalciner kilns in order to Therefore, we must conclude that the than a difference in pollution-capture facilitate evaporation of the water from efficiencies among pollution control the slurried raw material. The 23 For example, although the statistical analysis devices. We thus are not proposing to preheater/precalciner kilns begin the may find a significant difference in emission levels subcategorize based on whether a source calcining process—heating of the between potential subcategories, the emission levels is equipped with a dioxin/furan control limestone to drive off carbon dioxide to may be more a function of the emission control system. obtain lime (calcium oxide)—before the equipment rather than a function of the design and operation of the combustors within the We also considered whether to further raw materials are fed into the kiln. This subcategories. If differences in emission levels are subcategorize based on the presence of is accomplished by routing the flue attributable to use of different emission control a waste heat boiler or dry air pollution gases from the kiln up through the devices, and if there is nothing inherent in the control device. Our analysis determined design or operation of sources in both subcategories preheater tower while the raw materials that would preclude applicability of those control that dioxin/furan emissions from are passing down the preheater tower. devices, subcategorization would not be warranted. 24 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document 25 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document 26 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards’’, March 2004, III: Selection of MACT Standards’’, March 2004, III: Selection of MACT Standards’’, March 2004, Chapter 4. Chapter 4. Chapter 4.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21215

The heat of the flue gas is transferred to semivolatile metals, low volatile metals, burning class of cement kilns by wet the raw material as they interact in the and total chlorine between these types process kilns and preheater/precalciner preheater tower. The precalciner is a of kiln systems.28 kilns with in-line raw mills. secondary firing system—typically fired For wet process cement kilns without C. What Subcategorization Options Did with coal—located at the base of the in-line raw mills, mercury remains in the vapor phase at the typical operating We Consider for Lightweight Aggregate preheater tower. Kilns? Though not necessary in a wet temperatures in the kiln and particulate process kiln, a preheater/precalciner matter control equipment, and exits the Following promulgation of the kiln uses an alkali bypass designed to kiln as volatile stack emissions with September 1999 Final Rule, Solite divert a portion of the flue gas to remove only a small fraction partitioning to the Corporation filed a Petition for Review problematic volatile constituents such clinker or cement kiln dust. In the challenging the total chlorine standard as alkalies (potassium and sodium preheater/precalciner kilns with in-line for new kilns. For new sources, the oxides), chlorides, and sulfur that, if not raw mill, we believe that a significant Clean Air Act states that the MACT floor removed, can lead to operating portion of the volatilized mercury cannot be ‘‘less stringent than the problems. In addition, removal of the condenses on to the surfaces of the emission control that is achieved by the alkalies is necessary so that their cooler raw material in the operating raw best controlled similar source.’’ Solite concentrations are below maximum mill. The raw material with adsorbed Corporation challenged the standard on acceptable levels in the clinker. An mercury ends up in the raw material the ground that Norlite Corporation, alkali bypass diverts between 10–30% storage bin which will eventually be fed another hazardous waste-burning of the kiln off-gas before it reaches the to the kiln and re-volatilized. During the lightweight aggregate kiln source, lower cyclone stages of the preheater periods that the in-line raw mill is ‘‘on’’, should not be the best controlled similar tower. Without use of a bypass, the high mercury is effectively captured in the source because they are designed to concentration of volatile constituents at raw mill essentially establishing an burn for purposes of treatment the lower cyclone stage of the preheater internal recycle loop of mercury that hazardous wastes containing high levels tower would create operational builds-up within the system. of chlorine and high mercury. Solite problems. Bypass gases are quenched Eventually, when the in-line raw mill states that Norlite’s superior emission and sent to a dedicated particulate switches to the ‘‘off’’ mode, the re- control equipment is designed to control matter control device to capture and volatilized mercury exits the kiln as the chlorine and mercury in these remove the volatile constituents. volatile stack emissions. wastes that are burned for treatment, All preheater/precalciner kilns that Notwithstanding the apparent removal rather than primarily as fuel for burn hazardous waste use the hot flue of mercury during periods that the in- lightweight aggregate production. Thus, gases to dry the raw materials as they line raw mill is ‘‘on’’ in a preheater/ Solite states that Norlite’s sources are being ground in the in-line raw mill. precalciner kiln, over time the mercury should be considered a separate class of Typically, the raw mill is operating or is emitted eventually as volatile stack lightweight aggregate kilns. Though we believe that ‘‘on’’ approximately 85% of the time. emissions because system removal subcategorizing by the concentrations of The kilns with in-line raw mills must efficiencies for mercury are essentially HAP in the hazardous waste is not operate both in the ‘‘on’’ mode—gases zero. Thus, over a longer period of time appropriate, we considered subdividing are routed through the raw mill (e.g., one month), the mass of mercury hazardous waste burning lightweight supporting raw material drying and emitted by a wet process kiln without aggregate kilns by the types of preparation—and in the ‘‘off’’ mode— an in-line raw mill and a preheater/ hazardous waste they combust: low Btu necessary down time for raw mill precalciner kiln with an in-line raw mill (assuming identical mercury-containing wastes with higher concentrations of maintenance. Given that there are few chlorine and mercury and high Btu preheater/precalciner cement kilns that feedstreams) would be the same. However, at any given point in time, the wastes with lower concentrations of burn hazardous waste, we had limited chlorine and mercury. We believe, emissions data to evaluate to see if there stack gas concentration of mercury of the two types of kilns could be however, that separate emission was a significant difference in standards for lightweight aggregate kilns emissions. Moreover, we do not have significantly different. As noted above, our data base shows based on the types of hazardous waste any data from a preheater/precalciner a significant difference in mercury they burn are unnecessary because the kiln operating under similar operating emissions between preheater/ floor levels would not differ conditions (e.g., metals and chlorine precalciner kilns when operating in the significantly under either approach. feed concentrations) both for the ‘‘on’’ ‘‘off’’ mode and emissions both from wet Analysis of available total chlorine ‘‘ mode and off’’ mode. process kilns and preheater/precalciner emissions from compliance testing We evaluated whether there was a kilns in the ‘‘on’’ mode. In spite of this indicates that the emissions are significant difference in HAP emissions difference, we don’t believe it is significantly different for sources between wet process kilns without in- technically justified to subcategorize burning hazardous waste with high line raw mills versus preheater/ cement kilns for mercury.29 levels of chlorine compared to sources precalciner kilns with in-line raw mills. In conclusion, we propose not to burning wastes with much lower levels We found a statistically significant subcategorize the hazardous waste of chlorine. Total chorine emissions difference in mercury emissions range from 14 to 116 ppmv for sources between wet process kilns and 28 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document feeding higher concentrations of preheater/precalciner kilns in the ‘‘off’’ for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume V: chlorine but using a venturi scrubber to 27 mode. But, we conclude that there is Emission Estimates and Engineering Costs’’, March control emissions and range from 500 to no significant difference in emissions of 2004, Chapter 4. 29 We note that in the September 1999 final rule 2,400 ppmv for sources feeding waste dioxin/furans, particulate matter, we established a provision that allows cement kilns with lower levels of chlorine and not operating in-line raw mills to average their using a wet scrubber. However, when 27 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document emissions based on a time-weighted average for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume concentration that considers the length of time the we identify floor levels for these III: Selection of MACT Standards’’, March 2004, in-line raw mill is on-line and off-line. See potential subcategories (both for existing Chapter 4. § 63.1204(d). and new sources), the calculated floor

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21216 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

level would be less stringent than the including the relatively large quantities boilers and process heaters that do not interim emission standard sources are of boiler bottom ash and particulate burn hazardous waste. currently achieving. Because all sources matter that are entrained in the 3. Subcategorization Considerations for are achieving the more stringent interim combustion gas. The coal also Liquid Fuel Boilers standard, the interim standard becomes contributes to emissions of metal HAP. the default floor level. Therefore, Approximately 104 boilers co-fire We believe it is appropriate to subdividing would not affect the hazardous waste with natural gas or fuel combine liquid and gas fuel boilers into proposed floor level. oil. These units are not designed to one subcategory because emissions from We have compliance test mercury handle the high ash loadings that are gas fuel boilers are within the range of emissions data representing maximum associated with coal-fired units, and the emissions one finds from liquid fuel emissions for only one source, and we primary fuels for these boilers boilers. Also, most of the hazardous have snap-shot mercury emissions data contribute little to HAP emissions. See waste burning liquid fuel boilers, in within the range of normal emissions for ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document for fact, burn gas fossil fuels to supplement all sources. Snap-shot mercury HWC MACT Replacement Standards, the liquid hazardous waste fuel. Even emissions range from: (1) 11 to 20 ug/ Volume I: Description of Source though there are no hazardous waste gas dscm for sources with the potential to Categories’’ (Chapter 2.4) and ‘‘Volume burning boilers currently in operation, feed higher concentrations of mercury III: Selection of MACT Standards’’ today we propose to subject hazardous because they use a venturi scrubber to (Chapter 4) for a discussion of the waste gas burning boilers that may begin control emissions; and (2) 1 to 47 ug/ design differences between liquid and operating in the future to the standards dscm for sources that typically feed coal fuel-fired boilers. for liquid fuel-fired boilers. See lower mercury containing wastes and do Because the type of primary fuel proposed definition of liquid boiler in not use a wet scrubber to control burned dictates the design of the boiler § 63.2101(a). We also assessed whether liquid fuel- mercury. We performed a statistical test and emissions control systems, and can fired boilers equipped with dry air and confirmed that there is no affect the concentration of HAP, it is pollution control devices had different statistically significant difference in the appropriate to subcategorize boilers by dioxin/furan emission characteristics snap-shot mercury emissions between the physical form of the fuel. sources that have the potential to feed when compared to other sources, i.e., higher levels of mercury because they 2. Subcategorization Considerations sources with either wet air pollution are equipped with a wet scrubber and Among Solid Fuel Boilers control devices or no air pollution with other sources. Therefore, it appears We considered whether to control device. Our statistical analysis that subcategorization for mercury is not subcategorize solid fuel-fired boilers to indicated that dioxin/furan emissions warranted.30 establish separate particulate matter from sources equipped with dry air pollution control devices are higher.33 standards. All 12 of the solid fuel-fired D. What Subcategorization Options Did We believe use of wet air pollution boilers co-fire hazardous waste with We Consider for Boilers? control systems (and use of no air coal. Three of the 12 boilers burn We discuss below the rationale for pollution control system) can result in pulverized coal while the remaining proposing to subcategorize boilers by different dioxin/furan emission nine are stoker-fired boilers. Pulverized the physical form of the fuels they characteristics because they have coal-fired boilers have higher burn—solid fuel-fired boilers and liquid different post-combustion particle uncontrolled emissions than stoker-fired fuel-fired boilers. We also discuss residence times and temperature boilers because the coal is pulverized to further subcategorization options we profiles, which can affect dioxin/furan a talcum powder consistency and considered for each of those surface catalyzed formation reaction subcategories and explain why we burned in suspension. Stoker-fired rates. As a result, we believe that it is believe that further subcategorization is boilers burn lump coal partially or appropriate to have different not warranted. totally on a grate. Thus, much more of subcategories for these different types of the coal ash is entrained in the combustors. As discussed previously for 1. Subcategorization by Physical Form combustion gas for pulverized coal-fired incinerators in Part Two, Section II.A, of Fuels Burned boilers than for stoker-fired boilers. the differences in dioxin formation here There are substantial design Although the pulverized coal-fired reflect something more akin to a process differences and emission characteristics boilers have higher uncontrolled difference resulting in different among boilers that cofire hazardous particulate matter emissions (i.e., at the emission characteristics, rather than a waste primarily with coal versus oil or inlet to the emission control device), difference in pollution-capture gas. Because of these differences, it is controlled emissions from the efficiencies among pollution control appropriate to subcategorize boilers by pulverized coal-fired boilers are not devices. We thus are not subcategorizing the physical form of the fuel burned. We statistically different than emissions based on whether a source is equipped note that the Agency has already from the stoker-fired boilers, primarily with a dioxin/furan control system. proposed that industrial/commercial/ because all solid fuel-fired boilers are institutional boilers and process heaters equipped with either a baghouse or E. What Subcategorization Options Did that do not burn hazardous waste electrostatic precipitator.32 Accordingly, We Consider for Hydrochloric Acid should be subcategorized by the we conclude that it is not appropriate to Production Furnaces? physical form of fuels fired.31 establish separate particulate matter Consistent with our incinerator Twelve boilers cofire hazardous waste standards for pulverized coal-fired subcategorization analysis (see Section with coal. These boilers are designed to boilers versus stoker-fired boilers. This A of this Part), we also considered handle high ash content solid fuels, is consistent with the proposal for whether to establish separate floor industrial/institutional/commercial emission standards for dioxin/furans for 30 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Replacement Standard, Volume III: 32 See USEPA ‘‘Draft Technical Support 33 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document Selection of MACT Standards’’, March 2004, Document for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume Chapter 4. Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March III: Selection of MACT Standards’’, March 2004, 31 See 68 FR at 1670 (January 13, 2003). 2004, Chapter 4. Chapter 4.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21217

hydrochloric acid production furnaces demonstration process for the current MACT-on-MACT: establishing MACT equipped with waste heat recovery RCRA standards, and may include floor based on sources that already boilers versus those without boilers. As results from trial burns, certification of upgraded to meet the 1999 standards. discussed below, we conclude that there compliance demonstrations, annual Stakeholders identified emissions data is no significant statistical difference in performance tests, mini-burns, and risk from only approximately three of the dioxin/furan emissions between burns. Phase I sources (all incinerators) as furnaces equipped with boilers and A. Data Base for Phase I Sources being obtained after the source those without them. As a result we do upgraded to meet the 1999 standards. not propose to have different The current data base for Phase I None of these incinerator sources are subcategories for these sources. sources contain test results for over 100 consistently identified as a best Ten of the 16 hydrochloric acid incinerators, 26 cement kilns, and 9 performer when establishing the production furnaces are equipped with lightweight aggregate kilns. In many proposed MACT standards. waste heat recovery boilers, and all cases, especially for cement and Notwithstanding stakeholder hydrochloric acid production furnaces lightweight aggregate kilns, the data concerns, we believe it is appropriate to are equipped with wet scrubbers that base contain test reports from multiple consider all of the data collected in the quench the combustion gas immediately testing campaigns. For example, our 2002 effort.35 First, section 112(d)(3) after it exits the furnace or boiler. We data base includes results for a cement states that floor standards for existing have dioxin/furan emissions data for kiln that conducted emissions testing sources are to reflect the average eight of the ten furnaces with boilers. for the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. emission achieved by the designated per Two furnaces have low dioxin/furan We first compiled a data base for cent of best performing sources ‘‘for emissions—approximately 0.1 ng TEQ/ hazardous waste burning incinerators, which the Administrator has emissions cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate dscm, while the other six furnaces have information’’ (emphasis added). Second, kilns to support the proposed MACT emissions ranging from 0.5 to 6.8 ng the motivation for a source’s standards in 1996 (61 FR 17358, April TEQ/dscm. We have dioxin/furan performance is legally irrelevant in 19, 1996). Based on public comments, a emissions data for five of the six developing MACT floor levels. National revised Phase I data base was published furnaces without boilers. Dioxin/furan Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 640. In for public comment (62 FR 960, January emissions for four furnaces are below any case, it would be problematic to 7, 1997). The data base was again 0.15 ng TEQ/dscm. But, one furnace has identify sources that upgraded their revised based on public comments, and dioxin/furan emissions of 1.7 ng TEQ/ facilities (and reduced their emissions) we used this data base to develop the dscm. for purposes of complying with the 1999 Phase I MACT standards promulgated in It appears that dioxin/furan emissions standards versus for other purposes 1999 (64 FR 52828, September 30, (e.g., normal replacement schedule). from hydrochloric acid production 1999). furnaces may not be governed by Following promulgation of the Moreover, the MACT-on-MACT whether the furnace is equipped with a interim standards, we initiated a data formulation is not correct. Although the waste heat recovery boiler. We collection effort in early 2002 to obtain Interim Standards did result in performed a statistical test and additional test reports. The effort reduction of emissions from many confirmed that there is no statistically focused on obtaining test reports from sources, those standards are not MACT significant difference in dioxin/furan sources for which we had no standards, and do not purport to be. See emissions between furnaces equipped information, obtaining data from more February 13, 2002, Interim Standards with boilers and those without boilers.34 recent testing, and updating the list of Rulemaking, 67 FR at 7693. Finally, we Thus, we conclude that it is not operating Phase I sources. Sources once note that, although we were prepared to appropriate to establish separate dioxin/ identified as hazardous waste use the same data base for today’s furan emission standards for furnaces combustors, but that have since ceased proposed rules as we used for the with boilers and those without boilers. operations as a hazardous waste September 1999 rule to save the time and resources required to collect new III. What Data and Information Did combustor, were removed from the data base. This revised data base was noticed data, industry stakeholders wanted to EPA Consider To Establish the submit new emissions data for us to Proposed Standards? for public comment in July 2002 (67 FR 44452, July 2, 2002) and updated based consider in developing the replacement The proposed standards are based on on public comments. See USEPA ‘‘Draft standards. Rather than allowing our hazardous waste combustor data Technical Support Document for HWC industry stakeholders to submit base. The data base contains general MACT Replacement Standards, Volume potentially selected emissions data, facility information, stack gas emissions II: HWC Emissions Data Base,’’ March however, we agreed to undertake a data, combustor design information, 2004, Appendix A for comments and substantial data collection effort in composition and feed concentration responses. 2002. It is unfortunate that industry data for the hazardous waste, fossil fuel, In comments on the data base notice, stakeholders now suggest that some and raw materials, combustion unit industry stakeholders question whether portion of the new data is not operating conditions, and air pollution emissions data obtained for some appropriate for establishing MACT. control device operating information. sources are appropriate to use to Notwithstanding our view that all of We gathered the emissions data and identify MACT floor for today’s the 2002 data base should be considered information from test reports submitted proposed replacement standards. in establishing MACT standards, we by hazardous waste combustor facilities Stakeholders suggest that it is 35 to EPA Regional Offices or State inappropriate to use emissions data However, we did not consider emissions data agencies. Many of the test reports were from Ash Grove Cement Company (Chanute, from sources that tested after retrofitting Kansas), an owner and operator of a new preheater/ prepared as part of the compliance their emission control systems to meet precalciner kiln, because the test report is a MACT the emission standards promulgated in comprehensive performance test demonstrating 34 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document compliance with the new source standards of the for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume September 1999 (and since vacated and September 1999 final rule. We judged these data are III: Selection of MACT Standards’’, March 2004, replaced by the February 2002 Interim inappropriate for consideration for the floor Chapter 4. Standards). Stakeholders refer to this as analyses for existing sources.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21218 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

specifically request comment on: (1) After the initial compilation, we normal levels (e.g., by spiking the waste Whether emissions data should be published the Phase II data base for feed) to maximize the feed deleted from the data base that were public comment in June 2000 (65 FR concentration, and they often detune the obtained from sources that owners and 39581, June 27, 2000). Since the June air pollution control equipment to operators assert were upgraded to meet 2000 notice, we have not collected establish operating limits on the control the 1999 rule; and (2) whether, because additional emissions data for Phase II equipment that provide operating it may be problematic to identify such sources; however, we revised the data flexibility. By designing the compliance data, we should identify MACT using base to address public comments test to generate emissions at the extreme the original 1999 data base. received in response to the June 2000 high end of the normal range of Stakeholders have also raised notice. We noticed the Phase II data emissions, sources can establish concerns that the Agency may be base (together with the one for Phase I operating limits that account for considering inappropriately emissions sources) for public comment in July variability in operations (e.g., data in its MACT analyses based on the 2002 (67 FR 44452, July 2, 2003) and composition and feedrate of language of section 112(d)(3)(A) of the revised the data base based on feedstreams, as well as variability of Clean Air Act. Section 112(d)(3)(A) says comments received. The current data pollution control equipment efficiency) emissions standards for existing sources base for Phase II sources contains test and that do not impede normal shall not be less stringent, and may be reports for over 115 boilers and 17 operations. more stringent than— hydrochloric acid production furnaces. The data base also includes normal the average emission limitation achieved by See USEPA ‘‘Draft Technical Support emissions data that are within the range the best performing 12 percent of the existing Document for HWC MACT Replacement of typical operations. Sources will sources (for which the Administrator has Standards, Volume II: HWC Emissions sometimes measure emissions of a emissions information), excluding those Data Base,’’ March 2004. pollutant during a compliance test even sources that have, within 18 months before though the test is not designed to the emission standard is proposed or within C. Classification of the Emission Data 30 months before such standard is establish operating limits for that The hazardous waste combustor data pollutant (i.e., it is not a compliance test promulgated, whichever is later, first base 36 comprises emissions data from achieved a level of emission rate or emission for the pollutant). An example is a trial reduction which complies, or would comply tests conducted for various purposes, burn where a lightweight aggregate kiln if the source is not subject to such standard, including compliance testing, risk measures emissions of all RCRA metals, with the lowest achievable emission rate (as burns, annual performance testing, and but uses the Tier I metals feedrate limit defined by section 171) applicable to the research testing. Therefore, some to comply with the mercury emission source category and prevailing at the time, in emissions data represent the highest standard.37 Other examples of emissions the category or subcategory for categories and emissions the source has emitted in subcategories with 30 or more sources, data that are within the range of normal each of its compliance demonstrations, emissions are annual performance tests Section 171 pertains to nonattainment some data represent normal or typical that some sources are required to areas for a particular pollutant. The operating conditions and emissions, and conduct under State regulations, or lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) some data represent operating RCRA risk burns. Both of these types of for a pollutant in a nonattainment area conditions and emissions during tests are generally performed under compliance testing in a test campaign is the most stringent emission limitation normal operating conditions, and would where there are other compliance tests which is contained in the not necessarily reflect day-to-day implementation plan of any State, or the with higher emissions. Hazardous waste combustors emission variability. However, such most stringent emission limitation data may be appropriate to use to which is achieved in practice. Given generally emit their highest emissions during RCRA compliance testing while evaluate long-term average performance. that stakeholders neither identified any Other emissions tests may generate demonstrating compliance with lowest achievable emission rates for any emissions in-between normal and the emission standards. For real-time pollutants applicable to nonattainment highest compliance test emissions. An compliance assurance, sources are areas nor identified any sources that are example is a compliance test designed subject to such lowest achievable required to establish limits on particular operating parameters that are to demonstrate compliance with the emission rates, we conclude that there particulate matter standard where: (1) are no sources to exclude. representative of operating levels achieved during compliance testing. The air pollution control equipment is B. Data Base for Phase II Sources Thus, the emission levels achieved detuned; and (2) the source measured Phase II sources are comprised of during these compliance tests are lead and cadmium emissions even boilers and hydrochloric acid typically the highest emission levels a though it elected to comply with RCRA production furnaces that burn source emits under reasonably Tier 1 feedrate limits for those metals hazardous waste. The data base for anticipable circumstances. To ensure and, thus, does not spike those metals. Phase II sources was initially compiled that these operating limits do not We would conclude that lead and by EPA in 1999. In developing this data impede normal day-to-day operations, cadmium emissions—together they base, we collected the most recent test sources generally take measures to comprise the semivolatile metals—are report available for each source that operate during compliance testing under between normal and the highest included test results under compliance conditions that are at the extreme high compliance test emissions. Emissions test operating conditions. The most end of the range of normal operations. are not likely to be as high as recent test report, however, may have For example, sources often feed ash, metals, and chlorine during compliance 37 A Tier 1 feedrate limit is a conservative also included data used for other compliance option offered pursuant to RCRA purposes (e.g., risk burn to obtain data testing at substantially higher than requirements which assumes all of the metal/ for a site-specific risk assessment), chlorine that is fed to the combustion unit is which are also included in the data 36 Though the Phase I and II data bases were emitted (uncontrolled). Sources electing to comply base. In nearly all instances, the dates of developed and titled separately, for purposes of with Tier 1 limits are not required to conduct today’s proposal we are combining both into one emissions testing and are not required to establish the test reports collected were either data base termed the ‘‘hazardous waste combustor operating parameter limits based on a compliance 1998 or 1999. data base.’’ test. See § 266.106.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21219

compliance test emissions because the and removal efficiency 39 for organic because a stack gas concentration limit source did not use the test to HAP; and (2) total chlorine control for may ultimately result in limiting the demonstrate compliance with emission hydrochloric acid production furnaces. feed of chlorine to furnaces with MACT standards for the metals (and so did not Finally, sources would be required to emission control equipment. Given that spike the metals). However, emissions establish operating parameter limits these furnaces produce hydrochloric of the metals are likely to be higher than under prescribed procedures to ensure acid from chlorinated feedstocks, normal because the air pollution control continuous compliance with the limiting the feed of chlorine is equipment was detuned. emission standards. inappropriate. See Part Two, Section To distinguish between normal and We discuss below the rationale for: (1) VI.A and XII for more discussion on the compliance test data, we classified Selecting an emission limit format total chlorine standard for hydrochloric emissions data for each pollutant for rather than a percent reduction format acid production furnaces. each test condition as compliance test in most cases; (2) selecting a hazardous waste thermal emissions format for the B. What Is the Rationale for Selecting a (CT); normal (N); in between (IB); or not Hazardous Waste Thermal Emissions 38 emission limit in some cases, and an applicable (NA). These classifications Format for Some Standards, and an emissions concentration format in apply on a HAP-by-HAP basis. For Emissions Concentration Format for others; (3) selecting surrogates to control example, some HAP measured during a Others? test condition may be classified as multiple HAP; and (4) using operating representing compliance test emissions parameter limits to ensure compliance We are proposing numerical emission for those HAP, while other HAP with emission standards. limits in two formats: hazardous waste measured during the test condition may thermal emissions, and stack gas A. What Is the Rationale for Generally emissions concentrations. Hazardous be classified as representing normal Selecting an Emission Limit Format emissions. See USEPA ‘‘Draft Technical waste thermal emissions are expressed Rather Than a Percent Reduction as mass of pollutant contributed by Support Document for HWC MACT Format? Replacement Standards, Volume II: hazardous waste per million Btu of heat HWC Emissions Data Base,’’ March Using emission limits as the format contributed by hazardous waste. 2004, Chapter 2, for additional details. for most of the proposed standards Emission concentration based standards provides flexibility for the regulated are expressed as mass of pollutant (from D. Invitation To Comment on Data Base community by allowing a regulated all feedstocks) per unit of stack gas (e.g., µ As previously discussed, we updated source to choose any control technology g/dscm). the data base based on comments or technique to meet the emission 1. What Is the Rationale for the received since it was last made publicly limits, rather than requiring each unit to Hazardous Waste Thermal Emissions available. We believe the data base used use a prescribed method that may not be Format? appropriate in each case. (See CAA to determine today’s proposed standards In the 1999 rule, we assessed is complete and accurate. However, section 112(h), relating to authority to adopt work place standards). Although hazardous waste feed control levels for given the complexity of the data base, metals and chlorine by evaluating each we believe it is appropriate to once a percent reduction format would allow flexibility in choosing the control source’s maximum theoretical emission again solicit comments on the accuracy concentration (MTEC) using the of the data. If you find errors, please technology to achieve the reduction, a percent reduction technology does not ‘‘aggregate MTEC’’ approach. See 64 FR submit the pages from the test report at 52854. MTEC is defined as the metals that document the missing or incorrect allow the option of achieving the standard by feed control—minimizing or chlorine feedrate divided by the gas entries and the cover page of the test flow rate, and is expressed in µg/dscm. report as a reference. In addition, we the feed of metals or chlorine. Consequently, we propose percent We used MTECs to assess feed control identified several sources that are no levels because it normalizes metal and longer burning hazardous waste and reduction standards only in special circumstances. chlorine feedrates across sources of removed their emissions data and different sizes. Industry stakeholders related information from the data base. We are proposing a percent reduction standard for boilers and hydrochloric have claimed that use of MTECs to We encourage owners and operators of assess feed control levels for energy hazardous waste combustors to review acid production furnaces, i.e., a destruction and removal efficiency recovery units (e.g., cement kilns) when our list of operating combustors to establishing floor standards ensure its accuracy. See USEPA ‘‘Draft standard for organic HAP, because all sources currently comply with such a inappropriately penalizes sources that Technical Support Document for HWC burn hazardous waste fuels at high MACT Replacement Standards, Volume standard under RCRA and RCRA implementing rules. Further, we do not firing rates (i.e., percent of heat input III: Selection of MACT Standards and from hazardous waste). This is because Technologies,’’ March 2004. have emissions data on trace levels of organic HAP that would be needed to hazardous waste fuels generally have IV. How Did EPA Select the Format for establish emission limits for particular higher levels of metals and chlorine the Proposed Rule? compounds. than the fossil fuels they displace, thus metal and chlorine feedrates and The proposed rule includes emission We also propose a total chlorine emissions may increase as the limits for dioxin/furans, mercury, percent reduction standard as a compliance option for hydrochloric acid hazardous waste firing rate increases. particulate matter, semivolatile metals, Although we are not using the low volatile metals, hydrogen chloride/ production furnaces in lieu of the proposed stack gas concentration limit aggregate MTEC approach to evaluate chlorine gas, and carbon monoxide or feed control in today’s proposal, the hydrocarbons. We also propose percent 39 SRE/Feed approach explained in Part reduction standards for: (1) Destruction Please note that we propose today a destruction and removal efficiency standard only for boilers Two, Section VI.A, does assess each and process heaters and hydrochloric acid source’s metal and chlorine hazardous 38 NA means the normal versus compliance test production furnaces. We are not reproposing the classification is not applicable. Research testing destruction and removal efficiency standard in waste feed control levels. In order to data is an example of the type of data that would subpart EEE currently in effect for incinerators, avoid the hazardous waste firing rate get a NA rating. cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns. bias discussed above for energy recovery

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21220 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

units, we believe it is appropriate to attributable to the hazardous waste feed, cement and lightweight aggregate kilns instead assess feed control for energy but irrespective of metals and chlorine because particulate matter emissions recovery units by ranking each source’s in nonhazardous waste feedstreams, from cement and lightweight aggregate thermal feed concentration, which is current MACT standards for cement and kilns are primarily entrained raw equivalent to the mass of metal or lightweight aggregate kilns that burn material, not ash contributed by the chlorine in the hazardous waste per hazardous waste provide alternative hazardous waste fuel. There is therefore million BTUs hazardous waste fired to standards that sources can request no correlation between particulate the combustion unit. This approach not under a petitioning procedure. See matter emissions and hazardous waste only normalizes metal and chlorine § 63.1206(b)(9–10). These alternative thermal input rate. feedrates across sources of different standards would be unnecessary under In addition, please note that we could sizes, but also normalizes these the hazardous waste thermal emissions have expressed the proposed particulate feedrates across energy recovery units approach because, by definition, the matter standard for liquid boilers in with different hazardous waste firing approach controls only hazardous units of hazardous waste thermal rates. For example, a kiln that feeds waste-derived metals and chlorine. emissions since (unlike the case of kilns hazardous waste with a given metal 2. Which Standards Would Use the just discussed) particulate matter concentration to fulfill 100% of its Hazardous Waste Thermal Emissions emissions are attributable to the energy demand would be an equally Format? hazardous waste fuel. However, for ranked feed control source when consistency, we elected to use the same compared to an identical kiln that We propose a hazardous waste format for all the particulate matter fulfills 50% of its energy demand from thermal emissions format for mercury, standards. We invite comment as to coal and 50% from hazardous waste semivolatile metals, low volatile metals, whether the particulate matter standard with an identical metal concentration. and total chlorine (i.e., the HAPs found Similarly, it is our preference to in hazardous waste fuels) for source for liquid boilers should be expressed in express today’s proposed emission categories that burn hazardous waste units of hazardous waste thermal standards for metals and chlorine in fuels where we have data to calculate a emissions. units of hazardous waste thermal hazardous waste thermal emissions We do not have adequate data to emissions as opposed to expressing the limit. Cement kilns, lightweight establish hazardous waste thermal standards in units of stack gas aggregate kilns and liquid-fuel fired emissions-based standards for several concentrations. As previously boilers burn hazardous waste fuels and cases. An example is when we have discussed, hazardous waste thermal are thus candidates for the hazardous only normal feedrate and emissions data emission standards are expressed as waste thermal emission standards. (e.g., the mercury standard for cement mass of HAP emissions attributable to Incinerators and solid fuel-fired boilers kilns). We prefer to establish emission the hazardous waste per million Btu are not candidates for thermal emission standards under the hazardous waste hazardous waste fired to combustor. As standards because some sources within thermal emissions format using with thermal feed concentration, these source categories do not combust compliance test data because the metals thermal emissions normalizes emissions hazardous waste for energy recovery, and chlorine feedrate information from across energy recovery units with i.e., they burn low heating value compliance tests that we use to different hazardous waste firing rates. hazardous waste for the purpose of apportion emissions to calculate The hazardous waste thermal emissions treating the waste.40 Consequently, emissions attributable to hazardous format addresses two concerns. First, it these sources could not duplicate a waste are more reliable than feedrate avoids the above discussed bias against hazardous waste thermal emissions data measured during testing under sources that burn hazardous waste fuels standard based on emissions from normal, typical operations.41 Thus, as a at high firing rates. We prefer not to sources that burn hazardous waste fuels, general rule, we prefer to express discourage energy recovery from even though their stack gas emission emission standards for energy recovery hazardous waste as opposed to concentrations could be as low or lower units using the hazardous waste thermal potentially establishing standards that than emissions from a best performing emissions format only when we have effectively restrict the hazardous waste source under the hazardous waste sufficient compliance test feed data.42 firing rate in an energy recovery thermal emissions approach. These situations are discussed below in combustor. (See, for example, the We propose a hazardous waste more detail in Part Two, Sections VIII, requirement in CAA section 112(d)(2) to thermal emissions format for all HAP for IX, and XI where we discuss the take energy considerations into account which we can apportion emissions rationale for the proposed emission when promulgating MACT standards, as between the hazardous waste fuel feed standards for energy recovery units. well as the objective in RCRA section and other feedstreams. Under this 1003(b)(6) to encourage properly approach, we apportion total stack 41 Feedrate data from testing during normal, conducted recycling and reuse of emissions between hazardous waste fuel typical operations may not be as accurate as data hazardous waste). and other feedstreams using the ratio of from compliance testing because of the sampling Second, because the hazardous waste and analytical error associated with low feedrates. the feedrate contribution from In contrast, sources generally spike metals and thermal emissions approach controls hazardous waste to the total feedrate of chlorine during compliance testing, so that only emissions attributable to the the pollutant. Thus, the particulate measurement error is somewhat masked by the hazardous waste feed (see discussion in matter, metals, and total chlorine higher feedrate values. following section), the rule can be standards are candidates because we 42 Two exceptions are the mercury and simplified by not including waivers for semivolatile metal standard for liquid fuel-fired often have data on hazardous waste and boilers. We propose to express this standard in the sources that cannot meet the standard total feedrates of these pollutants. hazardous waste thermal emissions format even because of metals or chlorine We believe, however, that a hazardous though it is based on normal test data because we contributed by nonhazardous waste waste thermal emissions format is not do not use feedrate data to apportion emissions in feedstreams. To ensure that hazardous this case. Rather, we assume semivolatile metal appropriate for particulate matter for emissions from liquid fuel-fired boilers are waste combustors will be able to attributable solely to the hazardous waste given that achieve the standards if they use MACT 40 Three of the 13 solid fuel-fired boilers burn low these sources co-fire hazardous waste with natural control for metals and chlorine heating value hazardous waste for treatment. gas or, in a few cases, fuel oil.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21221

3. How Are Emissions From Other The combined emissions of lead and metal HAP. Compliance with the Feedstreams Regulated Under the cadmium cannot exceed the semivolatile and low volatile metal Hazardous Waste Thermal Emissions semivolatile metal emission limit. Three emission standards does not ensure that Format? low volatile metals can be prevalent in sources are using MACT back-end Under the thermal emissions format, hazardous waste and are particularly control devices because they could be only emissions of HAP contributed by hazardous: arsenic, beryllium, and achieving compliance by primarily the hazardous waste are directly chromium. We group these three metals implementing hazardous waste feed regulated by today’s proposed together and propose an emission control for the enumerated metals. standards. Non-mercury metal HAP standard for these metals, combined. Thus, if a source uses superior feed emissions from raw materials and fossil The combined emissions of arsenic, control only for the enumerated metals, fuels would be subject to MACT beryllium, and chromium cannot exceed the nonenumerated metal emissions standards, even though it may not be the low volatile metal emission limit. would not be controlled to MACT levels The particulate matter standard if it were not using a MACT particulate feasible to directly control their generally serves as a surrogate to control matter control device. The proposed feedrate. We are proposing standards for non-enumerated metals in the semivolatile and low volatile metal particulate matter as surrogates to hazardous waste as well as a surrogate standards are also inappropriate control these HAP metals contributed by to control relevant metal HAP in non- surrogates for controlling nonmercury raw materials and fossil fuel. hazardous waste feed streams. We metal HAP in the nonhazardous waste C. What Is the Rationale for Selecting generally chose not to propose feedstreams for kilns and solid fuel-fired Surrogates To Control Multiple HAP? numerical metal HAP emission boilers for the same reason. These HWCs can emit a wide variety of standards that would have accounted sources may comply with the proposed for all metal HAP for two reasons (note HAP, depending on the types and semivolatile and low volatile metal that such an approach would be in lieu concentrations of pollutants in the emission standards by implementing of a proposed particulate matter hazardous waste feed. Because of the hazardous waste feed control. This standard because particulate matter is large number of HAP potentially present would not assure that the nonmercury not a listed HAP). We generally do not in emissions, we propose to use several metal HAP emissions attributable to the have as much compliance test emissions surrogates to control multiple HAP. This nonhazardous waste feedstreams are information in our database for the will reduce the burden of controlled to MACT levels. A nonenumerated metal HAP compared to particulate matter standard provides implementation and compliance on the enumerated metal HAP. Thus it this assurance. both regulators and the regulated would be more difficult to assess the Note that we are proposing that community. control levels for these additional incinerators and liquid boilers that emit 1. Surrogates for Metal HAP metals. We also believe that a particulate matter at levels higher than We are proposing to control metal particulate matter standard, in lieu of the proposed standard but do not emit HAP emissions attributable to the emission standards that directly regulate significant levels of non-mercury metal hazardous waste by subjecting sources all the metals, simplifies compliance HAP can elect to comply with an to metal and particulate matter emission activities in that sources would not have alternative standard. Under the to monitor feed control levels of these proposed alternative standard, these limitations.43 We grouped metal HAP nonenumerated metals on a continuous sources would be required to: (1) Limit according to their volatility because basis. emissions of all semivolatile metals, volatility is a primary consideration Note that particulate matter is not an including nonenumerated semivolatile when selecting an emission control appropriate surrogate where standards metals, to the emission limit for technology.44 We then considered the are based, in part (or in whole) on semivolatile metals; and (2) limit following to identify metals that would feedrate control. This is because, unlike emissions of all low volatile metals, be ‘‘enumerated’’ and directly controlled the case where HAP metals are including nonenumerated low volatile with an emission limit: (1) The amount controlled by air pollution control metals, to the emission limit for low of available data for the metal HAP; (2) devices, HAP metal reductions in volatile metals. See Part Two, Section the potential for hazardous waste to hazardous waste feedrate are not XVIII for more discussion on this contain substantial levels of a metal; necessarily correlated with particulate alternative. and (3) the toxicity of the metal. Other, matter reductions, i.e., hazardous waste ‘‘nonenumerated’’ metal HAP would be feedrate reductions could reduce HAP 2. Surrogates for Organic HAP controlled using particulate matter as a metal emissions without a correlated For Phase II sources, we propose two surrogate. reduction in particulate matter standards as surrogates to control Mercury is highly volatile, especially emissions. (See National Lime, 233 F. emissions of organic HAP: carbon toxic, and may not be controllable by 3d at 639 noting this possibility.) monoxide or hydrocarbons, and the same air pollution control Moreover, particulate matter that is destruction and removal efficiency.45 mechanisms as the other HAP metals, so emitted generally contain greater Both of these standards control organic we are proposing a standard for mercury percentages of HAP metals when the HAP by ensuring combustors are individually. Two semivolatile metals metal concentrations in the hazardous operating under good combustion can be prevalent in hazardous waste and waste feed increase. Thus, low are particularly hazardous: lead and particulate matter emissions do not 45 Please note that we are proposing the organic cadmium. We group these two metals necessarily guarantee low metal HAP emission standards—carbon monoxide or together and propose an emission emissions, especially in instances where hydrocarbons, and desturction and removal standard for these metals, combined. efficiency—for boilers and process heaters and the hazardous waste feeds are highly hydrochloric acid production furnaces only. concentrated with metal HAP. Requirements to comply with these standards are 43 As discussed later, we are also propsoing We do not believe that the proposed currently in effect under subpart EEE for particulate matter standards to generally serve as incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight surrogates to control relevant metal HAP in non- emission standards for semivolatile and aggregate kilns. We are not reporposing or hazardous waste feed streams when appropriate. low volatile metals serve as adequate reopening consideration of those standards in 44 See 64 FR at 52845–47 (September 30, 1999). surrogate control for the nonenumerated today’s notice.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21222 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

practices that should result in to operate in a manner that will achieve floor. The EPA may require a control destruction of the organic HAP. Note the same level of control as during the option that is more stringent than the that boilers and hydrochloric acid comprehensive performance test. floor (beyond-the-floor) if the production furnaces that burn We selected the operating parameters Administrator considers the cost, hazardous waste are currently subject to for which sources would establish limits environmental, and energy impacts to RCRA requirements that regulate carbon because: (1) The parameters can be reasonable. monoxide or hydrocarbon emissions substantially affect emissions of HAP; It has been argued that EPA is limited and destruction and removal efficiency (2) they are feasible to monitor in the level of performance it can standard under RCRA regulations. We continuously; (3) they are currently evaluate in assessing which are the 12 propose to control dioxin/furans by a used to monitor performance under the percent existing best performing sources separate standard because dioxin/furan Interim Standards Rule for incinerators, to standards codified in permits, or can also be formed post-combustion in cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate other regulatory limitations. The ductwork, waste heat recovery boilers, kilns that burn hazardous waste; and (4) argument is based on use of the term or dry air pollution control devices (e.g., this is the same general compliance ‘‘emission limitation’’ in section 112 (d) electrostatic precipitators and fabric approach that is currently applicable to (3), the argument being that ‘‘emission filters). all hazardous waste combustion sources limitation’’ is a term defined in section Hydrocarbon emissions are a direct pursuant to the RCRA emission 302 (k) to mean ‘‘a requirement measure of many organic compounds, standard requirements. established by the State or the including organic HAP. Carbon Administrator which limits the monoxide emissions are a more V. How Did EPA Determine the quantity, rate, or concentration of air conservative indicator of hydrocarbon Proposed Emission Limitations for New pollutants * * *’’. EPA does not accept and organic HAP emissions because the and Existing Units? this argument, and indeed doubts that presence of carbon monoxide at A. How Did EPA Determine the such an interpretation of the statute is elevated levels is indicative of Proposed Emission Limitations for New even permissible. In brief: incomplete oxidation of organic Units? (i) Statutory text indicates that MACT compounds. Sources generally choose to floors for existing sources is to based on comply with the carbon monoxide All standards established pursuant to actual performance. Section 112 (d) (3) standard because carbon monoxide section 112 of the CAA must reflect (A) speaks to the actual performance of continuous emissions monitors are less MACT, the maximum degree of sources, and requires that the floor for expensive and easier to maintain than reduction in emissions of air pollutants existing sources reflect actual hydrocarbon monitors. that the Administrator, taking into performance. The key statutory phrase We also propose to use the consideration the cost of achieving such is not just ‘‘emission limitation’’ but destruction and removal efficiency emission reduction, and any non-air ‘‘emission limitation achieved’’, a phrase standard to help ensure boilers and quality health and environmental referring to actual performance, not just hydrochloric acid production furnaces impacts and energy requirements, a limit simply set out in a permit or operate under good combustion determines is achievable for each regulation. The floor is to be calculated conditions. We propose to adopt the category. The CAA specifies that the using ‘‘emissions information’’, a standard and implementation degree of reduction in emissions that is reference again to actual performance. procedures that currently apply to these deemed achievable for new hazardous The provision likewise states that sources under RCRA regulations at waste combustors must be at least as certain sources achieving a lowest § 266.104. We propose, however, to stringent as the emissions control that is achievable emission rate (LAER) level of require a one-time only compliance achieved in practice by the best- performance without being subject to requirement for destruction and removal controlled similar unit (as noted earlier, LAER (a regulatory limit) are not to be efficiency, unless a source changes its this specified level of minimum considered in assessing best performers, design or operation in a manner that stringency is referred to as the MACT redundant language if only regulatory could adversely affect its ability to meet floor, the term used when the statutory limits could be considered. the destruction and removal efficiency provision was first introduced in In fact, it is clear from context when standard. Further, previous destruction Congress). However, EPA may not Congress used the term ‘‘emission and removal efficiency testing consider costs or other impacts in limitation’’ to refer to regulatory limits, performed under RCRA could be used to determining the MACT floor. EPA may and when it uses the term to refer to a document the one-time compliance. adopt a standard that is more stringent level of performance actually achieved. than the floor (i.e., a beyond-the-floor Compare CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) (EPA D. What Is the Rationale for Requiring standard) if the Administrator considers is to consider ‘‘emissions limitations and Compliance With Operating Parameter the standard to be achievable after percent reductions achieved in Limits To Ensure Compliance With considering cost, environmental, and practice’’ when considering whether to Emission Standards? energy impacts. revise new source performance In addition to meeting emission standards) with section 110(a)(2)(A) limits, today’s proposal would require B. How Did EPA Determine the (State Implementation Plans must sources to establish limits on key Proposed Emission Limitations for contain ‘‘enforceable emission operating parameters for the combustor Existing Units? limitations’’). and emission control devices. Each For existing sources, MACT can be (ii) The argument leads to absurd and source would establish site-specific less stringent than standards for new illegal results. The argument that limits for the parameters based on sources, but cannot be less stringent existing source MACT floors can only be operations during the comprehensive than the average emission limitation based on regulatory limits leads to performance test, using prescribed achieved by the best-performing 12 results that are illegal, absurd, or both. procedures for calculating the limits. percent of existing sources for categories Congress enacted section 112 to assure The operating parameter limits would and subcategories with 30 or more technology-based control of HAP which reasonably ensure that the combustor sources. EPA may not consider costs or had heretofore gone unregulated due to and emission control devices continue other impacts in determining the MACT the vagaries and glacial pace of

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21223

implementing the previous risk-based means of establishing existing source Approach; and (3) Emissions-Based regime for HAP. 1 Legislative History at floors, but only if regulatory limits ‘‘are approach. These three methodologies, 790, 860; 2 Legislative History at 3174– a reasonable means of estimating the together with their rationales and when 78, 3340–42. The result, at the time of performance of the top 12 percent of they are used, are described in the the 1990 amendments is that there were [sources] in each [category or following sections. Note that each widespread regulatory limits for only subcategory].’’ Sierra Club, 167 F. 3d at methodology described below assesses one of the 190 listed HAPs (lead, for 661. best performing sources for each which there was a National Ambient Air Somewhat ironically, there is a pollutant or pollutant group Quality Standard) plus NESHAPs for a regulatory limit which is relevant in independently, often resulting in half dozen other HAPs. Thus, ‘‘emission establishing floors for incinerators, different best performers for each limitations’’, in the sense used in the cement kilns and lightweight aggregate pollutant. For a more detailed argument, did not exist for most HAPs. kilns. The interim standards fix a level description of these methodologies and This would lead necessarily to the result of performance for all of these sources. when they are applied, see USEPA of no existing source floors because no Thus, any floor standard can be no less ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document for ‘‘emission limitations’’ exist. This result stringent than this standard (see HWC MACT Replacement Standards, is illegal. National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. National Lime 233 F. 3d at 640 (reason Volume III: Selection of MACT 3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Where for which a level of performance is Standards,’’ March 2004, Chapters 7 regulatory limits are higher than actual being achieved is irrelevant in through 15. performance levels, existing source ascertaining MACT floors)). Based on floors likewise would be higher than actual performance, however, floors 1. What Is SRE/Feed Approach, and performance levels, a result both absurd may be more stringent. When Are We Proposing To Apply It? and illegal. Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. VI. How Did EPA Determine the MACT The SRE/Feed MACT approach 3d 658, 662–63 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In fact, Floor for Existing and New Units? defines best performers as those sources at the time of the 1999 rule for this with the best combined front-end source category (hazardous waste We followed five basic steps to hazardous waste feed control and back- combustion), RCRA regulatory limits calculate the proposed MACT floors. end air pollution control efficiency as were higher than the level of First, we determined which MACT defined by our ranking procedure. The methodology approach is most performance achieved even by the very approach is applicable to HAP whose appropriate to apply to the given worst performing source in the category emissions can be controlled by pollutant for each source category. (for some HAPs, by orders of controlling the hazardous waste feed of Second, we selected which of the magnitude). Yet under the argument, the the HAP: metals and chlorine.46 floor for existing sources would have to available emissions data best represent each source’s performance. Third, we These two parameters—feedrate of be higher than even this worst metals and chlorine in hazardous waste, performing single source. evaluated whether it is appropriate to issue separate emissions standards for and performance of the emission control (iii) Legislative History shows that device measured by system removal Congress intended the existing source various subcategories. Fourth, we 47 identified the best performing sources efficiency determine emissions of floor to reflect actual best performance. metals and chlorine contributed by the The legislative history to the MACT based on the chosen methodology and data. Finally, we calculated floor levels hazardous waste feed. Back-end air floor provision for existing sources pollution control is evaluated by likewise makes clear that the standard for new and existing sources. The assessing each source’s pollutant system was to reflect actual performance, not following sections include a description removal efficiency, which is a measure regulatory limits. 2 Legislative History of each of these steps. Please note that of the percentage of HAP that is emitted pp. 2887, 2898; 3353; 1 Legislative we are also proposing to invoke CAA compared to the amount fed to the unit. History p. 870. The legislative history to section 112(d)(4) to establish risk-based In identifying system removal efficiency the parallel provision for municipal standards on a site-specific basis for as a measure of best performing, the waste combusters in section 129(a)(2) total chlorine for hazardous waste Agency is rejecting the notion that ‘‘best (which floor requirement reads combustors (except for hydrochloric performing’’ must mean a source with identically to section 112(d)(3)) is acid production furnaces). Under the the lowest absolute rate of emission of equally clear, stating that the floor for proposed approach, sources may elect to such sources is to reflect emission comply with either risk-based standards a HAP. A source emitting 300 pounds of limitations which either have been or section 112(d) MACT standards. See a HAP, but removing that HAP at a rate achieved in practice or are reflected in Part Two, Section XIII for more details. of 99.9% from its emissions, can permit limitations, whichever is more logically be considered a better A. What MACT Methodology stringent. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. performing source than one emitting Approaches Are Used To Identify the 3d at 662 (noting this legislative 100 pounds of the same HAP but Best Performers for the Proposed Floors, history.) (iv) The argument has already been and When Are They Applied? 46 The particulate matter standard is used as a A MACT methodology approach is a surrogate to control nonmercury metal HAP in the rejected in litigation. The D.C. Circuit, nonhazardous waste feedstreams and to control the in the three cases dealing with MACT set of procedures used to define and nonenumerated metals in the hazardous waste. As floors, has held in all three cases that identify the best performing sources explained Part Two, Section VI.A.2.b., control of the floor standard must reflect actual consistent with CAA section 112(d)(3). ash feed may not be an effective technique to performance. Sierra Club, 167 F. 3d at We have developed and used the control metal HAP. Thus, we do not use the SRE/ Feed approach to identify floor levels for particulate 162–63; National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 632; following three different MACT matter since ash feed control may not be a reliable Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, 255 F. methodologies to identify the best indicator of performance. 3d at 865–66. performing sources for the full suite of 47 Although system removal efficiency measures For these reasons, we reject the proposed floor standards for new and primarily the performance of the back-end emission control device, it also measures any other internal argument that existing source floors are existing sources: (1) System Removal control mechanisms, such as partitioning of metals compelled to reflect only regulatory Efficiency (SRE)/Feed approach; (2) Air to the product in a cement or lightweight aggregate limits. Such limits may be a permissible Pollution Control Technology kiln.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21224 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

removing it at an efficiency of only 50 for energy recovery units (cement kilns, performing sources. This source’s percent. lightweight aggregate kilns, and liquid emissions are averaged with the other Use of feedrate and system removal fuel-fired boilers) are evaluated by best performers to identify the floor efficiency as measures of performance is assessing each source’s hazardous waste level, and its run variability is appropriate because these parameters pollutant thermal feed concentration dampened when we calculate the floor incorporate the effects of the myriad when possible (i.e., when EPA has for existing sources by pooling run factors that can indirectly affect sufficient data to make the calculation). variability across the best performing emissions, such as level of maintenance We rank each source’s pollutant sources. When the single best of the combustor or emission control hazardous waste feed control level performer’s emissions are evaluated equipment, and operator training, as against all the other source’s feed individually, however, a relatively high well as design and operating parameters control level, assigning a relative rank of run variability is not dampened. In that directly affect performance of the 1 to the source with the lowest, i.e., best, those few situations where the best emission control device (e.g., air to cloth feed control level and assigning the performing SRE/Feed source has higher ratio and bag type for a fabric filter; use highest ranking score to the source with emissions, after accounting for of a power controller on an electrostatic the highest, i.e., worst, feed control emissions variability (i.e., the potential precipitator). For example, an level. We do the same with each floor for new sources), than the floor for incinerator with a well-designed and source’s system removal efficiency. We existing sources, we default to the floor operated fabric filter would have a rank each source’s pollutant system for existing sources to identify the floor higher performance rating measured by removal efficiency against all the other for new sources. We request comment system removal efficiency than an sources’ system removal efficiencies, on whether it would be more identical incinerator equipped with the assigning a relative rank of 1 to the appropriate to identify the floor for new same fabric filter which is, in addition, source with the highest, i.e., best, sources under the SRE/Feed approach poorly maintained because of system removal efficiency and assigning by selecting the source with the lowest inadequate operator training. Also, the highest ranking score to the source emissions among the best performing although feedrate of metals and chlorine with the lowest, i.e., worst, system existing sources, after considering run in nonhazardous waste feedstreams removal efficiency. We then add each variability, rather than the lowest SRE/ such as raw materials and fossil fuels source’s feed control ranking score and Feed aggregate score. fed to a cement kiln can affect HAP system removal efficiency ranking score The SRE/Feed methodology is emissions substantially, those emissions to yield an SRE/Feed aggregated score. generally applied only to HAP where we can be feasibly controlled only by back- Each source’s aggregated score is can accurately assess each source’s end control (measured here by system arrayed and ranked from lowest to relative hazardous waste feed control removal efficiency).48 This is because highest, i.e., best to worst, and, for and back-end air pollution control: neither fuel switching nor raw material existing sources, the best performers are mercury, semivolatile metals, low switching is practicable for production the sources at the 12th percentile volatile metals, and total chlorine. facilities such as cement and aggregate score and below. Floor levels Dioxin/furans are not considered to be lightweight aggregate kiln facilities. are then calculated by using the feed control HAP because they generally Thus, feedrate of metals and chlorine emissions from these best performing are not fed into the combustor; rather, contributed by the hazardous waste— sources. The SRE/Feed-based standards they are formed in the combustor and the only controllable feed parameter for are expressed in units of hazardous post combustion. Also, whereas these sources—is an appropriate metric. waste thermal emissions when possible particulate matter (for all source For incinerators and solid fuel-fired for energy recovery units. categories) and total chlorine (for boilers, feed control is evaluated by Please note that the SRE/Feed hydrochloric acid production furnaces) assessing each source’s hazardous waste approach can occasionally identify a could be considered to be feed- pollutant maximum theoretical floor level for new sources that is higher controlled and back-end controlled emission concentration.49 Feed control than the floor level for existing sources, pollutants, we do not believe it is as discussed below in Sections VII to appropriate to assess feed control as a 48 See discussion in the proposed lime production XII. This is because the source with the control mechanism for these situations MACT explaining why neither raw material or best SRE/Feed aggregate score, and thus, for reasons discussed below in Section fossil fuel substitution are available means of the single best performing source under 2 (largely dealing with the inability to controlling the feedrate of HAP. See 67 FR at 78059–61 (Dec. 20, 2002). The rationale for lime this approach, does not always achieve control HAP in raw material feed or in kilns also applies to cement and lightweight the lowest emissions among the best fossil fuel). As a result, we did not apply aggregate kilns. Briefly, in the context of floor performing sources after accounting for the SRE/Feed approach to these control: (1) A kiln’s principle raw materials emissions variability. In two cases only, pollutants. (limestone for cement kilns and clay for lightweight aggregate kilns) are not available to other kilns; and the emissions for the best performing Finally, the SRE/Feed approach is (2) we are not aware of raw materials, or sources SRE/Feed source, after accounting for also not applied when we do not have of coal or oil, that have characteristic and consistent emissions variability, are higher than sufficient compliance test data to (low) concentrations of HAP. In the context of the average of the best performing five accurately assess each source’s relative beyond-the-floor control, additional issues include: (or 12%) of sources—the floor for back-end control efficiency. This occurs (1) The cost of transporting raw materials with lower levels of HAP (if it were feasible to identify existing sources—after considering in a limited number of circumstances them) would be prohibitive; and (2) although emissions variability.50 For example, when the majority of the emissions data switching from coal or oil to natural gas would the single best performing SRE/Feed reflect normal operations. The mercury reduce the feedrate of HAP, the limitations of the source may have both higher emissions and semivolatile metal standard for natural gas distribution infrastructure are such that natural gas is not readily available to many sources. and run variability than other best liquid boilers are examples of when we 49 In the 1999 rule, we developed the term do not believe we possess sufficient data maximum theoretical emissions concentration to dscm. See Part Two, section IV.B.1 for more to accurately assess each source’s back compare metals and chlorine feed control levels discussion on how we normalize feedrates and end control efficiency because we are across sources of different sizes. See 64 FR at 52854. emissions across sources. concerned that the normal feed data are Maximum theoretical emissions concentration is 50 This occurred for the low volatile metal defined as the metals or chlorine feedrate divided standard for cement kilns and the mercury standard too sensitive to sampling and by the gas flowrate, and is expressed in terms of µg/ for solid-fuel fired boilers. measurement error to provide a reliable

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21225

system removal efficiency that would be be high efficiency particulate air filters. HAP given that the ash feed into the used reliably in the ranking procedure. If 10 percent of all the sources were combustor may contain high or low Our preference is to use system removal equipped with high efficiency concentrations of regulated metal HAP. efficiencies that are based on particulate air filters, and 4 percent A source that feeds low levels of ash compliance testing because sources were equipped with baghouses, then thus may not be a best performing typically spike the pollutant feeds MACT control would be defined as both source for metal HAP emissions if its during these compliance tests to known high efficiency particulate air filters and metal concentration levels in its ash are elevated levels, resulting in calculated baghouses. relatively high. Such a source could be system removal efficiencies that are After the MACT control technology or identified as a best performing source more reliable. technologies are determined, the MACT because its particulate matter emissions floor levels are calculated using and ash feed is low, even though its 2. What Are the Air Pollution Control emissions data from those sources using metal HAP emissions are relatively Technology Approaches, and When Are MACT control. See Part Two, Section high. This result would also They Applied? IV.D.3 for more discussion on the inappropriately assess and control The air pollution control technology ranking procedure that is used to elements of the hazardous waste ash approach is applied in two situations identify the best performing sources feed that are not regulated HAP (e.g., where we consider it inappropriate to under this approach. Also see USEPA silica input). For these reasons, using directly assess hazardous waste feed ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document for the air pollution control technology control—the particulate matter standard HWC MACT Replacement Standards, approach to establish particulate matter for all sources categories and the total Volume III: Selection of MACT floors without explicitly considering ash chlorine standard for hydrochloric acid Standards,’’ March 2004, Chapter 9, for feedrate is appropriate since it focuses production furnaces. We apply slightly more information. This methodology on the control technology (i.e., back-end different methodologies to each of these consequently focuses on performance of air pollution control technology) that is situations, as discussed below. the best pollution control device, but known to control metal HAP a. What Methodology Was Used To does not assess further control that emissions.52 Identify the Best Performing Sources for might result from lower HAP b. What Methodology Is Used To the Particulate Matter Floors? The best feedrates.51 Identify the Best Performing Sources for performing sources for the proposed We believe it is appropriate to the Total Chlorine Floor for particulate matter floor levels are identify the best performing sources Hydrochloric Acid Production determined using a methodology that is using particulate matter emissions from Furnaces? We apply the air pollution conceptually similar to that used in the those using MACT back-end control control technology approach to total Industrial Boiler MACT proposal. See without considering hazardous waste chlorine for hydrochloric acid 68 FR at 1660. We call this methodology ash feedrate control. For cement kilns, production furnaces differently. For this the ‘‘air pollution control technology’’ lightweight aggregate kilns, and solid floor calculation, we are proposing to approach because it defines best fuel-fired boilers, particulate emissions use the same methodology that the performers as those that use the best are largely contributed by non- Agency used for the hydrochloric acid type of back-end air pollution control hazardous waste feedstreams (i.e., production MACT final rule for sources technology. entrained raw material for kilns, and that do not burn hazardous waste. See This methodology first assesses all the entrained coal ash for solid fuel-fired 68 FR at 19076. This methodology back-end control technologies used by boilers). Thus, hazardous waste feed defines best performers as those sources all the sources within the source control is an inappropriate factor to with the best total chlorine system category, and ranks the general consider when assessing particulate removal efficiency. Each source’s total effectiveness of these control matter control efficiency. Assessment of, chlorine system removal efficiency is technologies from best to worst using and control of, total ash feedrate (i.e., arrayed and ranked from highest to engineering information and principles. hazardous waste plus raw materials and lowest, and the best existing performers For example, for particulate matter nonhazardous waste fuel ash feed) are the sources at the 12th percentile control, high efficiency particulate air would also be inappropriate because, as ranking and below. We calculate the filters may be ranked as the best air discussed below, total ash feedrate may system removal efficiency floor level pollution control device, followed by not be a reliable indicator of a source’s using the total chlorine system removal baghouses, electrostatic precipitators, emission control level for metal HAP, efficiencies achieved by these best and high energy wet scrubbers. In this and could inappropriately result in a performing sources. Consistent with the example, all sources equipped with a methodology that assesses (and non hazardous waste hydrochloric acid high efficiency particulate air (i.e., controls) raw material and/or production MACT final rule, we also HEPA) filter would get the best ranking nonhazardous waste fuel input. propose to allow sources to comply with (e.g., ‘‘1’’), and all sources equipped Although particulate matter emissions a total chlorine stack gas concentration with high energy wet scrubbers would for incinerators and liquid fuel-fired limit that is calculated by multiplying get the worst ranking (e.g., 4). boilers are more directly related to these the highest hazardous waste chlorine The sources are arrayed and ranked devices’ hazardous waste ash feedrate, maximum theoretical emission from best to worst based on their control the hazardous waste ash feedrate for concentration in the data base by 1 technology rankings. For existing these sources may not be a reliable minus the MACT system removal sources, MACT control is defined as the indicator of a source’s feedrate (and efficiency. This ensures that a source control technology or technologies used emissions) of nonenumerated metal by the best 12 percent of these sources. 52 Please note that, although we do not explicitly For example, using the previous 51 This methodology does not, however, expand consider ash feedrate when establishing the particulate matter control rankings, if the MACT pool to include sources with emission particulate matter floor, ash feedrate is an more than 12 percent of the sources levels greater than those of the best 12 per cent of appropriate and necessary compliance assurance performers using MACT control (the approach the parameter for incinerators and liquid fuel-fired within the source category were using Court in CKRC held was inadequately justified as boilers where ash from hazardous waste high efficiency particulate air filters, representing the 12 percent of best performing feedstreams contribute substantially (or entirely) to then MACT control would be defined to sources). particulate emissions.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21226 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

complying with the alternative would not properly assess dioxin/furan are used simultaneously by all sources concentration-based standard would not emission control performance. In in this category at varying levels. emit higher levels of total chlorine than theory, the technology-based approach We do not believe the lowest emission a source equipped with wet scrubbers for particulate matter could be applied levels in our data base in fact represent that achieve MACT system removal to the dioxin/furan floors. However, the full range of emissions achieved in efficiency. We believe this alternative such a technology approach would, for practice by the best performing sources. standard is appropriate because it gives the most part, identify the same best Indeed, it would be unlikely if this were sources the option of complying with performers as the emissions-based the case, since these data are necessarily the floor by implementing hazardous approach because there is only one ‘‘snapshots’’ of emissions from the 53 waste feed control. primary control technology being used source, obtained in one-time testing We believe this methodology is by all the sources—temperature control events.54 Notwithstanding that such appropriate even though it does not at the inlet to the dry air pollution testing seeks to encompass much of the directly assess hazardous waste total control device. variability in system performance, no chlorine feed control because these The SRE/Feed approach cannot be single test can be expected to do so. used for the mercury and semivolatile sources are in the business of feeding Thus, inherent variability such as highly chlorinated hazardous wastes so metal floors for the liquid fuel-fired feedrate fluctuation over time due to that they can recover the chlorine for boilers because we do not have production process changes, use in their production process. sufficient compliance test data to uncertainties associated with Requiring these sources to minimize accurately assess each source’s back-end correlations between operating hazardous waste chlorine feed would be control efficiency. The technology-based parameter levels and emissions, directly regulating their raw material approach is also not appropriate precision and accuracy differences in and would directly affect their ability to because sources within this source different testing crews and analytical produce their product. Again, in this category control these HAP both by feed laboratories, and changes in emission of situation, we believe it is appropriate to control and by back-end control. As a materials (SO being an example) that use a methodology approach that solely result, a methodology that considers 2 focuses on back-end control, since back- only one of the two primary control may cause test method interferences. end control assures removal of the target techniques may not be appropriate. See generally 64 FR at 52857and 52587– pollutant without inappropriately 59. 4. Why Doesn’t EPA Simply Apply the requiring a source to control An emissions-based approach for Emissions-Based Approach to All feedstreams in a manner that affects its cement kilns, lightweight aggregate Source Categories and HAP? ability to produce its intended product. kilns, and solid fuel-fired boilers that Under the most simplistic assesses performance based on stack gas 3. What Is the Emissions-Based interpretation of CAA 112(d), we would concentrations (as opposed to hazardous Approach, and When Is It Applied? apply the emissions-based approach to waste thermal emissions) may not The emissions-based approach all source categories and HAP in appropriately estimate the performance defines best performers as those sources calculating floors for existing sources. of the average of the 12 percent best with the lowest emissions in our We considered proposing this option. performing sources given that those best database. We array and rank each As described later in Part Two, Section performers may have low emissions in source’s pollutant emission levels from VI.G, it was one of three options for part because their raw material and/or lowest to highest. The best existing which we conducted a complete fossil fuels contained low levels of HAP performers are the sources at the 12th economics analysis. We discuss below, during the emissions test. We do not percentile ranking and below. We however, why we believe the air believe feed control of HAP in raw calculate floor levels using the emission pollution control technology and SRE/ material and fossil fuel should be levels from these best performing Feed approaches more reasonably assessed as a MACT floor control sources. We express the emissions- ascertains the performance of the primarily because it could result in floor based standards in units of hazardous average of the best 12 percent of existing levels that are not replicable by the best waste thermal emissions when possible sources. performing sources, nor duplicable by for energy recovery units, and use the a. Why Do We Prefer the SRE/Feed other sources. See Part Two, Section approach whenever the SRE/Feed or air Approach Over the Emissions-Based VI.A.1. Approach? We believe the SRE/Feed pollution control technology approaches Moreover, although the emissions- approach is a reasonable and are not used. Specifically, we use the based approach is not facially appropriate MACT methodology for the emissions-based approach for the inconsistent with section 112 of the Act, dioxin/furan floors for all source hazardous waste combustion source there are serious questions as to whether categories, and for the mercury and categories because it better estimates the its applicability here leads to limits that semivolatile metal floors for liquid fuel- performance of the average of the 12 could be achieved even by the average fired boilers. percent best performing sources, and (as of the best performing sources (under The SRE/Feed and air pollution a necessary corollary) assures that the the emissions-based approach). The technology-based approaches cannot be floor standards would be achievable by alternative emissions-based floor used for the dioxin/furan floors because such sources. As previously discussed, Options 1 and 2 discussed in Part Two, dioxin/furans are generated in the we apply the SRE/Feed approach to Section VI.G result in floor levels across combustor or post-combustion within HAP that are actively controlled (via all HAP that are achievable the air pollution control device. Since floor controls) by both hazardous waste simultaneously by fewer than 6% of the dioxin/furans are generally not fed to feed control and back-end air pollution sources for the cement kiln, incinerator, the units, the SRE/Feed methodology control. There are only two ways to and liquid fuel-fired boiler source control emissions of these HAP from 53 A source could operate with a ‘‘less than these sources—limit the feedrate of MACT’’ system removal efficiency provided that it 54 One-time testing events, however, are a controls its hazardous waste chlorine feed levels metal and chlorine and remove them necessity because Continuous Emission Monitors such that its emissions are lower than the emission prior to venting the exhaust gas out the still do not exist for most of the HAPs emitted by standard. stack. These two control mechanisms these sources.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21227

categories.55 See USEPA ‘‘Draft For example, assume we have 100 and required service in treating Technical Support Document for HWC sources in a hypothetical source hazardous waste; and (2) it could be MACT Replacement Standards, Volume category, and source A is the 5th best argued that hazardous waste containing III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’ feed controlled source and the 30th best high levels of metals and chlorine March 2004, Chapters 10 and 19, for a back-end controlled source. Source B, should in fact be treated in the well- summary of the simultaneous on the other hand, is the 30th best feed designed and operated back-end achievability analysis. A reason the controlled source and the 5th best back- controlled units (see RCRA sections floors which would result from this end controlled source. The SRE/Feed 3004 (d) to (m), requiring advanced methodology are so low is that there ranking procedure would score these treatment of hazardous waste before the already have been at least one and, for two sources equally, even though their waste can be land disposed). many of the sources, two rounds of emissions may be different. Let’s also Similarly, sources that are already regulatory reduction of emissions from assume that these two sources are achieving superior feedrate control these sources (under the RCRA rules, among the best performers for the SRE/ should not necessarily have to upgrade and then under the Interim Standards Feed approach. We would not expect their feedrate control further simply MACT rules for incinerators and kilns). their emission levels to be dramatically because they are not achieving a floor The emissions-based approach thus different under the SRE/Feed approach level driven, in part, by sources with yields results more akin to new source because source A is a superior front-end superior back-end control. Improving standards, confirmation being that the controlled source with a relatively already superior feedrate control may be levels are not even achievable as a poorer back-end control device, and problematic simply because they may whole by the average of the 12 percent source B is a superior back-end not be capable of implementing best performing sources. The controlled source with relatively poorer additional feed control (e.g., source simultaneous achievability of today’s feed control. Even though sources A and reduction) at their facility, or having proposed floors, for which we use the B do not have the same emissions, they generators implement further feedrate SRE/Feed approach for certain HAP are both considered to be well designed control. EPA believes that hazardous preferentially over the emissions-based and operated sources because they both waste feed control is an important approach, is substantially better (but not use a superior combination of front-end element of what constitutes ‘‘best dramatically more than 6%) for cement and back-end control. The difference in performing’’ sources from this source kilns and liquid fuel-fired boilers than emissions merely reflects the range of category, and does not wish to structure the achievability under the emissions- emissions from well designed and the rule to discourage the practice by based approach. operated sources. developing standards which do not There are other reasons why the If the emissions-based approach was directly take this means of control into emissions-based approach results in applied in the source A and B example, account. See CAA section 112(d)(2)(A) such low simultaneous achievability the source with the higher emissions (feed control is an explicit means of percentages. If the emissions-based would have a worse emission ranking, achieving MACT); and see also the approach is applied to feed-controlled and thus may not be identified as a best pollution prevention and waste HAP, the best performers are defined as performer. Thus, even though we would minimization goals of both the CAA those sources that are either: (1) The consider this higher emitting source (sections 112(d) (2) and 101(c) and lowest feeders; (2) the best back-end under the SRE/Feed approach to be a RCRA (section 1003(b)). The SRE/Feed controlled units; or (3) the best well-designed and operated source, it approach thus better preserves the opportunity for sources to achieve the combination of front-end control or would not be capable of achieving the floor levels if they are using either back-end control. The emissions-based calculated floor level. We believe this superior front-end control or back-end approach selects the lowest emitters outcome may be problematic, for control (or superior combination of from the previous three categories and example, because sources that are both). At the same time, it addresses does not necessarily account for the full already operating with a well-designed both means by which sources in this range of emissions that are achieved in and operated back-end control unit category can control their HAP practice by well designed and operated should not have to upgrade its back-end emissions: hazardous waste feed control feed control units, well designed and control technology simply because it is and back-end air pollution capture operated back-end controlled units, or not achieving a floor level driven, in through control technology. well designed and operated part, by other sources within the source category that are implementing lower The example in the previous combination of both front-end and back- paragraph of the source using superior end controlled units. As explained feed control rates that are impractical for it to achieve.57 It may be feed control is clearly applicable to below, the SRE/Feed methodology incinerators and boilers that combust better accounts for the range of questionable to require these well controlled back-end units to implement hazardous waste. These are somewhat emissions from these well designed and unique source categories in that they are operated sources.56 better feed control to achieve this emission-based floor level because: (1) comprised of many different industrial sectors that may not be capable of 55 they may not be capable of Simultaneous achievability percentages for achieving/duplicating the same metal lightweight aggregate kilns, solid fuel-fired boilers, implementing feed control without and chlorine feedrate control levels of and hydrochloric acid production furnaces must be sending/diverting the waste elsewhere— interpreted differently given that there are other sources within their respective yet these units are providing a needed significantly fewer than 30 sources within these source category given that hazardous source categories. As a result, we believe that the waste feed control levels are directly emission standards should be simultaneously between the SRE/Feed aggregated ranking score and achievable by at least two or three sources for these emissions in that the emission levels generally influenced by amount of HAP that are source categories given that CAA 112(d) defines increase as the as the aggregate ranking score generated in their specific production best performing sources as the average of the best increases. process. Similarly, other sources that five sources. 57 Moreover, the superior low metal and chlorine comprise commercial hazardous waste 56 Note, however, that many of the best feedrates that on-site incinerators and boilers are performing sources for the SRE/Feed approach are ‘‘achieving’’ may simply reflect the composition of combustors (i.e., kilns and commercial the same as those for emissions-based approach, the waste generated by the manufacturing incinerators) are subject to the feed primarily because there is a good correlation operation. control levels that are governed

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21228 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

primarily by third parties (i.e., the achieving floor standards developed variability such as ash feedrate generators or fuel blenders). The using the emission-based approach.58, 59 fluctuation over time due to production emissions-based approach identifies the We thus believe that using the SRE/ process changes,60 uncertainties best performers as those sources with Feed approach preferentially over the associated with correlations between the lowest emissions and does not emissions-based approach and operating parameter levels and consider differences in emission technology based approach is emissions, precision and accuracy characteristics across all the industrial appropriate because use of the SRE/ differences in different testing crews sectors that combust hazardous waste. Feed approach results in floor levels and analytical laboratories, and changes that better reflect the range of emissions We contemplated whether we should in emission of materials (SO 2 being an from well-designed and operated example) that may cause test method assess if subcategorization is sources and also results in floor levels interferences. The air pollution control appropriate based on the various across all HAP that are achievable technology approach may better account industrial sectors that combust simultaneously by at least 6 percent of for this inherent variability because it hazardous waste. We believe, however, the sources within each source category. assesses the emissions ranges from those that such an assessment would be b. Why Do We Prefer the Air Pollution sources that utilize the defined back-end difficult given the vast number of Control Technology Approach Over the MACT control devices, as opposed to industrial sectors that generate Emissions-Based Approach? As merely selecting the lowest emitters hazardous waste which is treated by previously discussed, we apply the air irrespective of the type of control it combustion. pollution control technology approach uses. The emissions-based approach could in two situations where we consider it Also, using the emissions-based be identifying a suite of floor levels inappropriate to directly assess approach for incinerators and liquid across HAP that would require sources hazardous waste feed control using an boilers (for the particulate matter SRE/Feed type approach: the particulate to operate at feedrate control levels in standard) and hydrochloric acid matter standard for all source categories; the aggregate that are in theory achieved production furnaces (for the total and, the total chlorine standard for chlorine standard) is not our preferred by few, if any, well-operated and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. approach because it assesses in part, designed feed controlled sources. For We discuss below why the emissions- hazardous waste ash and chlorine feed example, the best performing sources for based approach is not our preferred control. As discussed above, the the emissions-based approach for the methodology for these standards. emissions-based approach defines best incinerator semivolatile and low volatile For particulate matter, the emissions- performers as those sources with the metal floors are entirely different. This based approach identifies the lowest lowest emissions, and thus inherently may occur because sources have emitters as best performers, irrespective accounts for and assesses hazardous different relative feed control levels for of the types of controls that were used. waste ash and chlorine feed control in mercury, semivolatile metals, low This would not necessarily reflect that sources with lower ash feedrates volatile metals, and total chlorine (e.g., emissions that are in fact capable of and chlorine feedrates may have lower a source could have superior being achieved by sources using MACT emissions.61 This is not our preferred semivolatile metal feed control but only back-end control technology as defined way of establishing floors for these HAP moderate low volatile metal feed by the air pollution control technology for the reasons discussed above in control). approach because, as discussed above, Section A.2. our data are ‘‘snapshots’’ of emissions Finally, the emissions-based approach from each source, obtained in one-time B. How Did EPA Select the Data To may result in low simultaneous testing events. As a result, the Represent Each Source When achievability percentages because a particulate matter floors that are based Determining Floor Levels? back-end control technology for one on the emissions-based approach would After we determine which MACT pollutant may not control the emissions not necessarily account for inherent methodology is appropriate for a given of another pollutant as efficiently. For pollutant and source category, we select example, wet air pollution control 58 Although the SRE/Feed approach does not which of the available emissions data to systems may control total chlorine directly address this issue within the methodology, use for each source to: (1) Determine if emissions very well, but are not as the simultaneous achievability of the SRE/Feed- based floors is substantially better (but not subcategorization is warranted; (2) efficient at limiting particulate matter dramatically more than 6%) for cement kilns and emissions when compared to a liquid fuel-fired boilers than the achievability under 60 The emissions-based approach may not baghouse. Thus, best performers under the emissions-based approach. account for particulate matter emissions variability the emissions-based floor approach for 59 Note that we considered using a floor factors that are attributable to factors other than methodology that simultaneously assesses all the MACT control. For example, two sources with total chlorine could be driven by pollutant emissions from each source. This identical air pollution control devices could have sources with wet air pollution control methodology would define best performers as those different particulate matter emission concentrations systems, and the particulate matter floor sources with the best aggregate emissions across all merely because they process different types and (or a subset of all) the HAP and would perhaps amounts of raw material and/or nonhazardous could be driven by sources equipped more directly achieve the goal of obtaining a full waste fuels. From a MACT perspective, the source with baghouses, resulting in a combined suite of emission standards that are achievable by with the higher emissions would not be a poorer set of floors that are conceivably at least 6% of the sources. We rejected this performer because feed control of raw material and approach in the 1999 rule, since it could potentially nonhazardous waste fuels are not MACT floor achieved by few sources, a result result in least-common denominator source levels. controls. confirmed, as noted above, in that less See 64 FR at 52856. However, at least for 61 The best performers identified by the air than 6% of existing sources would be incinerators and kilns, there is less potential pollution technology approach are less likely to be concern with such a result because the Interim driven by low ash feeding facilities for the Standards have already reduced sources’ emissions particulate matter standard because all the sources of all HAP considerably and the Interim Standards equipped with MACT-defined back-end control cap the level of floors for these sources. Nonetheless devices typically feed high levels of ash, thus we we may not have enough complete emissions believe particulate matter emission levels from information for all HAP for many source categories these sources are more a function of the air to adequately assess enough source’s true ‘‘aggregate pollution control device control efficiency rather emissions.’’ See Section VI.G. than the ash feed levels.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21229

identify the best performing sources; numerical emission limitation affects was previously operating with poorer and (3) calculate the floor levels. Our the stringency of the standard. It is also control levels, which is not an emissions data base is complex because unclear how mixing dissimilar data appropriate factor to consider when it includes, in part, compliance test would affect the statistical variability assessing day-to-day emission data, emissions data that is factor we apply to each floor to assure variability; and (2) the most recent representative of the normal operating that floor levels are achievable by the compliance test data adequately range of the source, and, for the Phase average of the best performing sources. accounts for day-to-day variability I sources, multiple emission test data As discussed in Part Two, Section VI.E, because the operating levels that have been collected over a number we apply the statistical variability factor demonstrated during the most recent of years. See Part Two, Section III for to the floor levels to assure that the compliance test generally represent the more discussion on data base issues. average of the best performing sources maximum upper range of operations We follow a general ‘‘data hierarchy’’ would be able to replicate the emission and emissions.62 to determine which of these data types test results that were used to calculate We do not apply the concept of using to use to represent each source’s the floor levels. Mixing dissimilar data the most recent emissions test performance (with the performance not only complicates the analyses, but information to normal emissions data being reassessed for each HAP). First, also could result in inconsistent (as previously discussed, we use normal we prefer to explicitly use compliance evaluation of data (hence inconsistent emission data to calculate floor levels test data rather than data representative results), primarily because the ratio of only in situations where we do not have of normal operations because normal data to compliance data differs sufficient compliance test data). We compliance test data best reflect the across HAP within each source and instead use all normal emissions data upper range of emissions from each across all sources. We therefore believe that are available because we are source and thus best accounts for day- it is appropriate to assess ‘‘like data’’ concerned that a source’s most recent to-day emissions variability. Use of explicitly to assure results are consistent normal emissions may not be compliance test data allows us to across HAP and source categories. representative of its average emissions. express emission floors as ‘‘short-term We prefer to use the most recent The most recent normal emissions data limits’’ (e.g., hourly or twelve hour compliance test data to represent each could reflect emissions at the upper rolling averages), which is consistent source in situations where we have data range of normal operations or the lower with the current interim MACT from multiple test campaigns that were end of normal operations. If we were to standard format for incinerators, cement collected at different times. For use only the most recent normal kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns. example, we typically have multiple test emissions information, we may identify Short-term limits are also consistent campaign emission information for as best performers those sources that with the RCRA emission standards cement kilns and lightweight aggregate were operating below their average currently applicable to boilers and kilns because: (1) We conducted a levels. This would be inappropriate hydrochloric acid production furnaces. comprehensive data collection effort for because the floor level may be Finally, we prefer to use compliance test these sources to update the data base unachievable by the best performing data because the majority of the that was used to support the 1999 final sources. available data are compliance test data. rule; and (2) these sources, prior to Finally, for liquid fuel-fired and solid Absent sufficient compliance test data receiving their RCRA permit, are fuel-fired boilers, we eliminated for sources within the source category to required to conduct emissions tests emission test runs from the MACT calculate floor levels, we default to every three years. analysis when we had information that explicitly using data that are We believe it is appropriate to only the source conducted sootblowing representative of the source’s operating use the most recent compliance test data during that emission test run. Boilers range under conditions not designed to for a source because those data best that burn fuels with high ash content are assess performance variability. Since reflect current operations and emission designed to blow the soot off the tubes these so-called normal data do not levels. Older compliance test data may periodically to maintain proper heat typically reflect the upper range of not be representative of current transfer. The soot can contain metal emissions from each source, we believe emissions because: (1) Permitted feed HAP, and emissions of these HAP can it is necessary to account for emissions and air pollution control device increase during sootblowing. Although variability (in part) by expressing floors operating levels may have been the current RCRA particulate matter and that are based on normal data as long- changed/upgraded; (2) combustion unit metals emissions standards for these term, annual average emission limits and associated air pollution control sources at §§ 266.105 and 266.106 do (since the snap-shot data, by definition, equipment design may have been not require sootblowing during do not reflect short-term variability). changed/upgraded; and (3) standard compliance testing, we have provided We considered using all available operating practices that relate to guidance recommending that sources emissions data to calculate the floors, maintenance and upkeep may have been blow soot during one of the three runs irrespective of whether they were changed/upgraded. As a result, we of a compliance test condition and normal or compliance test data. We believe that a source’s most recent calculate average emissions considering believe, however, that it is inappropriate compliance data best reflect a source’s the frequency and duration of to mix such dissimilar data when upper range of emissions. We sootblowing.63 We conclude that these calculating floor levels because it would considered using all of the sources sootblowing run data should not be bring into question how to account for historical compliance emissions data to day-to-day emissions variability when perhaps better account for day-to-day 62 Operating parameter limits are established setting the format of the standard. For emissions variability. We believe, based on compliance test operations to ensure example, if a floor were calculated using however, that it is not appropriate to emissions achieved during normal operations do 50% percent normal data and 50% consider older compliance emission test not exceed the emissions that were demonstrated in compliance data, should the standard be data to account for day-to-day emission the compliance test. 63 USEPA, ‘‘Technical Implementation Document expressed as a long-term limit or short- variability because: (1) The older for EPA’s Boiler and Industrial Furnace term limit? This is critical because the compliance data may reflect varying Regulations’’ EPA530–R–92–011, March 1992, NTIS averaging period associated with the emissions merely because the source # PB92–154 947.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21230 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

considered when establishing MACT C. How Did We Evaluate Whether It Is methodologies and the statistical floor, however, for several reasons. We Appropriate To Issue Separate methodology used to perform the do not know if all sources that blow soot Emissions Standards for Various ranking process. Subcategories? followed the guidance to blow soot 1. Emissions-Based Methodology during a run of the test condition. If The third step we use to calculate Ranking Procedure they did not, they could be identified as MACT floor levels evaluates a best performer but may not be able to As previously discussed in Part Two, subcategorization options. CAA section Section VI.A, the emissions-based achieve the floor level when blowing 112(d)(1) allows us to distinguish soot. In addition, several boilers that approach defines best performers as among classes, types, and sizes of those sources with the lowest emissions blew soot during a run of the test sources within a category when condition did not use our recommended in our database. Each source’s emission establishing floor levels. test runs are first converted to an upper approach to calculate time-weighted Subcategorization typically reflects 99% confidence level in order to rank average emissions considering the ‘‘differences in manufacturing process, performance not only on the average frequency and duration of sootblowing. emission characteristics, or technical emission levels each source achieves, For these sources, we cannot calculate feasibility.’’ See 67 FR 78058. but also on the emissions variability time-weighted average emissions. We We use both engineering principles each source demonstrates during the also note that, for sources with emission and a statistical analysis to assess emissions tests. We believe this is control equipment, emissions during whether it is appropriate to appropriate because a source’s ability to sootblowing runs are not significantly subcategorize and issue separate consistently control its emissions below higher than when not blowing soot. This emission standards. We first use the MACT floor levels is important in is because soot particles are relatively engineering principles to determine determining whether a source is in fact large and easily controlled. For sources potential subcategory options. These a well designed and operated source.67 with no emission control equipment, subcategory options are discussed in We then array and rank each source by sootblowing increased particulate more detail in Part Two Section II for its 99% upper confidence emission matter emissions for some sources, but each source category. As discussed in levels from best to worst (i.e., lowest to not others. In addition, we could not use greater detail below, we then determine highest). For existing source floors, we the sootblowing run to help address if there is a statistical difference in the identify the best performers as either emissions variability by evaluating run emission characteristics between these sources at the 12th percentile ranking variability because the (in some cases) potential subcategory options. Finally, and below or the lowest 5 ranked higher emissions during sootblowing are we conduct a technical analysis to sources values if we have data from less unrelated to the factors affecting run determine if the statistical analysis than 30 sources. The best performing variability that we are evaluating (e.g., results are consistent with sound source for the new source floor is method precision and other largely engineering judgement. simply the source with the single lowest uncontrollable factors that affect run-to- ‘‘Analysis of Variance’’ (ANOVA) is ranked 99% upper confidence emission run emissions during a test condition). the statistical test used to cross-check level. Finally, we note that the Agency did not these engineering judgements. ANOVA, 2. SRE/Feed Ranking Procedure propose to require sootblowing to a conventional statistical method, demonstrate compliance with the evaluates whether there are differences As previously discussed, the SRE/ MACT standards for industrial, in the mean of HAP emissions levels Feed methodology approach defines commercial, and institutional boilers from two or more different potential best performers as those sources with and process heaters.64 Although for subcategories (i.e., do the different the best combined front-end hazardous these reasons we conclude that it is subcategories of HAP data come from waste feed control and back-end air appropriate not to consider sootblowing distinctly different populations). pollution control efficiency as defined run data to establish the MACT floor, Subcategories are considered by our ranking procedure. The first step we request comment on alternative significantly different using a 95% involves ranking each source’s feed views.65 confidence level. ANOVA is used in control level. As with the emissions- combination with engineering based approach, we first convert each Because we do not consider principles to sequentially identify source’s feed control run levels (i.e., sootblowing when establishing floor significant differences between various hazardous waste maximum theoretical levels, sootblowing would not be different combinations of potential emission concentration level or thermal required during performance testing to subcategories. See U.S. EPA ‘‘Draft feed concentrations) to an upper 99% demonstrate compliance with the Technical Support Document for HWC confidence level. We then array each standards for particulate matter and source’s 99% upper confidence feed 66 MACT Replacement Standards, Volume semivolatile and low volatile metals. III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’ control levels from best to worst (i.e., March 2004, Chapter 4, for detailed lowest to highest). Next we assign a feed 64 See 68 FR 1660 (January 13, 2003). steps and results of the ANOVA control ranking score to each source. 65 We note that a floor level considering evaluation process. The source with the lowest feed control sootblowing may be higher than a floor level based value gets a ranking of 1, and the source on discounting sootblowing runs. D. How Did We Rank Each Source’s 66 The comparative risk assessment for this with highest feed control value receives proposed rule did not evaluate the impact of Performance Levels To Identify the Best the highest numerical ranking. sootblowing on average emissions. To ensure that Performing Sources for the Three MACT The second step ranks each source’s RCRA permits are protective of human health and Methodologies? system removal efficiency, which is a the environment, regulatory officials may determine that the effect of sootblowing on average emissions The fourth step used in determining measure of the percent of metal or (i.e., considering the frequency and duration of the MACT floor levels involves ranking sootblowing) should be considered in some each source’s performance level to 67 For example, a source with average emissions situations, such as a source with uncontrolled or of 100 and calculated variability of 10 would be poorly controlled particulate emissions and with identify the best performers. Below we ranked as a better performing source when relatively high particulate matter or toxic metal discuss the general ranking procedure compared to a source with average emissions of 100 emissions. used for each of the three MACT and a calculated variability of 20.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21231

chlorine that is emitted as compared to the best ranked MACT control device; are first converted to an upper 99% the amount fed to the combustion unit. the second group includes emissions confidence level. We then array and Again, we first convert each source’s information from sources equipped with rank each source’s 99% upper system removal efficiency run values to the second best ranked MACT control confidence system removal efficiencies an upper 99% confidence level value. technology (if there is more than MACT from best to worst (i.e., highest to We then array each source’s 99% upper control technology), and so on. lowest). For existing source floors, we confidence levels from best to worst We then array and rank each source’s define best performers as either: (1) (i.e., highest to lowest). Next we assign 99% upper confidence emission levels Sources at the 12th percentile ranking a system removal efficiency ranking from best to worst (i.e., lowest to and below; or (2) sources with the score to each source. The source with highest) within each of these groups. If lowest 5 rankings if we have data from the best system removal efficiency gets there is only one defined MACT control less than 30 sources. The best a ranking of 1, and the source with the technology, the best performing sources performing source for the new source worst system removal efficiency are those sources with the lowest 99% floor is simply the source with the receives the highest numerical ranking. upper confidence emission levels single highest 99% upper confidence As with the emissions ranking amongst the sources using this MACT system removal efficiency. procedure discussed above, our feed control technology. The lowest emitting control and system removal efficiency sources are added to a list of best 5. Description of the Statistical ranking procedure measures performers up until the number of Procedures Used To Identify the 99% performance not only on the average sources that are included in this list is Confidence Levels feed control and system removal representative of 12 percent of sources As previously discussed, each efficiency level each source achieves, within the source category (for the source’s performance level is first but also on the feed and system removal existing source floor determination). If converted to an upper 99% confidence efficiency variability each source there is more than one defined MACT level in order to rank performance not demonstrates during the emissions tests. control technology, the list of best only on the average performance level This is appropriate because a source’s performers first considers sources with each source achieves, but also on the ability to consistently regulate its the lowest 99% upper confidence emissions variability each source control mechanisms to achieve MACT emission levels that are equipped with demonstrates during the emissions tests. emissions is important in determining the best ranked control device up until We believe this is appropriate because whether a source is in fact a well the number of sources that are included a source’s ability to consistently control designed and operated source. in this list is representative of 12 its emissions below the MACT floor Third, we add each source’s feed percent of sources within the sources levels is important in determining control ranking score and system category. If additional sources need to whether a source is in fact a well removal efficiency ranking score be added to this list to appropriately designed and operated source. together in order to calculate an represent 12% of the sources within the Sources are ranked based on their aggregated SRE/Feed score. We then source category, then sources with the projected ‘‘upper 99% confidence limit’’ array and rank each source’s aggregated lowest emissions that are equipped with (or lower 99% confidence limit for score from best to worst (i.e., lowest to the second best MACT control device system removal efficiency). For highest). For existing source floors, we are added until the appropriate number emissions and feedrates, upper 99% identify the best performers as sources of best performing sources are at the 12th percentile aggregate ranking obtained.68 For the new source floor, the confidence limits are determined using ‘‘ and below or sources with the lowest 5 best performer is simply the single a prediction limit’’ calculation aggregated scores if we have data from source equipped with the best ranked procedure. The prediction limit is an less than 30 sources. The best MACT control device with the lowest estimate of the level which will capture performing source for the new source 99% upper confidence emission level. 99 out of 100 future test condition floor is simply the source with the averages (where each average comprise single lowest aggregated score. 4. Technology Approach Ranking three individual test runs). HAP Procedure for the Total Chlorine Floor emissions data within each source are 3. Technology Approach Ranking for Hydrochloric Acid Production determined to be normally distributed. Procedure for the Particulate Matter Furnaces The prediction limit is calculated for Standard As previously discussed in Part Two, each source based on the average, As previously discussed in Part Two, Section VI.A.2.b, the technology standard deviation, and number of Section VI.A.2.a, the best performing approach used to determine the total individual test runs. sources for the particulate matter chlorine floor levels for hydrochloric For system removal efficiencies, the proposed floor levels are determined acid production furnaces defines best lower 99% confidence limit is from a pool of sources that use the performers as those sources with the determined using the ‘‘two parameter MACT-defining back-end control best total chlorine system removal Beta distribution’’. The beta distribution technology. We assess only the efficiency. The ranking procedure used is used for modeling proportions, i.e., emissions from those sources equipped for this methodology is identical to that system removal efficiencies, is highly with the MACT-defining control used in the emissions-based approach robust, and appropriately bounded by technology (or technologies), and, as with the exception that system removal zero and 1. Beta distribution modeling with the previously discussed efficiencies are ranked instead of parameters are determined based on the methodologies, we convert each emissions. Each source’s total chlorine ‘‘method of moments’’ using the average source’s emission run values to an system removal efficiency run values and standard deviation of the individual upper 99% confidence level value. source data. The lower 99% estimate Emissions information from each source 68 Note that this methodolgy does not base the comes directly from the Beta is then grouped based on the type of floor on the highest emitting source amongst these distribution model. See USEPA ‘‘Draft best performers (as did the ‘‘expanded MACT pool’’ MACT control each source uses. The did for 1999 rule). Rather, the floor is determined Technical Support Document for HWC first group contains emissions by calculating the average performance of all best MACT Replacement Standards, Volume information from sources equipped with performing sources. III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21232 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

March 2004, Chapter 8, for further sampling crews and analytical As discussed above, we also use a discussion. laboratories, and changes in emission of statistically derived variability factor to materials (SO being an example) that account for the variability in emissions E. How Did EPA Calculate Floor Levels 2 may cause test method interferences. that would result if the best performing That Are Achievable for the Average of sources were to replicate the emissions the Best Performing Sources? Use of compliance test data also does not account for run-to-run variability. tests we use to establish the floor, as The emissions data we used to We thus use a statistically-derived discussed below. establish MACT floor were obtained by variability factor to account for the We use the normal emissions data to manual sampling of stack gas. To ensure variability in emissions that would represent the average emissions from a that the average of the best performing result if the best performing sources source even though we do not know sources can routinely achieve the floor were to replicate their compliance tests, where the emissions may fall within the during future performance testing under as discussed below.69 range of normal emissions; the the MACT standards, we must account In addition, use of compliance test emissions may be at the high end, low for emissions variability. data may not account for long-term end, or close to the average emissions. We account for long-term emissions variability of particulate matter It may be reasonable to assume the variability by: (1) Using compliance test emissions from sources equipped with a emissions represent average emissions, emissions data, when available, to fabric filter. Accordingly, we also use a given that we have emissions data from establish floors; (2) when other than statistically-derived variability factor to several sources, and that emissions for compliance test data must be used to these sources in the aggregate could be establish the floor, basing compliance account for this variability, as discussed below. expected to fall anywhere within the on an annual average. In addition, we range of normal emissions. Note that, as add a statistically-derived variability 2. How Does Using Long-Term previously discussed, we have not factor to the floor to account for run-to- Averaging Account for Emissions applied the concept of using the most run variability. This variability factor Variability When Using Other Than recent emissions test information to ensures that the average of the best Compliance Test Data? normal emissions data because we are performing sources can achieve the floor RCRA compliance test emissions data concerned a source’s most recent level in 99 of 100 future tests if the best normal emissions may not be performing sources replicate the are not available for some metals (mercury in particular) for some source representative of a source’s true average operating conditions and other factors emissions. These emissions could categories. In these cases, we use other that affect the emissions we use to reflect emissions at the upper range of emissions test data to establish the floor. represent the performance of those normal operations, or instead, could These other test data are snap shots of sources. reflect emissions at the lower end of emissions within the range of normal normal operations. If we were to use 1. How Does Using Compliance Test emissions. To largely account for only the most recent normal emissions Data Account for Variability? emissions variability when using information, the MACT standard setting emissions data assumed to represent the We use RCRA compliance test process may identify best performers as average of normal emissions, we emissions data, when available, to those sources that operate below their propose to express the floor as a long- establish the floors because compliance normal levels. This may be test data largely account for emissions term, yearly, average. Sources would inappropriate because the floor level variability. Under RCRA compliance comply with the floor by establishing may be unachievable even by the best testing, sources must establish operating limits on metal feedrate and air performing sources. We invite comment limits based on operating conditions pollution control device operating as to whether floors that are based on demonstrated during the test. Each parameters. Compliance with the metal normal data are in fact achievable by the source designs the compliance test such feedrate limits would be based on an best performing sources, and whether that the operating limits it establishes annual average feedrate, while there is perhaps a more appropriate account for the variability of operating compliance with the air pollution method to identify floors that are based parameter levels it expects to encounter control device operating limits would be on normal data. during its normal operations (e.g., based on short-term limits (e.g., hourly feedrate of metals and chlorine; air rolling average). We propose short-term 3. What Statistical Procedures Did EPA pollution control device operating averages for air pollution control device Use To Calculate Floor Levels? parameters, production rate). Thus, operating parameters because the In order to calculate a floor that operating conditions during these tests parameters may not correlate with would be achievable by the average of generally reflect the upper range of emissions linearly; emissions resulting the best performing sources, we emissions from these sources. Using a when an air pollution control device considered the variability in emissions source’s compliance test emissions to parameter is above the limit thus may across runs of the test conditions of the establish the floor accounts largely for not be offset by emissions resulting best performing sources. We also use long-term emissions variability. when the air pollution control device statistical procedures to account for However, this does not necessarily parameter is below the limit. See 1999 long-term variability in particulate account for factors that affect variability. rule, 64 FR at 52920. matter emissions for sources equipped As previously discussed, our snap-shot with fabric filters. We discuss these data base emissions information does 69 EPA did not statistically assess run-to-run procedures and the rationale for using not necessarily account for inherent variability in the 1999 rule (although we noted that them below. it existed; see 64 FR at 52857. The reason is that variability such as feedrate fluctuation by using the expanded MACT pool approach to a. Run-to-Run Variability. The MACT over time due to production process account for variability (using surrogate sources from floor level is determined by modeling a changes, uncertainties associated with outside the best performing to assess the best normally distributed population that correlations between operating performing sources’ variability) we felt we had has an average and variability that are accounted for all such run-to-run variability. Id. ‘‘ parameter levels and emissions, Since we are not proposing to expand the MACT equal to that of the average’’ of the best precision and accuracy differences that pool here, it is necessary to account for run-to-run performing MACT pool sources. The may result from using different stack variability by some other means. MACT floor is calculated using a

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21233

modified prediction limit procedure. To address long-term variability in concentration for all such sources. It is The prediction limit is designed to particulate matter emissions for fabric reasonable to aggregate the data for capture 99 out of 100 future three-run filters we developed a universal sources across all source categories averages from the ‘‘average’’ of the best variability factor (UVF). The UVF given that there is no reason to believe performing MACT sources. represents the standard deviation of the that the standard deviation/emissions Specifically, the modified prediction pooled runs from multiple compliance relationship would vary from source limit for calculating the MACT floor is tests for a source, and is imputed as a category to source category. We then the sum of the average of the best function of the source’s emission identified the best-fit curve for the data. performing sources and the ‘‘pooled’’ concentration. We use the UVF to The best fit curve is a power function variability of the best performing account for both long-term and run-to- that achieved a R2 of 0.83, indicating a sources. The pooled variability term run variability to calculate the floor good power function correlation accounts for the expected variability in using the procedures discussed above in between standard deviation and future measurements due to variations lieu of the pooled variability term for emission concentration.72 resulting from system operation and the most-recent test condition run We use the best-fit curve to impute a measurement activities. The pooled variability. standard deviation for each best variability term is based in part on the To develop the data base to calculate performing source (that is equipped observed variance of individual runs the UVF, we considered each best with a fabric filter) as a function of the within test conditions from the best performing source that is equipped with source’s particulate matter emissions. performing MACT pool sources. The a fabric filter and for which we have two We use the source’s average compliance pooled variability term assumes that or more compliance tests for particulate test emissions (i.e., including historical variability from the individual best matter. We considered all compliance compliance test emissions that we label performing sources are independent test particulate matter emissions data for in the data base as ‘‘WC’’ and ‘‘IB’’) to (not related), and thus are additive (and these sources, including those test represent average emissions. not averaged). The pooled variability conditions we previously labeled as F. Why Did EPA Default to the Interim term is a function of the variances of the ‘‘IB’’ (representing in-between), Standards When Establishing Floors? individual MACT pool sources, the indicating that emissions levels are When we calculate floor levels for number of MACT pool sources, the lower than for another test condition of several standards for the Phase I desired 99% confidence level, and the the compliance test campaign. We sources, the floor levels would be higher number of future test runs for include historical test campaign data than the currently applicable interim demonstrating compliance (assumed to where available for incinerators, cement standards at §§ 63.1203, 63.1204, and be 3). See USEPA ‘‘Draft Technical kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns. 63.1205. As explained earlier, we Considering historical compliance test Support Document for HWC MACT conclude that today’s proposed floor data and compliance test data labeled IB Replacement Standards, Volume III: levels can be no higher than the interim is appropriate because any differences Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March standards because all sources, not just in emission levels (over time or among 2004, Chapter 7, for discussion of the the best performing sources, are compliance test results for a test detailed steps and prediction limit achieving the interim standards. The campaign) should be indicative of formula used to calculate the MACT most recent emissions data in our data emissions variability given that fabric floors. base are from compliance testing in filters generally produce constant b. Particulate Matter Variability for 2001 and do not represent emissions Fabric Filters. Compliance test emission concentrations and are tests from sources used to demonstrate emissions of particulate matter from difficult to detune to increase emissions compliance with the interim standards, sources that are equipped with a fabric for compliance testing. Finally, we thus the data we used to calculate the filter may not account for long-term combined test conditions for multiple proposed floor levels generally does not variability because it is difficult to on-site sources where both the reflect the control upgrades necessary maximize emissions during the combustor and fabric filter have similar for compliance with the interim 70 compliance test. Fabric filters control design and operating characteristics. standards. The fact that we are particulate matter emissions generally to Combining the test conditions for such ‘‘capping’’ the floor at the interim the same concentration irrespective of sources as if they represent emissions standard level does not mean our the particulate matter loading at the from a single source better accounts for proposed methodology is less inlet to the fabric filter. Because there emissions variability. conservative than the methodology used are no operating parameters that can be To calculate the UVF, we calculated in the 1999 rule. Our calculated floor readily changed to increase emissions, it the pooled standard deviation of the levels can be higher than the interim is difficult to maximize emissions of runs for each source for which we have standards for several reasons. As a result particulate matter from a fabric filter data for two or more compliance tests of our data collection effort, we have during compliance testing.71 and plotted this standard deviation compiled more emissions information versus particulate matter emission from some source categories that result 70 We note that semivolatile and low volatile in higher calculated floor levels (e.g., metal emissions, however, can be maximized devices—electrostatic precipitators, ionizing wet during compliance testing for sources equipped scrubbers, and wet scrubbers—can readily change dioxin/furans for lightweight aggregate with a fabric filter. Metals may be spiked in the the device’s operating conditions (e.g., power input hazardous waste feed to levels that account for to an electrostatic precipitator; pressure drop across 72 The procedure we use to identify the universal long-term feedrate variability. Although the a wet scrubber) during compliance testing to variability factor for particulate matter emissions for particulate matter emission concentration would ‘‘detune’’ collection efficiency and increase sources equipped with fabric filters is discussed in not be expected to increase during a metals emissions. In addition, these other control devices detail in USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support compliance test for a source equipped with a fabric provide ‘‘percent reduction’’ control of pollutants Document for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, filter, the semivolatile and low volatile metals whereby as inlet loading increases, emission Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March emissions concentrations would increase. This is concentrations also increase. Thus, increasing the 2004, Chapter 5.3. Please note that we consider because the concentration of metals in the emitted inlet loading (e.g., by spiking the ash feedrate to an alternative approaches to identify the universal particulate matter would increase. incinerator) even without detuning the control variability factor as discussed in the technical 71 We note that this situation is unique for fabric device would also increase emissions of particulate support document, and request comment on those filters. Sources equipped with other control matter for devices other than a fabric filter. alternatives.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21234 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

kilns). Some of the instances where we emissions of metals and particulate source categories) and the total chlorine ‘‘capped’’ the floor at the interim matter simultaneously, instead of standard for hydrochloric acid standard level occurred when the pollutant by pollutant. The fourth production furnaces, as was done for interim standard was a beyond-the-floor option is an approach recommended by today’s proposed standards. standard promulgated in 1999 (e.g., the Environmental Treatment Council. We evaluated this option because it is semivolatile metals for lightweight Finally, the fifth option identifies best simpler and more straightforward to use aggregate kilns). Finally, some standards performing sources as those sources than the SRE/Feed Approach. The best ‘‘ are capped’’ because we used different with the best back-end control performing sources simply are those types of data to calculate the proposed efficiencies, as measured by their with the lowest emissions in our data floors (e.g., the 1999 rule generally associated system removal efficiencies. base, irrespective of the level of feed considered normal mercury data to After review of comments we may use control or back-end control a source establish the mercury floor for one or more of these approaches in toto achieves. The advantages of using the incinerators, whereas today’s proposed or part to establish final standards. We approach used compliance test data to explain below how these approaches air pollution control technology calculate the mercury floor). work and the rationale for considering approach and expressing emission them. standards using the hazardous waste G. What Other Options Did EPA thermal emissions format for energy Consider? 1. What Is Alternative Option 1, and recovery units are retained. Although We considered five other alternative What Is the Rationale? we have doubts that standards based on approaches to establish the full suite of Under alternative option 1, we do not these limits are achievable even by the floor levels for each source category. use the SRE/Feed methodology to best performing sources (as noted The first two alternative options use calculate any floors. We use the earlier) and that this approach could be different combinations of the three main emissions-based approach to establish based on unrepresentatively low methodology options to determine the all the floors, other than the exceptions hazardous waste feedrates, we invite proposed floors. Note that we also that are explained below. We express comment as to whether this approach is conducted a complete economics and emission standards for energy recovery appropriate. We present the results of benefits analysis for these first two units in units of hazardous waste using alternative option 1 to identify alternative options. See USEPA ‘‘Draft thermal emissions when appropriate. floor levels for existing sources in Table Technical Support Document for HWC All other emission standards under this 3 below. See U.S. EPA ‘‘Draft Technical MACT Replacement Standards, Volume approach are expressed as stack gas Support Document for HWC MACT V: Emission Estimates and Engineering emission concentrations. The two Replacement Standards, Volume III: Costs,’’ March, 2004 for more exceptions under this option uses the Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March information. The third option identifies technology-based approach for the 2004, Chapters 16, 17, and 18 for best performing sources by considering particulate matter standard (for all documentation of the floor levels.

TABLE 3.—FLOOR LEVELS FOR EXISTING SOURCES UNDER ALTERNATIVE OPTION 1

Hydrochloric acid Incinerators Cement kilns Lightweight aggre- Solid fuel-fired Liquid fuel-fired production fur- gate kilns boilers 1 boilers 1 naces 1

Dioxin/Furans (ng 0.28 for dry APCD 0.20 or 0.40 + 0.20 or 400°F at CO or THC stand- 3.0 or 400°F at CO or THC stand- TEQ/dscm). and WHB 400°F at APCD kiln outlet.7 ard as a surro- APCD inlet for ard as a surro- sources,6 0.20 inlet.7 gate. dry APCD gate. or 0.40 + 400°F sources; CO or at APCD inlet THC standard for others.7 as surrogate for others. Mercury ...... 130 µg/dscm 7 ..... 31 µg/dscm 2 ...... 19 µg/dscm 2 ...... 10 µg/dscm ...... 3.7E–6 lb/ Total chlorine MMBtu 2, 5. standard as surrogate. Particulate Matter ... 0.015 gr/dscf 7 ..... 0.028 gr/dscf ...... 0.025 gr/dscf 7 ..... 0.063 gr/dscf ...... 0.032 gr/dscf ...... Total chlorine standard as surrogate. Semivolatile Metals 19 µg/dscm ...... 1.3E–4 lb/ 3.1E–4 lb/ 170 µg/dscm ...... 1.1E–5 lb/ Total chlorine (lead +cadmium). MMBtu 5. MMBtu 5 and MMBtu 2, 5. standards as 250 µg/dscm.3 surrogate. Low Volatile Metals 14 µg/dscm ...... 1.1E–5 lbs/ 9.5E–5 lb/ 210 µg/dscm ...... 7.7E–5 lb/ Total chlorine (arsenic + beryl- MMBtu 5. MMBtu 5 and MMBtu 4, 5. standard as lium + chromium). 100 µg/dscm.3 surrogate. Total Chlorine (hy- 0.93 ppmv ...... 41 ppmv ...... 600 ppmv 7 ...... 440 ppmv ...... 5.7E–3 lb/ 14 ppmv or drogen chloride + MMBtu 5. 99.9927% sys- chlorine gas). tem removal ef- ficiency. Notes: 1 Particulate matter, semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, and total chlorine standards apply to major sources only for solid fuel-fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. 2 Standard is based on normal emissions data. 3 Sources must comply with both the thermal emissions and emission concentration standards. 4 Low volatile metal standard for liquid fuel-fired boilers is for chromium only. Arsenic and beryllium are not included in the low volatile metal total for liquid fuel-fired boilers. 5 Standards are expressed as mass of pollutant contributed by hazardous waste per million Btu contributed by the hazardous waste. 6 APCD denotes ‘‘air pollution control device,’’ WHB denotes ‘‘waste heat boiler.’’

VerDate mar<24>2004 20:08 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21235

7 Floor level represents the ‘‘capped interim standard level,’’ which means the floor level determined by the associated methodology was less stringent than the interim standard level.

2. What Is Alternative Option 2, and it does not ensure that sources could use test (and because we do not believe feed What Is the Rationale? either feedrate control or back-end control of HAP in raw material and control to achieve the floor; (2) the fossil fuel should be assessed as a Under alternative option 2, we use the approach may be inappropriately biased MACT floor control because it could emissions-based approach to establish against sources that burn hazardous result in floor levels that are not all floors and there are no exceptions. waste fuel at high firing rates because it replicable by the best performing All floor levels are expressed in units of does not express the standards in units stack gas concentrations (we do not sources, nor duplicable by other of hazardous waste thermal emissions; sources). express any floors for energy recovery (3) it inappropriately considers feed units in terms of thermal emissions). control for particulate matter and for We invite comment as to whether this The best performing sources for all hydrochloric acid production furnaces alternative approach is appropriate, floors are those with the lowest by not using the Air Pollution Control noting the doubts we have voiced above. emissions, on a stack gas concentration Device Approach for those floors; and We present the results of using this basis. (4) it may not appropriately estimate the alternative option 2 to identify floor We are not proposing this alternative performance of the average of the 12 levels for existing sources in Table 4 option because it has the disadvantages percent best performing sources given below. See USEPA ‘‘Draft Technical that the more complicated provisions of that those best performers may have low Support Document for HWC MACT Option 1 (and to some extent Option 2) emissions in part because their raw Replacement Standards, Volume III: address: (1) By not using the SRE/Feed material and/or fossil fuels contained Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March Approach for metals and total chlorine, low levels of HAP during the emissions 2004, Chapter 16, for more information.

TABLE 4.—FLOOR LEVELS FOR EXISTING SOURCES UNDER ALTERNATIVE OPTION 2

Hydrochloric acid Incinerators Cement kilns Lightweight aggre- Solid fuel-fired Liquid fuel-fired production fur- gate kilns boilers 1 boilers 1 naces 1

Dioxin/Furans (ng 0.28 for dry APCD 0.20 or 0.40 + 0.20 or 400°F at CO or THC stand- 3.0 or 400°F at CO or THC stand- TEQ/dscm). and WHB 400°F at APCD kiln outlet.6 ard as a surro- APCD inlet for ard as a surro- sources; 5 0.20 inlet.6 gate. dry APCD gate. or 0.40 + 400°F sources; CO or at APCD inlet THC standard for others.6 as surrogate for others. Mercury ...... 130 µg/dscm 6 ..... 31 µg/dscm 2 ...... 19 µg/dscm 2 ...... 10 µg/dscm ...... 0.47 µg/dscm 2 .... Total chlorine standard as surrogate. Particulate Matter ... 0.0040 gr/dscf ..... 0.016 gr/dscf ...... 0.025 gr/dscf 6 ..... 0.065 gr/dscf ...... 0.0028 gr/dscf ..... Total chlorine standard as surrogate. Semivolatile Metals 19 µg/dscm ...... 68 µg/dscm ...... 130 µg/dscm ...... 170 µg/dscm ...... 8.7 µg/dscm 2 ...... Total chlorine (lead + cadmium). standard as surrogate. Low Volatile Metals 14 µg/dscm ...... 8.9 µg/dscm ...... 82 µg/dscm ...... 210 µg/dscm ...... 28 µg/dscm 4 ...... Total chlorine (arsenic + beryl- standards as lium + chromium). surrogate. Total Chlorine (hy- 0.93 ppmv ...... 41 ppmv ...... 600 ppmv 6 ...... 440 ppmv ...... 2.4 ppmv ...... 2.0 ppmv. drogen chloride + chlorine gas). Notes: 1 Particulate matter, semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, and total chlorine standards apply to major sources only for solid fuel-fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. 2 Standard is based on normal emissions data. 3 Sources must comply with both the thermal emissions and emission concentration standards. 4 Low volatile metal standard for liquid fuel-fired boilers is for chromium only. Arsenic and beryllium are not included in the low volatile metal total for liquid fuel-fired boilers. 5 APCD denotes ‘‘air pollution control device’’, WHB denotes ‘‘waste heat boiler’. 6 Floor level represents the ‘‘capped interim standard level’’, which means the floor level determined by the associated methodology was less stringent than the interim standard level.

3. What Is Alternative Option 3, and simultaneously. Simultaneous control of the Simultaneous Achievability for What Is the Rationale? these pollutants is an appropriate Particulates (SAP) Approach. See consideration because these pollutants USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Under alternative option 3, we are controlled by the same emission Document for HWC MACT Replacement evaluated an approach to identify the control device, the particulate matter Standards, Volume III: Selection of best performing sources for particulate matter, semivolatile metals, and low control device (e.g., a wet scrubber, MACT Standards,’’ March 2004, volatile metals that considers how well electrostatic precipitator, or fabric Chapters 10 and 19. a source is controlling these pollutants filter). We call this alternative approach

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21236 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

We evaluated semivolatile metal and particulate matter and metals for these data for a pollutant for a source, there low volatile metal emissions for energy sources. is no rank score for that pollutant, and recovery sources—cement kilns, Under the SAP approach, we rank that pollutant is not considered in the lightweight aggregate kilns, and liquid emissions for each pollutant across the aggregate rank score for the source. fuel-fired boiler—under two emissions- sources for which we have emissions To identify the best performing based SAP alternatives: hazardous waste data for that pollutant. For ranking, we sources in the aggregate, we rank the thermal emissions, and stack gas use the upper 99% confidence interval aggregate rank scores for the sources concentrations. The hazardous waste for the average of the runs of the test from lowest to highest. If we have thermal emissions option assesses condition for a source. For example, if emissions data for all three pollutants semivolatile metal and low volatile we have semivolatile metal emissions for all sources, the 5 (or 12% if we have metal thermal emissions for energy data for 15 sources, the lowest data for more than 30 sources) sources recovery units, while assessing semivolatile metal emissions level is with the lowest aggregate rank scores particulate matter using the emissions- ranked one and the highest is ranked 15. are the best performing sources. If we based stack gas concentration approach. To identify the best performing sources have incomplete data sets for some The emissions-based stack-gas for all three pollutants simultaneously, sources for a source category, the best concentration approach assesses stack we calculate an aggregate rank score for performing sources for a pollutant (i.e., gas concentrations (as opposed to each source. For example, if source A particulate matter, semivolatile metals, thermal emissions) for all HAP. Note has a rank of 5 for particulate matter, a or low volatile metals) are the sources that we did not evaluate hydrochloric rank of 10 for semivolatile metals, a with the lowest aggregate rank scores acid production furnaces under this rank of 15 for low volatile metals, the and for which we have emissions data. SAP approach because we propose to aggregate rank score for that source is We present the alternative MACT use the total chlorine standard as a 10, the average rank across the floors for existing sources under the surrogate to control emissions of pollutants. If we do not have emissions SAP approach in Table 5 below.

TABLE 5.—FLOOR LEVELS FOR EXISTING SOURCES UNDER THE SAP APPROACH

Particulate Source category Emissions-based approach matter floor Semivolatile metals floor Low volatile metals floor (gr/dscf)

Incinerators ...... Stack Gas Conc...... 0 .0040 53 µg/dscm ...... 50 µg/dscm. Cement Kilns ...... Thermal Emissions ...... 0 .027 190 lb/trillion Btu ...... 20 lb/trillion Btu. Stack Gas Con...... 0.015 103 µg/dscm ...... 14 µg/dscm. Lightweight Aggregate Kilns ... Thermal Emissions ...... 0.019 300 lb/trillion Btu ...... 95 lb/trillion Btu. Stack Gas Conc...... 0.019 120 µg/dscm ...... 89 µg/dscm. Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers ...... Stack Gas Conc...... 0 .090 180 µg/dscm ...... 230 µg/dscm. Liquid Fuel-Fired Boilers ...... Thermal Emissions ...... 0 .0039 81 lb/trillion Btu ...... 180 lb/trillion Btu. Stack Gas Conc...... 0.0039 26 µg/dscm ...... 210 µg/dscm.

We request comment on this evaluated.73 We may use this approach from low feed test conditions, where the alternative approach for identifying in total or in part to support a final rule, filter is the lower 99% confidence limit MACT floors. If we use this approach in and therefore request comment on the of the mean of the maximum theoretical the final rule to identify MACT floors, approach. emissions concentrations for all test we would promulgate a beyond-the- Under ETC’s approach, test conditions for all sources within a floor standard for particulate matter of conditions are screened from further source category. 0.030 gr/dscf for existing solid fuel-fired consideration if metals or chlorine were ETC’s approach also excludes boilers for the same reasons we are not fed at levels that challenge the specialty units, defined as sources that 74 proposing today a beyond-the-floor emissions control system. Feedrates of burn munitions and radiological waste standard. See Part Two, Section X.C for metals and chlorine in hazardous waste (i.e., Department of Defense and a discussion of today’s proposed are normalized to account for size of the Department of Energy sources). ETC beyond-the-floor particulate matter combustor by converting feedrates to believes that these sources burn wastes maximum theoretical emissions standard for solid fuel-fired boilers. with atypical concentrations of ash and concentrations. A low maximum ‘‘ metals that may inappropriately skew See USEPA, Draft Technical Support theoretical emissions concentration the calculation of floor levels. Under Document for HWC MACT Replacement filter is used to screen out emissions Standards, Volume III: Selection of this approach, we would either MACT Standards,’’ March 2004, subcategorize and issue separate 73 Update on MACT Floor Evaluations Revised Chapters 10 and 19, for a more detailed Data Base, Environmental Technology Council, emission standards for these specialty explanation of this SAP analysis. February 2003. units, or omit these speciality units from 74 This approach therefore identifies a de minimis the MACT analysis and require the 4. What Is Alternative Option 4, and feed control level for each source category and does specialty units to comply with the floor What Is the Rationale? not evaluate emissions from these de minimus feeders in the MACT analysis because these de levels that are determined from The Environmental Technology minimis feed control levels may not be feasible for emissions of the non-specialty units. other sources to duplicate. The screen is performed Council (ETC) recommends an approach individually by pollutant so that if semivolatile After applying the low maximum to calculate floor levels for metals and metals were fed at rates that challenged the theoretical emissions concentration chlorine that uses a low feedrate screen emissions control system but low volatile metals filter and excluding specialty units, this and addresses emissions variability were not, only the low volatile metal emissions data approach identifies the best performing for that test condition would be screened from differently than the options we further analysis. sources by ranking emissions from

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21237

lowest to highest.75 Run variability is compliance test emissions from all test condition, the variability factor for each not considered at this point. For campaigns; and (3) the highest source is first determined as the average incinerators, cement kilns, and emissions during the most recent of the variabilities associated with each lightweight aggregate kilns where we compliance test campaign. By compliance test condition).77 The upper may have historical compliance test identifying the best performers based on confidence limits are averaged across emissions from several test campaigns compliance test emissions from the test the best performing sources, and the for a source, test conditions from the campaign with the lowest emissions and average confidence limit is added to the campaign with the lowest compliance calculating the floor using compliance average emissions from the best test emissions are used to identify the test emissions under these alternative performers to identify the floor. best performers. approaches, emissions variability is The average of the emissions from the addressed in part.76 We invite comment as to whether this best performing sources are used to Emissions variability is accounted for alternative approach is appropriate. We calculate the floor, and an emissions by adding an emissions variability factor calculated alternative floor levels for variability factor is added. For to the average emissions for the best new and existing sources with minor incinerators, cement kilns, and performing sources. The variability adjustments.78 We present the results of lightweight aggregate kilns where we factor is a measure of the average run- applying that approach in Table 6 may have historical compliance test to-run variability for the test conditions below. See USEPA ‘‘Draft Technical emissions data from several test for the best performing sources. The Support Document for HWC MACT campaigns for a source, three variability factor is determined as the Replacement Standards, Volume III: approaches are considered to select upper confidence limit (calculated at Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March representative emissions for each best the 99% confidence interval) around the 2004, Chapters 12 and 21, for more performing source: (1) The highest mean of the runs for each test condition information on how we applied this compliance test emissions from any test for each best performer. (For sources approach to our data base. campaign; (2) the average of the highest with more than one compliance test

TABLE 6.—FLOOR LEVELS FOR EXISTING SOURCES UNDER THE MODIFIED ETC APPROACH

Incinerators Lightweight Data base Excluding Cement kilns aggregate Solid fuel- Liquid fuel- All speciality kilns fired boilers fired boilers units

Mercury (µg/dscm) ...... Avg of historical CT 130 (308) 1 130 (308) 1 48 37 data. Most recent CT data ... 130 (308) 1 130 (308) 1 40 31 14 4.8 Highest of historical 130 (308) 1 130 (308) 1 68 45 CT data.

Particulate Matter (gr/ Avg of historical CT 0.0043 0.0043 0.025 0.017 dscf). data. Most recent CT data ... 0.0043 0.0043 0.025 0.017 0.11 0.0090 Highest of historical 0.0043 0.0043 0.030 (0.032) 1 0.017 CT data.

Semivolatile Metals Avg of historical CT 53 32 230 250 (901) 1 (µg/dscm). data. Most recent CT data ... 53 32 160 250 (746) 1 230 8.2 Highest of historical 53 32 300 250 (1208) 1 CT data.

Low Volatile Metals Avg of historical CT 39 46 51 110 (119) 1 (µg/dscm). data. Most recent CT data ... 39 36 42 110 (129) 1 320 52 Highest of historical 39 56 56 1 110 (133) 1 CT data.

Total Chlorine (ppmv) Avg of historical CT 1.4 1.8 85 600 (1655) 1 data. Most recent CT data ... 1.4 1.8 86 600 (1811) 1 410 3.2 Highest of historical 1.4 1.8 89 600 (1823) 1 CT data. Notes: ‘‘CT’’ means Compliance Test.

75 This low feed screen is not applied to cement aggregate kilns for which we have emissions data considers the average run-to-run variability for kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns for the for more than one test campaign. those historical compliance tests. particulate matter standard because ash feedrate is 77 We do not use this step in our statistical 78 Note that we modified part of ETC’s suggested not considered to be a dominant factor that analysis because we identify one test condition only methodology in some instances, which has resulted influences particulate matter emissions (rather, as being representative of the emissions for each in our calculated floor levels to differ from ETC’s particulate matter emissions are more a function of calculated floor levels. These modifications are source. Alternatively, ETC’s approach includes an the back-end control device efficiency). discussed in USEPA ‘‘Draft Technical Support 76 This approach for partially accounting for option where the average of the historical Document for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, emissions variability is effective only for those compliance test conditions is considered for Phase Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight I sources. Under this option, ETC’s approach 2004, Chapter 12.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21238 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

1 Floor would be capped by the Interim Standards. Number in parentheses represents the calculated floor level, the number preceding is the ‘‘capped’’ interim standard level.

5. What Is Alternative Option 5, and sources could be expected to achieve in feedrates may employ the best What Is the Rationale? 99 of 100 future tests when operating performing back-end control systems to Alternative Option 5 would use under the conditions used to establish meet current standards or otherwise system removal efficiency (SRE) to the SRE and emission level. control emissions. As a measure of We note that this approach is not identify the best performing sources for atypically high feedrates, we use the applicable for situations where sources the mercury, semivolatile metals, low 99th upper percentile feedrate around in a source category do not use back-end volatile metals, and total chlorine floor the mean of feedrate data in the data set control to control metals or total levels. This is similar to the approach available for the analysis. To ensure that chlorine. For example, cement kilns do we propose to establish the total we continue to use 5 sources or 12 not use back-end control to control chlorine standard for hydrochloric acid percent of sources to calculate the mercury or total chlorine.81 production furnaces. See discussion in emission concentration-based floor This approach is also not applicable under this variation, we replace a best Part Two, Section VI.A.2.b. for situations where our data base is Floor levels would be expressed as an performing SRE source that is screened comprised of normal emissions data. As out of the concentration-based floor SRE or an emission concentration where discussed previously, SREs calculated the emission concentration is based on analysis because of high feedrates with from normal test conditions may be the source with the next best SRE.82 the emissions achieved by the best unreliable because a small error in the performing SRE sources.79 A source Floor levels for existing sources under feedrate calculation at low feedrates can this feedrate-screened variation are could elect to comply with either floor. have a substantial impact on the An emissions floor as an alternative to presented in Table 8. calculated SRE. We invite comment on these the SRE floor is appropriate because a In situations where this SRE-based alternative floor approaches. For more source may be achieving emission levels approach is not applicable, we would information on how the approach would lower than those achieved by the best use an alternative approach to identify work, see USEPA ‘‘Draft Technical performing SRE sources even though it MACT floor, such as the Emissions Support Document for HWC MACT may not be achieving MACT floor SRE. approach. For example, a source may be achieving Floor levels for existing sources under Replacement Standards, Volume III: low emissions without achieving MACT this approach are presented in Table 7. Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March SRE by using superior feedrate control. We also investigated a variation of 2004, Chapters 13 and 22. The SRE floor is an SRE that the this approach where sources with 82 average of the best performing SRE atypically high feedrates for metals or Since sources with atypically high feedrates may still have low emissions, sources with sources could be expected to achieve in chlorine are excluded from the hazardous waste feed control levels above the 99 of 100 future tests when operating calculation of the alternative emission threshold are flagged, but not immediately removed under the conditions used to establish level. This variation may be appropriate from the data set. Sources’ SREs are ranked from the SRE.80 The emissions floor is a stack to ensure that sources with high best to worst, initially choosing the best ranked 5 gas concentration, or thermal emission feedrates do not drive the alternative or 12% of sources as the interim MACT pool. The concentration for source categories that emission concentration-based floor remaining sources are temporarily set aside, and the burn hazardous waste fuels, that the inappropriately high even though the sources comprising the interim MACT pool are average of the best performing SRE source may be a best performing SRE ranked again from lowest to highest emissions. Sources from the interim MACT pool that have source. Under this variation, note that been flagged due to having feedrates above the 79 We note that an SRE option, in some form, sources with high feedrates are used, upper 99th percentile are systematically (from could be added to any of the emission-based however, to identify the best performing highest to lowest emissions) removed from the approaches previously discussed. SRE sources and MACT SRE. This is MACT pool and replaced with sources with the 80 Note that we only considered SREs associated next highest ranked SREs if the emissions from the with emission values designated as compliance test because sources with the highest (CT) in the database. See USEPA ‘‘Draft Technical next best source initially excluded from the interim Support Document for HWC MACT Replacement 81 Although the alkalinity in cement kiln raw MACT pool has lower emissions. The sources Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT materials helps control total chlorine emissions, we comprising the revised interim MACT pool now Standards,’’ March 2004, Chapters 11 and 20, for are concerned that the system removal efficiencies become the final MACT pool. Emissions from those more information. achieved may not be readily reproducible. sources are again used to calculate the MACT floor, with the resulting MACT floor again expressed as an emission standard.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21239

8 8

3 3 mal mal Ther- Ther-

2 2 .1 n/a .3 n/a tion

Emission concentration 4, 5 4, 6 4, 5 4, 5 4, 6 4, 5 Emission concentra- Stack gas Stack gas

.990 3 .990 1 .70 23 55 .70 25 55 1 1 SRE SRE CREEN S 99 99 n/a 99 n/a 99 7 8 8 8 8 7

3 3 mal mal onditions, and the best performers spiked onditions, and the best performers spiked Ther- Ther- 5 45 110 EEDRATE 7 7 F

2 2 Emission Emission concentration concentration IGH gas gas Stack Stack PTION H O 27 27 7 7 ITH

.989 11 22 .89 100 95 n/a n/a .989 11 18 .89 100 95 n/a n/a .969 33 n/a .969 33 n/a .9 230 .4 n/a .969 29 n/a .9 230 .4 1 1 5 W SRE SRE LTERNATIVE 99 97 99 97 A 8 8 8 8 PTION

3 3 O mal mal Ther- Ther- NDER U

2 2 Emission Emission 90 90 4 4 concentration concentration gas gas Stack Stack LTERNATIVE A OURCES S

.966 71 140 99 .966 71 310 99 .78 330 130 99 .966 65 310 99 .78 330 .89 74 n/a .89 74 n/a .78 180 n/a .89 64 n/a .78 180 1 1 99 99 99 99 NDER U SRE SRE XISTING E 99 99 99 99 8 8 8 8

3 3 OURCES S mal mal Ther- Ther- n/a n/a 9 9

n/a n/a 2 2 EVELS FOR 4 4 4, 5 4, 6 4, 5 4, 6 Emissions Emissions L XISTING gas gas Stack Stack E Mercury Semivolatile metals Low volatile metals Total chlorine Mercury Semivolatile metals Low volatile metals Total chlorine

LOOR 1 1 F — SRE SRE 7. EVELS FOR L ABLE g/dscm for all except total chlorine, which is expressed as ppmv. g/dscm for all except total chlorine, which is expressed as ppmv. T µ µ LOOR F — 8. ABLE T Source category Source category SRE is system removal efficiency expressed as a percent. Stack gas concentration is expressed in Thermal emission is expressed in lb/trillion Btu, except total chlorine which lb/billion Btu. Unable to determine SRE due normal feedrate data. No SRE due to no reliable back-end control. Only one source has back-end control. LVM Standards for liquid fuel-fired boilers are Chromium, only. Thermal emissions not appropriate for source categories with sources that do burn hazardous waste fuels. We believe this methodology yields inappropriate MACT mercury floors for incinerators because we have only 11 compliance test c SRE is system removal efficiency expressed as a percent. Stack gas concentration is expressed in Thermal emission is expressed in lb/trillion Btu, except total chlorine which lb/billion Btu. Unable to determine SRE due normal feedrate data. No SRE due to no reliable back-end control. Only one source has back-end control. LVM Standards for liquid fuel-fired boilers are Chromium, only. Thermal emissions not appropriate for source categories with sources that do burn hazardous waste fuels. We believe this methodology yields inappropriate MACT mercury floors for incinerators because we have only 11 compliance test c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Incinerators ...... Cement Kilns ...... 27 20,000 Lightweight Aggregate Kilns ...... Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers ...... n/a Liquid Fuel-Fired Boilers ...... 11 n/a n/a n/a Incinerators ...... Cement Kilns ...... 27 7,500 Lightweight Aggregate Kilns ...... Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers ...... n/a Liquid Fuel-Fired Boilers ...... 11 n/a n/a n/a uncharacteristically high levels of mercury during their compliance test. uncharacteristically high levels of mercury during the their compliance test.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21240 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

VII. How Did EPA Determine the hazardous waste are summarized in the Proposed Emission Standards for table below. See proposed § 63.1219. Hazardous Waste Burning Incinerators? The proposed standards for existing and new incinerators that burn

PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AND NEW INCINERATORS

Emission standard 1 Hazardous air pollutant or surrogate Existing sources New sources

Dioxin and furan—sources equipped with waste 0.28 ng TEQ/dscm ...... 0.11 ng TEQ/dscm. heat boilers or dry air pollution control sys- tem 2. Dioxin and furan—sources not equipped with 0.2 ng TEQ/dscm; or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm and 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm. waste heat boilers or dry air pollution control temperature at inlet to the initial particulate system 2. matter control device ≤400°F. Mercury ...... 130 µg/dscm ...... 8.0 µg/dscm. Particulate matter ...... 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) ...... 1.6 mg/dscm (0.00070 gr/dscf). Semivolatile metals ...... 59 µg/dscm ...... 6.5 µg/dscm. Low volatile metals ...... 84 µg/dscm ...... 8.9 µg/dscm. Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas 3 ...... 1.5 ppmv or the alternative emission limits 0.18 ppmv or the alternative emission limits under § 63.1215. under § 63.1215. Hydrocarbons 4,5 ...... 10 ppmv (or 100 ppmv carbon monoxide) ...... 10 ppmv (or 100 ppmv carbon monoxide). Destruction and removal efficiency ...... For existing and new sources, 99.99% for each principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC). For sources burning hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027, how- ever, 99.9999% for each POHC. 1 All emission standards are corrected to 7% oxygen dry basis. 2 A wet air pollution system followed by a dry air pollution control system is not considered to be a dry air pollution control system for purposes of this standard. A dry air pollution systems followed a wet air pollution control system is considered to be a dry air pollution control system for purposes of this standard. 3 Combined standard, reported as a chloride (Cl(¥)) equivalent. 4 Sources that elect to comply with the carbon monoxide standard must demonstrate compliance with the hydrocarbon standard during the comprehensive performance test. 5 Hourly rolling average. Hydrocarbons reported as propane.

A. What Are the Proposed Standards for Since promulgation of the September emission standard and we are proposing Dioxin and Furan? 1999 final rule, we have obtained separate floor levels. The proposed standards for dioxin/ additional dioxin/furan emissions data. To identify the floor level for furan for sources equipped with dry air We now have dioxin/furan emissions incinerators equipped with dry air pollution control devices and/or waste data for over 55 sources. The emissions pollution control equipment and/or heat boilers are 0.28 ng TEQ/dscm for in our data base range from less than waste heat boilers, we evaluated the existing sources and 0.11 ng TEQ/dscm 0.001 to 34 ng TEQ/dscm. compliance test emissions data for new sources. For incinerators using As discussed in Part Two, Section II, associated with the most recent test either wet air pollution control or no air we assessed whether incinerators campaign using the Emissions pollution control devices, the proposed equipped with dry air pollution control Approach described in Part Two, standards for dioxin/furan are 0.20 ng devices and/or waste heat boilers have Section VI. The calculated floor is 0.28 TEQ/dscm or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm while statistically different emissions than ng TEQ/dscm, which considers limiting the temperature at the inlet to sources with either wet air pollution emissions variability. This is an the particulate matter control device to control or no air pollution control emission level that the average of the ° less than 400 F for existing sources and equipment.83 Our statistical analysis best performing sources could be 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm for new sources. indicates dioxin/furan emissions expected to achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when operating under conditions 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT between these types of incinerators are identical to the compliance test Floor for Existing Sources? significantly different. (As we explained conditions during which the emissions there, these differences relate to Dioxin and furan emissions for data were obtained. The calculated floor existing incinerators are currently differences in dioxin/furan formation level of 0.28 ng TEQ/dscm is based on limited by § 63.1203(a)(1) to 0.20 ng mechanisms, not pollution control five best performing sources that TEQ/dscm; or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm device efficiency.) Therefore, we believe achieved this floor level either by the provided that the combustion gas subcategorization is warranted for this use of temperature control at the inlet to temperature at the inlet to the initial dry air pollution control device and particulate matter control device is 83 A source with a wet air pollution system good combustion or by the use of ° followed by a dry air pollution control system is not limited to 400 F or less. (For purposes considered to be a dry air pollution control system activated carbon injection. The single of compliance, operation of a wet air for purposes of this standard, while a source with best performer is equipped with a dry pollution control system is presumed to a dry air pollution system followed a wet air air pollution control system and a waste meet the 400 °F or lower requirement.) pollution control system is considered to be a dry heat boiler, and uses activated carbon air pollution control system. In addition, we note This standard was promulgated in the that a spray dryer is not considered to be a wet air injection, good combustion, and Interim Standards Rule (See 67 FR at pollution control system for purposes of temperature control to control dioxin/ 6796, February 13, 2002). subcategorization. furan emissions. The remaining four

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21241

best performers are equipped with dry surrogates for control of organic HAP, level for incinerators with either wet air air pollution systems but do not have namely good combustion practices, to pollution control systems or no air waste heat recovery boilers. Two of be demonstrated by complying with the pollution control equipment that are not these sources use activated carbon, good carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon equipped with a heat recovery boiler is combustion, and temperature control to emissions standard and compliance either 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm or 0.40 ng control dioxin/furan emissions.84 The with the destruction and removal TEQ/dscm provided that the other two without waste heat recovery efficiency standard.86 We believe that it combustion gas temperature at the inlet boilers use a combination of good would be inappropriate to establish a to the initial particulate matter control combustion and temperature control to numerical dioxin/furan floor level for device is limited to 400 °F or less. This control emissions. sources with wet or no air pollution emission level is currently being We then judged the relative control systems because the floor achieved by all sources because the stringency of the calculated floor level emission level would not be replicable interim standard is an enforceable to the interim standard to determine if by the best performing sources nor standard currently in effect. the proposed floor level needed to be duplicable by other sources. Dioxin/ 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor ‘‘ capped’’ by the current interim furan formation mechanisms are Standards for Existing Sources standard to ensure the proposed floor complex. Sources with wet or no air level is not less stringent than an pollution control devices may have We evaluated beyond-the-floor existing federal emission standard. A difficulty complying with a numerical standards based on the use of control comparison of the calculated floor level dioxin/furan limit that is based on the technology which removes dioxin/ of 0.28 ng TEQ/dscm to the interim lowest emitting dioxin/furan sources furan, namely use of an activated carbon standard—0.20 ng TEQ/dscm or 0.40 ng within this subcategory because there is injection system or a carbon bed system TEQ/dscm provided that the not a demonstrated floor control as beyond-the-floor control for further combustion gas temperature at the inlet technology that these sources can use to reduction of dioxin/furan emissions. to the initial particulate matter control ‘‘dial in’’ to achieve a given emission Activated carbon is currently used at device is limited to less than 400 °F— level. Moreover, dioxin/furan emissions three incinerators to control dioxin/ indicates that a floor level of 0.28 ng could result from operation under poor furan. We evaluated a beyond-the-floor TEQ/dscm is more stringent than the combustion conditions and formation level of 0.10 ng TEQ/dscm for all current interim standard. This judgment on particulate matter surfaces in duct incinerators, which represents a 65– is based on our belief that the majority work, on heat recovery boiler tubes, and 75% reduction in dioxin/furan emissions from the floor level. We of these incinerators are currently on particulates entrained in the selected this level because it represents complying with the 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm combustion gas stream. As a result, we a level that is considered routinely and temperature limitation portion of would instead identify floor control for 88 the interim standard.85 We estimate that achievable with activated carbon. these sources to be operating under For incinerators equipped with dry air this emission level is being achieved by good combustion practices by pollution control equipment and/or 71% of sources and would reduce complying with the destruction and waste heat boilers, the national dioxin/furan emissions by 0.28 grams removal efficiency and carbon incremental annualized compliance cost per year. monoxide/hydrocarbon standards. for these sources to meet the beyond- We also considered whether to further Though MACT floor for these units is subcategorize based on whether the the-floor level rather than comply with operating under good combustion the floor controls would be incinerator is equipped with a waste practices, there is a regulatory limit approximately $2.2 million and would heat recovery boiler or dry air pollution which is relevant in identifying the floor provide an incremental reduction in control device. Our analysis determined level. Hazardous waste incinerators are dioxin/furan emissions beyond the floor that the dioxin/furan emissions from complying with an interim standard for level controls of 0.5 grams TEQ per year. incinerators with waste heat recovery dioxin/furan—an emission limit of 0.20 Nonair quality health and boilers are not statistically different ng TEQ/dscm or, alternatively, 0.40 ng environmental impacts and energy from those equipped with dry air TEQ/dscm provided that the effects were evaluated to estimate the pollution control systems. We propose, combustion gas temperature at the inlet impacts between activated carbon therefore, that further subcategorization to the initial particulate matter control injection and carbon beds and controls is not necessary given that incinerators device is limited to 400 °F or less—that likely to be used to meet the floor level. using either waste heat recovery boilers fixes a level of performance for the We estimate that this beyond-the-floor or dry air pollution control systems can source category. Given that all sources option would increase the amount of readily achieve the calculated floor level are meeting this interim standard and hazardous waste generated by 1,500 using control technologies demonstrated that the interim standard is judged as tons per year in addition to using an by the best performing sources. more stringent than a MACT floor of additional 3 million kW-hours per year For sources with either wet air ‘‘good combustion practices,’’ the beyond the requirements to achieve the pollution control systems or no air dioxin/furan floor level can be no less floor level. The costs associated with pollution control equipment, but are not stringent than the current regulatory these hazardous waste treatment/ equipped with a heat recovery boiler, limit.87 Therefore, the proposed floor disposal and energy impacts are we contemplated identifying an accounted for in the national annualized emission limit but instead rely on 86 Use of ‘‘good combustion practices’’ does not compliance cost estimates. Therefore, necessarily preclude significant dioxin/furan based on these factors and costs of 84 One source uses an activated carbon injection formation. Our data base suggests, however, that system, and the other uses a carbon bed. incinerators using wet air pollution control systems approximately $4.4 million per 85 We request comment, however, on whether this achieve dioxin/furan emissions less than 0.40 ng judgment is correct. If an incinerator is operated TEQ/dscm. See USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support standards, the dioxin/furan data in our data base with a dry air pollution control device inlet Document for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, preceded the compliance demonstration. temperature greater than 400 °F, then it may be Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March 88 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document appropriate to instead require sources to comply 2004, Chapter 2. for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume V: with the more stringent of the two standards, that 87 Even though all sources have recently Emissions Estimates and Engineering Costs,’’ March is, 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm. demonstrated compliance with the interim 2004, Chapter 4.3.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21242 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

additional gram of dioxin/furan Though MACT floor for these units is emissions beyond the MACT floor removed, we are not proposing a operating under good combustion controls of 0.024 grams TEQ per year. beyond-the-floor standard based on practices, there is a regulatory limit Considering the nonair quality health activated carbon injection and carbon which is relevant in identifying the floor and environmental impacts and energy bed systems. level. New hazardous waste incinerators effects in addition to costs of For sources with either wet air are subject to an interim emission approximately $9.3 million per pollution control systems or no air standard for dioxin/furan of 0.20 ng additional gram of dioxin/furan pollution control equipment that are not TEQ/dscm. Given that the interim removed, we are not proposing a equipped with a heat recovery boiler, standard is judged more stringent than beyond-the-floor standard based on a the national incremental annualized a MACT floor of ‘‘good combustion carbon bed system. compliance cost for these sources to practices,’’ the dioxin/furan floor level B. What Are the Proposed Standards for meet the beyond-the-floor level would can be no less stringent than the current Mercury? be approximately $3.9 million and regulatory limit. Therefore, the would provide an incremental reduction proposed floor level for incinerators We are proposing to establish in dioxin/furan emissions beyond the with either wet air pollution control standards for existing and new MACT floor controls of 0.35 grams TEQ systems or no air pollution control incinerators that limit emissions of per year. Nonair quality health and equipment that are not equipped with a mercury to 130 µg/dscm and 8 µg/dscm, environmental impacts and energy heat recovery boiler is 0.20 ng TEQ/ respectively. effects were also evaluated. We estimate dscm. Therefore, we are proposing the 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT that this beyond-the-floor option would current interim standard of 0.20 ng Floor for Existing Sources? increase the amount of hazardous waste TEQ/dscm as the floor level for new generated by 700 tons per year. The sources. Mercury emissions for existing option would also require sources to use incinerators are currently limited to 130 µ an additional 2 million kW-hours per 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor g/dscm by § 63.1203(a)(2). This year and 70 million gallons of water Standards for New Sources standard was promulgated in the beyond the requirements to achieve the We evaluated beyond-the-floor Interim Standards Rule (See 67 FR at floor level. Therefore, based on these standards based on the use of a carbon 6796). factors and costs of approximately $11 bed system to achieve additional We have both normal and compliance million per additional gram of dioxin/ removal of dioxin/furan. Given the test emissions data for over 50 sources. furan removed, we are not proposing a relatively low dioxin/furan levels at the For several sources, we have emissions beyond-the-floor standard based on floor, we made a conservative data from more than one test campaign. activated carbon injection and carbon assumption that the use of a carbon bed The mercury stack emissions in our data µ bed systems. will provide an additional 50% dioxin/ base range from less than 1 to 35,000 g/ furan control. We applied this removal dscm, which are expressed as mass of 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT efficiency to the dioxin/furan floor mercury per unit volume of stack gas. Floor for New Sources? levels to identify the beyond-the-floor To identify the floor level, we Dioxin and furan emissions for new levels. evaluated the compliance test emissions incinerators are currently limited by For a new incinerator with average data associated with the most recent test § 63.1203(b)(1) to 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm. gas flowrate equipped with dry air campaign using the SRE/Feed This standard was promulgated in the pollution control equipment and/or a Approach. The calculated floor is 610 Interim Standards Rule (See 67 FR at waste heat boiler, the national µg/dscm, which considers emissions 6796, February 13, 2002). incremental annualized compliance cost variability. Even though all sources have For incinerators equipped with dry air to meet the beyond-the-floor level of recently demonstrated compliance with pollution control equipment and/or 0.06 ng TEQ/dscm rather than comply the interim standard of 130 µg/dscm, all waste heat boilers, the calculated floor with the floor controls would be the mercury emissions data in our data level is 0.11 ng TEQ/dscm, which approximately $0.22 million and would base precede initial compliance with considers variability. This is an provide an incremental reduction in these interim standards. As a result, the emission level that the single best dioxin/furan emissions beyond the floor calculated floor level of 610 µg/dscm is performing source identified using the level controls of 0.013 grams TEQ per less stringent than the interim standard, Emissions Approach could be expected year. Nonair quality health and which is a regulatory limit relevant in to achieve in 99 out of 100 future tests environmental impacts and energy identifying the floor level (so as to avoid when operating under conditions effects were evaluated. Therefore, based any backsliding from a current level of identical to the compliance test on these factors and costs of performance achieved by all conditions during which the emissions approximately $17 million per incinerators, and hence, the level of data were obtained. additional gram of dioxin/furan minimal stringency at which EPA could For sources with either wet air removed, we are not proposing a calculate the MACT floor). Therefore, pollution control systems or no air beyond-the-floor standard based on we are proposing the floor level as the pollution control equipment that are not activated carbon bed systems. current emission standard of 130 µg/ equipped with a heat recovery boiler, as For a source with either a wet air dscm. This emission level is currently previously discussed for existing pollution control system or no air being achieved by all sources. sources, we believe that it would be pollution control equipment that is not We invite comment on an alternative inappropriate to establish numerical equipped with a heat recovery boiler, approach to identify the floor level dioxin/furan emission for these sources. the national incremental annualized using available normal emissions data We would instead identify floor control compliance cost for a new incinerator instead of the compliance test data. For for these sources to be operating under with an average gas flowrate to meet a reasons we discussed above in Part good combustion practices by beyond-the-floor level of 0.10 ng TEQ/ Two, our floor-setting methodology complying with the destruction and dscm would be approximately $0.22 favors compliance test data over normal removal efficiency and carbon million and would provide an emissions data. However, there are monoxide/hydrocarbon standards. incremental reduction in dioxin/furan available more mercury emissions data

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21243

characterized as normal—over 40 test impacts between activated carbon 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT conditions—than the eleven compliance injection and controls likely to be used Floor for New Sources? test results. Given that the data base to meet the floor level. We estimate that Mercury emissions from new includes considerably more normal this beyond-the-floor option would incinerators are currently limited to 45 emissions than compliance test data, we increase the amount of hazardous waste µg/dscm by § 63.1203(b)(2). This invite comment on whether the floor generated by 1,800 tons per year and standard was promulgated in the analysis should be based on the normal would require sources to use an Interim Standards Rule (See 67 FR at emissions data instead of the additional 5.8 million kW-hours per 6796). compliance test data. The floor level year beyond the requirements to achieve The MACT floor for new sources for considering the normal data using the the floor level. The costs associated with mercury would be 8 µg/dscm, which Emissions Approach is 7.8 µg/dscm, these hazardous waste treatment/ considers emissions variability. This is which considers emissions variability. If disposal and energy impacts are an emission level that the single best we were to adopt such an approach, we accounted for in the national annualized performing source identified with the would require sources to comply with compliance cost estimates. Therefore, SRE/Feed Approach considering the limit on an annual basis because the based on these factors and costs of compliance test data could be expected floor analysis is based on normal approximately $18 million per to achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when emissions data. Under this approach, additional ton of mercury removed, we operating under conditions identical to compliance would not be based on the are not proposing a beyond-the-floor the test conditions during which the use of a total mercury continuous standard based on activated carbon emissions data were obtained. emissions monitoring system because injection. As we did for existing sources, we these monitors have not been Feed Control of Mercury in the also invite comment on basing the floor adequately demonstrated as a reliable Hazardous Waste. We also evaluated a analysis on the normal emissions data compliance assurance tool at all types of beyond-the-floor level of 100 µg/dscm, incinerator sources. Instead, a source using the Emissions Approach. The which represents a 20% reduction from floor level using the normal data is 0.70 would maintain compliance with the the floor level. We chose a 20% µ mercury standard by establishing and g/dscm, which considers emissions reduction as a level that represents the variability. If we were to adopt such an complying with short-term limits on practicable extent that additional operating parameters for pollution approach, we would require sources to feedrate control of mercury in comply with the limit on an annual control equipment and annual limits on hazardous waste (beyond feedrate maximum total mercury feedrate in all basis because it is based on normal control that may be necessary to achieve emissions data. feedstreams. the floor level) can be used and still 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor achieve modest emissions reductions.89 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor Standards for Existing Sources The national incremental annualized Standards for New Sources compliance cost for incinerators to meet We identified two potential beyond- We identified two potential beyond- this beyond-the-floor level rather than the-floor techniques for control of the-floor techniques for control of comply with the floor controls would be mercury: (1) Use of a carbon bed; and mercury: (1) Activated carbon injection; approximately $1.8 million and would and (2) control of mercury in the (2) control of mercury in the hazardous provide an incremental reduction in hazardous waste feed. waste feed. mercury emissions beyond the MACT Use of Activated Carbon Injection. We Carbon Bed System. We evaluated a evaluated activated carbon injection as floor controls of 0.11 tons per year. carbon bed system as beyond-the-floor beyond-the-floor control for further Nonair quality health and control for further reduction of mercury reduction of mercury emissions. environmental impacts and energy emissions. Given the relatively low floor Activated carbon injection is currently effects were also evaluated. Therefore, level, we made a conservative being used at three incinerators and has based on these factors and costs of assumption that the use of a carbon bed been demonstrated for controlling approximately $17 million per system would provide 50% mercury mercury and has achieved efficiencies additional ton of mercury removed, we control. The incremental annualized ranging from 80% to greater than 90% are not proposing a beyond-the-floor compliance cost for a new incinerator depending on various factors such as standard based on feed control of with average gas flow rate to meet a injection rate, mercury speciation in the mercury in the hazardous waste. beyond-the-floor level of 4 µg/dscm, flue gas, flue gas temperature, and For the reasons discussed above, we rather than comply with the floor level, propose a mercury emissions standard carbon type. Given the limited µ would be approximately $0.22 million experience at hazardous waste of 130 g/dscm for existing incinerators. and would provide an incremental combustion systems, we made a reduction in mercury emissions of 89 Ideally, a methodology to estimate costs of feed conservative assumption that the use of control should consider lost revenues associated approximately 2.1 pounds per year. activated carbon will provide 70% with hazardous wastes not fired and costs to Nonair quality health and mercury control. We evaluated a implement feed control of metals and chlorine. We environmental impacts and energy beyond-the-floor level of 39 µg/dscm. attempted to conduct such an analysis; however, we effects are accounted for in the national concluded that there are too many uncertainties to The national incremental annualized do this analysis. Instead, we developed an annualized compliance cost estimates. compliance cost for incinerators to meet alternative approach to cost feed control of metals Therefore, based on these factors and this beyond-the-floor level rather than and chlorine in the hazardous waste based on the costs of approximately $200 million per comply with the floor controls would be assumption that a source would not implement a additional ton of mercury removed, we feed control strategy if the costs exceed the costs to approximately $7.1 million and would retrofit an existing air pollution control device. are not proposing a beyond-the-floor provide an incremental reduction in Thus, our cost estimates of feed control represent standard based on a carbon bed system. mercury emissions beyond the MACT an upper bound estimate on likely costs to control Feed Control of Mercury in the floor controls of 0.39 tons per year. metals or chlorine in hazardous waste. See USEPA, Hazardous Waste. We also believe that ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document for HWC Nonair quality health and MACT Replacement Standards, Volume V: the expense for a reduction in mercury environmental impacts and energy Emission Estimates and Engineering Costs,’’ March emissions based on further control of effects were evaluated to estimate the 2004, Chapter 4. mercury concentrations in the

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21244 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

hazardous waste is not warranted. A current emission standard of 0.015 gr/ under operating conditions identical to beyond-the-floor level of 6.4 µg/dscm, dscf. This emission level is currently the test conditions during which the which represents a 20% reduction from being achieved by all sources. emissions data were obtained. the floor level, would result in a small 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor As discussed in Part Two, Section II, incremental reduction in mercury Standards for Existing Sources we considered whether to propose emissions. For similar reasons discussed separate standards (subcategorize) for above for existing sources, we likewise We evaluated improved particulate particulate matter for several different conclude that a beyond-the-floor matter control to achieve a beyond-the- potential subcategories such as standard based on controlling the floor standard of 17 mg/dscm (0.0075 government-owned versus non- mercury in the hazardous waste feed gr/dscf). For an existing incinerator that government incinerators and liquid would not be justified because of the needs a significant reduction in injection versus solid fuel-fired costs and emission reductions. particulate matter emissions, we incinerators. We determined that the Therefore, we propose a mercury assumed and costed a new baghouse to emission characteristics from these µ standard of 8 g/dscm for new sources. achieve the beyond-the-floor level. If potential subcategories are not little or modest emissions reductions statistically different, and, therefore, C. What Are the Proposed Standards for were needed, then improved control separate standards for particulate matter Particulate Matter? was costed as design, operation, and are not warranted. We request comment We are proposing to establish maintenance modifications of the on whether these subcategorization standards for existing and new existing particulate matter control considerations capture the appropriate incinerators that limit emissions of equipment. differences in manufacturing process, particulate matter to 0.015 and 0.00070 The national incremental annualized emission characteristics, or technical gr/dscf, respectively. compliance cost for incinerators to meet this beyond-the-floor level rather than feasibility for particulate matter. We 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT comply with the floor controls would be note, for example, the single best Floor for Existing Sources? approximately $3.9 million and would performing source, which is the basis of Particulate matter emissions for provide an incremental reduction in the floor level for new incinerators, is an existing incinerators are currently particulate matter emissions beyond the incinerator used to decontaminate scrap limited to 0.015 gr/dscf (34 mg/dscm) by MACT floor of 48 tons per year. Nonair metal. Though we believe these sources § 63.1203(a)(7). This standard was quality health and environmental are best performers because they use promulgated in the Interim Standards impacts and energy effects were highly efficient baghouses for the Rule (See 67 FR at 6796). The evaluated to estimate the nonair quality capture of particulate matter, and, particulate matter standard is a health and environmental impacts therefore, appropriate for inclusion in surrogate control for the hazardous air between further improvements to the analysis, we invite comment on pollutant metals antimony, cobalt, control particulate matter and controls whether we have considered the manganese, nickel, and selenium. likely to be used to meet the floor level. appropriate subcategories for particulate We have compliance test emissions We estimate that this beyond-the-floor matter. We note that a floor level based data for most incinerators. For some option would increase the amount of on the second best performing sources, we have compliance test hazardous waste generated by 48 tons incinerator source would be 0.0021 gr/ emissions data from more than one per year and would also require sources dscf. compliance test campaign. Our data to use an additional 2.7 million kW- 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor base of particulate matter stack emission hours per year beyond the requirements Standards for New Sources concentrations range from 0.0002 to to achieve the floor level. The costs 0.078 gr/dscf. associated with these impacts are We evaluated improved emissions To identify the MACT floor for accounted for in the national annualized control based on a state-of-the-art incinerators, we evaluated the compliance cost estimates. Therefore, baghouse using a high quality fabric compliance test emissions data based on these factors and costs of filter bag material to achieve a beyond- associated with the most recent test approximately $81,000 per additional the-floor standard of 1.2 mg/dscm campaign using the Air Pollution ton of particulate matter removed, we (0.0005 gr/dscf). The incremental Control Technology Approach. The are not proposing a beyond-the-floor annualized compliance cost for a new calculated floor is 0.020 gr/dscf (46 mg/ standard based on improved particulate incinerator to meet this beyond-the-floor dscm), which considers emissions matter control. level, rather than comply with the floor variability. This is an emission level level, would be approximately $80,000 that the average of the best performing 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT and would provide an incremental sources could be expected to achieve in Floor for New Sources? reduction in particulate matter 99 of 100 future tests when operating Particulate matter emissions from new emissions of approximately 0.15 tons under conditions identical to the incinerators are currently limited to per year. Nonair quality health and compliance test conditions during 0.015 gr/dscf (34 mg/dscm) by environmental impacts and energy which the emissions data were § 63.1203(b)(7). This standard was effects were also evaluated and are obtained. The calculated floor level of promulgated in the Interim Standards accounted for in the national annualized 0.020 gr/dscf is less stringent than the Rule (See 67 FR at 6796). compliance cost estimates. We estimate interim standard of 0.015 gr/dscf, which The MACT floor for new sources for that this option would require a new is a regulatory limit relevant in particulate matter would be 1.6 mg/ source to use an additional 0.2 million identifying the floor level (so as to avoid dscm (0.00070 gr/dscf), which considers kW-hours per year. For these reasons any backsliding from a current level of emissions variability. This is an and a cost-effectiveness of $0.53 million performance achieved by all emission level that the single best per ton of particulate matter removed, incinerators, and hence, the level of performing source identified with the we are not proposing a beyond-the-floor minimal stringency at which EPA could Air Pollution Control Technology standard based on improved particulate calculate the MACT floor). Therefore, Approach could be expected to achieve matter control for new incinerators. we are proposing the floor level as the in 99 of 100 future tests when operating Therefore, we propose a particulate

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21245

matter standard of 1.6 mg/dscm for new matter emissions by operating and 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT sources. maintaining existing control equipment Floor for New Sources? to have improved collection efficiency. D. What Are the Proposed Standards for Semivolatile metals emissions from The national incremental annualized Semivolatile Metals? new incinerators are currently limited to compliance cost for incinerators to meet 120 µg/dscm by § 63.1203(b)(3). This We are proposing to establish this beyond-the-floor level rather than standards for existing and new standard was promulgated in the comply with the floor controls would be Interim Standards Rule (See 67 FR at incinerators that limit emissions of approximately $3.0 million and would semivolatile metals (cadmium and lead) 6796). provide an incremental reduction in The MACT floor for new sources for to 59 ug/dscm and 6.5 ug/dscm, semivolatile metals emissions beyond semivolatile metals would be 6.5 µg/ respectively. the MACT floor controls of 190 pounds dscm, which considers emissions per year. Nonair quality health and 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT variability. This is an emission level environmental impacts and energy Floor for Existing Sources? that the single best performing source effects were evaluated to estimate the identified with the SRE/Feed Approach Semivolatile metals emissions from impacts between further improvements could be expected to achieve in 99 of existing incinerators are currently to control particulate matter and 100 future tests when operating under limited to 240 ug/dscm by controls likely to be used to meet the conditions identical to the test § 63.1203(a)(3). This standard was floor level. We estimate that this conditions during which the emissions promulgated in the Interim Standards beyond-the-floor option would increase data were obtained. Rule (See 67 FR at 6796). Incinerators the amount of hazardous waste control emissions of semivolatile metals generated by 50 tons per year and would 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor with air pollution control equipment require sources to use an additional 3.4 Standards for New Sources and/or by controlling the feed million kW-hours per year beyond the We identified two potential beyond- concentration of semivolatile metals in requirements to achieve the floor level. the-floor techniques for control of the hazardous waste. The costs associated with these semivolatile metals: (1) Improved We have compliance test emissions hazardous waste treatment and energy control of particulate matter; and (2) data for nearly 30 incinerators. impacts are accounted for in the control of semivolatile metals in the Semivolatile metal stack emissions national annualized compliance cost hazardous waste feed. range from approximately 4 to 29,000 estimates. Therefore, based on these Improved Particulate Matter Control. ug/dscm. These emissions are expressed factors and costs of approximately $31 We evaluated a standard of 3.3 µg/dscm, as mass of semivolatile metals per unit million per additional ton of which is a 50% reduction from the floor volume of stack gas. Lead was usually semivolatile metals removed, we are not level, based on a state-of-the-art the most significant contributor to proposing a beyond-the-floor standard baghouse using a high quality fabric semivolatile emissions during based on improved particulate matter compliance test conditions. control. filter bag material as beyond-the-floor To identify the MACT floor, we Feed Control of Semivolatile Metals control for further reductions in evaluated the compliance test emissions in the Hazardous Waste. We also semivolatile metals emissions. The data associated with the most recent test evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 47 incremental annualized compliance cost campaign using the SRE/Feed µg/dscm, which represents a 20% for a new incinerator with an average Approach. The calculated floor is 59 ug/ reduction from the floor level. We chose gas flow rate to meet this beyond-the- dscm, which considers emissions a 20% reduction as a level that floor level, rather than comply with the variability. This is an emission level represents the practicable extent that floor level, would be approximately that the average of the best performing additional feedrate control of $80,000 and would provide an sources could be expected to achieve in semivolatile metals in the hazardous incremental reduction in semivolatile 99 of 100 future tests when operating waste can be used and still achieve metals emissions of approximately 2 under conditions identical to the modest emissions reductions. The pounds per year. Nonair quality health compliance test conditions during national incremental annualized and environmental impacts and energy which the emissions data were compliance cost for incinerators to meet effects were also evaluated and are obtained. We estimate that this emission this beyond-the-floor level rather than included in the cost estimates. We level is being achieved by 52% of comply with the floor controls would be estimate that this option would require sources. The floor level would reduce approximately $1.7 million and would a new source to use an additional 0.2 semivolatile metals emissions by 0.43 provide an incremental reduction in million kW-hours per year. For these tons per year. semivolatile metals emissions beyond reasons and costs of $94 million per ton the MACT floor of 90 pounds per year. of semivolatile metals removed, we are 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor Nonair quality health and not proposing a beyond-the-floor Standards for Existing Sources environmental impacts and energy standard based on improved particulate We identified two potential beyond- effects were also evaluated and are matter control for new sources. the-floor techniques for control of accounted for in the national annualized Feed Control of Semivolatile Metals semivolatile metals: (1) Improved compliance cost estimates. For these in the Hazardous Waste. We also believe particulate matter control; and (2) reasons and costs of approximately $39 that the expense for a reduction in control of semivolatile metals in the million per additional ton of semivolatile metals emissions based on hazardous waste feed. semivolatile metals removed, we are not further control of semivolatile metals Improved Particulate Matter Control. proposing a beyond-the-floor standard concentrations in the hazardous waste is Controlling particulate matter also based on feed control of semivolatile not warranted. A beyond-the-floor level controls emissions of semivolatile metals in the hazardous waste. of 5.2 µg/dscm, which represents a 20% metals. We evaluated a beyond-the-floor For the reasons discussed above, we reduction from the floor level, would level of 30 µg/dscm, which is a 50% propose to establish the emission result in little additional semivolatile reduction from the floor level, based on standard for existing incinerators at 59 metals reductions. For similar reasons additional reductions of particulate µg/dscm. discussed above for existing sources, we

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21246 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

judge that a beyond-the-floor standard reduction from the floor level, based on standard for existing incinerators at 84 based on controlling the semivolatile additional reductions of particulate µg/dscm. metals in the hazardous waste feed matter emissions by operating and 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT would not be justified because of the maintaining existing control equipment Floor for New Sources? costs and expected emission reductions. to have improved collection efficiency. Therefore, we propose a semivolatile The national incremental annualized Low volatile metal emissions from metals standard of 6.5 µg/dscm for new compliance cost for incinerators to meet new incinerators are currently limited to µ sources. this beyond-the-floor level rather than 97 g/dscm by § 63.1203(b)(4). This comply with the floor controls would be standard was promulgated in the E. What Are the Proposed Standards for approximately $0.88 million and would Interim Standards Rule (See 67 FR at Low Volatile Metals? provide an incremental reduction in low 6796). We are proposing to establish volatile metals emissions beyond the The MACT floor for new sources for µ standards for existing and new MACT floor controls of 365 pounds per low volatile metals would be 8.9 g/ incinerators that limit emissions of low year. Nonair quality health and dscm, which considers emissions volatile metals (arsenic, beryllium, and environmental impacts and energy variability. This is an emission level chromium) to 84 µg/dscm and 8.9 µg/ effects were evaluated to estimate the that the single best performing source dscm, respectively. impacts between further improvements identified with the SRE/Feed Approach to control particulate matter and could be expected to achieve in 99 of 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT controls likely to be used to meet the 100 future tests when operating under Floor for Existing Sources? floor level. We estimate that this conditions identical to the test Low volatile metals emissions from beyond-the-floor option would increase conditions during which the emissions existing incinerators are currently the amount of hazardous waste data were obtained. µ limited to 97 g/dscm by generated by 100 tons per year and 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor § 63.1203(a)(4). This standard was would require sources to use an Standards for New Sources promulgated in the Interim Standards additional 0.7 million kW-hours per Rule (See 67 FR at 6796). Incinerators year beyond the requirements to achieve We identified two potential beyond- control emissions of low volatile metals the floor level. The costs associated with the-floor techniques for control of low with air pollution control equipment these impacts are accounted for in the volatile metals: (1) Improved control of and/or by controlling the feed national annualized compliance cost particulate matter; and (2) control of low concentration of low volatile metals in estimates. Therefore, based on these volatile metals in the hazardous waste the hazardous waste. factors and costs of approximately $4.8 feed. We have compliance test emissions Improved Particulate Matter Control. million per additional ton of low µ data for nearly 30 incinerators. Low volatile metals removed, we are not We evaluated a standard of 4.5 g/dscm, volatile metal stack emissions range proposing a beyond-the-floor standard which is a 50% reduction from the floor from approximately 1 to 4,300 µg/dscm. based on improved particulate matter level, based on a state-of-the-art These emissions are expressed as mass control. baghouse using a high quality fabric of low volatile metals per unit volume Feed Control of Low Volatile Metals filter bag material as beyond-the-floor of stack gas. in the Hazardous Waste. We also control for further reductions in low To identify the MACT floor, we evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 67 volatile metals emissions. The evaluated the compliance test emissions µg/dscm, which represents a 20% incremental annualized compliance cost data associated with the most recent test reduction from the floor level. We chose for a new incinerator with average gas campaign using the SRE/Feed a 20% reduction as a level that flowrate to meet this beyond-the-floor Approach. The calculated floor is 84 µg/ represents the practicable extent that level, rather than comply with the floor dscm, which considers emissions additional feedrate control of low level, would be approximately $80,000 variability. This is an emission level volatile metals in the hazardous waste and would provide an incremental that the average of the best performing can be used and still achieve modest reduction in low volatile metals sources could be expected to achieve in emissions reductions. The national emissions of approximately 2.3 pounds 99 of 100 future tests when operating incremental annualized compliance cost per year. Nonair quality health and under conditions identical to the for incinerators to meet this beyond-the- environmental impacts and energy compliance test conditions during floor level rather than comply with the effects were also evaluated and are which the emissions data were floor controls would be approximately included in the cost estimates. For these obtained. We estimate that this emission $0.25 million and would provide an reasons and costs of $69 million per ton level is being achieved by 85% of incremental reduction in low volatile of low volatile metals removed, we are sources and would reduce low volatile metals emissions beyond the MACT not proposing a beyond-the-floor metals emissions by 56 pounds per year. floor controls of 0.11 tons per year. standard based on improved particulate Nonair quality health and matter control for new sources. 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor environmental impacts and energy Feed Control of Low Volatile Metals Standards for Existing Sources effects were also evaluated and are in the Hazardous Waste. We also believe We identified two potential beyond- accounted for in the national annualized that the expense associated with a the-floor techniques for control of low compliance cost estimates. Therefore, reduction in low volatile metals volatile metals: (1) Improved particulate based on these factors and costs of emissions based on further control of matter control; and (2) control of low approximately $2.2 million per low volatile metals concentrations in volatile metals in the hazardous waste additional ton of low volatile metals the hazardous waste is not warranted. A feed. removed, we are not proposing a beyond-the-floor level of 7.1 µg/dscm, Improved Particulate Matter Control. beyond-the-floor standard based on feed which represents a 20% reduction from Controlling particulate matter also control of low volatile metals in the the floor level, would result in little controls emissions of low volatile hazardous waste. additional low volatile metals metals. We evaluated a beyond-the-floor For the reasons discussed above, we reductions. For similar reasons level of 42 µg/dscm, which is a 50% propose to establish the emission discussed above for existing sources, we

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21247

judge that a beyond-the-floor standard Use of Wet Scrubbing. We evaluated national annualized compliance cost based on controlling the low volatile a beyond-the-floor level of 0.8 ppmv estimates. Therefore, based on these metals in the hazardous waste feed based on improved wet scrubbers that factors and costs of approximately $0.28 would not be cost-effective or otherwise would include increasing the liquid to million per additional ton of total appropriate. Therefore, we propose a gas ratio, increasing the liquor pH, and chlorine removed, we are not proposing low volatile metals standard of 8.9 µg/ replacing the existing packing material a beyond-the-floor standard based on dscm for new sources. with new more efficient packing feed control of chlorine in the material. We made a conservative hazardous waste. F. What Are the Proposed Standards for For the reasons discussed above, we Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine Gas? assumption that an improved wet scrubber will provide 50% total propose to establish the emission We are proposing to establish chlorine control beyond the controls standard for existing incinerators at 1.5 standards for existing and new needed to achieve the floor level given ppmv. incinerators that limit total chlorine the low total chlorine levels at the floor. 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT emissions (hydrogen chloride and Applying this wet scrubbing removal Floor for New Sources? chlorine gas, combined, reported as a efficiency to the total chlorine floor chloride equivalent) to 1.5 and 0.18 level of 1.5 ppmv leads to a beyond-the- Total chlorine emissions from ppmv, respectively. However, we are floor level 0.8 ppmv. The national incinerators are currently limited to 21 also proposing to establish alternative incremental annualized compliance cost ppmv by § 63.1203(b)(6). This standard risk-based standards, pursuant to CAA for incinerators to meet this beyond-the- was promulgated in the Interim section 112(d)(4), which a source could floor level rather than comply with the Standards Rule (See 67 FR at 6796). The elect to comply with by in lieu of the floor controls would be approximately MACT floor for new sources for total chlorine would be 0.18 ppmv, which MACT emission standards for total $1.7 million and would provide an considers emissions variability. This is chlorine. The emission limits would be incremental reduction in total chlorine an emission level that the single best based on national exposure standards emissions beyond the MACT floor performing source identified with the that ensure protection of public health controls of 6 tons per year. We also SRE/Feed Approach could be expected with an ample margin of safety. See Part evaluated nonair quality health and to achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when Two, Section XIII for additional details. environmental impacts and energy operating under conditions identical to effects between improved wet scrubbers 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT the test conditions during which the and controls likely to be used to meet Floor for Existing Sources? emissions data were obtained. the floor level. We estimate that this Total chlorine emissions from existing beyond-the-floor option would increase 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor incinerators are limited to 77 ppmv by the amount of waste water generated by Standards for New Sources § 63.1203(a)(6). This standard was 270 million gallons per year. The option promulgated in the Interim Standards We identified similar potential would also require sources to use an beyond-the-floor techniques for control Rule (See 67 FR at 6796). Incinerators additional 3.2 million kW-hours per control emissions of total chlorine with of total chlorine for new sources: (1) Use year and 270 million gallons of water of improved wet scrubbers; and (2) air pollution control equipment and/or beyond the requirements to achieve the by controlling the feed concentration of control of chlorine in the hazardous floor level. The costs associated with waste feed. chlorine in the hazardous waste. these impacts are accounted for in the We have compliance test emissions Use of Wet Scrubbing. We evaluated national annualized compliance cost data for most incinerators. Total a beyond-the-floor level of 0.1 ppmv estimates. Therefore, based on these chlorine emissions range from less than using wet scrubbers as beyond-the-floor factors and costs of approximately $0.29 1 ppmv to 460 ppmv. control for further reductions in total To identify the MACT floor, we million per additional ton of total chlorine emissions. We made a evaluated the compliance test emissions chlorine removed, we are not proposing conservative assumption that an data associated with the most recent test a beyond-the-floor standard based on improved wet scrubber will provide campaign using the SRE/Feed improved wet scrubbing. 50% total chlorine reductions beyond Approach. The calculated floor is 1.5 Feed Control of Chlorine in the the controls needed to achieve the floor ppmv, which considers emissions Hazardous Waste. We also evaluated a level given the low total chlorine levels variability. This is an emission level beyond-the-floor level of 1.2 ppmv, at the floor. The incremental annualized that the best performing feed control which represents a 20% reduction from compliance cost for a new incinerator sources could be expected to achieve in the floor level. We chose a 20% with an average gas flowrate to meet this 99 of 100 future tests when operating reduction as a level that represents the beyond-the-floor level, rather than under conditions identical to the practicable extent that additional comply with the floor level, would be compliance test conditions during feedrate control of chlorine in approximately $0.2 million and would which the emissions data were hazardous waste can be used and still provide an incremental reduction in obtained. We estimate that this emission achieve appreciable emissions total chlorine emissions of level is being achieved by 11% of reductions. The national incremental approximately 35 pounds per year. sources and reductions to the floor level annualized compliance cost for Nonair quality health and would reduce total chlorine emissions incinerators to meet this beyond-the- environmental impacts and energy by 286 tons per year. floor level rather than comply with the effects were also evaluated and are floor controls would be approximately included in the cost estimates. We 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor $0.69 million and would provide an estimate that this option would increase Standards for Existing Sources incremental reduction in total chlorine the amount of wastewater generated by We identified two potential beyond- emissions beyond the MACT floor 50 million gallons per year and would the-floor techniques for control of total controls of 2.5 tons per year. Nonair require a new source to use an chlorine: (1) Improved control with wet quality health and environmental additional 0.5 million kW-hours per scrubbing; and (2) control of chlorine in impacts and energy effects were also year beyond the requirements to achieve the hazardous waste feed. evaluated and are accounted for in the the floor level. For these reasons and

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21248 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

costs of $12 million per ton of chlorine See §§ 63.1203(a)(5) and (b)(5). Existing DRE for each principal organic removed, we are not proposing a and new incinerators can elect to hazardous constituent, except that beyond-the-floor standard based on comply with either the hydrocarbon 99.9999% DRE is required if specified improved wet scrubbing control for new limit or the carbon monoxide limit on dioxin-listed hazardous wastes are sources. a continuous basis. Sources that comply burned. See §§ 63.1203(c). The rationale Feed Control of Chlorine in the with the carbon monoxide limit on a for these decisions are discussed in the Hazardous Waste. We also believe that continuous basis must also demonstrate September 1999 final rule (64 FR at the expense associated with a reduction compliance with the hydrocarbon 52902). We view the standards for DRE in chlorine emissions based on further standard during the comprehensive as unaffected by the Court’s vacature of control of chlorine concentrations in the performance test. However, continuous the challenged regulations in its hazardous waste is not warranted. We hydrocarbon monitoring following the decision of July 24, 2001. We therefore considered a beyond-the-floor level of performance test is not required. The are not proposing these standards for 0.14 ppmv, which represents a 20% rationale for these decisions are incinerators, but rather are mentioning reduction from the floor level. For discussed in the September 1999 final them here for the reader’s convenience. similar reasons discussed above for rule (64 FR at 52900). We view the existing sources, we judge that a standards for hydrocarbons and carbon VIII. How Did EPA Determine the beyond-the-floor standard based on monoxide as unaffected by the Court’s Proposed Emission Standards for controlling the chlorine in the vacature of the challenged regulations in Hazardous Waste Burning Cement hazardous waste feed would not be cost- its decision of July 24, 2001. We Kilns? effective or otherwise appropriate. therefore are not proposing these Therefore, we propose a chlorine standards for incinerators, but rather are In this section, the basis for the standard of 0.18 ppmv for new sources. mentioning them here for the reader’s proposed emission standards is convenience. discussed. See proposed § 63.1220 The G. What Are the Standards for proposed emission limits apply to the Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide? H. What Are the Standards for kiln stack gases, in-line kiln raw mill Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide Destruction and Removal Efficiency? stack gases if combustion gases pass standards are surrogates to control The destruction and removal through the in-line raw mill, and kiln emissions of organic hazardous air efficiency (DRE) standard is a surrogate alkali bypass stack gases if discharged pollutants for existing and new to control emissions of organic through a separate stack.90 The incinerators. The standards limit hazardous air pollutants other than proposed standards for existing and new hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide dioxin/furans. The standard for existing cement kilns that burn hazardous waste concentrations to 10 ppmv or 100 ppmv. and new incinerators requires 99.99% are summarized in the table below:

PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AND NEW CEMENT KILNS

Emission standard 1 Hazardous air pollutant or surrogate Existing sources New sources

Dioxin and furan 1 ...... 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm; or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm and control of flue gas temperature not to exceed 400°F at the inlet to the particulate matter control device.

Mercury 2 ...... 64 ug/dscm ...... 35 ug/dscm. Particulate Matter ...... 65 mg/dscm (0.028 gr/dscf) ...... 13 mg/dscm (0.0058 gr/dscf). Semivolatile metals 3 ...... 4.0 x 10¥4 lb/MMBtu ...... 6.2 x 10¥5 lb/MMBtu. Low volatile metals 3 ...... 1.4 x 10¥5 lb/MMBtu ...... 1.4 x 10¥5 lb/MMBtu. Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas 4 ...... 110 ppmv or the alternative emission limits 78 ppmv or the alternative emission limits under § 63.1215. under § 63.1215. Hydrocarbons: kilns without bypass 5, 6 ...... 20 ppmv (or 100 ppmv carbon monoxide) 5 .... Greenfield kilns: 20 ppmv (or 100 ppmv car- bon monoxide and 50 ppmv 7 hydro- carbons). All others: 20 ppmv (or 100 ppmv carbon monoxide) 5. Hydrocarbons: kilns with bypass; main stack 6, 8 No main stack standard ...... 50 ppmv 7. Hydrocarbons: kilns with bypass; bypass duct 10 ppmv (or 100 ppmv carbon monoxide) ...... 10 ppmv (or 100 ppmv carbon monoxide). and stack 5, 6, 8.

Destruction and removal efficiency ...... For existing and new sources, 99.99% for each principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC). For sources burning hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027, how- ever, 99.9999% for each POHC. 1 All emission standards are corrected to 7% oxygen, dry basis. If there is a separate alkali bypass stack, then both the alkali bypass and main stack emissions must be less than the emission standard. 2 Mercury standard is an annual limit. 3 Standards are expressed as mass of pollutant stack emissions attributable to the hazardous waste per million British thermal unit heat input of the hazardous waste. 4 Combined standard, reported as a chloride (Cl(-)) equivalent. 5 Sources that elect to comply with the carbon monoxide standard must demonstrate compliance with the hydrocarbon standard during the comprehensive performance test. 6 Hourly rolling average. Hydrocarbons reported as propane.

90 Currently, we are not aware of any preheater/ preacalciner kiln that vents its alkali bypass gases through a separate stack.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21249

7 Applicable only to newly-constructed cement kilns at greenfield sites (see 64 FR at 52885). The 50 ppmv standard is a 30-day block average limit. 8 Measurement made in the bypass sampling system of any kiln (e.g., alkali bypass of a preheater/precalciner kiln; midkiln gas sampling sys- tem of a long kiln).

A. What Are the Proposed Standards for within a temperature range up to 475°F, 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor Dioxin and Furan? had emissions of dioxin/furan as high as Standards for Existing Sources We are proposing to establish 1.2 ng TEQ/dscm. We cannot explain We evaluated activated carbon standards for existing and new cement why some sources emit dioxin/furan at injection as beyond-the-floor control for kilns that limit emissions of dioxin and significantly lower levels than other further reduction of dioxin/furan furans to either 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm or sources operating at similar control emissions. Activated carbon has been 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm and control of flue device inlet temperatures. As noted demonstrated for controlling dioxin/ gas temperature not to exceed 400°F at earlier, there are many uncertainties and furans in various combustion the inlet to the particulate matter imperfectly understood complexities applications. However, currently no control device. relating to dioxin/furan formation. cement kiln that burns hazardous waste The data generally support the uses activated carbon injection. We 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT relationship between inlet temperature evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of Floor for Existing Sources? to the particulate matter control device 0.10 ng TEQ/dscm, which represents a Dioxin and furan emissions for and dioxin/furan emissions: When inlet 75% reduction in dioxin/furan existing cement kilns are currently temperatures are below the optimum emissions from the floor level. We limited by § 63.1204(a)(1) to 0.20 ng range of formation, dioxin/furan selected this level because it represents TEQ/dscm or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm and emissions are lower. However, the a level that is considered routinely control of flue gas temperature not to converse may not hold: When inlet achievable with activated carbon exceed 400°F at the inlet to the temperatures are within the optimum injection. In addition, we assumed for particulate matter control device. This range of formation, dioxin/furan costing purposes that cement kilns standard was promulgated in the emissions may or may not be higher (but needing activated carbon injection to Interim Standards Rule (See 67 FR at in most cases are higher). Moreover, we achieve the beyond-the-floor level 6796, February 13, 2002). are concerned that a floor level of 0.22 would install the activated carbon Since promulgation of the 1999 final ng TEQ/dscm is not replicable by all injection system after the existing rule, we have obtained additional sources using temperature control particulate matter control device and dioxin/furan emissions data. We now because we have emissions data from add a new, smaller baghouse to remove have compliance test emissions data for sources operating below the optimum the injected carbon with the adsorbed all but one cement kiln that burns temperature range of dioxin/furan dioxin/furan. We chose this costing hazardous waste. The compliance test formation that is higher than the approach to address potential concerns dioxin/furan emissions in our data base calculated floor level of 0.22 ng TEQ/ that injected carbon may interfere with range from approximately 0.004 to 20 ng dscm. As a result of this concern, we cement kiln dust recycling practices. TEQ/dscm.91 Cement kilns control would identify the floor level as 0.22 ng The national incremental annualized dioxin by quenching kiln gas TEQ/dscm or controlling the inlet compliance cost for cement kilns to temperatures so that gas temperatures at temperature to the particulate matter meet this beyond-the-floor level rather the inlet to the particulate matter control device. than comply with the floor controls control device are below the range of Allowing a source to comply with a would be approximately $21 million optimum dioxin/furan formation. temperature limit alone, however, and would provide an incremental To identify the MACT floor, we absent a numerical dioxin/furan reduction in dioxin/furan emissions evaluated the compliance test emissions emission limit, is less stringent than the beyond the MACT floor controls of 3.4 data associated with the most recent test current interim standard of 0.20 ng grams TEQ per year. Nonair quality campaign using the Emissions TEQ/dscm, or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm and health and environmental impacts and Approach described in Part Two, control of flue gas temperature not to energy effects were evaluated to ° Section VI.C above. The calculated floor exceed 400 F at the inlet to the estimate the impacts between activated is 0.22 ng TEQ/dscm, which considers particulate matter control device. The carbon injection and controls likely to emissions variability. These best current interim standard is a regulatory be used to meet the floor level. We performing sources controlled inlet limit that is relevant in identifying the estimate that this beyond-the-floor temperatures to the particulate matter floor level because it fixes a level of option would increase the amount of control device from 380°–475°F. performance for the source category. solid waste 92 generated by 7,800 tons Although some best performing sources Given that all sources are achieving this per year and would require sources to had inlet temperatures to the particulate interim standard and that the interim use an additional 2.6 million kW-hours matter control device within the standard is judged as more stringent per year beyond the requirements to optimum temperature range (i.e., than the calculated MACT floor, the achieve the floor level. The costs >400°F) for formation of dioxin/furan, dioxin/furan floor level can be no less associated with these impacts are their emissions were lower than other stringent than the current regulatory accounted for in the national annualized non-best performing sources. Our data limit. We are, therefore, proposing the compliance cost estimates. Therefore, base shows that these other non-best dioxin/furan floor level as 0.20 ng TEQ/ based on these factors and costs of performing sources, when operating dscm or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm and control approximately $6.2 million per of flue gas temperature not to exceed additional gram of dioxin/furan 91 ° Even though all sources have recently 400 F at the inlet to the particulate removed, we are not proposing a demonstrated compliance with the interim matter control device. This emission standards, the dioxin/furan data in our data base preceded the compliance demonstration. This level is being achieved by all sources 92 Under the exemption from hazardous waste explains why we have emissions data that are because it is the current required status in § 261.4(b)(8), cement kiln dust is not higher than the interim standard. interim standard. currently classified as a hazardous waste.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21250 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

beyond-the-floor standard based on use emissions. We evaluated a beyond-the- concentration of mercury in the of activated carbon injection. floor level of 0.10 ng TEQ/dscm, which hazardous waste. represents a 75% reduction in dioxin/ We have emissions data for all 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT sources. All of these data are best Floor for New Sources? furan emissions from the floor level. We selected this level because it represents classified as from normal operations, Dioxin and furan emissions for new a level that is considered routinely although, as explained below, there is a cement kilns are currently limited by achievable with activated carbon substantial range within these data. For § 63.1204(b)(1) to either 0.20 ng TEQ/ injection. In addition, we assumed for most sources, we have normal emissions dscm or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm and control costing purposes that a new cement kiln data from more than one test campaign. of flue gas temperature not to exceed The normal mercury stack emissions in ° will install the activated carbon 400 F at the inlet to the particulate injection system after the existing our data base range from less than 2 to µ matter control device. This standard particulate matter control device and 118 g/dscm. These emissions are was promulgated in the Interim add a new, smaller baghouse to remove expressed as mass of mercury (from all Standards Rule (See 67 FR at 6796). the injected carbon with the adsorbed feedstocks) per unit volume of stack gas. The calculated MACT floor for new dioxin/furan. The incremental To identify the MACT floor, we sources would be 0.21 ng TEQ/dscm, annualized compliance cost for a new evaluated all normal emissions data which considers emissions variability. cement kiln to meet this beyond-the- using the SRE/Feed Approach. We This is an emission level that the single floor level, rather than comply with the considered normal emissions data from best performing source identified by the 94 floor level, would be approximately $1.0 all test campaigns. For example, one Emissions Approach could be expected million and would provide an source in our data base has normal to achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when incremental reduction in dioxin/furan emissions data for three different testing operating under conditions identical to emissions of approximately 0.17 grams campaigns: 1992, 1995, and 1998. Under the test conditions during which the this approach we would consider the TEQ per year, for a cost-effectiveness of emissions data were obtained. As emissions data from the three separate $5.8 million per gram of dioxin/furan discussed for existing sources, we are years or campaigns. We believe this removed. Nonair quality health and concerned that a floor level of 0.21 ng approach better captures the range of environmental impacts and energy TEQ/dscm would not be reproducible average emissions for a source than only effects were not significant factors. For by all sources using temperature control considering the most recent normal these reasons, we are not proposing a because we have emissions data from emissions. Given that no cement kilns beyond-the-floor standard based on sources operating below the optimum burning hazardous waste use a control activated carbon injection for new temperature range of dioxin/furan device which captures mercury from the cement kilns. Therefore, we are formation that is higher than the flue gas stream, for purposes of this calculated floor level of 0.21 ng TEQ/ proposing the standard as 0.20 ng TEQ/ analysis we assumed all sources dscm or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm or control of dscm. As a result of this concern, we ° achieved a SRE of zero. The effect of would identify the MACT floor as 0.21 flue gas temperature not to exceed 400 F this assumption is that the sources with ng TEQ/dscm or controlling the inlet at the inlet to the particulate matter the lowest mercury concentrations in temperature to the particulate matter control device. the hazardous waste were identified as control device. B. What Are the Proposed Standards for the best performing sources. µ Allowing a source to comply with a Mercury? The calculated floor is 64 g/dscm, temperature limit alone, however, which considers emissions variability, absent a numerical dioxin/furan We are proposing to establish based on a hazardous waste maximum emission limit, is less stringent than the standards for existing and new cement theoretical emissions concentration current interim standard of 0.20 ng kilns that limit emissions of mercury to (MTEC) of 26 µg/dscm. This is an TEQ/dscm, or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm and 64 and 35 µg/dscm, respectively. If we emission level that the average of the control of flue gas temperature not to were to adopt these standards, then best performing sources could be exceed 400°F at the inlet to the sources would comply with the limit on expected to achieve in 99 of 100 future particulate matter control device. The an annual basis because the standards tests when operating under conditions current interim standard is a regulatory are based on normal emissions data. identical to the compliance test limit that is relevant in identifying the conditions during which the emissions 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT floor level because it fixes a level of data were obtained. We estimate that Floor for Existing Sources? performance for new cement kilns. this emission level is being achieved by Given that all sources are achieving this Mercury emissions for existing 59% of sources and would reduce interim standard and that the interim cement kilns are currently limited to mercury emissions by 0.23 tons per standard is judged as more stringent 120 µg/dscm by § 63.1204(a)(2).93 This year. If we were to adopt such a floor than the calculated MACT floor, the standard was promulgated in the level, we are proposing that sources dioxin/furan floor level can be no less Interim Standards Rule (See 67 FR at comply with the limit on an annual stringent than the current regulatory 6796). None of the cement kilns burning basis because it is based on normal limit. We are, therefore, proposing the hazardous waste use a dedicated control emissions data. Under this approach, dioxin/furan floor level as 0.20 ng TEQ/ device to remove mercury from the gas dscm or 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm and control stream; however, kilns control the feed 94 Given that we only have normal feedrate and of flue gas temperature not to exceed emissions data for mercury for cement kilns, we do ° not believe it is appropriate to establish a hazardous 400 F at the inlet to the particulate 93 An alternative mercury standard is available for waste thermal emissions-based standard. We prefer matter control device. existing cement kilns whereby a source can elect to to establish emission standards under the comply with a hazardous waste maximum hazardous waste thermal emissions format using 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor theoretical emissions concentration or MTEC of compliance test data because the metals feedrate Standards for New Sources mercury of 120 µg/dscm. MTEC is a term to information from compliance tests that we use to compare metals and chlorine feedrates across apportion emissions to calculate emissions We evaluated activated carbon sources of different sizes. MTEC is defined as the attributable to hazardous waste are more reliable injection as beyond-the-floor control for metals or chlorine feedrate divided by the gas flow than feedrate data measured during testing under further reduction of dioxin/furan rate and is expressed in units of µg/dscm. normal, typical operations.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21251

compliance would not be based on the a hazardous waste feedrate containing feedstocks including raw use of a total mercury continuous corresponding to an MTEC of 26 µg/ materials and fossil fuels. Mercury emissions monitoring system because dscm. If we were to adopt this approach, concentrations of 1.1, 2, and 5 ppmw in these monitors have not been we would require sources, upon the hazardous waste equate to adequately demonstrated as a reliable approval of the petition by the uncontrolled stack gas concentrations of compliance assurance tool at cement Administrator, to comply with this approximately 43, 79, and 196 µg/ kiln sources. Instead, a source would hazardous waste MTEC on an annual dscm.98 maintain compliance with the mercury basis because it is based on normal We compared the concentration of standard by establishing and complying emissions data. Under the second mercury in the hazardous waste with short-term limits on operating approach, we would structure the associated with the normal emissions parameters for pollution control alternative standard similar to the data in our data base to the 3-year equipment and annual limits on framework used for the alternative historical burn tank concentration data maximum total mercury feedrate in all interim standards for mercury under to estimate whether the normal data in feedstreams. § 63.1206(b)(15). The operating our data base—the basis of today’s We did not use the stack emissions requirement would be an annual MTEC µ µ proposed floor of 64 g/dscm—are data of preheater/precalciner kilns in not to exceed 26 g/dscm. We also likely to represent the high end, low the floor analysis because we believe the request comment on whether there are end, or close to average emissions. mercury emissions are biased low when other approaches that would more Mercury feed concentration information the in-line raw mill is on-line and appropriately provide relief to sources is not available for every test condition; biased high when the in-line raw mill is that cannot achieve a total stack gas however, the mercury concentrations in off-line. (See earlier discussion on why concentration standard because of the hazardous waste burned by the best we are proposing not to subcategorize emissions attributable to raw material performing sources during the tests that hazardous waste burning cement kilns and nonhazardous waste fuels. generated the normal emissions ranged for mercury between wet process kilns In June 2003, the Cement Kiln from 0.1 to 0.44 ppmw. For the best and preheater/precalciner kilns with in- Recycling Coalition (CKRC) 95 submitted performing sources comprising the line raw mills.) For either case, we to EPA information on actual mercury MACT pool for which we can make a believe the normal mercury data are not concentrations in the hazardous waste comparison, it appears that the normal representative of average emissions and, burn tanks of all 14 cement facilities for concentrations in the hazardous waste therefore, not appropriate to include in a three year period covering 1999 to the floor analysis. We request comment 2001. In general, the information shows during testing represent the low end on this data handling decision. the mercury concentration (in parts per (15th percentile or less) of average In the September 1999 final rule, we million) in the hazardous waste for each mercury concentrations. We invite acknowledged that a cement kiln using burn tank.96 In total, approximately comment on whether the normal properly designed and operated MACT 20,000 mercury burn tank concentration emissions data in our data base are control technologies, including data points are included in CKRC’s representative of average emissions in controlling the levels of metals in the submission.97 The data show that practice and whether evaluating the hazardous waste, may not be capable of approximately 50% of the individual data to identify a floor level is achieving a given emission standard burn tank measurements are 0.6 ppmw appropriate. because of mineral and process raw or less, 75% are less than 1.1 ppmw, In addition, we request comment on material contributions that might cause 88% are less than 2 ppmw, and 97% of how to identify a floor level using the an exceedance of the emission standard. all burn tank measurements are less 3-year hazardous waste mercury To address this concern, we than 5 ppmw. For a hypothetical wet concentration data. One potential promulgated a provision that allows process cement kiln that gets 50% of its approach would be to establish a kilns to petition for alternative required heat input from hazardous hazardous waste feed concentration standards provided they submit site- waste, a hazardous waste with a standard expressed in ppmw. To specific information that shows raw mercury concentration of 0.6 ppmw identify a floor level expressed as a material hazardous air pollutant equates approximately to an hazardous waste feed concentration in contributions to the emissions prevent uncontrolled (i.e., a system removal ppmw, we identified and evaluated the the source from complying with the efficiency of zero) stack gas 3-year historical burn tank emission standard even though the kiln concentration of 24 µg/dscm. This concentration data of the five best is using MACT control. See estimated stack gas concentration, of performing facilities (those sources with § 63.1206(b)(10). course, does not include contributions the lowest mean concentration Today’s proposed floor of 64 µg/dscm, to emissions from other mercury- considering variability). The calculated which was based on a hazardous waste alternative floor level is 2.2 ppmw in MTEC of 26 µg/dscm, may likewise 95 Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition is a trade the hazardous waste. To put this in necessitate such an alternative because organization that represents cement companies that context for a hypothetical wet process contributions of mercury in the raw burn hazardous wastes as a fuel. CKRC also represents companies that manage and market cement kiln that gets 50% of its required materials and fossil fuels at some hazardous waste fuels used in cement kilns. heat input from hazardous waste, a sources may cause an exceedance of the 96 For two cement facilities, the mercury mercury concentration of 2.2 ppmw in emission standard. The Agency intends concentration data are only available on a monthly- the hazardous waste equates to retain a source’s ability to comply averaged basis. approximately to an uncontrolled stack 97 with an alternative standard, and we Data from three of the facilities had a µ 99 significant number of individual measurements gas concentration of 86 g/dscm. This request comment on two approaches to reported as not detectable and also had relatively accomplish this. The first approach high analysis detection limits (compared to levels 98 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document would be to structure the alternative achieved by other cement plants). The detection for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume standard similar to the petitioning limit for most cement kilns was typically 0.1 ppm III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March 2004, or less. For purposes of today’s preamble Chapter 23. process used under § 63.1206(b)(10). In discussion, the measurements from these three 99 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document the case of mercury for an existing cement plants are excluded from the data for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume cement kiln, MACT would be defined as characterization conclusions. Continued

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21252 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

estimated stack gas concentration, of in the raw materials and auxiliary fuels. hazardous waste (beyond feedrate course, does not include contributions For reasons discussed below, we are not control that may be necessary to achieve to emissions from other mercury- proposing a beyond-the-floor standard the floor level) can be used and still containing feedstocks such as raw for mercury. achieve modest emissions reductions.101 materials and fossil fuels. If we were to Use of Activated Carbon Injection. We The national incremental annualized adopt such an approach, we would evaluated activated carbon injection as compliance cost for cement kilns to require sources to comply with the feed beyond-the-floor control for further meet this beyond-the-floor level rather concentration standard on a short term reduction of mercury emissions. than comply with the floor controls basis (e.g., 12 hour average). Activated carbon has been demonstrated would be approximately $3.7 million We also invite comment on whether for controlling mercury in several and would provide an incremental we should judge an annual limit of 64 combustion applications; however, reduction in mercury emissions beyond µg/dscm as less stringent than either the currently no cement kiln that burns the MACT floor controls of 180 pounds current emission standard of 120 µg/ hazardous waste uses activated carbon per year. Nonair quality health and dscm or the hazardous waste MTEC of injection. Given this lack of experience environmental impacts and energy mercury of 120 µg/dscm for cement using activated carbon injection, we effects were also evaluated. Therefore, kilns (so as to avoid any backsliding made a conservative assumption that based on these factors and costs of from a current level of performance the use of activated carbon injection approximately $42 million per achieved by all sources, and hence, the will provide 70% mercury control and additional ton of mercury removed, we level of minimal stringency at which evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 19 are not proposing a beyond-the-floor µ EPA could calculate the MACT floor). In g/dscm. In addition, for costing standard based on feed control of order to comply with the current purposes we assumed that cement kilns mercury in the hazardous waste. emission standard, generally a source needing activated carbon injection to Feed Control of Mercury in the Raw must conduct manual stack sampling to achieve the beyond-the-floor level Materials and Auxiliary Fuels. Cement demonstrate compliance with the would install the activated carbon kilns could achieve a reduction in mercury emission standard and then injection system after the existing mercury emissions by substituting a raw establish a maximum mercury feedrate particulate matter control device and material containing lower levels of limit based on operations during the add a new, smaller baghouse to remove mercury for a primary raw material with performance test. Following the the injected carbon with the adsorbed a higher level. We believe that this performance test, the source complies mercury. We chose this costing beyond-the-floor option would be even with a limit on the maximum total approach to address potential concerns less cost-effective than either of the mercury feedrate in all feedstreams on that injected carbon may interfere with options discussed above, however. a 12-hour rolling average (not an annual cement kiln dust recycling practices. Given that sources are sited near the average). Alternatively, a source can The national incremental annualized supply of the primary raw material, elect to comply with a hazardous waste compliance cost for cement kilns to µ transporting large quantities of an MTEC of mercury of 120 g/dscm that meet this beyond-the-floor level rather alternate source of raw materials is would require the source to limit the than comply with the floor controls likely to be cost-prohibitive, especially mercury feedrate in the hazardous waste would be approximately $16.8 million considering the small expected on a 12-hour rolling average. The floor and would provide an incremental µ emissions reductions that would result. level of 64 g/dscm proposed today reduction in mercury emissions beyond We also considered whether fuel would allow a source to feed more the MACT floor controls of 0.41 tons per switching to an auxiliary fuel containing variable mercury-containing year. Nonair quality health and a lower concentration of mercury would feedstreams (e.g., a hazardous waste environmental impacts and energy be an appropriate control option for with an mercury MTEC greater than 120 effects were evaluated to estimate the µ sources. Given that most cement kilns g/dscm) than the current 12-hour impacts between activated carbon burning hazardous waste also burn coal rolling average because today’s injection and controls likely to be used as a fuel, we considered switching to proposed floor level is an annual limit. to meet the floor level. We estimate that natural gas as a potential beyond-the- For example, we estimated a hazardous this beyond-the-floor option would floor option. We are concerned about increase the amount of solid waste waste MTEC for each burn tank the availability of natural gas to all generated by 4,400 tons per year and measurement associated with the 3-year cement kilns because natural gas would require sources to use an historical concentration data submitted pipelines are not available in all regions additional 21 million kW-hours per year by CKRC. We found that approximately of the United States. See 68 FR 1673. beyond the requirements to achieve the 5% of burn tank measurements would Moreover, even where pipelines provide floor level. The costs associated with exceed a hazardous waste MTEC of 120 access to natural gas, supplies of natural µ these impacts are accounted for in the g/dscm, including sources upon which gas may not be adequate. For example, the proposed floor is based.100 national annualized compliance cost it is common practice in cities during estimates. Therefore, based on these winter months (or periods of peak 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor factors and costs of approximately $41 Standards for Existing Sources million per additional ton of mercury demand) to prioritize natural gas usage We identified three potential beyond- removed, we are not proposing a for residential areas before industrial the-floor techniques for control of beyond-the-floor standard based on usage. Requiring cement kilns to switch mercury: (1) Activated carbon injection; activated carbon injection. to natural gas would place an even (2) control of mercury in the hazardous Feed Control of Mercury in the greater strain on natural gas resources. waste feed; and (3) control of mercury Hazardous Waste. We also evaluated a Consequently, even where pipelines beyond-the-floor level of 51 µg/dscm, exist, some sources may not be able to III: Selection of MACT Standards’’, March 2004, which represents a 20% reduction from use natural gas during times of limited Chapter 23. the floor level. We chose a 20% 100 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document 101 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume reduction as a level representing the for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume V: III: Selection of MACT Standards’’, March 2004, practicable extent that additional Emission Estimates and Engineering Costs’’, March Chapter 23. feedrate control of mercury in 2004, Chapter 4.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21253

supplies. Thus, natural gas may not be made a conservative assumption that any information and data from a source a viable control option for some sources. the use of activated carbon injection that has undertaken or is currently Therefore, we are not proposing a will provide 70% mercury control and located at a site whose raw materials are beyond-the-floor standard based on evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 11 low in mercury which would limiting mercury in the raw material µg/dscm. The incremental annualized consistently decrease mercury feed and auxiliary fuels. compliance cost for a new cement kiln emissions. Further, we are uncertain as For the reasons discussed above, we to meet this beyond-the-floor level, to what beyond-the-floor standard propose not to adopt a beyond-the-floor rather than comply with the floor level, would be achievable using a lower, if it standard for mercury and propose to would be approximately $1.0 million exists, mercury-containing raw material. establish the emission standard for and would provide an incremental Although we are doubtful that selecting existing cement kilns at 64 µg/dscm. If reduction in mercury emissions of a new plant site based on the content of we were to adopt such a standard, we approximately 88 pounds per year. We metals in the raw material is a realistic are proposing that sources comply with also estimate that this option would beyond-the-floor option considering the the standard on an annual basis because increase the amount of solid waste numerous additional factors that go into it is based on normal emissions data. generated by 400 tons per year and such a decision, we solicit comment on 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT would require sources to use an whether and what level of a beyond-the- Floor for New Sources? additional 1.9 million kW-hours per floor standard based on controlling the year. Nonair quality health and level of mercury in the raw materials is Mercury emissions from new cement environmental impacts and energy appropriate. µ kilns are currently limited to 120 g/ effects are accounted for in the national We also considered whether fuel dscm by § 63.1204(b)(2). New cement annualized compliance cost estimates. switching to an auxiliary fuel containing kilns can comply with an alternative Therefore, based on these factors and a lower concentration of mercury would mercury standard that limits the costs of $23 million per ton of mercury be an appropriate control option for hazardous waste maximum theoretical removed, we are not proposing a sources. We considered using natural emissions concentration or MTEC of beyond-the-floor standard based on gas in lieu of a fossil fuel such as coal mercury of 120 µg/dscm. This standard activated carbon injection for new containing higher concentrations of was promulgated in the Interim cement kilns. mercury as a potential beyond-the-floor Standards Rule (See 67 FR at 6796). Feed Control of Mercury in the option. As discussed for existing The MACT floor for new sources for Hazardous Waste. We also believe that sources, we are concerned about the µ mercury would be 35 g/dscm, which the expense for further reduction in availability of the natural gas considers emissions variability, based mercury emissions based on further infrastructure in all regions of the µ on a hazardous waste MTEC of 5.1 g/ control of mercury concentrations in the United States and believe that using dscm. This is an emission level that the hazardous waste is not warranted. A natural gas would not be a viable single best performing source identified beyond-the-floor level of 28 ug/dscm, control option for all new sources. with the SRE/Feed Approach could be which represents a 20% reduction from Therefore, we are not proposing a expected to achieve in 99 of 100 future the floor level, would result in little beyond-the-floor standard based on tests when operating under conditions additional mercury reductions. For limiting mercury in the raw material identical to the test conditions during similar reasons discussed above for feed and auxiliary fuels. which the emissions data were existing sources, we conclude that a Therefore, we propose a mercury obtained. As for existing sources, we beyond-the-floor standard based on standard of 35 ug/dscm for new sources. assumed all sources equally achieved a controlling the mercury in the If we were to adopt such a standard, we SRE of zero. The effect of this hazardous waste feed would not be are proposing that sources comply with assumption is that the single source justified because of the costs coupled the standard on an annual basis because with the lowest mercury concentration with estimated emission reductions. it is based on normal emissions data. in the hazardous waste was identified as Feed Control of Mercury in the Raw the best performing source. We also Materials and Auxiliary Fuels. Cement C. What Are the Proposed Standards for invite comment on whether we should kilns could achieve a reduction in Particulate Matter? judge an annual limit of 35 µg/dscm as mercury emissions by substituting a raw We are proposing to establish less stringent than either the current material containing lower levels of standards for existing and new cement emission standard of 120 µg/dscm or the mercury for a primary raw material with kilns that limit emissions of particulate hazardous waste MTEC of mercury of a higher level. For a new source at an matter to 65 mg/dscm (0.028 gr/dscf) 120 µg/dscm for cement kilns (so as to existing cement plant, we believe that and 13 mg/dscm (0.0058 gr/dscf), avoid any backsliding from a current this beyond-the-floor option would not respectively. level of performance achieved by all be cost-effective due to the costs of 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT sources). transporting large quantities of an alternate source of raw materials to the Floor for Existing Sources? 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor cement plant. Given that the plant site Particulate matter emissions for Standards for New Sources already exists and sited near the source existing cement kilns are currently We identified the same three potential of raw material, replacing the raw limited to 0.15 kilograms of particulate beyond-the-floor techniques for control materials at the plant site with lower matter per megagram dry feed 103 and of mercury: (1) Use of activated carbon; mercury-containing materials would be 20% opacity by § 63.1204(a)(7). This (2) control of mercury in the hazardous the source’s only option. For a new standard was promulgated in the waste feed; and (3) control of the cement kiln constructed at a new site— Interim Standards Rule (See 67 FR at mercury in the raw materials and a greenfield site 102—we are not aware of auxiliary fuels. 103 This standard equates approximately to a stack Use of Activated Carbon Injection. We 102 A greenfield cement kiln is a kiln constructed gas concentration level of 0.030 gr/dscf for wet evaluated activated carbon injection as at a site where no cement kiln previously existed; process kilns and 0.040 gr/dscf for preheater/ however, a newly constructed or reconstructed precalciner kilns. The conversion varies by process beyond-the-floor control for further cement kiln at an existing site would not be type because the amount of flue gas generated per reduction of mercury emissions. We considered as a greenfield cement kiln. ton of raw material feed varies by process type.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21254 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

6796). The particulate matter standard is based standard is expressed as mass of these impacts are accounted for in the a surrogate control for the metals particulate matter emitted per mass of national annualized compliance cost antimony, cobalt, manganese, nickel, dry raw material feed to the kiln (e.g., estimates. Therefore, based on these and selenium in the hazardous waste the format of the interim standard). We factors and costs of approximately and all HAP metals in the raw materials evaluated the compliance test $12,400 per additional ton of particulate and auxiliary fuels which are production-based data associated with matter removed, we are not proposing a controllable by particulate matter the most recent test campaign to beyond-the-floor standard based on control. All cement kilns control determine what the floor level would be improved particulate matter control. particulate matter with baghouses and under this approach. The calculated 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT electrostatic precipitators. floor would be 0.10 kilograms of Floor for New Sources? We have compliance test emissions particulate matter per megagram dry data for all cement kiln sources. For feed. We note that a concentration Particulate matter emissions from new most sources, we have compliance test format can be viewed as penalizing cement kilns are currently limited to emissions data from more than one more energy efficient kilns, which burn 0.15 kilograms of particulate matter per compliance test campaign. Our data less fuel and produce less kiln exhaust megagram dry feed and 20% opacity by base of particulate matter stack emission gas per megagram of dry feed. This is § 63.1204(b)(7). This standard was concentrations range from 0.0008 to because with a concentration-based promulgated in the Interim Standards 0.063 gr/dscf. standard the more energy-efficient kilns Rule (See 67 FR at 6796). To identify the floor level, we would be restricted to a lower level of The MACT floor for new sources for evaluated the compliance test emissions particulate matter emitted per unit of particulate matter would be 13 mg/dscm data associated with the most recent test production. (0.0058 gr/dscf), which considers campaign using the Air Pollution emissions variability. This is an Control Technology Approach. The 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor emission level that the single best calculated floor is 65 mg/dscm (0.028 Standards for Existing Sources performing source identified with the gr/dscf), which considers emissions We evaluated improved particulate Air Pollution Control Technology variability. This is an emission level matter control to achieve a beyond-the- Approach could be expected to achieve that the average of the best performing floor standard of 32 mg/dscm (0.014 gr/ in 99 of 100 future tests when operating sources could be expected to achieve in dscf), which is a 50% reduction from under operating conditions identical to 99 of 100 future tests when operating MACT floor emissions.104 For an the test conditions during which the under conditions identical to the existing source that needs a significant emissions data were obtained. We are compliance test conditions during reduction in particulate matter also proposing to delete the current which the emissions data were emissions, we assumed and estimated opacity standard in conjunction with obtained. We estimate that this emission costs for a new baghouse to achieve the revisions to the compliance assurance level is being achieved by 44% of beyond-the-floor level. If little or modest requirements for particulate matter for sources and would reduce particulate emissions reductions were needed, then cement kilns. See Part Three, Section III matter emissions by 43 tons per year. improved control was costed as design, for details. We are also proposing to delete the operation, and maintenance As discussed for existing sources, we current opacity standard in conjunction modifications of the existing particulate also request comment on whether the with revisions to the compliance matter control equipment. particulate matter standard should be assurance requirements for particulate The national incremental annualized expressed on a concentration basis or on matter for cement kilns. These proposed compliance cost for cement kilns to a production-based format. We compliance assurance amendments meet this beyond-the-floor level rather evaluated the compliance test include requiring a cement kiln source than comply with the floor controls production-based data associated with using a baghouse to comply with the would be approximately $4.8 million the most recent test campaign to same bag leak detection system and would provide an incremental determine what the floor level would be requirements that are currently reduction in particulate matter under this approach. The calculated applicable to all other hazardous waste emissions beyond the MACT floor floor would be 0.028 kilograms of combustors (see § 63.1209(m)). A controls of 385 tons per year. Nonair particulate matter per megagram dry cement kiln source using an ESP has the quality health and environmental feed. option either to (1) use a particulate impacts and energy effects were matter emissions detector as a process 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor evaluated to estimate the impacts Standards for New Sources monitor in lieu of complying with between further improvements to We evaluated improved emissions operating parameter limits, as we are control particulate matter and controls control based on a state-of-the-art proposing for all other hazardous waste likely to be used to meet the floor level. baghouse using a high quality fabric combustor sources; or (2) establish site- We estimate that this beyond-the-floor filter bag material to achieve a beyond- specific, enforceable operating option would increase the amount of the-floor standard of 6.7 mg/dscm parameter limits that are linked to the solid waste generated by 385 tons per (0.0029 gr/dscf). This reduction automatic waste feed cutoff system. See year and would require sources to use represents a 50% reduction in Part Three, Section III for a discussion an additional 15 million kW-hours per particulate matter emissions from of the proposed changes. year beyond the requirements to achieve MACT floor levels. The incremental We also request comment on whether the floor level. The costs associated with the particulate matter standard should annualized compliance cost for a new be expressed on a concentration basis 104 We did not evaluate a beyond-the-floor cement kiln to meet this beyond-the- (as proposed today) or on a production- standard based on fuel substitution because floor level, rather than comply with the based format. A concentration-based particulate matter emissions from cement kilns are floor level, would be approximately standard is expressed as mass of primarily entrained raw material, not ash $0.38 million and would provide an contributed by the hazardous waste fuel. There is, particulate matter per dry standard therefore, no correlation between particulate matter incremental reduction in particulate volume of gas (e.g., mg/dscm as emissions and the level of ash in the hazardous matter emissions of approximately 2.6 proposed today) while a production- waste. tons per year. We estimate that this

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21255

beyond-the-floor option would increase data associated with the most recent test we conclude that a dual standard—the the amount of solid waste generated by campaign using the SRE/Feed semivolatile metals standard as both the less than 6 tons per year and would Approach. The calculated floor is 4.0 × calculated floor level, expressed as a require sources to use an additional 1.8 10¥4 lbs semivolatile metals emissions hazardous waste thermal emissions million kW-hours per year beyond the attributable to the hazardous waste per level, and the current interim requirements to achieve the floor level. million Btu heat input of the hazardous standard—is not needed for this The costs associated with these impacts waste, which considers emissions standard. are accounted for in the national variability. This is an emission level In the September 1999 final rule, we annualized compliance cost estimates. that the average of the best performing acknowledged that a cement kiln using Therefore, based on these factors and sources could be expected to achieve in properly designed and operated MACT costs of approximately $61,400 per 99 of 100 future tests when operating control technologies, including additional ton of particulate matter under conditions identical to the controlling the levels of metals in the removed, we are not proposing a compliance test conditions during hazardous waste, may not be capable of beyond-the-floor standard based on which the emissions data were achieving a given emission standard improved particulate matter control for obtained. We estimate that this emission because of mineral and process raw new cement kilns. Therefore, we level is being achieved by 81% of material contributions that might cause propose a particulate matter standard of sources and would reduce semivolatile an exceedance of the emission standard. 13 mg/dscm for new sources. metals emissions by 1 ton per year. To address this concern, we To put the proposed floor level in promulgated a provision that allows D. What Are the Proposed Standards for context for a hypothetical wet process kilns to petition for alternative Semivolatile Metals? cement kiln that gets 50% of its required standards provided that they submit We are proposing to establish heat input from hazardous waste, a site-specific information that shows raw standards for existing cement kilns that thermal emissions level of 4.0 × 10¥4 material hazardous air pollutant limit emissions of semivolatile metals lbs semivolatile metals emissions contributions to the emissions prevent (cadmium and lead, combined) to 4.0 × the source from complying with the ¥ attributable to the hazardous waste per 10 4 lbs semivolatile metals emissions million Btu heat input of the hazardous emission standard even though the kiln attributable to the hazardous waste per waste equates approximately to a stack is using MACT control. See million Btu heat input of the hazardous gas concentration of 180 µg/dscm. This § 63.1206(b)(10). If we were to adopt the waste. The proposed standard for new estimated stack gas concentration does semivolatile (and low volatile) metals × ¥5 sources is 6.2 10 lbs semivolatile not include contributions to emission standard using a thermal emissions metals emissions attributable to the from other semivolatile metals- format, then there would be no need for hazardous waste per million Btu heat containing materials such as raw these alternative standard provisions for input of the hazardous waste. materials and fossil fuels. The semivolatile metals (since, as explained 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT additional contribution to stack earlier, that standard is based solely on Floor for Existing Sources? emissions of semivolatile metals in an semivolatile metals contributions from average raw material and coal is hazardous waste fuels). Therefore, we Semivolatile metals emissions from estimated to range as high as 20 to 50 would delete the provisions of existing cement kilns are currently µg/dscm. Thus, for the hypothetical wet § 63.1206(b)(10) as they apply to limited to 330 µg/dscm by process cement kiln the thermal semivolatile (and low volatile) metals. § 63.1204(a)(3). This standard was ¥ emissions floor level of 4.0 × 10 4 lbs We invite comment on this approach. promulgated in the Interim Standards semivolatile metals attributable to the Rule (See 67 FR at 6796). Cement kilns 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor hazardous waste per million Btu heat control emissions of semivolatile metals Standards for Existing Sources input of the hazardous waste is with baghouses or electrostatic We identified three potential beyond- estimated to be less than 230 µg/dscm, precipitators and/or by controlling the the-floor techniques for control of which is less than the current interim feed concentration of semivolatile semivolatile metals: (1) Improved standard of 330 µg/dscm. Given that metals in the hazardous waste. particulate matter control; (2) control of We have compliance test emissions comparing the proposed floor level to semivolatile metals in the hazardous data for all cement kiln sources. For the interim standard requires numerous waste feed; and (3) control of the most sources, we have compliance test assumptions (as just illustrated) semivolatile metals in the raw materials emissions data from more than one including hazardous waste fuel and fuels. For reasons discussed below, compliance test campaign. Semivolatile replacement rates, heat input we are not proposing a beyond-the-floor metal stack emissions range from requirements per ton of clinker, standard for semivolatile metals. approximately 1 to 2,800 µg/dscm. concentrations of semivolatile metals in Improved Particulate Matter Control. These emissions are expressed as mass the raw material and coal, and system Controlling particulate matter also of semivolatile metals (from all removal efficiency, we have a more controls emissions of semivolatile detailed analysis in the background metals. Our data show that all cement feedstocks) per unit volume of stack gas. 105 Hazardous waste thermal emissions document. Our detailed analysis kilns are already achieving greater than range from 3.0 × 10¥6 to 3.7 × 10¥3 lbs indicates the proposed floor level is at 98.6% system removal efficiency for per million Btu. Hazardous waste least as stringent as the interim standard semivolatile metals, with most attaining thermal emissions represent the mass of (so as to avoid any backsliding from a 99.9% removal. Thus, additional semivolatile metals emissions current level of performance achieved controls of particulate matter are likely attributable to the hazardous waste per by all cement kilns, and hence, the level to result in only modest additional million Btu heat input of the hazardous of minimal stringency at which EPA reductions of semivolatile metals waste. Lead was the most significant could calculate the MACT floor). Thus, emissions. We evaluated a beyond-the- contributor to semivolatile emissions floor level of 2.0 × 10¥4 lbs semivolatile 105 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document during compliance test conditions. for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume metals emissions attributable to the To identify the MACT floor, we III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March 2004, hazardous waste per million Btu heat evaluated the compliance test emissions Chapter 23. input of the hazardous waste, which

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21256 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

represents a 50% reduction in emissions reduction in semivolatile metal including contributions from typical from MACT floor levels. The national emissions by substituting a raw material raw materials and coal. Thus, for the incremental annualized compliance cost containing lower levels of lead and/or hypothetical wet process cement kiln for cement kilns to meet this beyond- cadmium for a primary raw material the thermal emissions floor level of 6.2 the-floor level rather than comply with with higher levels of these metals. We × 10¥5 lbs semivolatile metals the floor controls would be believe that this beyond-the-floor option emissions attributable to the hazardous approximately $2.7 million and would would even be less cost-effective than waste per million Btu heat input of the provide an incremental reduction in either of the options discussed above, hazardous waste is estimated to be less semivolatile metals emissions beyond however. Given that cement kilns are than the current interim standard for the MACT floor controls of 1.2 tons per sited near the primary raw material new sources of 180 µg/dscm. year. Nonair quality health and supply, acquiring and transporting large 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor environmental impacts and energy quantities of an alternate source of raw Standards for New Sources effects were evaluated to estimate the materials is likely to be cost-prohibitive. impacts between further improvements Therefore, we are not proposing a We identified the same three potential to control particulate matter and beyond-the-floor standard based on beyond-the-floor techniques for control controls likely to be used to meet the limiting semivolatile metals in the raw of semivolatile metals: (1) Improved floor level. We estimate that this material feed. We also considered control of particulate matter; (2) control beyond-the-floor option would increase whether fuel switching to an auxiliary of semivolatile metals in the hazardous the amount of solid waste generated by fuel containing a lower concentration of waste feed; and (3) control of 300 tons per year and would also semivolatile metals would be an semivolatile metals in the raw materials require sources to use an additional 5.7 appropriate control option for sources. and fuels. million kW-hours of energy per year to Given that most cement kilns burning Improved Particulate Matter Control. achieve the floor level. The costs hazardous waste also burn coal as a fuel, Controlling particulate matter also associated with these impacts are we considered switching to natural gas controls emissions of semivolatile accounted for in the national annualized as a potential beyond-the-floor option. metals. We evaluated improved control compliance cost estimates. Therefore, For the same reasons discussed for of particulate matter based on a state-of- based on these factors and costs of mercury, we judge a beyond-the-floor the-art baghouse using a high quality approximately $2.3 million per standard based on fuel switching as fabric filter bag material as beyond-the- additional ton of semivolatile metals unwarranted. floor control for further reductions in removed, we are not proposing a For the reasons discussed above, we semivolatile metals emissions. We beyond-the-floor standard based on propose to establish the emission evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 2.5 × ¥5 improved particulate matter control. standard for existing cement kilns at 4.0 10 lbs semivolatile metals Feed Control of Semivolatile Metals × 10¥4 lbs semivolatile metals emissions attributable to the hazardous in the Hazardous Waste. We also emissions attributable to the hazardous waste per million Btu heat input of the evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 3.2 waste per million Btu heat input of the hazardous waste. The incremental × 10¥4 lbs semivolatile metals hazardous waste. annualized compliance cost for a new emissions attributable to the hazardous cement kiln with an average gas flow 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT waste per million Btu heat input of the rate to meet this beyond-the-floor level, Floor for New Sources? hazardous waste, which represents a rather than to comply with the floor 20% reduction from the floor level. We Semivolatile metals emissions from level, would be approximately $0.38 chose a 20% reduction as a level new cement kilns are currently limited million and would provide an representing the practicable extent that to 180 µg/dscm by § 63.1204(b)(3). This incremental reduction in semivolatile additional feedrate control of standard was promulgated in the metals emissions of approximately 144 semivolatile metals in hazardous waste Interim Standards Rule (See 67 FR at pounds per year. Nonair quality health can be used and still achieve 6796). and environmental impacts and energy appreciable emissions reductions. The The MACT floor for new sources for effects were evaluated and are included ¥ national incremental annualized semivolatile metals would be 6.2 × 10 5 in the cost estimates. For these reasons compliance cost for cement kilns to lbs semivolatile metals emissions and costs of $5.3 million per ton of meet this beyond-the-floor level rather attributable to the hazardous waste per semivolatile metals removed, we are not than comply with the floor controls million Btu heat input of the hazardous proposing a beyond-the-floor standard would be approximately $0.30 million waste, which considers emissions based on improved particulate matter and would provide an incremental variability. This is an emission level control for new cement kilns. reduction in semivolatile metals that the single best performing source Feed Control of Semivolatile Metals emissions beyond the MACT floor identified with the SRE/Feed Approach in the Hazardous Waste. We also believe controls of 0.36 tons per year. Nonair could be expected to achieve in 99 of that the expense for further reduction in quality health and environmental 100 future tests when operating under semivolatile metals emissions based on impacts and energy effects were conditions identical to the test further control of semivolatile metals evaluated and are included in the conditions during which the emissions concentrations in the hazardous waste is national compliance cost estimates. data were obtained. not warranted. We also evaluated a ¥ Therefore, based on these factors and To put the proposed floor level in beyond-the-floor level of 5.0 × 10 5 lbs costs of approximately $0.84 million per context for a hypothetical wet process semivolatile metals emissions additional ton of semivolatile metals cement kiln that gets 50% of its required attributable to the hazardous waste per removed, we are not proposing a heat input from hazardous waste, a million Btu heat input of the hazardous beyond-the-floor standard based on feed thermal emissions level of 6.2 × 10¥5 waste, which represents a 20% control of semivolatile metals in the lbs semivolatile metals emissions reduction from the floor level. Nonair hazardous waste. attributable to the hazardous waste per quality health and environmental Feed Control of Semivolatile Metals million Btu heat input of the hazardous impacts and energy effects were in the Raw Materials and Auxiliary waste equates approximately to a stack evaluated and are included in the Fuels. Cement kilns could achieve a gas concentration of 80 µg/dscm, compliance cost estimates. For similar

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21257

reasons discussed above for existing E. What Are the Proposed Standards for heat input from hazardous waste, a sources, we conclude that a beyond-the- Low Volatile Metals? thermal emissions level of 1.4 × 10¥5 floor standard based on controlling the We are proposing to establish lbs low volatile metals emissions concentration of semivolatile metals standards for existing and new cement attributable to the hazardous waste per levels in the hazardous waste feed kilns that limit emissions of low volatile million Btu heat input of the hazardous would not be justified because of the metals (arsenic, beryllium, and waste equates approximately to a stack µ costs coupled with estimated emission chromium, combined) to 1.4 × 10¥5 lbs gas concentration of 7 g/dscm. This reductions. low volatile metals emissions estimated stack gas concentration does Feed Control of Semivolatile Metals attributable to the hazardous waste per not include contributions to emission in the Raw Materials and Auxiliary million Btu heat input of the hazardous from other low volatile metals- Fuels. Cement kilns could achieve a waste. containing materials such as raw reduction in semivolatile metals materials and fossil fuels. The emissions by substituting a raw material 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT additional contribution to stack containing lower levels of cadmium and Floor for Existing Sources? emissions of low volatile metals in an lead for a primary raw material with a Low volatile metals emissions from average raw material and coal is higher level. For a new source at an existing cement kilns are currently estimated to range from less than 1 to existing cement plant, we believe that limited to 56 µg/dscm by 15 µg/dscm. Thus, for the hypothetical this beyond-the-floor option would not § 63.1204(a)(4). This standard was wet process cement kiln the thermal be cost-effective due to the costs of promulgated in the Interim Standards emissions floor level of 1.4 × 10¥5 lbs transporting large quantities of an Rule (see 67 FR at 6796). Cement kilns low volatile metals attributable to the alternate source of raw materials to the control emissions of low volatile metals hazardous waste per million Btu heat cement plant. Given that the plant site with baghouses or electrostatic input of the hazardous waste is already exists and sited near the source precipitators and/or by controlling the estimated to be less than 22 µg/dscm, of raw material, replacing the raw feed concentration of low volatile which is less than the current interim materials at the plant site with lower metals in the hazardous waste. standard of 56 µg/dscm. Given that semivolatile metals-containing materials We have compliance test emissions comparing the proposed floor level to would be the source’s only option. For data for all cement kiln sources. For the interim standard requires numerous a cement kiln constructed at a new most sources, we have compliance test assumptions (as just illustrated) greenfield site, we are not aware of any emissions data from more than one including hazardous waste fuel information and data from a source that compliance test campaign. Low volatile replacement rates, heat input has undertaken or is currently located at metal stack emissions range from requirements per ton of clinker, a site whose raw materials are approximately 1 to 100 µg/dscm. These concentrations of low volatile metals in inherently lower in semivolatile metals emissions are expressed as mass of low the raw material and coal, and system that would consistently achieve reduced volatile metals (from all feedstocks) per removal efficiency, we have included a semivolatile metals emissions. Further, unit volume of stack gas. Hazardous more detailed analysis in the we are uncertain as to what beyond-the- waste thermal emissions range from 9.2 background document.106 Our detailed ¥ ¥ floor standard would be achievable × 10 7 to 1.0 × 10 5 lbs per million Btu. analysis indicates the proposed floor using a lower, if it exists, semivolatile Hazardous waste thermal emissions level is as least as stringent as the metals-containing raw material. represent the mass of low volatile interim standard (so as to avoid any Although we are doubtful that selecting metals emissions attributable to the backsliding from a current level of a new plant site based on the content of hazardous waste per million Btu heat performance achieved by all cement metals in the raw material is a realistic input of the hazardous waste. For nearly kilns, and hence, the level of minimal beyond-the-floor option considering the every cement kiln, chromium was the stringency at which EPA could calculate numerous additional factors that go into most significant contributor to low the MACT floor). Thus, we conclude such a decision, we solicit comment on volatile emissions. that a dual standard—the low volatile whether and what level of a beyond-the- To identify the MACT floor, we metals standard as both the calculated floor standard based on controlling the evaluated the compliance test emissions floor level, expressed as a hazardous level of semivolatile metals in the raw data associated with the most recent test waste thermal emissions level, and the materials is appropriate. campaign using the SRE/Feed current interim standard—is not needed We also considered whether fuel Approach. The calculated floor is 1.4 × for this standard. switching to an auxiliary fuel containing 10¥5 lbs low volatile metals emissions a lower concentration of semivolatile attributable to the hazardous waste per 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor metals would be an appropriate control million Btu heat input of the hazardous Standards for Existing Sources option for sources. Given that most waste, which considers emissions We identified three potential beyond- cement kilns burning hazardous waste variability. This is an emission level the-floor techniques for control of low also burn coal as a fuel, we considered that the average of the best performing volatile metals: (1) Improved particulate switching to natural gas as a potential sources could be expected to achieve in matter control; (2) control of low beyond-the-floor option. For the same 99 of 100 future tests when operating volatile metals in the hazardous waste reasons discussed for mercury, we judge under conditions identical to the feed; and (3) control of the low volatile a beyond-the-floor standard based on compliance test conditions during metals in the raw materials. For reasons fuel switching as unwarranted. which the emissions data were discussed below, we are not proposing For the reasons discussed above, we obtained. We estimate that this emission a beyond-the-floor standard for low propose to establish the emission level is being achieved by 52% of volatile metals. standard for new cement kilns at 6.2 × sources and would reduce low volatile 10¥5 lbs semivolatile metals emissions metals emissions by 0.10 tons per year. 106 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document attributable to the hazardous waste per To put the proposed floor level in for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume million Btu heat input of the hazardous context for a hypothetical wet process III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March 2004, waste. cement kiln that gets 50% of its required Chapter 23.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21258 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Improved Particulate Matter Control. incremental reduction in low volatile variability. This is an emission level Controlling particulate matter also metals emissions beyond the MACT that the single best performing source controls emissions of low volatile floor controls of 38 pounds per year. identified with the SRE/Feed Approach metals. Our data show that all cement Nonair quality health and could be expected to achieve in 99 of kilns are already achieving greater than environmental impacts and energy 100 future tests when operating under 99.9% system removal efficiency for effects were evaluated and are included conditions identical to the test low volatile metals, with most attaining in the cost estimates. Therefore, based conditions during which the emissions 99.99% removal. Thus, additional on these factors and costs of data were obtained. control of particulate matter emissions approximately $64 million per To put the proposed floor level in is likely to result in only a small additional ton of low volatile metals context for a hypothetical wet process increment in reduction of low volatile removed, we are not proposing a cement kiln that gets 50% of its required metals emissions. We evaluated a beyond-the-floor standard based on feed heat input from hazardous waste, a ¥ beyond-the-floor level of 7.0 × 10¥6 lbs control of low volatile metals in the thermal emissions level of 1.4 × 10 5 low volatile metals emissions hazardous waste. lbs low volatile metals emissions attributable to the hazardous waste per Feed Control of Low Volatile Metals attributable to the hazardous waste per million Btu heat input of the hazardous in the Raw Materials and Auxiliary million Btu heat input of the hazardous waste, which represents a 50% Fuels. Cement kilns could achieve a waste equates approximately to a stack µ reduction in emissions from MACT reduction in low volatile metal gas concentration of 22 g/dscm, floor levels. The national incremental emissions by substituting a raw material including contributions from typical annualized compliance cost for cement containing lower levels of arsenic, raw materials and coal. Thus, for the kilns to meet this beyond-the-floor level beryllium, and/or chromium for a hypothetical wet process cement kiln rather than comply with the floor primary raw material with higher levels the thermal emissions floor level of 6.2 × ¥5 controls would be approximately $3.7 of these metals. We believe that this 10 lbs low volatile metals emissions million and would provide an beyond-the-floor option would even be attributable to the hazardous waste per incremental reduction in low volatile less cost-effective than either of the million Btu heat input of the hazardous metals emissions beyond the MACT options discussed above, however. waste is estimated to be more stringent Given that cement kilns are sited near than the current interim standard for floor controls of 120 pounds per year. µ Nonair quality health and the primary raw material supply, new sources of 54 g/dscm. acquiring and transporting large environmental impacts and energy 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor quantities of an alternate source of raw effects were evaluated to estimate the Standards for New Sources impacts between further improvements materials is likely to be cost-prohibitive. Therefore, we are not proposing a We identified the same three potential to control particulate matter and beyond-the-floor techniques for control controls likely to be used to meet the beyond-the-floor standard based on limiting low volatile metals in the raw of low volatile metals: (1) Improved floor level. We estimate that this control of particulate matter; (2) control beyond-the-floor option would increase material feed. We also considered whether fuel switching to an auxiliary of low volatile metals in the hazardous the amount of solid waste generated by waste feed; and (3) control of low 72 tons per year and would also require fuel containing a lower concentration of low volatile metals would be an volatile metals in the raw materials and sources to use an additional 1.2 million fuels. kW-hours per year beyond the appropriate control option for sources. Given that most cement kilns burning Improved Particulate Matter Control. requirements to achieve the floor level. Controlling particulate matter also The costs associated with these impacts hazardous waste also burn coal as a fuel, we considered switching to natural gas controls emissions of low volatile are accounted for in the national metals. We evaluated improved control annualized compliance cost estimates. as a potential beyond-the-floor option. For the same reasons discussed for of particulate matter based on a state-of- Therefore, based on these factors and the-art baghouse using a high quality costs of approximately $63 million per mercury, we judge a beyond-the-floor standard based on fuel switching as fabric filter bag material as beyond-the- additional ton of low volatile metals floor control for further reductions in removed, we are not proposing a unwarranted. For the reasons discussed above, we low volatile metals emissions. We beyond-the-floor standard based on propose to establish the emission evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 6.0 improved particulate matter control. × ¥6 standard for existing cement kilns at 1.4 10 lbs low volatile metals emissions Feed Control of Low Volatile Metals × 10¥5 lbs low volatile metals emissions attributable to the hazardous waste per in the Hazardous Waste. We also attributable to the hazardous waste per million Btu heat input of the hazardous evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 1.1 million Btu heat input of the hazardous waste. The incremental annualized × ¥5 10 lbs low volatile metals emissions waste. compliance cost for a new cement kiln attributable to the hazardous waste per to meet this beyond-the-floor level, million Btu heat input of the hazardous 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT rather than comply with the floor level, waste, which represents a 20% Floor for New Sources? would be approximately $0.38 million reduction from the floor level. We chose Low volatile metals emissions from and would provide an incremental a 20% reduction as a level representing new cement kilns are currently limited reduction in low volatile metals the practicable extent that additional to 54 µg/dscm by § 63.1204(b)(4). This emissions of approximately 33 pounds feedrate control of mercury in standard was promulgated in the per year. Nonair quality health and hazardous waste can be used and still Interim Standards Rule (see 67 FR at environmental impacts and energy achieve appreciable emissions 6796, February 13, 2002). effects were evaluated and are included reductions. The national incremental The floor level for new sources for in the cost estimates. For these reasons annualized compliance cost for cement low volatile metals would be 1.4 × 10¥5 and costs of $23.5 million per ton of low kilns to meet this beyond-the-floor level lbs low volatile metals emissions volatile metals removed, we are not rather than comply with the floor attributable to the hazardous waste per proposing a beyond-the-floor standard controls would be approximately $1.2 million Btu heat input of the hazardous based on improved particulate matter million and would provide an waste, which considers emissions control for new cement kilns.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21259

Feed Control of Low Volatile Metals Therefore, we are proposing a low to the kiln. As we identified in the in the Hazardous Waste. We also volatile metals standard of 1.4 × 10¥5 September 1999 final rule, the proposed evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 1.1 lbs low volatile metals emissions MACT floor control for total chlorine is × 10¥5 lbs low volatile metals emissions attributable to the hazardous waste per based on controlling the concentration attributable to the hazardous waste per million Btu heat input of the hazardous of chlorine in the hazardous waste. The million Btu heat input of the hazardous waste. chlorine concentration in the hazardous waste, which represents a 20% waste will affect emissions of total F. What Are the Proposed Standards for reduction from the floor level. We chlorine at a given SRE because Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine Gas? believe that the expense for further emissions increase as the chlorine reduction in low volatile metals We are proposing to establish loading increases. emissions based on further control of standards for existing and new cement We have compliance test emissions low volatile metals concentrations in kilns that limit total chlorine emissions data for all cement kiln sources. For the hazardous waste is not warranted (hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas, most sources, we have compliance test given the costs, nonair quality health combined, reported as a chloride emissions data from more than one and environmental impacts, and energy equivalent) to 110 and 83 ppmv, compliance test campaign. Total effects. respectively. However, we are also chlorine emissions range from less than Feed Control of Low Volatile Metals proposing to establish alternative risk- 1 ppmv to 192 ppmv. in the Raw Materials and Auxiliary based standards, pursuant to CAA To identify the MACT floor, we Fuels. Cement kilns could achieve a section 112(d)(4), which could be evaluated the compliance test emissions reduction in low volatile metals elected by the source in lieu of the data associated with the most recent test emissions by substituting a raw material MACT emission standards for total campaign using a variant of the SRE/ containing lower levels of low volatile chlorine. The emission limits would be Feed Approach because of concerns metals for a primary raw material with based on national exposure standards about a cement kiln’s ability to replicate a higher level. For a new source at an that ensure protection of public health a given SRE. To identify the floor level existing cement plant, we believe that with an ample margin of safety. See Part we first evaluated the chlorine feed this beyond-the-floor option would not Two, Section XIII for additional details. level in the hazardous waste for all be cost-effective due to the costs of 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT sources. The best performing sources transporting large quantities of an Floor for Existing Sources? had the lowest maximum theoretical alternate source of raw materials to the emissions concentration or MTEC, cement plant. Given that the plant site Total chlorine emissions from existing considering variability. We then applied already exists and sited near the source cement kilns are limited to 130 ppmv by a SRE of 90% to the best performing of raw material, replacing the raw § 63.1204(a)(6). This standard was sources’ total MTEC (i.e., includes materials at the plant site with lower promulgated in the Interim Standards chlorine contributions to emissions low volatile metals-containing materials Rule (See 67 FR at 6796). None of the from all feedstreams such as raw would be the source’s only option. For cement kilns burning hazardous waste material and fossil fuels) to identify the a cement kiln constructed at a new use a dedicated control device, such as floor level. Given our concerns about greenfield site, we are not aware of any a wet scrubber, to remove total chlorine the reproducibility of SREs of total information and data from a source that from the gas stream. However, the chlorine, we selected a SRE of 90% has undertaken or is currently located at natural alkalinity in some of the raw because our data base shows that all materials is highly effective at removing a site whose raw materials are sources have demonstrated this SRE at chlorine from the gas stream. Our data inherently lower in low volatile metals least once (and often several times) base shows that the majority of the that would consistently achieve reduced during a compliance test. The calculated system removal efficiency (SRE) data of low volatile metals emissions. Further, floor is 110 ppmv, which considers total chlorine—over 80%—indicate a we are uncertain as to what beyond-the- emissions variability. This is an SRE greater than 95%. This scrubbing floor standard would be achievable emission level that the best performing effect, though quite effective, varies using a lower, if it exists, low volatile feed control sources could be expected across different sources and also at metals-containing raw material. to achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when individual sources over time due to Although we are doubtful that selecting operating under conditions identical to differences in raw materials, operating a new plant site based on the content of the compliance test conditions during metals in the raw material is a realistic conditions, cement kiln dust recycle rates, and production requirements. which the emissions data were beyond-the-floor option considering the obtained. We estimate that this emission numerous additional factors that go into Likewise, our data show that total chlorine emissions from a given source level is being achieved by 93% of such a decision, we solicit comment on sources and would reduce total chlorine whether and what level of a beyond-the- can vary over a considerable range. Based on these data, we conclude that emissions by 64 tons per year. floor standard based on controlling the We also invite comment on an the best (highest) SRE achieved at a level of low volatile metals in the raw alternative approach to establish a floor given source is not duplicable or materials is appropriate. level expressed as a hazardous waste We also considered whether fuel replicable. 108 The majority of the chlorine fed to the thermal feed concentration. A switching to an auxiliary fuel containing hazardous waste thermal feed a lower concentration of low volatile cement kiln during a compliance test comes from the hazardous waste.107 In concentration is expressed as mass of metals would be an appropriate control chlorine in the hazardous waste per option for sources. Given that most all but a few cases the hazardous waste cement kilns burning hazardous waste contribution to the total amount of chlorine fed to the kiln represented at 108 We are also requesting comment on whether also burn coal as a fuel, we considered the hazardous waste feed concentration floor level switching to natural gas as a potential least 75% of the total chlorine loading should be the standard itself (i.e., no stack emission beyond-the-floor option. For the same concentration standard) or as an alternative to the reasons discussed for mercury, we judge 107 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document stack emission standard (e.g., sources have the for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume opinion to comply with either the calculated stack a beyond-the-floor standard based on III: Selection of MACT Standards’’, March 2004, emissions concentration or the hazardous waste fuel switching as unwarranted. Chapter 2. feed concentration limit).

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21260 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

million Btu heat input contributed by We estimate that this beyond-the-floor Given that most cement kilns burning the hazardous waste. The floor would be option would increase the amount of hazardous waste also burn coal as a fuel, based on the best five performing water usage and waste water generated we considered switching to natural gas sources with the lowest thermal feed by 1.5 billion gallon per year. The as a potential beyond-the-floor option. concentration of chlorine in the option would also require sources to use For the same reasons discussed for hazardous waste considering each an additional 12 million kW-hours per mercury, we judge a beyond-the-floor source’s most recent compliance test year beyond the requirements to achieve standard based on fuel switching as data. One advantage of this approach is the floor level. The costs associated with unwarranted. that the uncertainty surrounding the these impacts are accounted for in the For the reasons discussed above, we capture (SRE) of chlorine in a kiln is national annualized compliance cost propose not to adopt a beyond-the-floor removed. The calculated floor level estimates. Therefore, based on these standard for total chlorine and propose would be 2.4 lbs chlorine in the factors and costs of approximately to establish the emission standard for hazardous waste per million Btu in the $9,300 per additional ton of total existing cement kilns at 110 ppmv. hazardous waste, which considers chlorine removed, we are not proposing 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT variability. For a hypothetical wet a beyond-the-floor standard based on Floor for New Sources? process cement kiln that gets 50% of its wet scrubbing. required heat input from hazardous Feed Control of Chlorine in the Total chlorine emissions from new waste, a hazardous waste with a Hazardous Waste. We also evaluated a cement kilns are currently limited to 86 chlorine concentration of 2.4 lbs beyond-the-floor level of 88 ppmv, ppmv by § 63.1204(b)(6). This standard chlorine per million Btu and achieving which represents a 20% reduction from was promulgated in the Interim 90% SRE equates approximately to a the floor level. We chose a 20% Standards Rule (See 67 FR at 6796). The stack gas concentration of 75 ppmv. reduction as a level that represents the MACT floor for new sources for total This estimated stack gas concentration practicable extent that additional chlorine would be 78 ppmv, which does not include contributions to feedrate control of chlorine in the considers emissions variability. This is emission from other chlorine-containing hazardous waste can be used and still an emission level that the single best materials such as raw materials and achieve modest emissions reductions. performing source identified with the fossil fuels. The additional contribution The national incremental annualized SRE/Feed Approach could be expected to stack emissions of total chlorine in an compliance cost for cement kilns to to achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when average raw material and coal is meet this beyond-the-floor level rather operating under conditions identical to estimated to range from less than 1 to than comply with the floor controls the test conditions during which the 35 ppmv. Thus, for the hypothetical wet would be approximately $1.1 million emissions data were obtained. process cement kiln this floor level is and would provide an incremental 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor estimated to be less than 110 ppmv, reduction in total chlorine emissions Standards for New Sources which is less than the current interim beyond the MACT floor controls of 100 standard of 130 ppmv. tons per year. Nonair quality health and We identified similar potential environmental impacts and energy beyond-the-floor techniques for control 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor effects were also evaluated and are of total chlorine for new sources: (1) Use Standards for Existing Sources included in the compliance cost of wet scrubbing; (2) control of chlorine We identified three potential beyond- estimates. Therefore, based on these in the hazardous waste feed; and (3) the-floor techniques for control of total factors and costs of approximately control of chlorine in the raw materials chlorine: (1) Use of wet scrubbers; (2) $11,000 per additional ton of total and fuels. control of chlorine in the hazardous chlorine, we are not proposing a Use of Wet Scrubbers. We considered waste feed; and (3) control of the beyond-the-floor standard based on feed wet scrubbing as beyond-the-floor chlorine in the raw materials. For control of chlorine in the hazardous control for further reductions in total reasons discussed below, we are not waste. chlorine emissions and evaluated a proposing a beyond-the-floor standard Feed Control of Chlorine in the Raw beyond-the-floor level of 39 ppmv. The for total chlorine. Materials and Auxiliary Fuels. Cement incremental annualized compliance cost Use of Wet Scrubbers. We evaluated kilns could achieve a reduction in total for a new cement kiln to meet this the use of wet scrubbers as beyond-the- chlorine emissions by substituting a raw beyond-the-floor level, rather than floor control for further reduction of material containing lower levels of comply with the floor level, would be mercury emissions. Wet scrubbers are chlorine for a primary raw material with approximately $1.2 million and would not currently being used at any higher levels of chlorine. We believe provide an incremental reduction in hazardous waste burning cement kilns that this beyond-the-floor option would total chlorine emissions of to capture hydrogen chloride. We even be less cost-effective than either of approximately 22 tons per year. Nonair evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 55 the options discussed above because quality health and environmental ppmv. The national incremental most chlorine feed to the kiln is in the impacts and energy effects were annualized compliance cost for cement hazardous waste. In addition, given that evaluated and are included in the cost kilns to meet this beyond-the-floor level cement kilns are sited near the primary estimates. For these reasons and costs of rather than comply with the floor raw material supply, acquiring and $24,000 per ton of total chlorine controls would be approximately $3.4 transporting large quantities of an removed, we are not proposing a million and would provide an alternate source of raw materials is beyond-the-floor standard based on wet incremental reduction in total chlorine likely to be cost-prohibitive. Therefore, scrubbing for new cement kilns. emissions beyond the MACT floor we are not proposing a beyond-the-floor Feed Control of Low Volatile Metals controls of 370 tons per year. Nonair standard based on limiting chlorine in in the Hazardous Waste. We also quality health and environmental the raw material feed. We also evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 62 impacts and energy effects were considered whether fuel switching to an ppmv, which represents a 20% evaluated to estimate the impacts auxiliary fuel containing a lower reduction from the floor level. We between wet scrubbing and controls concentration of chlorine would be an believe that the expense for further likely to be used to meet the floor level. appropriate control option for kilns. reduction in total chlorine emissions

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21261

based on further control of chlorine burning hazardous waste also burn coal or a midkiln sampling port that samples concentrations in the hazardous waste is as a fuel, we considered switching to representative kiln gas. See not warranted given the costs, nonair natural gas as a potential beyond-the- §§ 63.1204(a)(5) and (b)(5). The rationale quality health and environmental floor option. For the same reasons for these decisions are discussed in the impacts, and energy effects. discussed for mercury, we judge a September 1999 final rule (64 FR at Feed Control of Chlorine in the Raw beyond-the-floor standard based on fuel 52885). We view the standards for Materials and Auxiliary Fuels. Cement switching as unwarranted. hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide as kilns could achieve a reduction in total Therefore, we are proposing a total unaffected by the Court’s vacature of the chlorine emissions by substituting a raw chlorine standard of 78 ppmv for new challenged regulations in its decision of material containing lower levels of cement kilns. July 24, 2001. We therefore are not chlorine for a primary raw material with proposing these standards for cement G. What Are the Standards for a higher level. For a new source at an kilns, but rather are mentioning them Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide? existing cement plant, we believe that here for the reader’s convenience. this beyond-the-floor option would not Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide H. What Are the Standards for be cost-effective due to the costs of standards are surrogates to control Destruction and Removal Efficiency? transporting large quantities of an emissions of organic hazardous air alternate source of raw materials to the pollutants for existing and new cement The destruction and removal cement plant. Given that the plant site kilns. For cement kilns without bypass efficiency (DRE) standard is a surrogate already exists and sited near the source or midkiln sampling systems, the to control emissions of organic of raw material, replacing the raw standard for existing sources limit hazardous air pollutants other than materials at the plant site with lower hydrocarbon or carbon monoxide dioxin/furans. The standard for existing chlorine-containing materials would be concentrations to 20 ppmv or 100 ppmv, and new lightweight aggregate kilns the source’s only option. For a cement respectively. The standards for new requires 99.99% DRE for each principal kiln constructed at a new greenfield site, sources limit (1) hydrocarbons to 20 organic hazardous constituent, except we are not aware of any information and ppmv; or (2) carbon monoxide to 100 that 99.9999% DRE is required if data from a source that has undertaken ppmv. New, greenfield kilns109, that specified dioxin-listed hazardous wastes or is currently located at a site whose elect to comply with the 100 ppmv are burned. See §§ 63.1204(c). The raw materials are inherently lower in carbon monoxide standard, however, rationale for these decisions are chlorine that would consistently must also comply with a 50 ppmv discussed in the September 1999 final achieve reduced total chlorine hydrocarbon standard. New and existing rule (64 FR at 52890). We view the emissions. Further, we are uncertain as sources that elect to comply with the standards for DRE as unaffected by the to what beyond-the-floor standard 100 ppmv carbon monoxide standard, Court’s vacature of the challenged would be achievable using a lower, if it including new greenfield kilns that elect regulations in its decision of July 24, exists, chlorine-containing raw material. to comply with the carbon monoxide 2001. We therefore are not proposing Although we are doubtful that selecting standard and 50 ppmv hydrocarbon these standards for cement kilns, but a new plant site based on the content of standard, must also demonstrate rather are mentioning them here for the chlorine in the raw material is a realistic compliance with the 20 ppmv reader’s convenience. beyond-the-floor option considering the hydrocarbon standard during the IX. How Did EPA Determine the numerous additional factors that go into comprehensive performance test. Proposed Emission Standards for such a decision, we solicit comment on However, continuous hydrocarbon Hazardous Waste Burning Lightweight whether and what level of a beyond-the- monitoring following the performance Aggregate Kilns? floor standard based on controlling the test is not required. level of chlorine in the raw materials is For cement kilns with bypass or In this section, the basis for the appropriate. midkiln sampling systems, existing proposed emission standards is We also considered whether fuel cement kilns are required to comply discussed. See proposed § 63.1221. The switching to an auxiliary fuel containing with either a carbon monoxide standard proposed emission limits apply to the a lower concentration of chlorine would of 100 ppmv or a hydrocarbon standard stack gases from lightweight aggregate be an appropriate control option for of 10 ppmv. Both standards apply to kilns that burn hazardous waste and are sources. Given that most cement kilns combustion gas sampled in the bypass summarized in the table below:

PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AND NEW LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE KILNS

1 Hazardous air pollutant or Emission standard surrogate Existing sources New sources

Dioxin and furan ...... 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm ...... 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm. Mercury 2 ...... 67 µg/dscm ...... 67 µg/dscm. Particulate Matter ...... 57 mg/dscm (0.025 gr/dscf) ...... 23 mg/dscm (0.0099 gr/dscf). Semivolatile metals 3 ...... 3.1 × 10¥4 lb/MMBtu and 250 µg/dscm ...... 2.4 × 10¥5 lb/MMBtu and 43 µg/dscm. Low volatile metals 3 ...... 9.5 × 10¥5 lb/MMBtu and 110 µg/dscm ...... 3.2 × 10¥5 lb/MMBtu and 110 µg/dscm. Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas 4 ...... 600 ppmv ...... 600 ppmv. Hydrocarbons 5, 6 ...... 20 ppmv (or 100 ppmv carbon monoxide) ...... 20 ppmv (or 100 ppmv carbon monoxide).

109 A greenfield cement kiln is a kiln that (i.e., nonhazardous waste or hazardous waste carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon standards as an commenced construction or reconstruction after burning). A newly constructed or reconstructed existing cement kiln. April 19, 1996 at a site where no cement kiln cement kiln at an existing site is not classified as previously existed, irrespective of the class of kiln a greenfield cement kiln, and is subject to the same

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21262 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AND NEW LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE KILNS—Continued

1 Hazardous air pollutant or Emission standard surrogate Existing sources New sources

Destruction and removal efficiency ...... For existing and new sources, 99.99% for each principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC). For sources burning hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027, how- ever, 99.9999% for each POHC. 1 All emission standards are corrected to 7% oxygen, dry basis. 2 Mercury standard is an annual limit. 3 Standards are expressed as mass of pollutant emissions contributed by hazardous waste per million British thermal unit contributed by the hazardous waste. 4 Combined standard, reported as a chloride (Cl(¥)) equivalent. 5 Sources that elect to comply with the carbon monoxide standard must demonstrate compliance with the hydrocarbon standard during the comprehensive performance test. 6 Hourly rolling average. Hydrocarbons reported as propane.

A. What Are the Proposed Standards for 450°F. This means that temperatures in emissions. Activated carbon has been Dioxin and Furan? the duct-work are higher and well demonstrated for controlling dioxin/ We are proposing to establish within the range of optimum dioxin/ furans in various combustion standards for existing and new furan formation. applications; however, no lightweight To identify the MACT floor, we lightweight aggregate kilns that limit aggregate kiln that burns hazardous evaluated the compliance test emissions emissions of dioxin and furans to 0.40 waste uses activated carbon injection. data associated with the most recent test ng TEQ/dscm. We evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of campaign using the Emissions 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm, which represents a 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT Approach described in Part Two, level that is considered routinely Floor for Existing Sources? Section VI above. The calculated floor is achievable using activated carbon 14 ng TEQ/dscm, which considers Dioxin and furan emissions for injection. In addition, we assumed for emissions variability. However, the existing lightweight aggregate kilns are costing purposes that lightweight current interim emission standard—0.20 currently limited by § 63.1205(a)(1) to aggregate kilns needing activated carbon ng TEQ/dscm or rapid quench of the 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm or rapid quench of injection to achieve the beyond-the-floor flue gas at the exit of the kiln to less the flue gas at the exit of the kiln to less level would install the activated carbon than 400°F—is a regulatory limit that is than 400°F. This standard was injection system after the existing relevant in identifying the floor level promulgated in the Interim Standards particulate matter control device and because it fixes a level of performance Rule (See 67 FR at 6797). add a new, smaller baghouse to remove for the source category. We estimate that Since promulgation of the September the injected carbon with the adsorbed sources achieving the ‘‘rapid quench of 1999 final rule, we have obtained dioxin/furans. We chose this costing the flue gas at the exit of the kiln to less approach to address potential concerns additional dioxin/furan emissions data. than 400°F’’ part of the current standard We now have compliance test emissions that injected carbon may interfere with can emit up to 6.1 ng TEQ/dscm. Given lightweight aggregate dust use practices. data for all lightweight aggregate kilns that all sources are achieving the that burn hazardous waste. The The national incremental annualized interim standard and that the interim compliance cost for lightweight compliance test dioxin/furan emissions standard is judged as more stringent aggregate kilns to meet this beyond-the- in our database range from than the calculated MACT floor, the floor level rather than comply with the approximately 0.9 to 58 ng TEQ/dscm. dioxin/furan floor level can be no less floor controls would be approximately Quenching kiln gas temperatures at stringent than the current regulatory $1.8 million and would provide an the exit of the kiln so that gas limit.110 We are, therefore, proposing incremental reduction in dioxin/furan temperatures at the inlet to the the dioxin/furan floor level as the emissions beyond the MACT floor particulate matter control device are current emission standard of 0.20 ng controls of 1.9 grams TEQ per year. below the temperature range of TEQ/dscm or rapid quench of the flue Nonair quality health and optimum dioxin/furan formation (400– gas at the exit of the kiln to less than ° environmental impacts and energy 750 F) may be problematic for some of 400°F. This emission level is being effects were evaluated to estimate the these sources. Some of these sources achieved by all sources because it is the have extensive (long) duct-work interim standard. In addition, there are nonair quality health and environmental between the kiln exit and the inlet to the no emissions reductions for existing impacts between activated carbon control device. For these sources, lightweight aggregate kilns to comply injection and controls likely to be used quenching the gases at the kiln exit to with the floor level. to meet the floor level. We estimate that a low enough temperature to limit this beyond-the-floor option would dioxin/furan formation may conflict 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor increase the amount of solid waste with the source’s ability to avoid acid Standards for Existing Sources generated by 550 tons per year and gas dew point related problems in the We evaluated activated carbon would require sources to use an long duct-work and control device. As injection as beyond-the-floor control for additional 1 million kW-hours per year a result, some sources quench the kiln further reduction of dioxin/furan beyond the requirements to achieve the exit gases to a temperature that is in the floor level. The costs associated with optimum temperature range for surface- 110 Even though all sources have recently these impacts are accounted for in the catalyzed dioxin/furan formation. demonstrated compliance with the interim national compliance cost estimates. standards, the dioxin/furan data in our data base Available compliance test emissions preceded the compliance demonstration. This Therefore, based on these factors and data indicate that inlet temperatures to explains why we have emissions data that are costs of approximately $0.95 million per the control device range from 435– higher than the interim standard. additional gram of dioxin/furan TEQ

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21263

removed, we are proposing a beyond- which considers emissions variability, furan in the range of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm the-floor standard of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm or rapid quench of the flue gas at the or less are necessary for the MACT for existing lightweight aggregate kilns. exit of the kiln to less than 400°F. This standards to be considered generally We judge that the cost to achieve this is an emission level that the single best protective of human health under beyond-the-floor level is warranted performing source identified by the RCRA, thereby eliminating the need for given our special concern about dioxin/ Emissions Approach. However, we are separate RCRA standards. furan. Dioxin/furan are some of the most concerned that the calculated floor level We specifically request comment on toxic compounds known due to their of 1.3 ng TEQ/dscm is not duplicable by whether this beyond-the-floor standard bioaccumulation potential and wide all sources using temperature control is warranted. range of health effects, including because we estimate that sources carcinogenesis, at exceedingly low rapidly quenching the flue gas at the B. What Are the Proposed Standards for doses. Exposure via indirect pathways is exit of the kiln to less than 400°F can Mercury? a chief reason that Congress singled our emit up to 6.1 ng TEQ/dscm. Therefore, We are proposing to establish dioxin/furan for priority MACT control we are proposing the floor as the current standards for existing and new in CAA section 112(c)(6). See S. Rep. emission standard of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm lightweight aggregate kilns that limit No. 128, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. at 154– or rapid quench of the flue gas at the emissions of mercury to 67 µg/dscm. 155. In addition, we note that a beyond- exit of the kiln to less than 400°F. the-floor standard of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor is consistent with historically controlled Floor for Existing Sources? Standards for New Sources levels under MACT for hazardous waste Mercury emissions for existing incinerators and cement kilns, and We evaluated activated carbon lightweight aggregate kilns are currently Portland cement plants. See injection as beyond-the-floor control for limited to 120 µg/dscm by §§ 63.1203(a)(1), 63.1204(a)(1), and further reduction of dioxin/furan § 63.1205(a)(2). Existing lightweight 63.1343(d)(3). Also, EPA has emissions, and considered a beyond- aggregate kilns have the option to determined previously in the 1999 the-floor level of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm, comply with an alternative mercury Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT which represents a level that is standard that limits the hazardous waste final rule that dioxin/furan in the range considered routinely achievable with maximum theoretical emissions of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm or less are activated carbon injection. In addition, concentration (MTEC) of mercury to 120 necessary for the MACT standards to be we assumed for costing purposes that a µg/dscm.111 This standard was considered generally protective of new lightweight aggregate kiln will promulgated in the Interim Standards human health under RCRA (using the install the activated carbon injection Rule (See 67 FR at 6797). One 1985 cancer slope factor), thereby system after the existing particulate lightweight aggregate facility with two eliminating the need for separate RCRA matter control device and add a new, kilns uses a venturi scrubber to remove standards under the authority of RCRA smaller baghouse to remove the injected mercury from the flue gas stream and section 3005(c)(3) and 40 CFR 270.10(k). carbon with the adsorbed dioxin/furan. the remaining sources limit the feed Finally, we note that this decision is not The incremental annualized compliance concentration of mercury in the inconsistent with EPA’s decision not to cost for a new source to meet this hazardous waste to control emissions. promulgate beyond-the-floor standards beyond-the-floor level, rather than We have compliance test emissions for dioxin/furan for hazardous waste comply with the floor level, would be data for only one source; however, we burning lightweight aggregate kilns, approximately $0.26 million and would have normal emissions data for all cement kilns, and incinerators at cost- provide an incremental reduction in sources. For most sources, we have effectiveness values in the range of dioxin/furan emissions of 0.37 grams normal emissions data from more than $530,000 to $827,000 per additional per year. Nonair quality health, one test campaign. We used these gram of dioxin/furan TEQ removed. See environmental impacts, and energy emissions data to represent the average 64 FR at 52892, 52876, and 52961. In effects are accounted for in the cost emissions from a source even though we those cases, EPA determined that estimates. Therefore, based on these do not know whether the emissions controlling dioxin/furan emissions from factors and cost of $0.71 million per represent the high end, low end, or a level of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm to a gram TEQ removed, we are proposing a close to the average emissions. The beyond-the-floor standard based on beyond-the-floor level of 0.20 ng TEQ/ normal mercury stack emissions range activated carbon injection. We believe dscm was not warranted because from less than 1 to 47 µg/dscm, while that the cost to achieve this beyond-the- dioxin/furan levels below 0.40 ng TEQ/ the highest compliance test emissions floor level is warranted given our dscm are generally considered to be data is 1,050 µg/dscm. These emissions special concern about dioxin/furan. below the level of health risk concern. are expressed as mass of mercury (from Dioxin/furan are some of the most toxic We specifically request comment on all feedstocks) per unit volume of stack compounds known due to their whether this beyond-the-floor standard gas. bioaccumulation potential and wide is warranted. To identify the MACT floor, we range of health effects, including evaluated all normal emissions data 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT carcinogenesis, at exceedingly low using the SRE/Feed Approach. We Floor for New Sources? doses. In addition, as discussed above, considered normal stack emissions data Dioxin and furan emissions for new we note that the beyond-the-floor from all test campaigns.112 For example, lightweight aggregate kilns are currently emission level of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm is limited by § 63.1205(b)(1) to 0.20 ng consistent with historically controlled 111 MTEC is a term to compare metals and TEQ/dscm or rapid quench of the flue levels under MACT for hazardous waste chlorine feedrates across sources of different sizes. gas at the exit of the kiln to less than incinerators and cement kilns, and MTEC is defined as the metals or chlorine feedrate 400°F. This standard was promulgated Portland cement plants. See divided by the gas flow rate and is expressed in µ in the Interim Standards Rule (See 67 §§ 63.1203(a)(1), 63.1204(a)(1), and units of g/dscm. 112 Given that the majority of feedrate and FR at 6797). 63.1343(d)(3). EPA has determined emissions data for mercury is normal, we do not The calculated MACT floor for new previously in the 1999 Hazardous Waste believe it is appropriate to establish a hazardous sources would be 1.3 ng TEQ/dscm, Combustor MACT final rule that dioxin/ Continued

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21264 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

one source in our data base has normal emission standard because of process in the hazardous waste burned during emissions data for three different testing raw material contributions that might the compliance and trial burn tests was campaigns: 1992, 1995, and 1999. Under cause an exceedance of the emission not captured during the tests. In their this approach we considered the standard. To address this concern, we 1997 comments, Solite provided emissions data from the three separate promulgated a provision that allows information on actual mercury years or campaigns. As explained sources to petition for alternative concentrations in the hazardous waste earlier, we believe this approach better standards provided they submit site- burn tanks over a year and a quarter captures the range of average emissions specific information that shows raw period. The information showed that for a source than only considering the material hazardous air pollutant 87% of the burn tanks contained most recent normal emissions. In contributions to the emissions prevent mercury at concentrations below the addition, for sources without control the source from complying with the facility’s detection limit of 2 ppm. equipment to capture mercury, we emission standard even though the kiln Additional analyses of a limited number assumed the sources achieved a SRE of is using MACT control. See of these samples conducted at an off-site zero. The effect of this assumption is § 63.1206(b)(9). lab showed that the majority of samples that the sources (without control Today’s proposed floor of 67 µg/dscm, were actually less than 0.2 ppm.114 which was based on a hazardous waste equipment for mercury) with the lower We examined the test reports of the MTEC of 42 µg/dscm, may likewise mercury concentrations in the five best performing sources that are the hazardous waste were identified as the necessitate such an alternative because contributions of mercury in the raw basis of today’s proposed floor level to better performing sources. determine the concentration level of The calculated floor is 67 µg/dscm, materials and fossil fuels at some sources may cause an exceedance of the mercury in the hazardous wastes. The which considers emissions variability, hazardous waste burned by the best based on a hazardous waste maximum emission standard. The Agency intends to retain a source’s ability to comply performing sources during the tests that theoretical emissions concentration generated the normal emissions data (MTEC) of 42 µg/dscm. This is an with an alternative standard, and we request comment on two approaches to had mercury concentrations that ranged emission level that the average of the from 0.02 to 0.2 ppm.115 Even though best performing sources could be accomplish this. The first approach would be to structure the alternative the concentrations of mercury in the expected to achieve in 99 of 100 future hazardous waste seem low, we cannot tests when operating under operating standard similar to the petitioning process used under § 63.1206(b)(9). In judge how these snap shot conditions identical to the compliance concentrations compare to long-term test conditions during which the the case of mercury for an existing lightweight aggregate kiln, MACT would normal concentrations because the emissions data were obtained. We majority of the burn tank concentration estimate that this emission level is being be defined as a hazardous waste feedrate µ data submitted by Solite are nondetect achieved by 57% of sources and would corresponding to an MTEC of 42 g/ dscm. If we were to adopt this approach, measurements at a higher detection reduce mercury emissions by 8 pounds limit. per year. If we were to adopt such a we would require sources, upon floor level, we are proposing that approval of the petition by the Solite informed us in July 2003 that sources comply with the limit on an Administrator, to comply with this they are in the process of upgrading the annual basis because it is based on hazardous waste MTEC on an annual analysis equipment at their on-site normal emissions data. Under this basis because it is based on normal laboratory. Once completed, Solite approach, compliance would not be emissions data. Under the second expects to be capable of detecting based on the use of a total mercury approach, we would structure the mercury in the hazardous waste at continuous emissions monitoring alternative standard similar to the concentrations of 0.2 ppm. Solite also system because these monitors have not framework used for the alternative indicated that they intend to assemble been adequately demonstrated as a interim standards for mercury under and submit to EPA several months of reliable compliance assurance tool at all § 63.1206(b)(15). The operating burn tank concentration data analyzed requirement would be an annual MTEC with the new equipment. We will add types of incinerator sources. Instead, a µ source would maintain compliance with not to exceed 42 g/dscm. We also these data to the docket of today’s the mercury standard by establishing request comment on whether there are proposal once available. As we and complying with short-term limits other approaches that would more discussed for cement kilns for mercury, on operating parameters for pollution appropriately provide relief to sources we are requesting comment on control equipment and annual limits on that cannot achieve a total stack gas approaches to establish a hazardous maximum total mercury feedrate in all concentration standard because of waste feed concentration standard based feedstreams. emissions attributable to raw material on long-term feed concentrations of In the September 1999 final rule, we and nonhazardous waste fuels. mercury in the hazardous waste. acknowledged that a lightweight In comments submitted to EPA in Likewise, we invite comments on 1997, Solite Corporation (Solite), owner establishing a mercury feed aggregate kiln using properly designed 113 and operated MACT control and operator of five of the seven technologies, including controlling the lightweight aggregate kilns, stated that 114 A hazardous waste with a mercury levels of metals in the hazardous waste, the normal emissions data in our data concentration of 2 ppm equates approximately to a mercury emissions level of 200–250 µg/dscm, and may not be capable of achieving a given base are unrepresentative of average emissions of mercury because the a source firing a hazardous waste with a mercury concentration of 0.2 ppm approximately equates to waste thermal emissions-based standard. We prefer normal range of mercury concentrations 20–25 µg/dscm. The existing standard of 120 µg/ to establish emission standards under the dscm allows a source to burn a hazardous waste hazardous waste thermal emissions format using 113 Solite Corporation has four kilns at its Cascade with a mercury concentration of approximately 1 compliance test data because the metals feedrate facility and three kilns at its Arvonia facility. ppm. information from compliance tests that we use to However, only three kilns and two kilns, 115 These mercury concentrations were analyzed apportion emissions to calculate emissions respectively, can be fired with hazardous waste at by an off-site lab that had equipment capable of attributable to hazardous waste are more reliable any one time. For purposes of today’s proposal, detecting mercury at lower concentrations. Sixteen than feedrate data measured during testing under Solite Corporation is assumed to operate a total of of the 27 measurements of the best performers were normal, typical operations. five kilns. reported as non-detects.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21265

concentration standard for lightweight reduction of mercury emissions. achieve modest emissions reductions.116 aggregate kilns. Activated carbon has been demonstrated The national incremental annualized We also invite comment on whether for controlling mercury in several compliance cost for lightweight we should judge an annual limit of 67 combustion applications; however, aggregate kilns to meet this beyond-the- µ g/dscm as less stringent than either the currently no lightweight aggregate kiln floor level rather than comply with the µ current emission standard of 120 g/ that burns hazardous waste uses floor controls would be approximately dscm or the hazardous waste MTEC of activated carbon injection. Given this µ $0.3 million and would provide an mercury of 120 g/dscm for lightweight lack of experience using activated incremental reduction in mercury aggregate kilns (so as to avoid any carbon injection, we made a emissions beyond the MACT floor backsliding from a current level of conservative assumption that the use of controls of 3 pounds per year. Nonair performance achieved by all sources, activated carbon injection will provide quality health and environmental and hence, the level of minimal 70% mercury control and evaluated a impacts and energy effects were also stringency at which EPA could calculate beyond-the-floor level of 20 µg/dscm. In the MACT floor). In order to comply evaluated. Therefore, based on these with the current emission standard, addition, for costing purposes we factors and costs of approximately $229 generally a source must conduct manual assumed that sources needing activated million per additional ton of mercury stack sampling to demonstrate carbon injection to achieve the beyond- removed, we are not proposing a compliance with the mercury emission the-floor level would install the beyond-the-floor standard based on feed standard and then establish a maximum activated carbon injection system after control of mercury in the hazardous mercury feedrate limit based on the existing baghouse and add a new, waste. operations during the performance test. smaller baghouse to remove the injected Feed Control of Mercury in the Raw Following the performance test, the carbon with the adsorbed mercury. We Materials and Auxiliary Fuels. source complies with a limit on the chose this costing approach to address Lightweight aggregate kilns could maximum total mercury feedrate in all potential concerns that injected carbon achieve a reduction in mercury may interfere with lightweight aggregate feedstreams on a 12-hour rolling average emissions by substituting a raw material kiln dust use practices. (not an annual average). Alternatively, a containing a lower level of mercury for source can elect to comply with a The national incremental annualized a primary raw material with a higher hazardous waste MTEC of mercury of compliance cost for lightweight level. We believe that this beyond-the- 120 µg/dscm that would require the aggregate kilns to meet this beyond-the- floor option would be even less cost- source to limit the mercury feedrate in floor level rather than comply with the effective than either of the options the hazardous waste on a 12-hour µ floor controls would be approximately discussed above, however. Given that rolling average. The floor level of 67 g/ $1.1 million and would provide an dscm proposed today would allow a sources are sited near the supply of the incremental reduction in mercury primary raw material, transporting large source to feed more variable mercury- emissions beyond the MACT floor containing feedstreams (e.g., a quantities of an alternate source of raw controls of 11 pounds per year. Nonair hazardous waste with a mercury MTEC materials, even if available, is likely to quality health and environmental greater than 120 µg/dscm) than the be cost-prohibitive, especially impacts and energy effects were current 12-hour rolling average because considering the small expected today’s proposed floor level is an annual evaluated to estimate the impacts emissions reductions that would result. between activated carbon injection and limit. For example, the concentration of We also considered whether fuel mercury in the hazardous waste controls likely to be used to meet the floor level. We estimate that this switching to an auxiliary fuel containing exceeded a hazardous waste MTEC of a lower concentration of mercury would µ beyond-the-floor option would increase 120 g/dscm in a minimum of 13% of be an appropriate control option for the burn tanks based on the data the amount of solid waste generated by 270 tons per year and would require sources. Two facilities typically burn submitted by Solite in their 1997 hazardous waste at a fuel replacement comments (discussed above). As sources to use an additional 1.2 million kW-hours per year beyond the rate of 100%, while one facility has mentioned above, Solite intends to burned a combination of fuel oil and submit several months of burn tank requirements to achieve the floor level. natural gas in addition to the hazardous concentration data using upgraded The costs associated with these impacts waste. We considered switching only to analysis equipment at their on-site are accounted for in the national natural gas as the auxiliary fuel as a laboratory that we will consider when annualized compliance cost estimates. comparing the relative stringency of an Therefore, based on these factors and potential beyond-the-floor option. We annual limit of 67 µg/dscm and a short- costs of approximately $209 million per do not believe that switching to natural term limit of 120 µg/dscm. additional ton of mercury removed, we gas is a viable control option for the are not proposing a beyond-the-floor same reasons discussed above for 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor standard based on activated carbon cement kilns. Standards for Existing Sources injection. For the reasons discussed above, we We identified three potential beyond- Feed Control of Mercury in the propose to establish the emission the-floor techniques for control of Hazardous Waste. We also evaluated a standard for existing lightweight mercury: (1) Activated carbon injection; µ aggregate kilns at 67 µg/dscm. If we (2) control of mercury in the hazardous beyond-the-floor level of 54 g/dscm, which represents a 20% reduction from were to adopt such a standard, we are waste feed; and (3) control of mercury proposing that sources comply with the in the raw materials and auxiliary fuels. the floor level. We chose a 20% reduction as a level representing the standard on an annual basis because it For reasons discussed below, we are not is based on normal emissions data. proposing a beyond-the-floor standard practicable extent that additional feedrate control of mercury in for mercury. 116 Use of Activated Carbon Injection. We hazardous waste (beyond feedrate USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document control that may be necessary to achieve for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume V: evaluated activated carbon injection as Emission Estimates and Engineering Costs’’, March beyond-the-floor control for further the floor level) can be used and still 2004, Chapter 4.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21266 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT beyond-the-floor standard based on Therefore, we propose a mercury Floor for New Sources? controlling the mercury in the standard of 67 µg/dscm for new sources. Mercury emissions from new hazardous waste feed would not be If we were to adopt such a standard, we lightweight aggregate kilns are currently justified because of the costs coupled are proposing that sources comply with limited to 120 µg/dscm by with estimated emission reductions. the standard on an annual basis because § 63.1205(b)(2). This standard was Feed Control of Mercury in the Raw it is based on normal emissions data. promulgated in the Interim Standards Materials and Auxiliary Fuels. Lightweight aggregate kilns could C. What Are the Proposed Standards for Rule (see 67 FR at 6797). Particulate Matter? The MACT floor for new sources for achieve a reduction in mercury mercury would be 67 µg/dscm, which emissions by substituting a raw material We are proposing to establish considers emissions variability. This is containing lower levels of mercury for a standards for existing and new an emission level that the single best primary raw material with a higher lightweight aggregate kilns that limit performing source identified with the level. For a new source at an existing emissions of particulate matter to 0.025 SRE/Feed Approach could be expected lightweight aggregate plant, we believe and 0.0099 gr/dscf, respectively. This to achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when that this beyond-the-floor option would standard would control unenumerated operating under operating conditions not be cost-effective due to the costs of HAP metals in hazardous waste, and all identical to the compliance test transporting large quantities of an non-Hg HAP metals in the raw material conditions during which the emissions alternate source of raw materials to the and fossil fuel inputs to the kiln. data were obtained. facility. Given that the plant site already exists and sited near the source of raw 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor material, replacing the raw materials at Floor for Existing Sources? Standards for New Sources the plant site with lower mercury- Particulate matter emissions for We identified the same three potential containing materials would be the source’s only option. For a new existing lightweight aggregate kilns are beyond-the-floor techniques for control currently limited to 0.025 gr/dscf (57 of mercury: (1) Use of activated carbon; lightweight aggregate kiln constructed at a new site—a greenfield site 117—we are mg/dscm) by § 63.1205(a)(7). This (2) control of mercury in the hazardous standard was promulgated in the waste feed; and (3) control of the not aware of any information and data from a source that has undertaken or is Interim Standards Rule (See 67 FR at mercury in the raw materials and 6797). The particulate matter standard is auxiliary fuels. currently located at a site whose raw materials are low in mercury which a surrogate control for the non-mercury Use of Activated Carbon Injection. We metal HAP. All lightweight aggregate evaluated activated carbon injection as would consistently decrease mercury emissions. Further, we are uncertain as kilns control particulate matter with beyond-the-floor control for further baghouses. reduction of mercury emissions. We to what beyond-the-floor standard made a conservative assumption that would be achievable using a lower, if it We have compliance test emissions the use of activated carbon injection exists, mercury-containing raw material. data for all lightweight aggregate kiln will provide 70% mercury control and Although we are doubtful that selecting sources. For most sources, we have evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 20 a new plant site based on the content of compliance test emissions data from µg/dscm. The incremental annualized metals in the raw material is a realistic more than one compliance test compliance cost for a new lightweight beyond-the-floor option considering the campaign. Our database of particulate aggregate kiln with average gas flow rate numerous additional factors that go into matter stack emissions range from 0.001 to meet this beyond-the-floor level, such a decision, we solicit comment on to 0.042 gr/dscf. rather than comply with the floor level, whether and what level of a beyond-the- To identify the MACT floor, we would be approximately $0.26 million floor standard based on controlling the evaluated the compliance test emissions and would provide an incremental level of mercury in the raw materials is data associated with the most recent test reduction in mercury emissions of appropriate. campaign using the APCD Approach. approximately 42 pounds per year. We also considered whether fuel The calculated floor is 0.029 gr/dscf, Nonair quality health and switching to an auxiliary fuel containing which considers emissions variability. environmental impacts and energy a lower concentration of mercury would This is an emission level that the effects are accounted for in the national be an appropriate control option for average of the best performing sources annualized compliance cost estimates. sources. We considered using natural could be expected to achieve in 99 of Therefore, based on these factors and gas in lieu of a fuel containing higher 100 future tests when operating under costs of $12 million per ton of mercury concentrations of mercury as a potential operating conditions identical to the removed, we are not proposing a beyond-the-floor option. As discussed compliance test conditions during beyond-the-floor standard based on for existing sources, we are concerned which the emissions data were activated carbon injection for new about the availability of the natural gas obtained. The calculated floor level of sources. infrastructure in all regions of the 0.029 gr/dscf is less stringent than the Feed Control of Mercury in the United States and believe that using interim standard of 0.025 gr/dscf, which Hazardous Waste. We also believe that natural gas would not be a viable is a regulatory limit relevant in the expense for further reduction in control option for all new sources. identifying the floor level (so as to avoid mercury emissions based on further Therefore, we are not proposing a any backsliding from a current level of control of mercury concentrations in the beyond-the-floor standard based on performance achieved by all lightweight hazardous waste is not warranted. A limiting mercury in the raw material aggregate kilns, and hence, the level of beyond-the-floor level of 54 µg/dscm, feed and auxiliary fuels. minimal stringency at which EPA could which represents a 20% reduction from calculate the MACT floor). Therefore, the floor level, would result in little 117 A greenfield source is a kiln constructed at a we are proposing the floor level as the site where no lightweight aggregate kiln previously additional mercury reductions. For existed; however, a newly constructed or current emission standard of 0.025 gr/ similar reasons discussed above for reconstructed kiln at an existing site would not be dscf. This emission level is currently existing sources, we conclude that a considered as a greenfield kiln. being achieved by all sources.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21267

2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor matter emissions of approximately 2 campaign using the SRE/Feed Standards for Existing Sources tons per year. Nonair quality health and Approach. The calculated floor is 3.1 × ¥4 We evaluated improved particulate environmental impacts and energy 10 lbs semivolatile metals emissions matter control to achieve a beyond-the- effects were also evaluated and are attributable to the hazardous waste per floor standard of 29 mg/dscm (0.013 gr/ included in the cost estimates. million Btu heat input of the hazardous Therefore, based on these factors and dscf). The national incremental waste, which considers emissions costs of approximately $45,600 per variability. This is an emission level annualized compliance cost for additional ton of particulate removed, that the average of the best performing lightweight aggregate kilns to meet this we are not proposing a beyond-the-floor sources could be expected to achieve in beyond-the-floor level rather than standard based on improved particulate 99 of 100 future tests when operating comply with the floor controls would be matter control for new lightweight under conditions identical to the approximately $0.32 million and would aggregate kilns. Therefore, we propose a compliance test conditions during provide an incremental reduction in particulate matter standard of 2.3 mg/ which the emissions data were particulate matter emissions beyond the dscm (0.0099 gr/dscf) for new sources. obtained. We estimate that this emission MACT floor controls of 8.6 tons per level is being achieved by 71% of year. Nonair quality health and D. What Are the Proposed Standards for sources, and would reduce semivolatile environmental impacts and energy Semivolatile Metals? metals emissions by 30 pounds per year. effects were evaluated to estimate the We are proposing to establish To put the proposed floor level in impacts between further improvements standards for existing lightweight context for a hypothetical lightweight to control particulate matter and aggregate kilns that limit emissions of aggregate kiln that gets 90% of its controls likely to be used to meet the semivolatile metals (cadmium and lead, required heat input from hazardous floor level. We estimate that this × ¥4 combined) to 3.1 10 lbs semivolatile waste, a thermal emissions level of 3.1 beyond-the-floor option would increase ¥ metals emissions attributable to the × 10 4 lbs semivolatile metals the amount of solid waste generated by hazardous waste per million Btu heat attributable to the hazardous waste per 9 tons per year beyond the requirements input of the hazardous waste and 250 million Btu heat input of the hazardous to achieve the floor level. Therefore, µ g/dscm. The proposed standard for waste equates approximately to a stack based on these factors and costs of × ¥5 new sources is 2.4 10 lbs gas concentration of 300 µg/dscm. This approximately $36,600 per additional semivolatile metals emissions estimated stack gas concentration does ton of particulate matter removed, we attributable to the hazardous waste per not include contributions to emission are not proposing a beyond-the-floor million Btu heat input of the hazardous from other semivolatile metals- standard based on improved particulate µ waste and 43 g/dscm. containing materials such as raw matter control. 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT materials and fossil fuels. The 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT Floor for Existing Sources? additional contribution to stack Floor for New Sources? emissions of semivolatile metals in an Semivolatile metals emissions from average raw material is estimated to Particulate matter emissions from new existing lightweight aggregate kilns are range as high as 20 to 50 µg/dscm. Thus, lightweight aggregate kilns are currently currently limited to 250 µg/dscm by for the hypothetical lightweight limited to 0.025 gr/dscf by § 63.1205(a)(3). This standard was aggregate kiln the thermal emissions § 63.1205(b)(7). This standard was promulgated in the Interim Standards ¥ floor level of 3.1 × 10 4 lbs semivolatile promulgated in the Interim Standards Rule (See 67 FR at 6797). Lightweight metals attributable to the hazardous Rule (See 67 FR at 6797, February 13, aggregate kilns control emissions of waste per million Btu heat input of the 2002). semivolatile metals with baghouses and/ hazardous waste is estimated to be less The MACT floor for new sources for or by controlling the feed concentration than 350 µg/dscm, which is higher than particulate matter would be 23 mg/dscm of semivolatile metals in the hazardous the current interim standard of 250 µg/ (0.0099 gr/dscf), which considers waste. emissions variability. This is an We have compliance test emissions dscm. Given that comparing the emission level that the single best data for all lightweight aggregate kiln proposed floor level to the interim performing source identified with the sources. For most sources, we have standard requires numerous APCD Approach could be expected to compliance test emissions data from assumptions (as just illustrated) achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when more than one compliance test including hazardous waste fuel operating under operating conditions campaign. Semivolatile metal stack replacement rates, heat input identical to the compliance test emissions range from approximately 1 requirements per ton of clinker, conditions during which the emissions to over 1,600 µg/dscm. These emissions concentrations of semivolatile metals in data were obtained. are expressed as mass of semivolatile the raw material and fuels, and system metals (from all feedstocks) per unit removal efficiency, we have included a 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor volume of stack gas. Hazardous waste more detailed analysis in the Standards for New Sources ¥ 118 thermal emissions range from 3.0 × 10 6 background document. Our detailed We evaluated improved particulate to 1.1 × 10¥3 lbs per million Btu. analysis indicates the proposed floor matter control to achieve a beyond-the- Hazardous waste thermal emissions level could be less stringent than the floor standard. We evaluated a beyond- represent the mass of semivolatile interim standard for some sources. In the-floor level of 12 mg/dscm (0.005 gr/ metals emissions attributable to the order to avoid any backsliding from the dscf). The incremental annualized hazardous waste per million Btu heat current level of performance achieved compliance cost for a new lightweight input of the hazardous waste. For most by all lightweight aggregate kilns, we aggregate kiln with an average gas flow lightweight aggregate kilns, lead was the propose a dual standard: the rate to meet this beyond-the-floor level, major contributor to semivolatile semivolatile metals standard as both the rather than comply with the floor level, emissions. 118 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document would be approximately $91,400 To identify the MACT floor, we for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume million and would provide an evaluated the compliance test emissions III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March 2004, incremental reduction in particulate data associated with the most recent test Chapter 23.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21268 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

calculated floor level, expressed as a provide an incremental reduction in effective than either of the options hazardous waste thermal emissions semivolatile metals emissions beyond discussed above, however. Given that level, and the current interim standard. the MACT floor controls of 20 pounds facilities are sited near the primary raw This would ensure that all sources are per year. Nonair quality health and material supply, acquiring and complying with a limit that is at least as environmental impacts and energy transporting large quantities of an stringent as the interim standard. effects were evaluated to estimate the alternate source of raw materials is In the September 1999 final rule, we impacts between further improvements likely to be cost-prohibitive. Therefore, acknowledged that a lightweight to control particulate matter and we are not proposing a beyond-the-floor aggregate kiln using properly designed controls likely to be used to meet the standard based on limiting semivolatile and operated MACT control floor level. We estimate that this metals in the raw material feed. technologies, including controlling the beyond-the-floor option would increase We also considered whether fuel levels of metals in the hazardous waste, the amount of solid waste generated by switching to an auxiliary fuel containing may not be capable of achieving a given less than 10 tons per year and would a lower concentration of semivolatile emission standard because of mineral also require sources to use an additional metals would be an appropriate control and process raw material contributions 2,000 kW-hours per year beyond the option for sources. Two facilities that might cause an exceedance of the requirements to achieve the floor level. typically burn hazardous waste at a fuel emission standard. To address this The costs associated with these impacts replacement rate of 100%, while one concern, we promulgated a provision are accounted for in the national facility has burned a combination of fuel that allows kilns to petition for annualized compliance cost estimates. oil and natural gas in addition to the alternative standards provided that they Therefore, based on these factors and hazardous waste. We considered submit site-specific information that costs of approximately $7.6 million per switching only to natural gas as the shows raw material hazardous air additional ton of semivolatile metals auxiliary fuel as a potential beyond-the- pollutant contributions to the emissions removed, we are not proposing a floor option. We do not believe that prevent the source from complying with beyond-the-floor standard based on switching to natural gas is a viable the emission standard even though the improved particulate matter control. control option for similar reasons kiln is using MACT control. See Feed Control of Semivolatile Metals discussed above for cement kilns. § 63.1206(b)(9). If we were to adopt the in the Hazardous Waste. We also For the reasons discussed above, we proposed dual semivolatile (and low evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 2.5 propose to establish the emission volatile) metals standards approach, we × 10¥4 lbs semivolatile metals standard for existing lightweight propose to retain the alternative emissions attributable to the hazardous aggregate kilns at 3.1 × 10¥4 lbs standard provisions under waste per million Btu heat input of the semivolatile metals emissions § 63.1206(b)(9) for semivolatile metals hazardous waste, which represents a attributable to the hazardous waste per (and low volatile metals). We invite 20% reduction from the floor level. We million Btu heat input of the hazardous comment on this approach. chose a 20% reduction as a level waste and 250 µg/dscm. representing the practicable extent that 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT additional feedrate control of Standards for Existing Sources Floor for New Sources? semivolatile metals in hazardous waste We identified three potential beyond- can be used and still achieve Semivolatile metals emissions from the-floor techniques for control of appreciable emissions reductions. The new lightweight aggregate kilns are semivolatile metals: (1) Improved national incremental annualized currently limited to 43 µg/dscm by particulate matter control; (2) control of compliance cost for lightweight § 63.1205(b)(3). This standard was semivolatile metals in the hazardous aggregate kilns to meet this beyond-the- promulgated in the Interim Standards waste feed; and (3) control of the floor level rather than comply with the Rule (See 67 FR at 6797). semivolatile metals in the raw materials The MACT floor for new sources for floor controls would be approximately ¥ and fuels. $6,000 and would provide an semivolatile metals would be 2.4 × 10 5 Improved Particulate Matter Control. incremental reduction in semivolatile lbs semivolatile metals emissions Controlling particulate matter also metals emissions beyond the MACT attributable to the hazardous waste per controls emissions of semivolatile floor controls of less than one pound per million Btu in the hazardous waste, metals. Our data show that all year. Nonair quality health and which considers emissions variability. lightweight aggregate kilns are already environmental impacts and energy This is an emission level that the single achieving greater than 99.7% system effects were evaluated and are included best performing source identified with removal efficiency for semivolatile in the national compliance cost the SRE/Feed Approach could be metals, with many attaining 99.9% estimates. Therefore, based on these expected to achieve in 99 of 100 future removal. Thus, additional control of factors and costs of approximately $20 tests when operating under operating particulate matter are likely to result in million per additional ton of conditions identical to the compliance only modest additional reductions of semivolatile metals removed, we are not test conditions during which the semivolatile metals emissions. We proposing a beyond-the-floor standard emissions data were obtained. evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 1.5 based on feed control of semivolatile To put the proposed floor level in ¥ × 10 4 lbs semivolatile metals metals in the hazardous waste. context for a hypothetical lightweight emissions attributable to the hazardous Feed Control of Semivolatile Metals aggregate kiln that gets 90% of its waste per million Btu heat input of the in the Raw Materials and Auxiliary required heat input from hazardous hazardous waste, which represents a Fuels. Lightweight aggregate kilns could waste, a thermal emissions level of 2.4 50% reduction in emissions from MACT achieve a reduction in semivolatile × 10¥5 lbs semivolatile metals floor levels. The national incremental metal emissions by substituting a raw emissions attributable to the hazardous annualized compliance cost for material containing lower levels of waste per million Btu heat input of the lightweight aggregate kilns to meet this cadmium and/or lead for a primary raw hazardous waste can equate to a stack beyond-the-floor level rather than to material with higher levels of these gas concentration as high as 60 µg/dscm, comply with the floor controls would be metals. We believe that this beyond-the- including contributions from typical approximately $84,200 and would floor option would even be less cost- raw materials. Thus, for the

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21269

hypothetical lightweight aggregate kiln level. Therefore, based on these factors whether and what level of a beyond-the- the thermal emissions floor level of 2.4 and costs of approximately $18 million floor standard based on controlling the × 10¥5 lbs semivolatile metals per ton of semivolatile metals removed, level of semivolatile metals in the raw emissions attributable to the hazardous we are not proposing a beyond-the-floor materials is appropriate. waste per million Btu heat input of the standard based on improved particulate We also considered whether fuel hazardous waste is estimated to be as matter control for new lightweight switching to an auxiliary fuel containing high as 60 µg/dscm, which is higher aggregate kilns. a lower concentration of semivolatile than the current interim standard of 43 Feed Control of Semivolatile Metals metals would be an appropriate control µg/dscm. In order to avoid any in the Hazardous Waste. We also believe option for sources. Two facilities backsliding from the current level of that the expense for further reduction in typically burn hazardous waste at a fuel performance for a new lightweight semivolatile metals emissions based on replacement rate of 100%, while one aggregate kiln source, we propose a dual further control of semivolatile metals facility has burned a combination of fuel standard: the semivolatile metals concentrations in the hazardous waste is oil and natural gas in addition to the standard as both the calculated floor not warranted. We considered a beyond- hazardous waste. We considered level, expressed as a hazardous waste the-floor level of 1.9 × 10¥5 lbs switching only to natural gas as the thermal emissions level, and the current semivolatile metals emissions auxiliary fuel as a potential beyond-the- interim standard. This would ensure attributable to the hazardous waste per floor option. We do not believe that that all sources are complying with a million Btu heat input of the hazardous switching to natural gas is a viable limit that is at least as stringent as the waste, which represents a 20% control option for the same reasons interim standard. Thus, the proposed reduction from the floor level. Nonair discussed above for cement kilns. MACT floor for new lightweight quality health and environmental For the reasons discussed above, we aggregate kilns is 2.4 × 10¥5 lbs impacts and energy effects were propose to establish the emission semivolatile metals emissions evaluated and are included in the standard for new lightweight aggregate attributable to the hazardous waste per compliance cost estimates. For similar kilns at 2.4 × 10¥5 lbs semivolatile million Btu heat input of the hazardous reasons discussed above for existing metals emissions attributable to the waste and 43 µg/dscm. sources, we conclude that a beyond-the- hazardous waste per million Btu heat floor standard based on controlling the content in the hazardous waste and 43 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor concentration of semivolatile metals µg/dscm. Standards for New Sources levels in the hazardous waste feed E. What Are the Proposed Standards for We identified the same three potential would not be justified because of the Low Volatile Metals? beyond-the-floor techniques for control costs and estimated emission of semivolatile metals: (1) Improved reductions. We are proposing to establish control of particulate matter; (2) control Feed Control of Semivolatile Metals standards for existing lightweight of semivolatile metals in the hazardous in the Raw Materials and Auxiliary aggregate kilns that limit emissions of waste feed; and (3) control of Fuels. Lightweight aggregate kilns could low volatile metals (arsenic, beryllium, semivolatile metals in the raw materials achieve a reduction in semivolatile and chromium) to 9.5 × 10¥5 lbs low and fuels. metals emissions by substituting a raw volatile metals emissions attributable to Improved Particulate Matter Control. material containing lower levels of the hazardous waste per million Btu Controlling particulate matter also cadmium and lead for a primary raw heat input of the hazardous waste and controls emissions of semivolatile material with a higher level. For a new 110 µg/dscm. The proposed standard for metals. We evaluated improved control source at an existing facility, we believe new sources is 3.2 × 10¥5 lbs low of particulate matter based on a state-of- that this beyond-the-floor option would volatile metals emissions attributable to the-art baghouse using a high quality not be cost-effective due to the costs of the hazardous waste per million Btu fabric filter bag material as beyond-the- transporting large quantities of an heat input of the hazardous waste and floor control for further reductions in alternate source of raw material to the 110 µg/dscm. semivolatile metals emissions. We facility. Given that the plant site already evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 1.2 exists and is sited near the source of raw 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT × 10¥5 lbs semivolatile metals material, replacing the raw materials at Floor for Existing Sources? emissions attributable to the hazardous the plant site with lower semivolatile Low volatile metals emissions from waste per million Btu heat input of the metals-containing materials would be existing lightweight aggregate kilns are hazardous waste. The incremental the source’s only option. For a kiln currently limited to 110 µg/dscm by annualized compliance cost for a new constructed at a new greenfield site, we § 63.1205(a)(4). This standard was lightweight aggregate kiln with average are not aware of any information and promulgated in the Interim Standards gas flowrate to meet this beyond-the- data from a source that has undertaken Rule (see 67 FR at 6797). Lightweight floor level, rather than to comply with or is currently located at a site whose aggregate kilns control emissions of low the floor level, would be approximately raw materials are inherently lower in volatile metals with baghouses and/or $0.11 million and would provide an semivolatile metals that would by controlling the feed concentration of incremental reduction in semivolatile consistently achieve reduced low volatile metals in the hazardous metals emissions of approximately 13 semivolatile metals emissions. Further, waste. pounds per year. Nonair quality health we are uncertain as to what beyond-the- We have compliance test emissions and environmental impacts and energy floor standard would be achievable data for all lightweight aggregate kiln effects were evaluated and are included using, if it exists, a lower semivolatile sources. For most sources, we have in the cost estimates. We estimate that metals-containing raw material. compliance test emissions data from this beyond-the-floor option would Although we are doubtful that selecting more than one compliance test increase the amount of solid waste a new plant site based on the content of campaign. Low volatile metal stack generated by 3 tons per year and would metals in the raw material is a realistic emissions range from approximately 16 also require sources to use an additional beyond-the-floor option considering the to 200 µg/dscm. These emissions are 0.3 million kW-hours per year beyond numerous additional factors that go into expressed as mass of low volatile metals the requirements to achieve the floor such a decision, we solicit comment on (from all feedstocks) per unit volume of

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21270 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

stack gas. Hazardous waste thermal analysis indicates the proposed floor beyond-the-floor standard based on emissions range from 9.7 × 10¥6 to 1.8 level could be less stringent than the improved particulate matter control. × 10¥4 lbs per million Btu. Hazardous interim standard for some sources. In Feed Control of Low Volatile Metals waste thermal emissions represent the order to avoid any backsliding from the in the Hazardous Waste. We also mass of low volatile metals emissions current level of performance achieved evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 7.6 attributable to the hazardous waste per by all lightweight aggregate kilns, we × 10¥5 lbs low volatile metals emissions million Btu heat input of the hazardous propose a dual standard: the low attributable to the hazardous waste per waste. For most lightweight aggregate volatile metals standard as both the million Btu heat input of the hazardous kilns, chromium was the major calculated floor level, expressed as a waste, which represents a 20% contributor to low volatile emissions. hazardous waste thermal emissions reduction from the floor level. We chose To identify the MACT floor, we level, and the current interim standard. a 20% reduction as a level representing evaluated the compliance test emissions This would ensure that all sources are the practicable extent that additional data associated with the most recent test complying with a limit that is at least as feedrate control of low volatile metals in campaign using the SRE/Feed stringent as the interim standard. hazardous waste (beyond feedrate Approach. The calculated floor is 9.5 × control that may be necessary to achieve 10¥5 lbs low volatile metals emissions 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor the floor level) can be used and still attributable to the hazardous waste per Standards for Existing Sources achieve modest emissions reductions. million Btu heat input of the hazardous We identified three potential beyond- The national incremental annualized waste, which considers emissions the-floor techniques for control of low compliance cost for lightweight variability. This is an emission level volatile metals: (1) Improved particulate aggregate kilns to meet this beyond-the- that the average of the best performing matter control; (2) control of low floor level rather than comply with the sources could be expected to achieve in volatile metals in the hazardous waste floor controls would be approximately 99 of 100 future tests when operating feed; and (3) control of the low volatile $150,000 and would provide an under conditions identical to the metals in the raw materials and fuels. incremental reduction in low volatile compliance test conditions during Improved Particulate Matter Control. metals emissions beyond the MACT which the emissions data were Controlling particulate matter also floor controls of 14 pounds per year. obtained. We estimate that this emission controls emissions of low volatile Nonair quality health and level is being achieved by 57% of metals. Our data show that all environmental impacts and energy sources and would reduce low volatile lightweight aggregate kilns are already effects were considered and are metals emissions by 30 pounds per year. achieving greater than 99.8% system included in the cost estimates. To put the proposed floor level in removal efficiency for low volatile Therefore, based on these factors and context for a hypothetical lightweight metals, with many attaining 99.9% or costs of approximately $22 million per aggregate kiln that gets 90% of its greater removal. Thus, additional additional ton of low volatile metals required heat input from hazardous control of particulate matter emissions removed, we are not proposing a waste, a thermal emissions level of 9.5 is likely to result in only a small beyond-the-floor standard based on feed × 10¥5 lbs low volatile metals emissions increment in reduction of low volatile control of low volatile metals in the attributable to the hazardous waste per metals emissions. We evaluated a hazardous waste. million Btu heat input of the hazardous beyond-the-floor level of 4.7 × 10¥5 lbs Feed Control of Low Volatile Metals waste equates approximately to a stack low volatile metals emissions in the Raw Materials and Auxiliary gas concentration of 90 µg/dscm. This attributable to the hazardous waste per Fuels. Lightweight aggregate kilns could estimated stack gas concentration does million Btu heat input of the hazardous achieve a reduction in low volatile not include contributions to emission waste. The national incremental metal emissions by substituting a raw from other low volatile metals- annualized compliance cost for material containing lower levels of containing materials such as raw lightweight aggregate kilns to meet this arsenic, beryllium, and/or chromium for materials. The additional contribution beyond-the-floor level rather than a primary raw material with higher to stack emissions of low volatile metals comply with the floor controls would be levels of these metals. We believe that in an average raw material is estimated approximately $0.24 million and would this beyond-the-floor option would even to be 50 µg/dscm. Thus, for the provide an incremental reduction in low be less cost-effective than either of the hypothetical lightweight aggregate kiln volatile metals emissions beyond the options discussed above, however. the thermal emissions floor level of 9.5 MACT floor controls of 28 pounds per Given that facilities are sited near the × 10¥5 lbs low volatile metals emissions year. Nonair quality health and primary raw material supply, acquiring attributable to the hazardous waste per environmental impacts and energy and transporting large quantities of an million Btu heat input of the hazardous effects were evaluated to estimate the alternate source of raw materials is waste is estimated to be 150 µg/dscm, impacts between further improvements likely to be cost-prohibitive. Therefore, which is higher than the current interim to control particulate matter and we are not proposing a beyond-the-floor standard of 110 µg/dscm. Given that controls likely to be used to meet the standard based on limiting low volatile comparing the proposed floor level to floor level. We estimate that this metals in the raw material feed. the interim standard requires numerous beyond-the-floor option would increase We also considered whether fuel assumptions including hazardous waste the amount of solid waste generated by switching to an auxiliary fuel containing fuel replacement rates, heat input less than 30 tons per year and would a lower concentration of low volatile requirements per ton of clinker, also require sources to use an additional metals would be an appropriate control concentrations of low volatile metals in 46,000 kW-hours of energy per year. option for sources. Two facilities the raw material and fuels, and system Therefore, based on these factors and typically burn hazardous waste at a fuel removal efficiency, we have included a costs of approximately $17 million per replacement rate of 100%, while one more detailed analysis in the additional ton of low volatile metals facility has burned a combination of fuel background document.119 Our detailed removed, we are not proposing a oil and natural gas in addition to the hazardous waste. We considered 119 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March 2004, switching only to natural gas as the for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume Chapter 23. auxiliary fuel as a potential beyond-the-

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21271

floor option. We do not believe that the-art baghouse using a high quality due to the costs of transporting large switching to natural gas is a viable fabric filter bag material as beyond-the- quantities of an alternate source of raw control option for similar reasons floor control for further reductions in material to the facility. Given that the discussed above for cement kilns. low volatile metals emissions. We plant site already exists and is sited near For the reasons discussed above, we evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of 1.6 the source of raw material, replacing the propose to establish the emission × 10¥5 lbs low volatile metals emissions raw materials at the plant site with standard for existing lightweight attributable to the hazardous waste per lower low volatile metals-containing aggregate kilns at 9.5 × 10¥5 lbs low million Btu heat input of the hazardous materials would be the source’s only volatile metals emissions attributable to waste. The incremental annualized option. For a kiln constructed at a new the hazardous waste per million Btu compliance cost for a new lightweight greenfield site, we are not aware of any heat input of the hazardous waste and aggregate kiln with average gas flowrate information and data from a source that 110 µg/dscm. to meet this beyond-the-floor level, has undertaken or is currently located at 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT rather than to comply with the floor a site whose raw materials are inherently lower in low volatile metals Floor for New Sources? level, would be approximately $0.11 million and would provide an that would consistently achieve reduced Low volatile metals emissions from incremental reduction in low volatile low volatile metals emissions. Further, new lightweight aggregate kilns are metals emissions of approximately 16 we are uncertain as to what beyond-the- currently limited to 110 µg/dscm by pounds per year. Nonair quality health floor standard would be achievable § 63.1205(b)(4). This standard was and environmental impacts and energy using, if it exists, a lower low volatile promulgated in the Interim Standards effects were evaluated and are included metals-containing raw material. Rule (See 67 FR at 6797). in the cost estimates. We estimate that Although we are doubtful that selecting The MACT floor for new sources for ¥ this beyond-the-floor option would a new plant site based on the content of low volatile metals would be 3.2 × 10 5 increase the amount of solid waste metals in the raw material is a realistic lbs low volatile metals emissions in the generated by 3 tons per year and would beyond-the-floor option considering the hazardous waste per million Btu in the also require sources to use an additional numerous additional factors that go into hazardous waste, which considers 0.3 million kW-hours per year beyond such a decision, we solicit comment on emissions variability. This is an the requirements to achieve the floor whether and what level of a beyond-the- emission level that the single best level. Therefore, based on these factors floor standard based on controlling the performing source identified with the and costs of nearly $14 million per ton level of low volatile metals in the raw SRE/Feed Approach could be expected of low volatile metals removed, we are materials is appropriate. to achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when not proposing a beyond-the-floor We also considered whether fuel operating under operating conditions standard based on improved particulate switching to an auxiliary fuel containing identical to the compliance test matter control for new lightweight a lower concentration of low volatile conditions during which the emissions aggregate kilns. metals would be an appropriate control data were obtained. Feed Control of Low Volatile Metals option for sources. Two facilities As discussed for existing sources, in in the Hazardous Waste. We also believe typically burn hazardous waste at a fuel order to avoid any backsliding from the that the expense for further reduction in replacement rate of 100%, while one current level of performance for a new low volatile metals emissions based on facility has burned a combination of fuel lightweight aggregate kiln source, we further control of low volatile metals oil and natural gas in addition to the propose a dual standard: the low concentrations in the hazardous waste is hazardous waste. We considered volatile metals standard as both the not warranted. We considered a beyond- switching only to natural gas as the calculated floor level, expressed as a the-floor level of 2.6 × 10¥5 lbs low auxiliary fuel as a potential beyond-the- hazardous waste thermal emissions volatile metals emissions attributable to floor option. We do not believe that level, and the current interim standard. the hazardous waste per million Btu switching to natural gas is a viable This would ensure that all sources are heat input of the hazardous waste, control option for the same reasons complying with a limit that is at least as which represents a 20% reduction from discussed above for cement kilns. stringent as the interim standard. Thus, the floor level. Nonair quality health For the reasons discussed above, we the proposed MACT floor for new and environmental impacts and energy propose to establish the emission lightweight aggregate kilns is 3.2 × 10¥5 effects were evaluated and are included standard for new lightweight aggregate lbs low volatile metals emissions in the compliance cost estimates. For kilns at 3.2 × 10¥5 lbs low volatile attributable to the hazardous waste per similar reasons discussed above for metals emissions attributable to the million Btu heat input of the hazardous existing sources, we conclude that a hazardous waste per million Btu heat waste and 110 µg/dscm. beyond-the-floor standard based on content in the hazardous waste and 110 controlling the concentration of low µg/dscm. 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor volatile metals levels in the hazardous F. What Are the Proposed Standards for Standards for New Sources waste feed would not be justified Hydrogen Chloride and Chlorine Gas? We considered three potential because of the costs and estimated beyond-the-floor techniques for control emission reductions. We are proposing to establish of low volatile metals: (1) Improved Feed Control of Low Volatile Metals standards for existing and new particulate matter control; (2) control of in the Raw Materials and Auxiliary lightweight aggregate kilns that limit low volatile metals in the hazardous Fuels. Lightweight aggregate kilns could total chlorine emissions (hydrogen waste feed; and (3) control of the low achieve a reduction in low volatile chloride and chlorine gas, combined, volatile metals in the raw materials and metals emissions by substituting a raw reported as a chloride equivalent) to 600 fuels. material containing lower levels of ppmv. Although we are also proposing Improved Particulate Matter Control. arsenic, beryllium, and/or chromium for to invoke CAA section 112(d)(4) to Controlling particulate matter also a primary raw material with a higher establish alternative risk-based controls emissions of low volatile level. For a new source at an existing standards in lieu of the MACT emission metals. We evaluated improved control facility, we believe that this beyond-the- standards for total chlorine, the risk- of particulate matter based on a state-of- floor option would not be cost-effective based standards would be capped at the

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21272 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

interim standards. Given that we are To put the proposed floor level in 12,700 tons per year and would also proposing MACT standards equivalent context for a hypothetical lightweight require sources to use an additional to the interim standards—600 ppmv, an aggregate kiln that gets 90% of its 175,000 kW-hours per year and 31 emission level you are currently required heat input from hazardous million gallons of water beyond the achieving—you would not be eligible waste, a thermal emissions level of 3.0 requirements to achieve the floor level. lbs total chlorine emissions attributable for the section 112(d)(4) risk-based We note that a cost of $6,800 per standards. See Part Two, Section XIII for to the hazardous waste per million Btu additional ton of total chlorine removed additional details. heat input of the hazardous waste is in the ‘‘grey area’’ between a cost the equates approximately to a stack gas 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT concentration of 1,970 ppmv. This Agency has concluded is cost-effective Floor for Existing Sources? estimated stack gas concentration does and a cost the Agency has concluded is Total chlorine emissions from existing not include contributions to emission not cost-effective under other MACT cement kilns are limited to 600 ppmv by from other chlorine-containing materials rules. EPA concluded that a cost of § 63.1205(a)(6). This standard was such as raw materials. Given that the $1,100 per ton of total chlorine removed promulgated in the Interim Standards calculated floor level is less stringent for hazardous waste burning lightweight Rule (See 67 FR at 6797). One of the than the current interim emission aggregate kilns was cost-effective in the three lightweight aggregate facilities standard of 600 ppmv. In order to avoid 1999 MACT final rule. See 68 FR at uses a venturi scrubber to remove total any backsliding from the current level of 52900. EPA concluded, however, that a chlorine from the gas stream. The performance achieved by all lightweight cost of $45,000 per ton of hydrogen system removal efficiency (SRE) aggregate kilns, we are proposing the chloride removed was not cost-effective achieved by this facility during floor standard as the current emission for industrial boilers. See 68 FR at 1677. compliance testing shows removal standard of 600 ppmv. This emission Consequently, we are concerned that a efficiencies ranging from 96 to 99%. level is currently being achieved by all cost of $6,800 per additional ton of total Sources at the other two facilities do not sources. chlorine removed is not warranted. use air pollution control equipment to Therefore, after considering cost- 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor capture emissions of total chlorine, and, effectiveness and nonair quality health Standards for Existing Sources therefore, SREs are negligible. and environmental impacts and energy The majority of the chlorine fed to the We considered a beyond-the-floor effects, we are not proposing a beyond- lightweight aggregate kiln during a standard of 150 ppmv based on the the-floor standard. compliance test comes from the assumption that dry lime scrubbing will hazardous waste. In all but a few cases provide 75% control of hydrogen We specifically request comment on the hazardous waste contribution to the chloride.120 In addition, for costing whether a beyond-the-floor standard is total amount of chlorine fed to the kiln purposes we assumed that lightweight warranted. represented at least 80% of the total aggregate kilns needing total chlorine 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT loading to the kiln. The proposed MACT reductions to achieve the beyond-the- Floor for New Sources? floor control for total chlorine is, in part, floor level would install the dry based on controlling the concentration scrubbing system after the existing Total chlorine emissions from new of chlorine in the hazardous waste. The particulate matter control device and lightweight aggregate kilns are currently chlorine concentration in the hazardous add a new, smaller baghouse to remove limited to 600 ppmv by § 63.1205(b)(6). waste will affect emissions of total the products of the reaction and any This standard was promulgated in the chlorine at a given SRE because unreacted lime. We chose this Interim Standards Rule (See 67 FR at emissions will increase as the chlorine conservative costing approach to 6797). The MACT floor for new sources loading increases. address potential concerns that for total chlorine would be 0.93 lbs We have compliance test emissions unreacted lime and collected chloride chlorine in the hazardous waste per data for all lightweight aggregate kiln and sulfur salts may interfere with million Btu in the hazardous waste, sources. For most sources, we have lightweight aggregate dust use practices. which considers emissions variability. compliance test emissions data from The national incremental annualized more than one compliance test compliance cost for lightweight To put the proposed floor level in campaign. Total chlorine emissions aggregate kilns to meet this beyond-the- context for a hypothetical lightweight range from 14 to 116 ppmv for the floor level rather than comply with the aggregate kiln that gets 90% of its source using a venturi scrubber and floor controls would be approximately required heat input from hazardous range from 500 to 2,400 ppmv at sources $1.9 million and would provide an waste, a thermal emissions level of 0.93 without scrubbing control equipment. incremental reduction in total chlorine lbs total chlorine emissions attributable To identify the MACT floor, we emissions beyond the MACT floor to the hazardous waste per million Btu evaluated the compliance test emissions controls of 280 tons per year, for a cost- heat input of the hazardous waste data associated with the most recent test effectiveness of $6,800 per additional equates approximately to a stack gas campaign using the SRE/Feed ton of total chlorine removed. We concentration of 610 ppmv. This Approach. The calculated floor is 3.0 lbs evaluated nonair quality health and estimated stack gas concentration does total chlorine emissions attributable to environmental impacts and energy not include contributions to emission the hazardous waste per million Btu effects associated with this beyond-the- from other chlorine-containing materials heat input of the hazardous waste, floor standard and estimate that this such as raw materials. Given that the which considers emissions variability. beyond-the-floor option would increase calculated floor level is less stringent This is an emission level that the the amount of solid waste generated by than the current interim emission average of the best performing sources standard of 600 ppmv. In order to avoid could be expected to achieve in 99 of 120 We also considered controlling the chlorine any backsliding from the current 100 future tests when operating under levels in the hazardous waste feed and controlling standard for a new lightweight aggregate the chlorine levels in the raw materials as potential kilns, we are proposing the floor conditions identical to the compliance beyond-the-floor techniques; however, it is our test conditions during which the judgment that they are not likely to be as cost- standard as the current emission emissions data were obtained. effective as dry lime scrubbing. standard of 600 ppmv.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21273

4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor chlorine removed may not be warranted. proposing these standards for Standards for New Sources After considering cost-effectiveness and lightweight aggregate kilns, but rather Similar to existing sources, we nonair quality health and environmental are mentioning them here for the considered a beyond-the-floor standard impacts and energy effects, we are not reader’s convenience. proposing a beyond-the-floor standard. of 150 ppmv based on the assumption H. What Are the Standards for that dry lime scrubbing will provide We specifically request comment on Destruction and Removal Efficiency? 75% control of hydrogen chloride. The whether a beyond-the-floor standard is incremental annualized compliance cost warranted. The destruction and removal for a new lightweight aggregate kiln efficiency (DRE) standard is a surrogate G. What Are the Standards for to control emissions of organic with average gas flowrate to meet this Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide? beyond-the-floor level, rather than to hazardous air pollutants other than comply with the floor level, would be Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide dioxin/furans. The standard for existing approximately $0.42 million and would standards are surrogates to control and new lightweight aggregate kilns provide an incremental reduction in emissions of organic hazardous air requires 99.99% DRE for each principal total chlorine emissions of pollutants for existing and new organic hazardous constituent, except approximately 150 tons per year for a lightweight aggregate kilns. The that 99.9999% DRE is required if cost-effectiveness of approximately standards limit hydrocarbons and specified dioxin-listed hazardous wastes $2,800 per additional ton of total carbon monoxide concentrations to 20 are burned. See §§ 63.1205(c). The chlorine removed. Nonair quality health ppmv or 100 ppmv. See §§ 63.1205(a)(5) rationale for these decisions are and environmental impacts and energy and (b)(5). Existing and new lightweight discussed in the September 1999 final effects were evaluated and are included aggregate kilns can elect to comply with rule (64 FR at 52902). We view the in the cost estimates. We estimate that either the hydrocarbon limit or the standards for DRE as unaffected by the this beyond-the-floor option would carbon monoxide limit on a continuous Court’s vacature of the challenged increase the amount of solid waste basis. Sources that comply with the regulations in its decision of July 24, generated by 23 tons per year and would carbon monoxide limit on a continuous 2001. We therefore are not proposing also require sources to use an additional basis must also demonstrate compliance these standards for lightweight aggregate 0.3 million kW-hours per year and 2 with the hydrocarbon standard during kilns, but rather are mentioning them million gallons of water beyond the the comprehensive performance test. here for the reader’s convenience. However, continuous hydrocarbon requirements to achieve the floor level. X. How Did EPA Determine the A cost of $2,800 per additional ton of monitoring following the performance Proposed Emission Standards for total chlorine removed is in the ‘‘grey test is not required. The rationale for Hazardous Waste Burning Solid Fuel- area’’ between a cost the Agency has these decisions are discussed in the Fired Boilers? concluded is cost-effective and a cost September 1999 final rule (64 FR at the Agency has concluded is not cost- 52900). We view the standards for The proposed standards for existing effective under other MACT rules, as hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide as and new solid fuel-fired boilers that discussed above. Therefore, we are unaffected by the Court’s vacature of the burn hazardous waste are summarized concerned that a cost-effectiveness of challenged regulations in its decision of in the table below. See proposed $2,800 per additional ton of total July 24, 2001. We therefore are not § 63.1216.

PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AND NEW SOLID FUEL-FIRED BOILERS

1 Hazardous air pollutant Emission standard or surrogate Existing sources New sources

Dioxin and furan ...... 100 ppmv carbon monoxide or 10 ppmv hy- 100 ppmv carbon monoxide or 10 ppmv hy- drocarbons.. drocarbons. Mercury ...... 10 µg/dscm ...... 10 µg/dscm. Particulate matter ...... 69 mg/dscm (0.030 gr/dscf) ...... 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf). Semivolatile metals ...... 170 µg/dscm ...... 170 µg/dscm. Low volatile metals ...... 210 µg/dscm ...... 190 µg/dscm. Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas 2 ...... 440 ppmv or the alternative emission limits 73 ppmv or the alternative emission limits under § 63.1215. under § 63.1215. Carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons 3 ...... 100 ppmv carbon monoxide or 10 ppmv hy- 100 ppmv carbon monoxide or 10 ppmv hy- drocarbons. drocarbons.

Destruction and Removal Efficiency ...... For existing and new sources, 99.99% for each principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC). For sources burning hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027, how- ever, 99.9999% for each POHC. 1 All emission standards are corrected to 7% oxygen, dry basis. 2 Combined standard, reported as a chloride (Cl(¥)) equivalent. 3 Hourly rolling average. Hydrocarbons reported as propane.

We considered whether fuel technically achieved considering the appropriate control technology for switching could be considered a control existing design of solid fuel-fired purposes of determining the MACT technology to achieve MACT floor boilers. We also considered the floor level of control. This decision is control. We investigated whether fuel availability of various types of fuel. based on the overall effect of fuel switching would achieve lower HAP After considering these factors, we switching on HAP emissions, technical emissions and whether it could be determined that fuel switching is not an

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21274 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

and design considerations, and concerns to the fuel handling and feeding system with an electrostatic precipitator that about fuel availability. (e.g., a stoker-fired boiler using coal as operated at 500°F during the emissions We determined that while fuel primary fuel would need to be test. Although this is well within the switching from coal to natural gas or oil redesigned to handle fuel oil or gaseous optimum temperature range for would decrease particulate matter and fuel as the primary fuel). Additionally, formation of dioxin/furan, dioxin/furan some metal HAP emissions, emissions burners and combustion chamber emissions were low. In addition, this of some organic HAP would increase, designs are generally not capable of boiler fed chlorine at levels four times resulting in uncertain benefits.121 We handling different fuel types, and greater than any other solid fuel believe that it is inappropriate in a generally cannot accommodate boiler.122 We also have emissions data MACT rulemaking to consider as MACT increases or decreases in the fuel from 16 nonhazardous waste coal-fired a control option that potentially will volume and shape. Design changes to boilers equipped with electrostatic decrease emissions of one HAP while allow different fuel use, in some cases, precipitators and baghouses operated at increasing emissions of another HAP. In may reduce the capacity and efficiency temperatures up to 480°F, all of which order to adopt such a strategy, we would of the boiler. Reduced efficiency may have dioxin/furan emissions below 0.3 need to assess the relative risk result in less complete combustion and, ng TEQ/dscm.123 We conclude from associated with each HAP emitted, and thus, an increase in organic HAP these data and the information determine whether requiring the control emissions. For the reasons discussed discussed below that rapid quench of in question would result in overall above, we conclude that fuel switching post-combustion gas temperatures to lower risk. Such an analysis is not to cleaner solid fuels or to liquid or below 400°F—the control technique that appropriate at this stage in the gaseous fuels is not an appropriate is the basis for the MACT standards for regulatory process. For example, the criteria for identifying the MACT floor hazardous waste burning incinerators, term ‘‘clean coal’’ refers to coal that is level of control for solid fuel-fired and cement and lightweight aggregate lower in sulfur content and not boilers. kilns—is not the dominant dioxin/furan necessarily lower in HAP content. Data control mechanism for coal-fired A. What Is the Rationale for the gathered by EPA also indicates that boilers. within specific coal types HAP content Proposed Standards for Dioxin and We believe that sulfur contributed by can vary significantly. Switching to a Furan? the coal fuel is a dominant control low sulfur coal may actually increase The proposed standard for dioxin/ mechanism by inhibiting formation of emissions of some HAP. Therefore, it is furan for existing and new sources is dioxin/furan. Coal generally contributes not appropriate for EPA to include fuel compliance with the proposed carbon from 65% to 95% percent of the boiler’s switching to a low sulfur coal as part of monoxide or hydrocarbon (CO/HC) heat input with the remainder provided the MACT standards for boilers that emission standard and compliance with by hazardous waste fuel. The presence burn hazardous waste. the proposed destruction and removal of sulfur in combustor feedstocks has We also considered the availability of efficiency (DRE) standard. The CO/HC been shown to dramatically inhibit the alternative fuel types. Natural gas and DRE standards control emissions of catalytic formation of dioxin/furan in pipelines are not available in all regions organic HAPs in general, and are downstream temperature zones from of the U.S., and natural gas is simply not discussed in Sections G and H below. 400°F to 750°F. High sulfur coals tend available as a fuel for many solid fuel- This standard ensures that boilers to inhibit dioxin/furan formation better fired boilers. Moreover, even where operate under good combustion than low sulfur coals. Id. pipelines provide access to natural gas, practices as a surrogate for dioxin/furan Adsorption of any dioxin/furan that supplies of natural gas may not be control. Operating under good may be formed on coal fly ash, and adequate. For example, it is common combustion practices minimizes levels subsequent capture in the electrostatic practice in cities during winter months of products of incomplete combustion, precipitator or baghouse, also may (or periods of peak demand) to prioritize including potentially dioxin/furan, and contribute to the low dioxin/furan natural gas usage for residential areas organic compounds that could be emissions despite some boilers before industrial usage. Requiring EPA precursors for post-combustion operating at relatively high back-end gas regulated combustion units to switch to formation of dioxin/furan. The rationale temperatures. This effect is similar to natural gas would place an even greater for the dioxin/furan standard is that of using activated carbon injection strain on natural gas resources. discussed below. to control dioxin/furan emissions. Consequently, even where pipelines Adsorption of dioxin/furan on fly ash is exist, some units would not be able to 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT related to the carbon content of the fly run at normal or full capacity during Floor for Existing Sources? ash, and, thus, the type of coal burned. these times if shortages were to occur. The proposed MACT floor control for Id. Therefore, under any circumstances, existing sources is compliance with the Operating under good combustion there would be some units that could proposed CO/HC emission standard and conditions to minimize emissions of not comply with a requirement to compliance with the proposed DRE organic compounds such as switch to natural gas. standard. polychlorinated biphenols, benzene, In addition, we have significant Solid fuel-fired boilers that burn and phenol that can be precursors to concern that switching fuels would be hazardous waste cofire the hazardous dioxin/furan formation is an important infeasible for sources designed and waste with coal at firing rates of 6–33% requisite to control dioxin/furan operated to burn specific fuel types. of total heat input. We have dioxin/ emissions. Although sulfur-induced Changes in the type of fuel burned by furan emission data for one source, and inhibition may be the dominant a boiler may require extensive changes those emissions are 0.07 ng TEQ/dscm. mechanism to control dioxin/furan Although dioxin/furan can be formed 121 C. Leatherwood, ERG, to J. Eddinger, OAQPS, post-combustion in an electrostatic 122 Uncontrolled hydrogen chloride in EPA, Memorandum: Development of Fuel precipitator or baghouse that is operated combustion gas was approximately 700 ppmv. 123 Switching Costs and Emission Reductions for at temperatures within the range of 400° USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and ° for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume Process Heaters National Emission Standards for to 750 F, the boiler for which we have III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March 2004, Hazardous Air Pollutants, October 2002. dioxin/furan emissions data is equipped Chapter 2.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21275

emissions from coal-fired boilers, emissions data from coal-fired boilers well, given that we have emissions data minimizing dioxin/furan precursors by that do not burn hazardous waste since from only one hazardous waste boiler.) operating under good combustion the factors that affect dioxin/furan The national incremental annualized practices certainly plays a part in emissions from these boilers are not compliance cost for solid fuel-fired controlling dioxin/furan emissions. significantly influenced by hazardous boilers to meet this beyond-the-floor We propose to use the CO/HC and waste. These additional data would level rather than comply with the floor DRE standards as surrogates to ensure better represent the range of emissions controls would be approximately $3.4 that boilers operate under good from coal-fired boilers. Under this million and would provide an combustion conditions because approach, the dioxin/furan floor would incremental reduction in dioxin/furan quantified levels of control provided by be an emission level of 0.30 ng TEQ/ emissions beyond the MACT floor sulfur in the coal and adsorption onto dscm. We would also use this approach controls of 0.26 grams TEQ tons per collected fly ash may not be replicable to establish the same floor for new year. We also evaluated the nonair by the best performing sources nor sources. quality health and environmental duplicable by other sources. Although Finally, we note that we propose to impacts and energy effects between coal sulfur content may be a dominant require a one-time dioxin/furan activated carbon injection and controls factor affecting dioxin/furan emissions, emission test for sources that would not likely to be used to meet the floor level. we do not know what minimum level of be subject to a numerical dioxin/furan We estimate that this beyond-the-floor sulfur provides significant control. emission standard, such as solid fuel- option would increase the amount of Moreover, sulfur in coal causes fired boilers. As discussed in Part Two, hazardous waste 126 generated by 3,300 emissions of sulfur oxides, a major Section XIV.B below, the testing would tons per year and would also require criteria pollutant, and particulate assist in developing both section sources to use an additional 1.2 million sulfates. Similarly, we cannot quantify a 112(d)(6) standards and section 112(f) kW-hours per year. Based on these minimum carbon content of coal that residual risk standards. impacts and costs of approximately $13 would form carbonaceous fly ash with 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor million per additional grams of dioxin/ superior dioxin/furan adsorptive Standards for Existing Sources furan removed, we are not proposing a properties. In addition, restricting coal beyond-the-floor standard based on As discussed above, we propose to types that may be burned based on activated carbon injection. use the CO/HC and DRE standards as carbon content may have an adverse For these reasons, we propose a floor surrogates to ensure good combustion impact on energy production at sources standard for dioxin/furan for existing conditions, and thus, control of dioxin/ burning hazardous waste as fuel. (These sources of compliance with the furan emissions. We are not proposing considerations raise the question of proposed CO/HC emission standard and beyond-the-floor standards for CO/HC whether boilers operating under these compliance with the proposed DRE and DRE, as discussion in Sections G conditions would still be ‘‘best’’ standard.127 performers when these adverse impacts and H below. are taken into account.) For these We investigated use of activated 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT reasons, and because we have emissions carbon injection or, for sources Floor for New Sources? equipped with baghouses, catalytically data from only one source, we cannot As discussed above, we propose to impregnated fabric felt/membrane filter establish a numerical dioxin/furan use the CO/HC and DRE standards as materials to achieve a beyond-the-floor emission standard. surrogates to ensure good combustion standard of 0.10 ng TEQ/dscm.125 To Operating under good combustion conditions, and thus, control of dioxin/ estimate the cost-effectiveness of these practices is floor control because all furan emissions. Because we are hazardous waste burning boilers are beyond-the-floor control techniques, we proposing the same DRE and CO/HC required by existing RCRA regulations imputed dioxin/furan emissions levels standards for existing sources and new to operate under good combustion for the six sources for which we don’t sources as discussion in Sections G and conditions to minimize emissions of have measured emissions data. To H below, we are proposing the same toxic organic compounds. See § 266.104 impute the missing emissions levels, we dioxin/furan floor for new and existing requiring compliance with DRE and CO/ used the emissions data from the sources. HC emission standards.124 We also find, hazardous waste burning boiler as well as required by CAA section 112(h)(1), as the emissions data from 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor that these proposed standards are nonhazardous waste coal-fired boilers. It Standards for New Sources consistent with section 112(d)’s may be appropriate to meld these We are not proposing beyond-the- objective of reducing emissions of these emissions data because hazardous waste floor standards for CO/HC for dioxin/ HAPs to the extent achievable. burning should not affect dioxin/furan furan for new solid fuel-fired boilers We request comment on an alternative emissions from coal-fired boilers. In because we are not proposing beyond- floor that would be established as the fact, the nonhazardous waste coal-fired the-floor standards for CO/HC and DRE highest dioxin/furan emission level in boilers had somewhat higher emissions our data base. Because we have dioxin/ than the hazardous waste coal-fired furan emission data from only one coal- 126 To estimate the cost of a beyond-the-floor boiler. (The emissions from the standard conservatively, we assumed the solid fired boiler that burns hazardous waste, nonhazardous waste coal-fired boilers waste generated would be subject to regulation as we would combine that data point with may simply represent the range of hazardous waste. These costs are likely over- emissions that could be expected from estimated, however, because these residues are not likely to fail the criteria for retaining the Bevill 124 Section 266.104 requires compliance with a hazardous waste coal-fired boilers, as CO limit of 100 ppmv or a HC limit of 20 ppmv, exclusion under 40 CFR 266.112. while we are proposing today a CO limit of 100 127 We note that we propose to require solid fuel- ppmv or a HC limit of 10 ppmv (see Section X.H 125 We considered a beyond-the-floor standard of fired boilers (and liquid fuel-fired boilers that are in the text). Although today’s proposed HC limit is 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm but determined that it may not not subject to a numerical dioxin/furan standard) to more stringent than the current limit for boilers, all result in emissions reductions because the majority conduct a one-time dioxin/furan emission test to solid fuel boilers chose to comply with the 100 of sources (the hazardous waste coal-fired boiler provide data to assist in developing both section ppmv CO limit. Moreover, for those liquid-fuel fired and the nonhazardous waste coal-fired boilers) 112(d)(6) standards and section 112(f) residual risk boilers that chose to comply with the 20 ppmv HC appear to emit dioxin/furan at levels below 0.20 ng standards. See discussion in Section XIV.B of the limit, their HC emissions are below 10 ppmv. TEQ/dscm. preamble.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21276 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

for new sources. See discussion in equipped with electrostatic precipitators The national incremental annualized Sections G and H below. which document maximum mercury compliance cost for solid fuel boilers to In addition, we evaluated activated emissions ranging from 3 ug/dscm to 11 meet this beyond-the-floor level rather carbon injection or, for sources µg/dscm and system removal than comply with the floor controls equipped with baghouses, use of efficiencies of 83% to 96%. These three would be approximately $1.1 million catalytically impregnated fabric felt/ sources represent seven of the 12 solid and would provide an incremental membrane filter materials as beyond- fuel-fired boilers.129 The Agency has reduction in mercury emissions beyond the-floor control for further reduction of also determined that coal-fired utility the MACT floor controls of 0.03 tons per dioxin/furan emissions to achieve a boilers can achieve significant control of year. We evaluated nonair quality health beyond-the-floor level of 0.15 ng TEQ/ mercury by adsorption on fly ash and and environmental impacts and energy dscm. The incremental annualized particulate matter control.130 effects and estimate that this beyond- compliance cost for a new solid fuel- To identify the MACT floor, we the-floor option would increase the fired boiler with average gas flowrate to evaluated the compliance test emissions amount of hazardous waste (or solid meet this beyond-the-floor level, rather data using the SRE/Feed Approach. The waste if the source retains the Bevill than comply with the floor level, would calculated floor is 10 µg/dscm, which exclusion under 40 CFR 266.112) be approximately $0.28 million and considers emissions variability. This is generated by 1,000 tons per year and would provide an incremental reduction an emission level that the average of the would require sources to use an in dioxin/furan emissions of best performing sources could be additional 0.35 million kW-hours per approximately 0.21 grams TEQ per year, expected to achieve in 99 of 100 future year beyond the requirements to achieve for a cost-effectiveness of $1.3 million tests when operating under operating the floor level. Based on these factors per gram of dioxin/furan removed. We conditions identical to the compliance and costs of approximately $35 million estimate that this beyond-the-floor test conditions during which the per additional ton of mercury removed, option would increase the amount of emissions data were obtained. We we are not proposing a beyond-the-floor hazardous waste (or solid waste if the estimate that this emission level is being standard based on activated carbon source retains the Bevill exclusion achieved by 67% of sources and would injection. under 40 CFR 266.112) generated for a provide a reduction in mercury b. Feed Control of Mercury in the new solid fuel-fired boiler with average emissions of 0.015 tons per year. Hazardous Waste. We also evaluated a µ gas flowrate by 270 tons per year and beyond-the-floor level of 8 g/dscm, 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor which represents a 20% reduction from would require a source to use an Standards for Existing Sources additional 0.1 million kW-hours per the floor level. The national incremental year beyond the requirements to achieve We identified two potential beyond- annualized compliance cost for solid the floor level. After considering these the-floor techniques for control of fuel boilers to meet this beyond-the- impacts and a cost of $1.3 million per mercury: (1) Activated carbon injection; floor level rather than comply with the gram of dioxin/furan removed, we and (2) control of mercury in the floor controls would be approximately conclude that a beyond-the-floor hazardous waste feed. For reasons $0.11 million and would provide an standard based on activated carbon discussed below, we are not proposing incremental reduction in mercury injection or catalytically impregnated a beyond-the-floor standard for mercury. emissions beyond the MACT floor fabric felt/membrane filter is not a. Use of Activated Carbon Injection. controls of 0.005 tons per year. Nonair warranted for new sources. We evaluated activated carbon injection quality health and environmental Consequently, we propose a floor as beyond-the-floor control for further impacts and energy effects are not standard for dioxin/furan for new reduction of mercury emissions. significant factors for feedrate control. sources: Compliance with the proposed Activated carbon has been demonstrated We are not proposing a beyond-the- CO/HC and DRE emissions standards. for controlling mercury from waste floor standard based on feed control of combustion systems and has achieved mercury in the hazardous waste because B. What Is the Rationale for the efficiencies ranging from 80% to greater it would not be cost-effective at Proposed Standards for Mercury? than 90% depending on factors such as: approximately $23 million per The proposed standard for mercury Activated carbon type/impregnation; additional ton of mercury removed. for solid fuel-fired boilers is 10 µg/dscm injection rate; mercury speciation in the Consequently, we propose a floor for both existing sources and new flue gas; and flue gas temperature. We standard for mercury for existing sources.128 made a conservative assumption that sources of 10 µg/dscm. the use of activated carbon will provide 3. What Is the Rationale for MACT Floor 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT 70% mercury control for coal-fired for New Sources? Floor for Existing Sources? boilers given the low mercury levels at The MACT floor for existing sources the floor. Applying this activated carbon MACT floor for new sources would be is 10 µg/dscm based on adsorption of removal efficiency to the mercury floor 10 µg/dscm, the same as the floor for mercury onto coal fly ash and removal level of 10 µg/dscm would provide a existing sources. This is an emission of fly ash by the electrostatic beyond-the-floor level of 3.0 µg/dscm. level that the single best performing precipitator or baghouse. source identified by the SRE/Feed All solid fuel-fired boilers are 129 Owners and operators have used the emissions Approach could be expected to achieve equipped with electrostatic precipitators data from the three boilers as ‘‘data in lieu of in 99 of 100 future tests when operating or baghouses. We have compliance test testing’’ emissions from other, identical boilers at under operating conditions identical to the same facility. One of the three boilers as two emissions data for three sources such sister identical boilers, and the other two the compliance test conditions during boilers each have a sister identical boiler. Thus, which the emissions data were 128 As information, EPA proposed MACT emissions from these three boilers represent obtained. standards for mercury for solid fuel-fired industrial, emissions from seven of the 12 solid fuel-fired commercial, and institutional boilers that do not boilers. 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor burn hazardous waste of 5.3 µg/dscm for existing 130 Memo from Frank Princiotta, USEPA, to John Standards for New Sources sources and 3.4 µg/dscm for new sources. See 68 Seitz, USEPA, entitled ‘‘Control of Mercury FR 1660 (Jan. 13, 2003). These standards are based Emissions from Coal-fired Utility Boilers,’’ dated We identified the same two potential on use of fabric filters to control mercury emissions. October 25, 2000. beyond-the-floor techniques for control

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21277

of mercury: (1) Use of activated carbon emissions range from 0.021 gr/dscf to million gallons of water beyond the injection; and (2) control of mercury in 0.037 gr/dscf.133 requirements to achieve the floor level. the hazardous waste feed. To identify the floor level, we Notwithstanding these nonair quality We evaluated use of carbon injection evaluated the compliance test emissions health and environmental impacts and for new sources to achieve a beyond- data associated with the most recent test energy effects, a beyond-the-floor the-floor emission level of 5.0 µg/dscm. campaign using the air pollution control standard of 69 mg/dscm (0.030 gr/dscf) The incremental annualized compliance device approach. See discussion in Part based on improved particulate matter cost for a new solid fuel boiler with Two, Section VI.A.2.a. The calculated control is warranted because it is cost- average gas flowrate to meet this floor is 140 mg/dscm (0.063 gr/dscf), effective at a cost of approximately beyond-the-floor level, rather than which considers emissions variability. $3,200 per additional ton of particulate comply with the floor level, would be This is an emission level that the matter removed and a cost of approximately $0.28 million and would average of the best performing sources approximately $190,000 per additional provide an incremental reduction in could be expected to achieve in 99 of ton of metal HAP removed.134 In mercury emissions of approximately 100 future tests when operating under addition, the average incremental 0.008 tons per year, for a cost- conditions identical to the compliance annualized cost would be only $120,000 effectiveness of $37 million per ton of test conditions during which the per facility. We also note that, although mercury removed. We estimate that this emissions data were obtained. We section 112(d) only authorizes control of beyond-the-floor option would increase estimate that this emission level is being HAPs, and particulate matter is not the amount of hazardous waste (or solid achieved by 75% of sources. itself a HAP but a surrogate for HAP waste if the source retains the Bevill Compliance with the floor level would metals, Congress expected the MACT exclusion under 40 CFR 266.112) reduce particulate matter emissions by program to result in significant generated for a new solid fuel-fired 33 tons per year. emissions reductions of criteria air boiler with average gas flowrate by 270 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor pollutants (of which particulate matter tons per year and would require a Standards for Existing Sources is one), and viewed this as an important source to use an additional 0.1 million benefit of the MACT (and residual risk) kW-hours per year beyond the We evaluated improved design, provisions. See 5 Legislative History at requirements to achieve the floor level. operation, and maintenance of the 8512 (Senate Committee Report). After considering these impacts and, existing electrostatic precipitators (e.g., Finally, we note that this beyond-the- primarily, cost-effectiveness, we are not humidification to improve gas floor standard of 0.030 gr/dscf would be proposing a beyond-the-floor standard conditioning) and baghouses (e.g., comparable to the floor-based standard improved bags) for these boilers to based on activated carbon injection for the Agency recently promulgated for achieve a beyond-the-floor emission new sources. Consequently, we propose solid fuel-fired boilers that do not burn µ level of 69 mg/dscm (0.030 gr/dscf). We a floor standard for mercury of 10 g/ hazardous waste: 0.07 lb/MM Btu also evaluated a more stringent standard dscm for new sources. (approximately 0.034 gr/dscf). See based on adding a polishing fabric filter NESHAP for Industrial/Commercial/ C. What Is the Rationale for the to achieve a beyond-the-floor emission Institutional Boilers and Process Proposed Standards for Particulate level of 0.015 gr/dscf. The national Heaters, signed Feb. 26, 2004. Because Matter? incremental annualized compliance cost hazardous waste does not contribute The proposed standards for for solid fuel boilers to meet a beyond- substantially to particulate matter particulate matter for solid fuel-fired the-floor level of 69 mg/dscm rather boilers are 69 mg/dscm (0.030 gr/dscf) than comply with the floor controls emissions from coal-fired boilers, MACT for existing sources and 34 mg/dscm would be approximately $1.3 million standards for solid fuel boilers should (0.015 gr/dscf) for new sources.131 The and would provide an incremental be similar irrespective of whether they particulate matter standard serves as a reduction in particulate matter burn hazardous waste. A 34 mg/dscm beyond-the-floor surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals in emissions beyond the MACT floor standard for existing sources based on emissions from the coal burned in the controls of 400 tons per year and an use of a polishing fabric filter would boiler, and for nonenumerated HAP incremental reduction in metal HAP of remove an additional 570 tons per year metal emissions attributable to the 6.8 tons per year. We evaluated nonair of particulate matter beyond the floor hazardous waste fuel burned in the quality health and environmental level at a cost-effectiveness of $9,800 boiler. impacts and energy effects and estimate per ton removed. We conclude that this that this beyond-the-floor option would 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT standard would not be as cost-effective increase the amount of hazardous waste Floor for Existing Sources? as a 69 mg/dscm standard and would (or solid waste if the source retains its result in greater nonair quality health All solid fuel-fired boilers are Bevill exclusion under 40 CFR 266.112) and environmental impacts and energy equipped with electrostatic precipitators generated by 380 tons per year and effects. For these reasons, we propose a or baghouses. We have compliance test would require sources to use an beyond-the-floor particulate matter emissions data for seven boilers. additional 3.3 million kW-hours per standard of 0.030 gr/dscf (69 mg/dscm) Emissions from these seven boilers year and to use an additional 160 represent emissions from all 12 solid for existing sources. We specifically 132 request comment on whether this fuel-fired boilers. Particulate emissions from five other identical, sister boilers. Owners and operators have used the emissions from beyond-the-floor standard is warranted. 131 As information, EPA proposed MACT these seven boilers as ‘‘data in lieu of testing’’ standards for particulate matter for solid fuel-fired emissions from the other five identical boilers. 134 Note that we are not proposing beyond-the- industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers 133 Although particulate matter emissions are floor particulate matter standards for incinerators, that do not burn hazardous waste of 0.035 gr/dscf predominantly attributable to coal ash rather than cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and for existing sources and 0.013 gr/dscf for new ash from hazardous waste fuel, we did not combine liquid fuel-fired boilers because those standards sources. See 68 FR 1660 (Jan. 13, 2003). These emissions data for coal-fired boilers that do not would have a cost-effectiveness of $12,000 to standards are based on control of particulate matter burn hazardous waste with the data for boilers that $80,000 per ton of particulate matter removed, emissions using a fabric filter. burn hazardous waste because we have particulate substantially higher than the $3,200 per ton cost- 132 Owners and operators have determined that emissions data for all boilers that burn hazardous effectiveness of a beyond-the-floor standard for emissions from these seven boilers represent waste. solid fuel-fired boilers.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21278 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT D. What Is the Rationale for the a beyond-the-floor standard for Floor for New Sources? Proposed Standards for Semivolatile semivolatile metals. Metals? a. Improved Particulate Matter MACT floor for new sources would be Control. Controlling particulate matter The proposed standard for 90 mg/dscm (0.040 gr/dscf), considering also controls emissions of semivolatile semivolatile metals (lead and cadmium, emissions variability. This is an metals. Consequently, we evaluated a combined) for solid fuel-fired boilers is emission level that the single best beyond-the-floor level of 85 µg/dscm, a 170 µg/dscm for both existing and new performing source identified by the 50 percent reduction in semivolatile sources.135 APCD Approach (i.e., the source using metal emissions, that would be achieved a fabric filter with the lowest emissions) 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT by reducing particulate matter could be expected to achieve in 99 of Floor for Existing Sources? emissions. The national incremental annualized compliance cost for solid 100 future tests when operating under We have compliance test emissions fuel boilers to meet this beyond-the- operating conditions identical to the data for four boilers. Emissions from floor level rather than comply with the compliance test conditions during these four boilers represent emissions floor controls would be approximately which the emissions data were from nine of the 12 solid fuel-fired $0.29 million and would provide an obtained. boilers.136 Semivolatile metal emissions incremental reduction in semivolatile range from 62 µg/dscm to 170 µg/dscm. 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor metals emissions beyond the MACT These emissions are expressed as mass Standards for New Sources floor controls of 0.29 tons per year. We of semivolatile metals (from all evaluated the nonair quality health and We evaluated use of a fabric filter to feedstocks) per unit of stack gas. environmental impacts and energy achieve a beyond-the-floor emission To identify the MACT floor, we effects of this beyond-the-floor standard level of 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf). The evaluated the compliance test emissions and estimate that the amount of incremental annualized cost for a new data associated with the most recent test hazardous waste generated would solid fuel-fired boiler with average gas campaign using the SRE/Feed increase by approximately 133 tons per Approach. The calculated floor is 170 flowrate to meet this beyond-the-floor year, an additional 61 million gallons µg/dscm, which considers emissions level, rather than comply with the floor per year of water would be used, and an variability. This is an emission level level, would be approximately $280,000 additional 1.3 million kW-hours per that the average of the best performing year of electricity would be used. and would provide an incremental sources could be expected to achieve in reduction in particulate emissions of Therefore, based on these factors and 99 of 100 future tests when operating costs of approximately $1 million per approximately 44 tons per year, for a under conditions identical to the cost-effectiveness of $6,400 per ton of additional ton of semivolatile metals compliance test conditions during removed, we are not proposing a particulate matter removed. We estimate which the emissions data were beyond-the-floor standard based on that this beyond-the-floor option would obtained. We estimate that this floor improved particulate matter control. increase the amount of hazardous waste level is being achieved by 42% of b. Feed Control of Semivolatile Metals (or solid waste if the source retains the sources and would reduce semivolatile in the Hazardous Waste. We also Bevill exclusion under 40 CFR 266.112) metals emissions by 0.22 tons per year. evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of generated for a new solid fuel-fired µ 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor 140 g/dscm based on additional boiler with average gas flowrate by 44 Standards for Existing Sources control of semivolatile metals in the tons per year and would require a hazardous waste feed. This represents a source to use an additional 1.1 million We evaluated three beyond-the-floor 20% reduction from the floor level. The kW-hours per year beyond the approaches for semivolatile metals for national incremental annualized requirements to achieve the floor level. existing sources: (1) Improved control of compliance cost for solid fuel boilers to Notwithstanding these impacts, a particulate matter; (2) control of meet this beyond-the-floor level rather standard of 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) semivolatile metals in the hazardous than comply with the floor controls is warranted because it would be cost- waste feed; and (3) a no-cost standard would be approximately $36,000 and effective and it would remove derived from the beyond-the-floor would provide an incremental reduction particulate matter standard. For reasons additional nonenumerated metal HAP. in semivolatile metals emissions beyond discussed below, we are not proposing We also note that this beyond-the-floor the MACT floor controls of 0.046 tons standard of 0.015 gr/dscf for new per year. Although nonair quality health 135 sources would be comparable to the As information, EPA proposed to control and environmental impacts and energy nonmercury metal HAP emissions for industrial, effects are not significant factors, we are floor-based standard the Agency commercial, and institutional boilers that do not not proposing a beyond-the-floor recently promulgated for new solid fuel- burn hazardous waste with a particulate matter standard based on feed control of fired boilers that do not burn hazardous emission standard only. See 68 FR 1660 (Jan. 13, 2003). For hazardous waste combustors, we propose semivolatile metals in the hazardous waste: 0.025 lb/MM Btu (approximately to control specific, enumerated semivolatile and waste because it is not cost-effective at 0.012 gr/dscf). See NESHAP for low volatile metals with separate emission approximately $0.78 million per Industrial/Commercial/Institutional standards because hazardous waste can have a wide range of concentrations of these metals, and, thus, additional ton of semivolatile metals Boilers and Process Heaters, signed Feb. particulate matter may contain a wide range of removed. 26, 2004. metal concentrations. Thus, particulate matter may c. No-cost Standard Derived from the not be an effective surrogate for particular metal Beyond-the-Floor Particulate Matter For these reasons, we propose a HAP. Nonetheless, for practical reasons, we rely on beyond-the-floor particulate matter particulate matter to control nonenumerated metal Standard. The beyond-the-floor standard of 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) HAP. standard for particulate matter would for new sources. We specifically request 136 Owners and operators have determined that also provide beyond-the-floor control emissions from these four boilers represent comment on whether this beyond-the- for semivolatile metals if sources were emissions from five other identical, sister boilers. to comply with the beyond-the-floor floor standard is warranted. Owners and operators have used the emissions from these four boilers as ‘‘data in lieu of testing’’ particulate matter standard using emissions from the other five identical boilers. improved particulate matter control

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21279

rather than by reducing the feedrate of a. Improved Particulate Matter For these reasons, we propose a ash. To identify a beyond-the-floor Controls. We evaluated improved semivolatile metals standard of 170 µg/ emission level for semivolatile metals control of particulate matter using a dscm for new sources. that would derive from the beyond-the- fabric filter as beyond-the-floor control E. What Is the Rationale for the floor particulate matter standard, we for further reductions in semivolatile Proposed Standards for Low Volatile assumed that emissions of semivolatile metals emissions. We evaluated a Metals? metals would be reduced by the same beyond-the-floor level of 71 µg/dscm. percentage that sources would need to The incremental annualized compliance The proposed standards for low reduce particulate matter emissions. We cost for a new solid fuel boiler with volatile metals (arsenic, beryllium, and then developed a revised semivolatile average gas flowrate to meet this chromium) for solid fuel-fired boilers is metal emission data base considering beyond-the-floor level, rather than 210 µg/dscm for existing sources and these particulate matter standard- comply with the floor level, would be 190 µg/dscm for new sources. derived reductions and reductions approximately $0.28 million and would 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT needed to meet the semivolatile metal provide an incremental reduction in Floor for Existing Sources? floor level. We analyzed these revised semivolatile metals emissions of emissions to identify the best approximately 0.15 tons per year, for a We have compliance test emissions performing sources and an emission cost-effectiveness of $1.8 million per ton data for four boilers. Emissions from level that the average of the best of semivolatile metals removed. We these four boilers represent emissions performers could achieve 99 out of 100 estimate that this beyond-the-floor from 10 of the 12 solid fuel-fired future tests. This emission level—82 µg/ option would increase the amount of boilers.137 Low volatile metal emissions dscm—is a beyond-the-floor hazardous waste (or solid waste if the range from 41 µg/dscm to 230 µg/dscm. semivolatile metal standard that can be source retains the Bevill exclusion These emissions are expressed as mass achieved at no cost because the costs under 40 CFR 266.112) generated for a of low volatile metals (from all have been allocated to the particulate new solid fuel-fired boiler with average feedstocks) per unit of stack gas. matter beyond-the-floor standard. gas flowrate by 44 tons per year and To identify the MACT floor, we We are concerned, however, that would require the source to use an evaluated the compliance test emissions sources may choose to comply with the additional 1.2 million kW-hours per data associated with the most recent test beyond-the-floor particulate matter year beyond the requirements to achieve campaign using the SRE/Feed standard by controlling the feedrate of the floor level. After considering these Approach. The calculated floor is 210 ash in the hazardous waste feed, which impacts and cost-effectiveness, we µg/dscm, which considers emissions may or may not reduce the feedrate and conclude that a beyond-the-floor variability. This is an emission level emissions of metal HAP. If so, it would standard for new sources based on use that the average of the best performing be inappropriate to consider the of a fabric filter to improve control of sources could be expected to achieve in beyond-the-floor standard for particulate matter is not warranted. 99 of 100 future tests when operating semivolatile metals discussed above as b. Feedrate Control. For similar under conditions identical to the a no-cost standard. We specifically reasons discussed above for existing compliance test conditions during request comment on whether sources sources, we conclude that a beyond-the- which the emissions data were may comply with beyond-the-floor floor standard based on controlling the obtained. We estimate that this emission particulate matter standard by semivolatile metals in the hazardous level is being achieved by 67% of controlling the feedrate of ash. waste feed would not be cost-effective. sources and that it would reduce low For these reasons, we propose a floor c. No-cost Standard Derived from the volatile metals emissions by 0.45 tons standard for semivolatile metals of 170 Beyond-the-Floor Particulate Matter per year. µg/dscm for existing sources. Standard. As discussed above in the context of existing sources, the beyond- 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT the-floor standard for particulate matter Standards for Existing Sources Floor for New Sources? would also provide beyond-the-floor We evaluated three beyond-the-floor MACT floor for new sources would be control for semivolatile metals if sources approaches for low volatile metals for 170 µg/dscm, considering emissions were to comply with the beyond-the- existing sources: (1) Improved control of variability. This is the same as the floor floor particulate matter standard using particulate matter; (2) control of low for existing sources. This is an emission improved particulate matter control volatile metals in the hazardous waste level that the single best performing rather than by reducing the feedrate of feed; and (3) a no-cost standard derived source identified by the SRE/Feed ash. Under this approach, the no-cost from the beyond-the-floor particulate Approach could be expected to achieve beyond-the-floor standard for matter standard. For reasons discussed in 99 of 100 future tests when operating semivolatile metals for new sources below, we are not proposing a beyond- under operating conditions identical to would be 44 µg/dscm. As discussed the-floor standard for low volatile the compliance test conditions during above, however, we are concerned that metals. which the emissions data were sources may choose to comply with the a. Improved Particulate Matter obtained. beyond-the-floor particulate matter Control. Controlling particulate matter standard by controlling the feedrate of also controls emissions of low volatile 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor ash in the hazardous waste feed, which metals. We evaluated a beyond-the-floor Standards for New Sources may or may not reduce the feedrate and level of 105 µg/dscm. The national We evaluated three beyond-the-floor emissions of metal HAP. If so, it would incremental annualized compliance cost approaches for semivolatile metals for be inappropriate to consider this for solid fuel boilers to meet this new sources: (1) Improved particulate beyond-the-floor standard as a no-cost matter controls; (2) control of standard. We specifically request 137 Owners and operators have determined that semivolatile metals in the hazardous comment on whether sources may emissions from these four boilers represent emissions from five other identical, sister boilers. waste feed; and (3) a no-cost standard comply with beyond-the-floor Owners and operators have used the emissions from derived from the beyond-the-floor particulate matter standard by these four boilers as ‘‘data in lieu of testing’’ particulate matter standard. controlling the feedrate of ash. emissions from the other five identical boilers.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21280 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

beyond-the-floor level rather than volatile metal floor level. We analyzed of low volatile metals removed. We comply with the floor controls would be these revised emissions to identify the estimate that this beyond-the-floor approximately $0.32 million and would best performing sources and an option would increase the amount of provide an incremental reduction in low emission level that the average of the hazardous waste (or solid waste if the volatile metals emissions beyond the best performers could achieve 99 out of source retains the Bevill exclusion MACT floor controls of 0.37 tons per 100 future tests. This emission level— under 40 CFR 266.112) generated for a year. We evaluated the nonair quality 110 µg/dscm—is a beyond-the-floor low new solid fuel-fired boiler with average health and environmental impacts and volatile metal standard that can be gas flowrate by 44 tons per year and energy effects of this beyond-the-floor achieved at no cost because the costs would require the source to use an standard and estimate that the amount have been allocated to the particulate additional 1.2 million kW-hours per of hazardous waste generated would matter beyond-the-floor standard. year beyond the requirements to achieve increase by approximately 83 tons per We are concerned, however, that the floor level. After considering these year, an additional 54 million gallons of sources may choose to comply with the impacts and cost-effectiveness, we water per year would be used, and beyond-the-floor particulate matter conclude that a beyond-the-floor electricity consumption would increase standard by controlling the feedrate of standard based on improved particulate by 1.2 million kW-hours per year. ash in the hazardous waste feed, which matter control using a fabric filter for Considering these impacts and a cost of may or may not reduce the feedrate and new sources is not warranted. approximately $0.87 million per emissions of metal HAP. If so, it would b. Feedrate Control. For similar additional ton of low volatile metals be inappropriate to consider the reasons discussed above for existing removed, we are not proposing a beyond-the-floor standard for low sources, we conclude that a beyond-the- beyond-the-floor standard based on volatile metals discussed above as a no- floor standard based on controlling the improved particulate matter control. cost standard. We specifically request low volatile metals in the hazardous b. Feed Control of Low Volatile comment on whether sources may waste feed would not be cost-effective. Metals in the Hazardous Waste. We also comply with beyond-the-floor c. No-cost Standard Derived from the evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of particulate matter standard by Beyond-the-Floor Particulate Matter 170 µg/dscm, which represents a 20% controlling the feedrate of ash. Standard. As discussed above in the reduction from the floor level. The For these reasons, we propose a floor context of existing sources, the beyond- national incremental annualized standard for low volatile metals of 210 the-floor standard for particulate matter compliance cost for solid fuel boilers to µg/dscm for existing sources. would also provide beyond-the-floor meet this beyond-the-floor level rather 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT control for low volatile metals if sources than comply with the floor controls Floor for New Sources? were to comply with the beyond-the- would be approximately $98,000 and floor particulate matter standard using would provide an incremental reduction MACT floor for low volatile metals for µ improved particulate matter control in low volatile metals emissions beyond new sources would be 190 g/dscm, rather than by reducing the feedrate of the MACT floor controls of 0.13 tons per considering emissions variability. This ash. Under this approach, the no-cost year. Although nonair quality health is an emission level that the single best beyond-the-floor standard for low and environmental impacts and energy performing source identified by the volatile metals for new sources would effects are not significant factors, we are SRE/Feed Approach could be expected be 34 µg/dscm. As discussed above, not proposing a beyond-the-floor to achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when however, we are concerned that sources standard based on feedrate control of operating under operating conditions may choose to comply with the beyond- low volatile metals in the hazardous identical to the compliance test the-floor particulate matter standard by waste because it would not be cost- conditions during which the emissions controlling the feedrate of ash in the effective at approximately $0.78 million data were obtained. hazardous waste feed, which may or per additional ton of low volatile metals 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor may not reduce the feedrate and removed. Standards for New Sources emissions of metal HAP. If so, it would c. No-cost Standard Derived from the be inappropriate to consider this Beyond-the-Floor Particulate Matter We evaluated three beyond-the-floor beyond-the-floor standard as a no-cost Standard. As discussed above in the approaches for low volatile metals for standard. We specifically request context of semivolatile metals, the new sources: (1) Improved particulate comment on whether sources may beyond-the-floor standard for matter control; (2) control of low comply with beyond-the-floor particulate matter would also provide volatile metals in the hazardous waste particulate matter standard by beyond-the-floor control for low volatile feed; and (3) a no-cost standard derived metals if sources were to comply with from the beyond-the-floor particulate controlling the feedrate of ash. For these reasons, we propose a low the beyond-the-floor particulate matter matter standard. volatile metals standard of 190 µg/dscm standard using improved particulate a. Improved Particulate Matter for new sources. matter control rather than by reducing Control. We evaluated improved control the feedrate of ash. To identify a of particulate matter using a fabric filter F. What Is the Rationale for the beyond-the-floor emission level for low to achieve an emission level of 79 µg/ Proposed Standards for Total Chlorine? dscm as beyond-the-floor control for volatile metals that would derive from The proposed standards for hydrogen low volatile metals emissions. The the beyond-the-floor particulate matter chloride and chlorine gas (i.e., total incremental annualized compliance cost standard, we assumed that emissions of chlorine, reported as a hydrogen for a new solid fuel boiler to meet this low volatile metals would be reduced by chloride equivalents) for solid fuel-fired the same percentage that sources would beyond-the-floor level, rather than boilers are 440 ppmv for existing need to reduce particulate matter comply with the floor level, would be sources and 73 ppmv for new emissions. We then developed a revised approximately $0.28 million and would sources.138 low volatile metal emission data base provide an incremental reduction in low considering these particulate matter volatile metals emissions of 138 As information, EPA proposed MACT standard-derived reductions and approximately 0.17 tons per year, for a standards for hydrogen chloride for solid fuel-fired reductions needed to meet the low cost-effectiveness of $1.7 million per ton industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21281

1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT would increase by 0.11 million kW- 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT Floor for Existing Sources? hours per year. Floor for New Sources? Solid fuel-fired boilers that burn We note that a cost of $4,700 per MACT floor for new sources would be hazardous waste are equipped with additional ton of total chlorine removed 73 ppmv. This is an emission level that electrostatic precipitators or baghouses is in the ‘‘grey area’’ between a cost the the single best performing source and do not have back-end controls for Agency has concluded is cost-effective identified by the Emissions Approach total chlorine. Total chlorine emissions and a cost the Agency has concluded is (i.e., the source with the lowest are controlled by controlling the not cost-effective under other MACT emissions) could be expected to achieve feedrate of chlorine in the hazardous rules. EPA concluded that a cost of in 99 of 100 future tests when operating waste feed. We have compliance test $1,100 per ton of total chlorine removed under operating conditions identical to emissions data for five boilers. for hazardous waste burning lightweight the compliance test conditions during Emissions from these five boilers aggregate kilns was cost-effective in the which the emissions data were represent emissions from 10 of the 12 1999 MACT final rule. See 68 FR at obtained. solid fuel-fired boilers.139 Total chlorine 52900. EPA concluded, however, that a 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor emissions range from 60 ppmv to 700 cost of $45,000 per ton of hydrogen Standards for New Sources ppmv. chloride removed was not cost-effective To identify the MACT floor, we for industrial boilers. See 68 FR at 1677. We evaluated dry lime scrubbing to evaluated the compliance test emissions Although a beyond-the-floor standard achieve a beyond-the-floor emission data associated with the most recent test of 110 ppmv for solid fuel boilers under level of 37 ppmv for total chlorine for campaign using the SRE/Feed today’s rule would provide health new sources, assuming conservatively a 141 Approach. The calculated floor is 440 benefits from collateral reductions in 50% removal efficiency. The ppmv, which considers emissions 140 incremental annualized compliance cost SO2 emissions, we are concerned that variability. This is an emission level a cost of $4,700 per additional ton of for a new solid fuel boiler with average that the best performing feed control total chlorine removed is not warranted. gas flowrate to meet this beyond-the- sources could be expected to achieve in Therefore, after considering cost- floor level, rather than comply with the 99 of 100 future tests when operating effectiveness and nonair quality health floor level, would be approximately under conditions identical to the and environmental impacts and energy $610,000 and would provide an compliance test conditions during effects, we are not proposing a beyond- incremental reduction in total chlorine which the emissions data were the-floor standard based on dry emissions of approximately 42 tons per obtained. We estimate that this emission scrubbing. We specifically request year. Although nonair quality health level is being achieved by 83% of comment on whether a beyond-the-floor and environmental impacts and energy sources and that it would reduce total standard is warranted. effects are not significant factors, we chlorine emissions by 420 tons per year. conclude that a beyond-the-floor We also evaluated use of feedrate standard of 37 ppmv is not warranted 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor control of chlorine in hazardous waste because it would not be cost-effective at Standards for Existing Sources to achieve a beyond-the-floor level of approximately $14,000 per additional We evaluated dry scrubbing to 350 ppmv, which represents a 20% ton of total chlorine removed. achieve a beyond-the-floor emission reduction from the floor level. The For these reasons, we propose a floor level of 110 ppmv for total chlorine for national annualized incremental standard for total chlorine of 73 ppmv existing sources, assuming compliance cost for solid fuel-fired for new sources. conservatively a 75% removal boilers to comply with this beyond-the- efficiency. The national annualized floor level rather than the floor level G. What Is the Rationale for the incremental compliance cost for solid would be $0.08 million, and emissions Proposed Standards for Carbon fuel-fired boilers to comply with this of total chlorine would be reduced by an Monoxide or Hydrocarbons? beyond-the-floor level rather than the additional 40 tons per year, for a cost- To control emissions of organic HAP, floor level would be $3.7 million, and effectiveness of $2,000 per ton of total existing and new sources would be emissions of total chlorine would be chlorine removed. Although nonair required to comply with either a carbon reduced by an additional 790 tons per quality health and environmental monoxide standard of 100 ppmv or a year, for a cost-effectiveness of $4,700 impacts and energy effects are not hydrocarbon standard of 10 ppmv.142 per ton of total chlorine removed. We significant factors for feedrate control, we are not proposing a beyond-the-floor 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT evaluated the nonair quality health and Floor for Existing Sources? environmental impacts and energy standard based on hazardous waste effects of this beyond-the-floor level and feedrate control because we are Solid fuel-fired boilers that burn estimate that the amount of hazardous concerned about the practicability of hazardous waste are currently subject to waste generated would increase by achieving these emissions reductions, RCRA standards that require 18,000 tons per year, an additional 27 and our estimate of the associated cost, million gallons of water per year would using feedrate control. We specifically 141 Although we assumed dry scrubbing can request comment on use of feedrate readily achieve 75% removal of total chlorine for be used, and electricity consumption beyond-the-floor control for existing sources, control of chlorine in hazardous waste assuming 50% removal for beyond-the-floor control that do not burn hazardous waste of 68 ppmv for as a beyond-the-floor control technique, for new sources is appropriate. This is because the existing sources and 15 ppmv for new sources. See the emission reductions that could be floor for new sources—73 ppmv—is substantially 68 FR 1660 (Jan. 13, 2003). These standards are achieved, and the costs of achieving lower than the floor for existing sources—440 based on use of wet scrubbers to control hydrogen ppmv—and dry scrubbing is less efficient at lower chloride. those reductions. uncontrolled emission levels. 139 Owners and operators have determined that 142 As information, EPA proposed MACT emissions from these five boilers represent 140 See U.S. EPA, ‘‘Addendum to the Assessment standards for carbon monoxide for new solid fuel- emissions from five other identical, sister boilers. of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts fired industrial, commercial, and institutional Owners and operators have used the emissions from of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT boilers that do not burn hazardous waste of 400 these five boilers as ‘‘data in lieu of testing’’ Replacement Standards—Proposed Rule,’’ March ppmv corrected to 3% oxygen. See 68 FR 1660 (Jan. emissions from the other five identical boilers. 2004. 13, 2003).

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21282 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

compliance with either a carbon subsequently, carbon monoxide 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT monoxide standard of 100 ppmv, or a emissions. Extremely low carbon Floor for New Sources? hydrocarbon standard of 20 ppmv. monoxide emissions cannot be assured MACT floor for new sources would be Compliance is based on an hourly by controlling only one or two operating the same as the floor for existing rolling average as measured with a parameters We note also that we used sources—100 ppmv for carbon CEMS. See § 266.104(a). We are this rationale to establish a carbon monoxide and 10 ppmv for proposing today floor standards of 100 monoxide standard of 100 ppmv for hydrocarbons—and based on the same ppmv for carbon monoxide or 10 ppmv Phase I sources in the September 1999 rationale. for hydrocarbons. Final Rule. Floor control for existing sources is 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor operating under good combustion We propose a floor level for Standards for New Sources hydrocarbons of 10 ppmv even though practices including: (1) Providing As discussed in the context of adequate excess air with use of oxygen the currently enforceable standard is 20 beyond-the-floor considerations for CEMS and feedback air input control; ppmv because: (1) The two sources that existing sources, we considered beyond- (2) providing adequate fuel/air mixing; comply with the RCRA hydrocarbon the-floor standards for carbon monoxide (3) homogenizing hazardous waste fuels standard can readily achieve 10 ppmv; and hydrocarbons for new sources based (such as by blending or size reduction) and (2) reducing hydrocarbon emissions on use of better combustion practices. to control combustion upsets due to within the range of 20 ppmv to 10 ppmv But, we conclude that beyond the floor very high or very low volatile content should reduce emissions of nondioxin/ standards may not be replicable by the wastes; (4) regulating waste and air furan organic HAP. We do not apply a best performing sources nor duplicable feedrates to ensure proper combustion prescriptive MACT methodology to by other sources given that we cannot temperature and residence time; (5) establish a hydrocarbon floor below 10 quantify good combustion practices. characterizing waste prior to burning for ppmv, however, because we have data Moreover, we cannot ensure that carbon combustion-related composition from only two sources. In addition, we monoxide or hydrocarbon levels lower (including parameters such as heating note that the hydrocarbon emission than the floors would significantly value, volatile content, liquid waste standard for Phase I sources established reduce emissions of nondioxin/furan viscosity, etc.); (6) ensuring the source in the September 1999 Final Rule is 10 organic HAP. is operated by qualified, experienced ppmv also. Nonair quality health and operators; and (7) periodic inspection environmental impacts and energy and maintenance of combustion system There would be no incremental requirements are not significant factors components such as burners, fuel and emission reductions associated with for use of better combustion practices as air supply lines, injection nozzles, etc. these floors because all sources are beyond-the-floor control. Given that there are many currently achieving the floor levels. For these reasons, we conclude that interdependent parameters that affect 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor beyond-the-floor standards for carbon combustion efficiency and thus carbon Standards for Existing Sources monoxide and hydrocarbons are not monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions, warranted for new sources. we are not able to quantify ‘‘good We considered beyond-the-floor H. What Is the Rationale for the combustion practices.’’ levels for carbon monoxide and Ten of 12 solid fuel-fired boilers are Proposed Standard for Destruction and hydrocarbons based on use of better Removal Efficiency? currently complying with the RCRA combustion practices but conclude that carbon monoxide limit of 100 ppmv on To control emissions of organic HAP, they may not be replicable by the best an hourly rolling average. The existing and new sources would be performing sources nor duplicable by remaining two boilers are complying required to comply with a destruction other sources given that we cannot with the RCRA hydrocarbon limit of 20 and removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% quantify good combustion practices. ppmv on an hourly rolling average. for organic HAP. For sources burning Those boilers have hydrocarbon levels Moreover, we cannot ensure that carbon hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, below 5 ppmv, however, indicative of monoxide or hydrocarbon levels lower F023, F026, or F027, however, the DRE operating under good combustion than the floors would significantly standard is 99.9999% for organic HAP. practices. reduce emissions of nondioxin/furan We propose a floor level for carbon organic HAP. This is because the 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT monoxide level of 100 ppmv because it portion of hydrocarbons that is Floor for Existing Sources? is a currently enforceable Federal comprised of nondioxin/furan organic Solid fuel-fired boilers that burn standard. Although the best performing HAP is likely to become lower as hazardous waste are currently subject to sources are achieving carbon monoxide combustion efficiency improves and RCRA DRE standards that require levels below 100 ppmv, it is not hydrocarbon levels decrease. Thus, at 99.99% destruction of designated appropriate to establish a lower floor beyond-the-floor hydrocarbon levels, we principal organic hazardous level because carbon monoxide is a would expect a larger portion of constituents (POHCs). For sources that surrogate for nondioxin/furan organic residual hydrocarbons to be compounds burn hazardous wastes F020, F021, HAP. As such, lowering the carbon that are not organic HAP. F022, F023, F026, or F027, however, the monoxide floor may not significantly DRE standard is 99.9999% destruction Nonair quality health and reduce organic HAP emissions. In of designated POHCs. See § 266.104(a). addition, it would be inappropriate to environmental impacts and energy The DRE standard helps ensure that a apply a MACT methodology to the requirements are not significant factors combustor is operating under good carbon monoxide emissions from the for use of better combustion practices as combustion practices and thus best performing sources because those beyond-the-floor control. minimizing emissions of organic HAP. sources may not be able to replicate For these reasons, we conclude that Under the MACT compliance regime, their emission levels. This is because beyond-the-floor standards for carbon sources would designate POHCs that are there are myriad factors that affect monoxide and hydrocarbons are not organic HAP or that are surrogates for combustion efficiency and, warranted for existing sources. organic HAP.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21283

We propose to establish the RCRA the destruction of organic HAP present 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor DRE standard as the floor for existing in the boiler feed rather than gross Standards for New Sources sources because it is a currently emissions of organic HAP. Although a Using the same rationale as we used enforceable Federal standard. There source’s combustion practices may be to consider a beyond-the-floor DRE would be no incremental emission adequate to destroy particular organic standard for existing sources, we reductions associated with this floor HAP in the feed, other organic HAP that conclude that a beyond-the-floor DRE because sources are currently complying may be emitted as products of standard for new sources is not with the standard. incomplete combustion may not be warranted. Consequently, after controlled by the DRE standard.143 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor considering non-air quality health and Standards for Existing Sources For these reasons, and after environmental impacts and energy considering non-air quality health and requirements, we are proposing the floor We considered a beyond-the-floor environmental impacts and energy DRE standard for new sources. level for DRE based on use of better requirements, we are not proposing a combustion practices but conclude that beyond-the-floor DRE standard for XI. How Did EPA Determine the it may not be replicable by the best existing sources. Proposed Emission Standards for performing sources nor duplicable by Hazardous Waste Burning Liquid Fuel- 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT Fired Boilers? other sources given that we cannot Floor for New Sources? quantify better combustion practices. The proposed standards for existing Moreover, we cannot ensure that a We propose to establish the RCRA and new liquid fuel-fired boilers that higher DRE standard would DRE standard as the floor for new burn hazardous waste are summarized significantly reduce emissions of sources because it is a currently in the table below. See proposed organic HAP given that DRE measures enforceable Federal standard. § 63.1217.

PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AND NEW LIQUID FUEL-FIRED BOILERS

Emission standard 1 Hazardous air pollutant or surrogate Existing sources New sources

Dioxin and furan: sources equipped with dry air 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm ...... 0.015 ng TEQ/dscm or control of flue gas pollution control system 2. temperature not to exceed 400°F at the inlet to the particulate matter control device. Dioxin and furan: sources equipped with wet or 100 ppmv carbon monoxide or 10 ppmv hy- 100 ppmv carbon monoxide or 10 ppmv hy- with no air pollution control systems 2. drocarbons. drocarbons Mercury 3 ...... 3.7E–6 lbs/MM Btu ...... 3.8E–7 lbs/MM BTU Particulate matter ...... 72 mg/dscm (0.032 gr/dscf) ...... 17 mg/dscm (0.0076 gr/dscf) Semivolatile metals 3 ...... 1.1E–5 lbs/MM BTU ...... 4.3E–6 lbs/MM BTU Low volatile metals: chromium only 3, 4 ...... 1.1E–4 lbs/MM BTU ...... 3.6E–5 lbs/MM BTU Hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas3, 5 ...... 2.5E–2 lbs/MM BTU or the alternative emis- 7.2E–4 lbs/MM BTU or the chlorine alternative sion limits under § 63.1215. emission limits under § 63.1215 Carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons 6 ...... 100 ppmv carbon monoxide or 10 ppmv hy- 100 ppmv carbon monoxide or 10 ppmv hy- drocarbons.. drocarbons. Destruction and Removal Efficiency ...... For existing and new sources, 99.99% for each principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC). For sources burning hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027, how- ever, 99.9999% for each POHC. 1 All emission standards are corrected to 7% oxygen, dry basis. 2 A wet air pollution system followed by a dry air pollution control system is not considered to be a dry air pollution control system for purposes of this standard. A dry air pollution systems followed a wet air pollution control system is considered to be a dry air pollution control system for purposes of this standard. 3 Standards are expressed as mass of pollutant emissions contributed by hazardous waste per million Btu contributed by the hazardous waste. 4 Standard is for chromium only and does not include arsenic and beryllium. 5 Combined standard, reported as a chloride (Cl(-)) equivalent. 6 Hourly rolling average. Hydrocarbons reported as propane.

We considered whether fuel floor control technology to reduce HAP exceed 400 °F at the inlet to the switching could be considered a MACT emissions for liquid fuel-fired boilers. particulate matter control device. For floor control technology for liquid fuel- liquid fuel-fired boilers equipped either A. What Are the Proposed Standards for fired boilers to achieve lower HAP with wet air pollution control systems Dioxin and Furan? emissions. We conclude that HAP or with no air pollution systems, we emissions from liquid fuel-fired boilers We propose to establish a dioxin/ propose a standard for both existing and are attributable primarily to the furan standard for existing liquid fuel- new sources as compliance with the hazardous waste fuels rather than the fired boilers equipped with dry air proposed standards for carbon natural gas or fuel oil that these boilers pollution control devices of 0.40 ng monoxide/hydrocarbon and destruction burn. Consequently, we conclude that TEQ/dscm. The standard for new and removal efficiency. In addition, we fuel switching is not an effective MACT sources would be 0.015 ng TEQ/dscm or note that we propose to require a one- control of flue gas temperature not to time dioxin/furan emission test for

143 The carbon monoxide/hydrocarbon emission products of incomplete combustion by also standard would control organic HAP that are ensuring use of good combustion practices.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21284 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

sources that would not be subject to a emissions below 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm if sources with wet or no emission control numerical dioxin/furan emission the gas temperature is reduced to below devices as operating under good standard, including liquid fuel-fired 400 °F. This is contrary to the finding combustion practices by complying boilers with wet or no emission control we made for cement kilns and with the destruction and removal device, and new liquid fuel-fired boilers incinerators without heat recovery efficiency and carbon monoxide/ equipped with a dry air pollution boilers and equipped with dry hydrocarbon standards.145 There would control device. As discussed in Part particulate matter control devices. In be no emissions reductions for these Two, Section XIV.B below, the testing those cases, we conclude that gas existing boilers to comply with the floor would assist in developing both section temperature control at the dry level because they are currently 112(d)(6) standards and section 112(f) particulate matter control device is the complying with the carbon monoxide/ residual risk standards. predominant factor affecting dioxin/ hydrocarbon standard and destruction furan emissions. See discussions in and removal efficiency standard 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT Sections VII and VIII above. pursuant to RCRA requirements. Floor for Existing Sources? Consequently, other factors are likely We also request comment on an As discussed in Part Two, Section contributing to high dioxin/furan alternative MACT floor expressed as a I.B.5, we used a statistical analysis to emissions from the liquid fuel-fired dioxin/furan emission concentration for conclude that liquid boilers equipped boiler equipped with a fabric filter liquid fuel boilers with wet or no with dry air pollution control devices operated at a gas temperature of 410 °F, emission control devices.146 Although it have different dioxin/furan emission such as metals in the waste feed or soot would be inappropriate to identify a characteristics compared to sources on boiler tubes that may catalyze floor concentration based on the average with either wet air pollution control or dioxin/furan formation reactions. emissions of the best performing sources no air pollution control devices.144 Note We evaluated the compliance test as discussed above, we possibly could that we consider the type of emission emissions data using the Emissions identify the floor as the highest control device as a basis for Approach and calculated a numerical emission concentration from any source subcategorization because the type of dioxin/furan floor level of 3.0 ng TEQ/ in our data base, after considering control device affects formation of dscm, which considers emissions emissions variability. dioxin/furan: dioxin/furan can form in variability. As discussed above, dry particulate matter control devices however, one of the three sources for 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor while it cannot form in wet (or no) which we have emissions data is not Standards for Existing Sources control devices. We therefore believe likely to be able to achieve this emission We evaluated use of activated carbon subcategorization is warranted and we level using gas temperature control at injection systems or carbon beds as propose to identify separate floor levels the inlet to the dry particulate matter beyond-the-floor control for further for sources equipped with dry control device. Consequently, we reduction of dioxin/furan emissions. particulate matter control devices versus propose to identify the floor level as 3.0 Activated carbon has been demonstrated sources with wet or no emission control ng TEQ/dscm or control of flue gas for controlling dioxin/furans in various device. temperature not to exceed 400 °F at the combustion applications. a. MACT Floor for Boilers Equipped inlet to the particulate matter control a. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations with Dry Control Systems. To identify device. This floor level is duplicable by for Boilers Equipped with Dry Control the floor level for liquid fuel boilers all sources, and would minimize Systems. For liquid fuel-fired boilers equipped with dry air pollution control dioxin/furan emissions for sources using dry air pollution control systems, we considered whether dioxin/ where flue gas temperature at the equipment, we evaluated a beyond-the- furan can be controlled by controlling control device substantially affects floor level of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm based the temperature at the inlet to the dioxin/furan emissions. We estimate on activated carbon injection or control particulate matter control device. We that this emission level is being of flue gas temperature not to exceed conclude that this control mechanism achieved by all sources and, thus, 400 °F at the inlet to the particulate may not be the predominant factor that would not reduce dioxin/furan matter control device. The national affects dioxin/furan emissions from emissions. incremental annualized compliance cost these sources. We have emissions data b. MACT Floor for Boilers Equipped for sources to meet this beyond-the-floor for three boilers equipped with with Wet or No Control Systems. We level rather than comply with the floor electrostatic precipitators or fabric have dioxin/furan emissions data for 33 controls would be approximately filters. Emissions from two of the boilers liquid fuel-fired boilers equipped with a $80,000 and would provide an are below 0.03 ng TEQ/dscm. We do not wet or no particulate matter control incremental reduction in dioxin/furan have data on the gas temperature at the device. Emissions levels are below 0.1 emissions beyond the MACT floor inlet to the emission control device for ng TEQ/dscm for 30 of the sources. these sources. The third boiler, Emission levels for the other three 145 The fact that we determined floor control for however, has dioxin/furan emissions of sources are 0.19, 0.36, and 0.44 ng TEQ/ existing sources as good combustion practices does not mean that all sources using floor control will 2.4 ng TEQ/dscm when the flue gas dscm. As previously discussed in Part Two, have low dioxin/furan emissions. As discussed in temperature at the inlet to the fabric Part Two, Section XIV.B., we are proposing to filter is 410 °F. We conclude from this Section VII.A, we believe that it would require liquid fuel-fired boilers that would not be be inappropriate to establish a information that this boiler is not likely subject to a numerical dioxin/furan emission numerical dioxin/furan emission floor standard to perform a one-time dioxin/furan to be able to achieve dioxin/furan level for sources using wet or no air emissions test to quantify the effectiveness of today’s proposed surrogate for dioxin/furan 144 Sources with a wet air pollution system pollution control systems based on the emission control. followed by a dry air pollution control system is not emissions achieved by the best 146 Although the floor for liquid fuel boilers considered to be a dry air pollution control system performing sources because a numerical equipped with a dry emission control device would for purposes of this standard. Sources with a dry floor level would not be replicable by not be a numerical standard (i.e., 3.0 ng TEQ/dscm air pollution systems followed a wet air pollution or control of temperature of flue gas at the inlet to control system is considered to be a dry air the best performing sources nor the control device to 400 °F), we propose a pollution control system for purposes of this duplicable by other sources. As a result, numerical beyond-the-floor standard for those standard. we propose to define the MACT floor for boilers, as discussed below in the text.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21285

controls of 0.06 grams TEQ per year for energy effects identified above and costs control dioxin/furan emissions to a a cost-effectiveness of $1.3 million per of approximately $1.3 million per beyond-the-floor standard of 0.40 ng additional gram of dioxin/furan additional gram of dioxin/furan TEQ TEQ/dscm, you would use activated removed. We evaluated the nonair removed. We specifically request carbon. We specifically request quality health and environmental comment on our decision to propose comment on this beyond-the-floor impacts and energy effects of this this beyond-the-floor standard. option, including how we should beyond-the-floor standard and estimate b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations estimate compliance costs and that the amount of hazardous waste for Boilers Equipped with Wet or No emissions reductions. generated would increase by 100 tons Control Systems. For liquid fuel-fired 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT per year, an additional 25 trillion Btu boilers equipped with wet or no air Floor for New Sources? per year of natural gas would be pollution control systems, we evaluated consumed, and electricity consumption a beyond-the-floor level of 0.20 ng TEQ/ The calculated floor level for new would increase by 0.50 million kW- dscm based on activated carbon. The liquid fuel boilers equipped with dry air hours per year. national incremental annualized pollution control systems is 0.015 ng We judge that the cost to achieve this compliance cost for these sources to TEQ/dscm, which we identified using beyond-the-floor level is warranted meet this beyond-the-floor level rather the Emissions Approach. If dioxin/furan given our special concern about dioxin/ than comply with the floor controls emissions could be controlled furan. Dioxin/furan are some of the most would be approximately $550,000 and predominantly by controlling the gas toxic compounds known due to their would provide an incremental reduction temperature at the inlet to the dry bioaccumulation potential and wide in dioxin/furan emissions beyond the particulate matter control device, this range of health effects, including MACT floor controls of 0.12 grams TEQ would be the emission level that the carcinogenesis, at exceedingly low per year. We evaluated the nonair single best performing source could be doses. Exposure via indirect pathways is quality health and environmental expected to achieve in 99 out of 100 a chief reason that Congress singled our impacts and energy effects of this future tests when operating under dioxin/furan for priority MACT control beyond-the-floor standard and estimate conditions identical to the compliance in CAA section 112(c)(6). See S. Rep. that the amount of hazardous waste test conditions during which the No. 128, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. at 154– generated would increase by 100 tons emissions data were obtained. This 155. In addition, we note that the per year, an additional 25 trillion Btu emission level may not be replicable by beyond-the-floor emission level of 0.40 per year of natural gas would be this source and duplicable by other ng TEQ/dscm is consistent with consumed, an additional 4 million (new) sources, however, because factors historically controlled levels under gallons per year of water would be used, other than flue gas temperature control MACT for hazardous waste incinerators and electricity consumption would at the control device may affect dioxin/ and cement kilns, and Portland cement increase by 0.50 million kW-hours per furan emissions. See discussion of this plants. See §§ 63.1203(a)(1), year. We are not proposing a beyond- issue in the context of the floor level for 63.1204(a)(1), and 63.1343(d)(3). Also, the-floor standard of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm existing sources. Therefore, we propose EPA has determined previously in the for liquid boilers that use a wet or no to establish the floor level as 0.015 ng 1999 Hazardous Waste Combustor air pollution control system because it TEQ/dscm or control of flue gas MACT final rule that dioxin/furan in the would not be cost-effective at $4.6 temperature not to exceed 400 °F at the range of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm or less are million per gram of TEQ removed. inlet to the particulate matter control necessary for the MACT standards to be We are also considering an alternative device. considered generally protective of beyond-the-floor standard for existing As previously discussed, we believe human health under RCRA (using the liquid fuel boilers with wet or no that it would be inappropriate to 1985 cancer slope factor), thereby particulate matter control devices of establish a numerical dioxin/furan eliminating the need for separate RCRA 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm. Although all but one emission floor level for liquid boilers standards under the authority of RCRA source for which we have data are with wet or with no air pollution section 3005(c)(3) and 40 CFR 270.10(k). currently achieving this emission level, control systems. Therefore, we propose Finally, we note that this decision is not boilers for which we do not have floor control for these units as good inconsistent with EPA’s decision not to dioxin/furan emissions data may have combustion practices provided by promulgate beyond-the-floor standards emissions higher than 0.40 ng TEQ/ complying with the proposed for dioxin/furan for hazardous waste dscm. In addition, dioxin/furan destruction and removal efficiency and burning lightweight aggregate kilns, emissions from a given boiler may vary carbon monoxide/hydrocarbon cement kilns, and incinerators at cost- over time. Other factors that may standards. effectiveness values in the range of contribute substantially to dioxin/furan $530,000 to $827,000 per additional 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor formation, such as the level and type of Standards for New Sources gram of dioxin/furan TEQ removed. See soot on boiler tubes, or feeding metals 64 FR at 52892, 52876, and 52961. In that catalyze dioxin/furan formation We evaluated use of activated carbon those cases, EPA determined that reactions, differ across boilers and may as beyond-the-floor control for further controlling dioxin/furan emissions from change over time at a given boiler. Thus, reduction of dioxin/furan emissions. a level of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm to a dioxin/furan levels for these sources Activated carbon has been demonstrated beyond-the-floor level of 0.20 ng TEQ/ may be higher than 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm. for controlling dioxin/furan in various dscm was not warranted because For example, we recently obtained combustion applications. dioxin/furan levels below 0.40 ng TEQ/ dioxin/furan emissions data for a liquid a. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations dscm are generally considered to be fuel-fired boiler equipped with a wet for Boilers Equipped with Dry Control below the level of health risk concern. emission control system documenting Systems. For liquid fuel-fired boilers using dry air pollution control For these reasons, we believe that emissions of 1.4 ng TEQ/dscm.147 To proposing a beyond-the-floor standard equipment, we evaluated a beyond-the- of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm is warranted 147 These data were recently obtained and are not floor level of 0.01 ng TEQ/dscm using notwithstanding the nonair quality in the MACT data base. See ‘‘Region 4 Boiler Dioxin activated carbon injection. The national health and environmental impacts and Data,’’ Excel spreadsheet, March 10, 2004. incremental annualized compliance cost

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21286 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

for a source with an average gas flowrate of activated carbon. The national expressed as hazardous waste thermal to meet this beyond-the-floor level incremental annualized compliance cost emission concentrations because liquid rather than comply with the floor for a source with average gas flowrate to fuel-fired boilers burn hazardous waste controls would be approximately $0.15 meet this beyond-the-floor level rather for energy recovery. See discussion in million and would provide an than comply with the floor controls Part Two, Section IV.B of the preamble. incremental reduction in dioxin/furan would be approximately $0.15 million 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT emissions beyond the MACT floor and would provide an incremental Floor for Existing Sources? controls of 0.005 grams TEQ per year. reduction in dioxin/furan emissions We evaluated the nonair quality health beyond the MACT floor controls of 0.06 MACT floor for existing sources is and environmental impacts and energy grams TEQ per year. We evaluated the 3.7E–6 lbs mercury emissions effects of this beyond-the-floor standard nonair quality health and environmental attributable to the hazardous waste per and estimate that, for a new liquid fuel- impacts and energy effects of this million Btu heat input from the fired boiler with average gas flowrate, beyond-the-floor standard and estimate hazardous waste, which is based the amount of hazardous waste that, for a source with average gas primarily by controlling the feed generated would increase by 120 tons flowrate, the amount of hazardous waste concentration of mercury in the per year and electricity consumption generated would increase by 120 tons hazardous waste. Approximately 11% of would increase by 0.1 million kW-hours per year and electricity consumption liquid boilers also use wet scrubbers per year. After considering these would increase by 0.1 million kW-hours that can control emissions of mercury. impacts and costs of approximately $32 per year. After considering these We have normal emissions data million per additional gram of dioxin/ impacts and costs of approximately $2.4 within the range of normal emissions for furan removed, we are not proposing a million per additional gram of dioxin/ 32% of the sources.149 The normal beyond-the-floor standard of 0.01 ng furan removed, we are not proposing a mercury stack emissions in our data µ TEQ/dscm for liquid fuel-fired boilers beyond-the-floor standard for liquid base are all less than 7 g/dscm. These using dry air pollution control systems. fuel-fired boilers using a wet or no air emissions are expressed as mass of We are also considering an alternative pollution control system. mercury (from all feedstocks) per unit of beyond-the-floor standard of 0.40 ng We are also considering an alternative stack gas. Hazardous waste thermal TEQ/dscm for new liquid fuel boilers beyond-the-floor standard of 0.40 ng emissions, available for 12% of sources, equipped with a dry particulate matter TEQ/dscm for new liquid fuel boilers range from 1.0E–7 to 1.0E–5 lbs mercury control device. A new source that equipped with wet or with no air emissions attributable to the hazardous achieves the floor level by controlling pollution control systems. A new source waste per million Btu heat input from the gas temperature at the inlet to the that achieves the floor level— the hazardous waste. Hazardous waste dry particulate matter control device to compliance with the standards for thermal emissions represent the mass of 400 °F may have dioxin/furan emissions carbon monoxide/hydrocarbon and mercury contributed by the hazardous at levels far exceeding 0.40 ng TEQ/ destruction and removal efficiency— waste per million Btu contributed by the dscm. See discussion above regarding may have high dioxin/furan emissions hazardous waste. factors other than gas temperature at the at levels far exceeding 0.40 ng TEQ/ To identify the MACT floor, we control device that can affect dioxin/ dscm. See discussion above regarding evaluated all normal emissions data furan emissions from liquid fuel-fired factors other than gas temperature at the using the Emissions Approach. The boilers (and discussion of emissions of control device that can affect dioxin/ calculated floor is 3.7E–6 lbs mercury 2.4 ng TEQ/dscm for a boiler operating furan emissions from liquid fuel-fired emissions attributable to the hazardous a fabric filter at 410 °F). Therefore, it boilers. Therefore, it may be appropriate waste per million Btu heat input from may be appropriate to establish a to establish a beyond-the-floor standard the hazardous waste. This is an beyond-the-floor standard to limit to limit emissions to 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm emission level that the average of the emissions to 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm based based on use of activated carbon. We best performing sources could be on use of activated carbon injection. We specifically request comment on this expected to achieve in 99 of 100 future also note that this beyond-the-floor beyond-the-floor option, including how tests when operating under conditions standard may be appropriate to ensure we should estimate compliance costs identical to the compliance test that emission levels from new sources and emissions reductions. conditions during which the emissions do not exceed the proposed 0.40 ng data were obtained. We estimate that TEQ/dscm beyond-the-floor standard for B. What Is the Rationale for the this floor level is being achieved by 40% existing sources. Because standards for Proposed Standards for Mercury? of sources and would reduce mercury new sources are based on the single best We propose to establish standards for emissions by 0.68 tons per year. performing source while standards for existing liquid fuel-fired boilers that Because the floor level is based on existing sources are based on the limit emissions of mercury to 3.7E–6 lbs normal emissions data, compliance average of the best 12% (or best 5) mercury emissions attributable to the would be documented by complying performing sources, standards for new hazardous waste per million Btu heat with a hazardous waste mercury sources should not be less stringent than input from the hazardous waste. The thermal feed concentration on an annual standards for existing sources. We proposed standards for new sources rolling average. See discussion in Part specifically request comment on this would be 3.8E–7 lbs mercury emissions Two, Section XIV.F below. beyond-the-floor option, including how attributable to the hazardous waste per We did not use the SRE/Feed we should estimate compliance costs million Btu heat input from the Approach to identify the floor level and emissions reductions. hazardous waste.148 These standards are because the vast majority of mercury b. Beyond-the-Floor Considerations feed levels in the hazardous waste and for Boilers Equipped with Wet or No 148 As information, EPA did not propose MACT Control Systems. We evaluated a emission standards for mercury for liquid fuel-fired 149 Several owners and operators have used the beyond-the-floor level of 0.20 ng TEQ/ boilers that do not burn hazardous waste. See 68 FR emissions data as ‘‘data in lieu of testing’’ emissions 1660 (Jan. 13, 2003). Note that, in today’s rule, we from other, identical boilers at the same facility. For dscm for liquid fuel-fired boilers propose to control mercury only in hazardous waste purposes of identifying the number of boilers equipped with wet or with no air fuels, an option obviously not available to boilers represented in this paragraph, the percentage pollution control systems based on use that do not burn hazardous waste. includes the data-in-lieu sources.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21287

the emissions measurements did not b. Feed Control of Mercury in the approximately $0.15 million and would have detectable concentrations of Hazardous Waste. We also evaluated a provide an incremental reduction in mercury. Given that a system removal beyond-the-floor level of 3.0E–6 lbs mercury emissions of less than 0.0002 efficiency, or SRE, is the percentage of mercury emissions attributable to the tons per year, for a cost-effectiveness of mercury emitted compared to the hazardous waste per million Btu heat $1 billion per ton of mercury removed. amount fed, we concluded that it would input from the hazardous waste, which We evaluated the nonair quality health be inappropriate to base this analysis on represents a 20% reduction from the and environmental impacts and energy SREs that were derived from floor level. The national incremental effects of this beyond-the-floor standard measurements below detectable levels. annualized compliance cost for liquid and estimate that, for a new liquid fuel- fuel-fired boilers to meet this beyond- fired boiler with average gas flowrate, 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor the-floor level rather than comply with the amount of hazardous waste Standards for Existing Sources the floor controls would be generated would increase by 120 tons We identified two potential beyond- approximately $4.2 million and would per year and electricity consumption the-floor techniques for control of provide an incremental reduction in would increase by 0.1 million kW-hours mercury: (1) Activated carbon injection; mercury emissions beyond the MACT per year. Although nonair quality health and (2) control of mercury in the floor controls of 0.036 tons per year. and environmental impacts and energy hazardous waste feed. For reasons Nonair quality health and effects are not significant factors, we are discussed below, we are not proposing environmental impacts and energy not proposing a beyond-the-floor a beyond-the-floor standard for mercury. effects are not significant factors for standard based on activated carbon a. Use of Activated Carbon Injection. feedrate control. Therefore, based on injection for new sources because it We evaluated activated carbon injection these factors and costs of approximately would not be cost-effective. Therefore, as beyond-the-floor control for further $115 million per additional ton of we propose a mercury standard based reduction of mercury emissions. mercury removed, we are not proposing on the floor level: 3.8E–7 lbs mercury Activated carbon has been demonstrated a beyond-the-floor standard based on emissions attributable to the hazardous for controlling mercury in several feed control of mercury in the waste per million Btu heat input from combustion applications; however, hazardous waste. the hazardous waste. currently no liquid fuel boilers burning For the reasons discussed above, we C. What Is the Rationale for the hazardous waste uses activated carbon do not propose a beyond-the-floor Proposed Standards for Particulate injection. We evaluated a beyond-the- standard for mercury for existing Matter? sources. We propose a standard based floor level of 1.1E–6 lbs mercury The proposed standards for emissions attributable to the hazardous on the floor level: 3.7E–6 lbs mercury emissions attributable to the hazardous particulate matter for liquid fuel-fired waste per million Btu heat input from boilers are 59 mg/dscm (0.026 gr/dscf) the hazardous waste. The national waste per million Btu heat input from the hazardous waste. for existing sources and 17 mg/dscm incremental annualized compliance cost (0.0076 gr/dscf) for new sources.151 The for liquid fuel-fired boilers to meet this 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT particulate matter standard serves as a beyond-the-floor level rather than Floor for New Sources? surrogate for nonenumerated HAP metal comply with the floor controls would be emissions attributable to the hazardous approximately $12 million and would The MACT floor for new sources for mercury would be 3.8E–7 lbs mercury waste fuel burned in the boiler. provide an incremental reduction in Although the particulate matter mercury emissions beyond the MACT emissions attributable to the hazardous waste per million Btu heat input from standard would also control floor controls of 0.097 tons per year. We nonmercury HAP metal from evaluated nonair quality health and the hazardous waste and would be implemented as an annual average nonhazardous waste fuels, the natural environmental impacts and energy gas or fuel oil these boilers burn as effects of using activated carbon because it is based on normal emissions data. This is an emission level that the primary or auxiliary fuel do not contain injection to meet this beyond-the-floor significant levels of metal HAP. emission level and estimate that the single best performing source identified amount of hazardous waste generated with the Emissions Approach could be 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT would increase by 4,800 tons per year expected to achieve in 99 of 100 future Floor for Existing Sources? and that sources would consume an tests when operating under operating conditions identical to the compliance Few liquid fuel-fired boilers are additional 44 trillion Btu per year of equipped particulate matter control natural gas and use an additional 9.6 test conditions during which the emissions data were obtained. equipment such as electrostatic million kW-hours per year beyond the precipitators and baghouses, and, requirements to achieve the floor level. 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor therefore, many sources control Therefore, based on these factors and Standards for New Sources particulate matter emissions by limiting costs of approximately $124 million per We evaluated activated carbon the ash content of the hazardous waste. additional ton of mercury removed, we injection as beyond-the-floor control to We have compliance test emissions data are not proposing a beyond-the-floor achieve an emission level of 2.0E–7 lbs from nearly all liquid boilers standard based on activated carbon mercury emissions attributable to the representing maximum allowable 150 injection. hazardous waste per million Btu heat emissions. Particulate emissions range input from the hazardous waste. The from 0.0008 to 0.078 gr/dscf. 150 We note that the beyond-the-floor dioxin/ To identify the floor level, we furan standard we propose for liquid fuel-fired incremental annualized compliance cost boilers equipped with dry particulate matter control for a new liquid fuel-fired boiler with evaluated the compliance test emissions devices would also provide no-cost beyond-the- average gas flowrate to meet this floor mercury control for sources that use activated beyond-the-floor level, rather than 151 As information, EPA proposed MACT carbon injection to control dioxin/furan. If such standards for particulate matter for solid fuel-fired sources achieve the beyond-the-floor dioxin/furan comply with the floor level, would be industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers standard by other means (control of temperature at that do not burn hazardous waste of 0.035 gr/dscf the inlet to the control device; control of feedrate furan), however, collateral reductions in mercury for existing sources and 0.013 gr/dscf for new of metals that may catalyze formation of dioxin/ emissions would not be realized. sources.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21288 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

data associated with the most recent test 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor 40% of the sources.153 The normal campaign using the APCD Approach. Standards for New Sources semivolatile stack emissions in our The calculated floor is 72 mg/dscm database range from less than 1 to 46 ug/ (0.032 gr/dscf), which considers We evaluated use of an advanced dscm. These emissions are expressed emissions variability. This is an fabric filter using high efficiency conventionally as mass of semivolatile emission level that the average of the membrane bag material and a low air to metals (from all feedstocks) per unit of performing sources could be expected to cloth ratio to achieve a beyond-the-floor stack gas. Hazardous waste thermal achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when emission level of 9 mg/dscm (0.0040 gr/ emissions, available for 25% of sources, operating under operating conditions dscf). The incremental annualized cost range from 1.2E–6 to 4.8E–5 lbs identical to the compliance test for a new liquid fuel-fired boiler with semivolatile metals emissions conditions during which the emissions average gas flowrate to meet this attributable to the hazardous waste per data were obtained. We estimate that beyond-the-floor level, rather than million Btu heat input of the hazardous this floor level is being achieved by 44% comply with the floor level, would be waste. of sources and would reduce particulate approximately $0.15 million and would We identified a MACT floor of 1.1E– matter emissions by 1,200 tons per year. provide an incremental reduction in 5 expressed as a hazardous waste particulate emissions of approximately thermal emission by applying the 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor 2.9 tons per year, for a cost-effectiveness Emissions Approach to the normal Standards for Existing Sources of $53,000 per ton of particulate matter hazardous waste thermal emissions removed. We evaluated the nonair 154 We evaluated use of fabric filters to data. This is an emission level that quality health and environmental improve particulate matter control to the average of the best performing impacts and energy effects of this achieve a beyond-the-floor standard of sources could be expected to achieve in beyond-the-floor standard and estimate 36 mg/dscm (0.016 gr/dscf). The 99 of 100 future tests when operating that, for a new liquid fuel-fired boiler national incremental annualized under conditions identical to the with average gas flowrate, the amount of compliance cost for liquid fuel-fired compliance test conditions during hazardous waste generated would boilers to meet this beyond-the-floor which the emissions data were increase by 3 tons per year and level rather than comply with the floor obtained. We estimate that this floor electricity consumption would increase controls would be approximately $16 level is being achieved by 33% of by 0.54 million kW-hours per year. million and would provide an sources and would reduce semivolatile Considering these factors and cost- incremental reduction in particulate metals emissions by 1.7 tons per year. effectiveness, we conclude that a matter emissions beyond the MACT Because the floor level is based on beyond-the-floor standard of 9 mg/dscm floor controls of 520 tons per year. We normal emissions data, compliance is not warranted. evaluated the nonair quality health and would be documented by complying environmental impacts and energy For the reasons discussed above, we with a hazardous waste mercury effects of this beyond-the-floor standard propose a floor-based standard for thermal feed concentration on an annual and estimate that the amount of particulate matter for new liquid fuel- rolling average. See discussion in Part hazardous waste generated would fired boilers: 9.8 mg/dscm (0.0043 gr/ Two, Section XIV.F below. increase by 520 tons per year and dscf) 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor electricity consumption would increase D. What Is the Rationale for the Standards for Existing Sources by 13 million kW-hours per year. After Proposed Standards for Semivolatile We identified two potential beyond- considering these factors and costs of Metals? the-floor techniques for control of approximately $30,000 per additional semivolatile metals: (1) Improved ton of particulate matter removed, we We propose a standard for existing liquid fuel-fired boilers that limits particulate matter control; and (2) are not proposing a beyond-the-floor control of mercury in the hazardous standard. emissions of semivolatile metals (cadmium and lead, combined) to 1.1E– waste feed. For reasons discussed For the reasons discussed above, we 5 lbs semivolatile metals emissions below, we are not proposing a beyond- propose a standard for particulate attributable to the hazardous waste per the-floor standard for semivolatile matter for existing liquid fuel-fired million Btu heat input from the metals. boilers based on the floor level: 72 mg/ hazardous waste. The proposed a. Improved Particulate Matter dscm (0.032 gr/dscf). standard for new sources is 4.3E–6 lbs Control. We evaluated installation of a 3. What Is the Rational for the MACT semivolatile metals emissions new fabric filter or improved design, Floor for New Sources? attributable to the hazardous waste per operation, and maintenance of the million Btu heat input from the existing electrostatic precipitator and MACT floor for new sources would be hazardous waste. fabric filter as beyond-the-floor control 17 mg/dscm (0.0076 gr/dscf), considering emissions variability. This 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT 153 Several owners and operators have used the is an emission level that the single best Floor for Existing Sources? emissions data as ‘‘data in lieu of testing’’ emissions performing source identified by the from other, identical boilers at the same facility. For MACT floor for existing sources is purposes of identifying the number of boilers APCD Approach (i.e., the source using 1.1E–5 lbs semivolatile metals represented in this paragraph, the percentages a fabric filter 152 with the lowest include the data-in-lieu sources. emissions attributable to the hazardous emissions) could be expected to achieve 154 We propose to use the Emissions Approach waste per million Btu heat input of the in 99 of 100 future tests when operating rather than the SRE/Feed approach because our hazardous waste, which is based on data base is comprised of emissions obtained during under operating conditions identical to particulate matter control (for those few normal rather than compliance test operations. the compliance test conditions during sources using a control device) and Because of the relatively low semivolatile metal which the emissions data were feedrates during normal operations, we are controlling the feedrate of semivolatile obtained. concerned that the system removal efficiencies that metals in the hazardous waste. we would calculate may be inaccurate (e.g., sampling and analysis imprecision at low feed rates 152 The source also is equipped with a high We have emissions data within the can have a substantial impact on calculated system efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter. range of normal emissions for nearly removal efficiencies).

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21289

for further reduction of semivolatile attributable to the hazardous waste per chromium to 1.1E–4 lbs and 3.6E–5 lbs metals emissions. We evaluated a million Btu heat input from the chromium emissions attributable to the beyond-the-floor level of 5.5E–6 lbs hazardous waste. This is an emission hazardous waste per million Btu heat semivolatile metals emissions level that the single best performing input from the hazardous waste, attributable to the hazardous waste per source identified with the Emissions respectively. million Btu heat input from the Approach 155 could be expected to We propose to establish emission hazardous waste. The national achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when standards on chromium-only because incremental annualized compliance cost operating under operating conditions our data base has very limited for liquid fuel-fired boilers to meet this identical to the compliance test compliance test data on emissions of beyond-the-floor level rather than conditions during which the emissions total low volatile metals: arsenic, comply with the floor controls would be data were obtained. beryllium, and chromium. We have approximately $6.5 million and would Because the floor level is based on compliance test data on only two provide an incremental reduction in normal emissions data, compliance sources for total low volatile metals semivolatile metals emissions beyond would be documented by complying emissions while we have compliance the MACT floor controls of 0.06 tons per with a hazardous waste mercury test data for 12 sources for chromium- year. We evaluated nonair quality health thermal feed concentration on an annual only. Although we have total low and environmental impacts and energy rolling average. See discussion in Part volatile metals emissions for 12 sources effects and determined that this beyond- Two, Section XIV.F below. when operating under normal the-floor option would increase the 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor operations, we prefer to use compliance amount of hazardous waste generated by Standards for New Sources test data to establish the floor because approximately 45 tons per year and they better address emissions We evaluated a beyond-the-floor level would increase electricity usage by 0.8 variability. of 2.1E–6 lbs semivolatile metals million kW-hours per year. After By establishing a low volatile metal emissions attributable to the hazardous considering these factors and costs of floor based on chromium emissions waste per million Btu heat input from approximately $100 million per only we are relying on the particulate the hazardous waste based on an additional ton of semivolatile metals matter standard to control the other advanced fabric filter using high removed, we are not proposing a enumerated low volatile metals— beyond-the-floor standard based on efficiency membrane bag material and a low air to cloth ratio. The incremental arsenic and beryllium—as well as improved particulate matter control. nonenumerated metal HAP. We request b. Feed Control of Semivolatile Metals annualized compliance cost for a new liquid fuel-fired boiler with average gas comment on this approach and note in the Hazardous Waste. We also that, as discussed below, an alternative evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of flowrate to meet this beyond-the-floor level, rather than comply with the floor approach would be to establish a MACT 8.8E–6 lbs semivolatile metals floor based on normal emissions data for emissions attributable to the hazardous level, would be approximately $0.15 million and would provide an all three enumerated low volatile waste per million Btu heat input from metals. the hazardous waste, which represents a incremental reduction in semivolatile We request comment on whether the 20% reduction from the floor level. The metals emissions of less than 0.002 tons compliance test data for chromium-only national incremental annualized per year, for a cost-effectiveness of $87 are appropriate for establishing a MACT compliance cost for liquid fuel-fired million per ton of semivolatile metals floor for chromium. We are concerned boilers to meet this beyond-the-floor removed. We evaluated the nonair that some sources in our data base may level rather than comply with the floor quality health and environmental have used chromium as a surrogate for controls would be approximately $4.8 impacts and energy effects of this arsenic and beryllium during RCRA million and would provide an beyond-the-floor standard and estimate incremental reduction in semivolatile that, for a new liquid fuel-fired boiler compliance testing such that their metals emissions beyond the MACT with average gas flowrate, the amount of chromium emissions may be more floor controls of 0.06 tons per year. hazardous waste generated would representative of their total low volatile Nonair quality health and increase by 2 tons per year and metals emissions than only chromium. environmental impacts and energy electricity consumption would increase If we determine this to be the case, we effects are not significant factors for by 0.54 million kW-hours per year. could apply the floor we calculate using feedrate control. Therefore, considering Considering these factors and cost- chromium emissions to total low these factors and costs of approximately effectiveness, we conclude that a volatile metal emissions. Alternatively, $81 million per additional ton of beyond-the-floor standard is not we could use the normal emissions data semivolatile metals removed, we are not warranted. Therefore, we propose a we have on 12 sources and our MACT proposing a beyond-the-floor standard semivolatile metals standard based on methodology to establish a total low based on feed control of semivolatile the floor level: 4.3E–6 lbs semivolatile volatile metals floor. metals in the hazardous waste. metals emissions attributable to the 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT For the reasons discussed above, we hazardous waste per million Btu heat Floor for Existing Sources? propose a floor standard for semivolatile input from the hazardous waste for new metals for existing liquid fuel-fired sources. MACT floor for existing sources is boilers of 1.1E–5 lbs semivolatile metals 1.1E–4 lbs chromium emissions E. What Is the Rationale for the attributable to the hazardous waste per emissions attributable to the hazardous Proposed Standards for Chromium? waste per million Btu heat input from million Btu heat input from the the hazardous waste. We propose to establish standards for hazardous waste, which is based on existing and new liquid fuel-fired particulate matter control (for those few 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT boilers that limit emissions of sources using a control device) and Floor for New Sources? controlling the feed concentration of The MACT floor for new sources for 155 We use the Emissions Approach rather than chromium in the hazardous waste. the SRE/Feed Approach when we use normal rather We have compliance test emissions semivolatile metals would be 4.3E–6 lbs than compliance test data to establish the standard, semivolatile metals emissions as discussed previously. data for approximately 17% of the

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21290 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

sources.156 The compliance test effects and determined that this beyond- beyond-the-floor level of 1.8E–5 lbs chromium stack emissions in our the-floor option would increase the chromium emissions attributable to the database range from 2 to 900 ug/dscm. amount of hazardous waste generated by hazardous waste per million Btu heat These emissions are expressed as mass approximately 160 tons per year and input from the hazardous waste. The of chromium (from all feedstocks) per would increase electricity usage by 3.0 incremental annualized compliance cost unit of stack gas. Hazardous waste million kW-hours per year. Based on for a new liquid fuel-fired boiler with thermal emissions, available for 13% of these impacts and a cost of average gas flowrate to meet this sources, range from 3.2E–6 to 8.8E–4 lbs approximately $12 million per beyond-the-floor level, rather than chromium emissions attributable to the additional ton of chromium removed, comply with the floor level, would be hazardous waste per million Btu heat we are not proposing a beyond-the-floor approximately $0.15 million and would input from the hazardous waste. standard based on improved particulate provide an incremental reduction in To identify the floor level, we matter control. chromium emissions of 0.014 tons per evaluated all compliance test thermal b. Feed Control of Chromium in the year, for a cost-effectiveness of $11 emissions data using the SRE/Feed Hazardous Waste. We evaluated million per ton of chromium removed. Approach (see discussion in Section additional feed control of chromium in We evaluated the nonair quality health VI.C above). The calculated floor is the hazardous waste as a beyond-the- and environmental impacts and energy 1.1E–4 lbs chromium emissions floor control technique to reduce floor effects of this beyond-the-floor standard attributable to the hazardous waste per emission levels by 25% to achieve a and estimate that, for a new liquid fuel- million Btu heat input from the standard of 8.8E–5 lbs chromium fired boiler with average gas flowrate, hazardous waste feed, which considers emissions attributable to the hazardous the amount of hazardous waste emissions variability. This is an waste per million Btu heat input from generated would increase by 2 tons per emission level that the average of the the hazardous waste. This beyond-the- year and electricity consumption would best performing sources could be floor level of control would reduce increase by 0.54 million kW-hours per expected to achieve in 99 of 100 future chromium by an additional 0.20 tons year. Considering these factors and cost- tests when operating under conditions per year at a cost-effectiveness of $22 effectiveness, we conclude that a identical to the compliance test million per ton of chromium removed. beyond-the-floor standard is not conditions during which the emissions Nonair quality health and warranted. Therefore, we propose a data were obtained. We estimate that environmental impacts and energy chromium emission standard for new this floor level is being achieved by 36% effects are not significant factors for sources based on the floor level: 3.6E– of sources and would reduce chromium feedrate control. We conclude that use 5 lbs chromium emissions attributable emissions by 9.4 tons per year. of additional hazardous waste to the hazardous waste per million Btu 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor chromium feedrate control would not be heat input from the hazardous waste Standards for Existing Sources cost-effective and are not proposing a feed. beyond-the-floor standard based on this F. What Is the Rationale for the We identified two potential beyond- control technique. the-floor techniques for control of For the reasons discussed above, we Proposed Standards for Total Chlorine? chromium emissions: (1) Use of a fabric do not propose a beyond-the-floor We are proposing to establish a filter to improve particulate matter standard for chromium. Consequently, standard for existing liquid fuel-fired control; and (2) control of chromium in we propose to establish the emission boilers that limit emissions of hydrogen the hazardous waste feed. For reasons standard for existing liquid fuel-fired chloride and chlorine gas (i.e., total discussed below, we are not proposing boilers at the floor level: a hazardous chlorine) to 2.5E–2 lbs total chlorine a beyond-the-floor standard for waste thermal emission standard of emissions attributable to the hazardous chromium. 1.1E–4 lbs chromium emissions waste per million Btu heat input from a. Use of a Fabric Filter to Improve attributable to hazardous waste per the hazardous waste. The proposed Particulate Matter Control. We million Btu of hazardous waste feed. standard for new sources would be evaluated use of a fabric filter as 7.2E–4 lbs total chlorine emissions beyond-the-floor control for further 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT attributable to the hazardous waste per reduction of chromium emissions. We Floor for New Sources? million Btu heat input from the evaluated a beyond-the-floor level of The MACT floor for new sources for hazardous waste. 5.5E–5 lbs chromium emissions chromium would be 3.6E–5 lbs attributable to the hazardous waste per chromium emissions attributable to the 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT million Btu heat input from the hazardous waste per million Btu heat Floor for Existing Sources? hazardous waste. The national input from the hazardous waste feed. Most liquid fuel-fired boilers that incremental annualized compliance cost This is an emission level that the single burn hazardous waste do not have back- for liquid fuel-fired boilers to meet this best performing source identified with end controls such as wet scrubbers for beyond-the-floor level rather than the SRE/Feed Approach could be total chlorine control. For these sources, comply with the floor controls would be expected to achieve in 99 of 100 future total chlorine emissions are controlled approximately $5.9 million and would tests when operating under operating by most sources by controlling the provide an incremental reduction in conditions identical to the compliance feedrate of chlorine in the hazardous chromium emissions beyond the MACT test conditions during which the waste feed. Approximately 15% of floor controls of 0.50 tons per year. We emissions data were obtained. sources use wet scrubbing systems to evaluated nonair quality health and control total chlorine emissions. environmental impacts and energy 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor We have compliance test data Standards for New Sources representing maximum emissions for 156 Several owners and operators have used the We evaluated use of an advanced 40% of the boilers. Total chlorine emissions data as ‘‘data in lieu of testing’’ emissions fabric filter using high efficiency emissions range from less than 1 to 900 from other, identical boilers at the same facility. For purposes of identifying the number of boilers membrane bag material and a low air to ppmv. Hazardous waste thermal represented in this paragraph, the percentages cloth ratio as beyond-the-floor control to emissions, available for 27% of boilers, include the data-in-lieu sources. reduce chromium emissions to a range from 1.00E–4 to 1.4 lbs total

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21291

chlorine emissions attributable to the emissions attributable to the hazardous gas flowrate, this beyond-the-floor hazardous waste per million Btu heat waste per million Btu heat input from option would increase both the amount input from the hazardous waste. the hazardous waste. The national of hazardous wastewater generated and The calculated floor is 2.5E–2 lbs total incremental annualized compliance cost water usage by approximately 140 chlorine emissions attributable to the for liquid fuel-fired boilers to meet this million gallons per year and would hazardous waste per million Btu heat beyond-the-floor level rather than increase electricity usage by 1.3 million input from the hazardous waste using comply with the floor controls would be kW-hours per year. After considering the SRE/Feed Approach to identify the approximately $3.9 million and would these impacts and cost-effectiveness, we best performing sources (see discussion provide an incremental reduction in conclude that a beyond-the-floor in section VI.C above). This is an total chlorine emissions beyond the standard based on wet scrubbing for emission level that the average of the MACT floor controls of 170 tons per new liquid fuel-fired boilers is not performing sources could be expected to year. Nonair quality health and warranted. achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when environmental impacts and energy For the reasons discussed above, we operating under operating conditions effects are not significant factors for propose a total chlorine standard for identical to the compliance test feedrate control. We conclude that use new sources based on the floor level: conditions during which the emissions of additional hazardous waste chlorine 7.2E–4 lbs total chlorine emissions data were obtained. We estimate that feedrate control would not be cost- attributable to the hazardous waste per this floor level is being achieved by 70% effective at $23,000 per ton of total million Btu heat input from the of sources and would reduce total chlorine removed and are not proposing hazardous waste. chlorine emissions by 660 tons per year. a beyond-the-floor standard based on G. What Is the Rationale for the 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor this control technique. Proposed Standards for Carbon For the reasons discussed above, we Standards for Existing Sources Monoxide or Hydrocarbons? propose a total chlorine standard for We identified two potential beyond- existing liquid fuel-fired boilers based To control emissions of organic HAP, the-floor techniques for control of total on the floor level: 2.5E–2 lbs total existing and new sources would be chlorine emissions: (1) Use of a wet chlorine emissions attributable to the required to comply with either a carbon scrubber; and (2) control of chlorine in hazardous waste per million Btu heat monoxide standard of 100 ppmv or a the hazardous waste feed. For reasons input from the hazardous waste. hydrocarbon standard of 10 ppmv. discussed below, we are not proposing 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT a beyond-the-floor standard for total 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT Floor for Existing Sources? chlorine. Floor for New Sources? a. Use of Wet Scrubbing. We The MACT floor for new sources for Liquid fuel-fired boilers that burn considered a beyond-the-floor standard total chlorine would be 7.2E–4 lbs total hazardous waste are currently subject to of 1.3E–2 lbs total chlorine emissions chlorine emissions attributable to the RCRA standards that require attributable to the hazardous waste per hazardous waste per million Btu heat compliance with either a carbon million Btu heat input from the input from the hazardous waste. This is monoxide standard of 100 ppmv, or a hazardous waste based on wet scrubbing an emission level that the single best hydrocarbon standard of 20 ppmv. to reduce emissions beyond the floor performing source identified with the Compliance is based on an hourly level by 50 percent. The national SRE/Feed Approach could be expected rolling average as measured with a incremental annualized compliance cost to achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when CEMS. See § 266.104(a). We are for liquid fuel-fired boilers to meet this operating under operating conditions proposing today floor standards of 100 beyond-the-floor level rather than identical to the compliance test ppmv for carbon monoxide or 10 ppmv comply with the floor controls would be conditions during which the emissions for hydrocarbons. approximately $7.8 million and would data were obtained. Floor control for existing sources is provide an incremental reduction in operating under good combustion total chlorine emissions beyond the 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor practices including: (1) Providing MACT floor controls of 430 tons per Standards for New Sources adequate excess air with use of oxygen year. We evaluated nonair quality health We evaluated wet scrubbing as CEMS and feedback air input control; and environmental impacts and energy beyond-the-floor control for further (2) providing adequate fuel/air mixing; effects and determined that this beyond- reductions in total chlorine emissions to (3) homogenizing hazardous waste fuels the-floor option would increase both the achieve a beyond-the-floor level of (such as by blending or size reduction) amount of hazardous wastewater 3.6E–4 lbs total chlorine emissions to control combustion upsets due to generated and water usage by attributable to the hazardous waste per very high or very low volatile content approximately 3.2 billion gallons per million Btu heat input from the wastes; (4) regulating waste and air year and would increase electricity hazardous waste. The incremental feedrates to ensure proper combustion usage by 30 million kW-hours per year. annualized compliance cost for a new temperature and residence time; (5) Considering these impacts and a cost- liquid fuel-fired boiler with an average characterizing waste prior to burning for effectiveness of approximately $18,000 gas flowrate to meet this beyond-the- combustion-related composition per additional ton of total chlorine floor level, rather than comply with the (including parameters such as heating removed, we are not proposing a floor level, would be approximately value, volatile content, liquid waste beyond-the-floor standard based on wet $0.44 million and would provide an viscosity, etc.); (6) ensuring the source scrubbing. incremental reduction in total chlorine is operated by qualified, experienced b. Feed Control of Chlorine in the emissions of approximately 0.13 tons operators; and (7) periodic inspection Hazardous Waste. We evaluated per year, for a cost-effectiveness of $3.3 and maintenance of combustion system additional feed control of chlorine in million per ton of total chlorine components such as burners, fuel and the hazardous waste as a beyond-the- removed. We evaluated nonair quality air supply lines, injection nozzles, etc. floor control technique to reduce floor health and environmental impacts and Given that there are many emission levels by 20% to achieve a energy effects and determined that, for interdependent parameters that affect standard of 2.0E–2 lbs total chlorine a new source with average an average combustion efficiency and thus carbon

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21292 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions, performing sources nor duplicable by RCRA DRE standards that require we are not able to quantify ‘‘good other sources given that we cannot 99.99% destruction of designated combustion practices.’’ quantify good combustion practices. principal organic hazardous All liquid fuel-fired boilers are Moreover, as discussed above, we constituents (POHCs). For sources that currently complying with the RCRA cannot ensure that lower carbon burn hazardous wastes F020, F021, carbon monoxide limit of 100 ppmv on monoxide or hydrocarbon levels would F022, F023, F026, or F027, however, the an hourly rolling average. No boilers are significantly reduce emissions of DRE standard is 99.9999% destruction complying with the RCRA hydrocarbon nondioxin/furan organic HAP. of designated POHCs. See § 266.104(a). limit of 20 ppmv on an hourly rolling Nonair quality health and The DRE standard helps ensure that a average. environmental impacts and energy combustor is operating under good We propose a floor level for carbon requirements are not significant factors combustion practices and thus monoxide level of 100 ppmv because it for use of better combustion practices as minimizing emissions of organic HAP. is a currently enforceable Federal beyond-the-floor control. Under the MACT compliance regime, standard. Although the best performing For these reasons, we conclude that sources would designate POHCs that are sources are achieving carbon monoxide beyond-the-floor standards for carbon organic HAP or that are surrogates for levels below 100 ppmv, it is not monoxide and hydrocarbons are not organic HAP. appropriate to establish a lower floor warranted for existing sources. We propose to establish the RCRA level because carbon monoxide is a DRE standard as the floor for existing surrogate for nondioxin/furan organic 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT sources because it is a currently HAP. As such, lowering the carbon Floor for New Sources? enforceable Federal standard. There monoxide floor may not significantly MACT floor for new sources would be would be no incremental costs or reduce organic HAP emissions. In the same as the floor for existing emission reductions associated with this addition, it would be inappropriate to sources—100 ppmv for carbon floor because sources are currently apply a MACT methodology to the monoxide and 10 ppmv for complying with the standard. carbon monoxide emissions from the hydrocarbons—and based on the same 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor best performing sources because those rationale. Standards for Existing Sources sources may not be able to replicate their emission levels. This is because 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor We considered a beyond-the-floor there are myriad factors that affect Standards for New Sources level for DRE based on use of better combustion efficiency and, As discussed in the context of combustion practices but conclude that subsequently, carbon monoxide beyond-the-floor considerations for it may not be replicable by the best emissions. Extremely low carbon existing sources, we considered beyond- performing sources nor duplicable by monoxide emissions cannot be assured the-floor standards for carbon monoxide other sources given that we cannot by controlling only one or two operating and hydrocarbons for new sources based quantify better combustion practices. parameters We note also that we used on use of better combustion practices. Moreover, we cannot ensure that a this rationale to establish a carbon But we conclude that beyond the floor higher DRE standard would monoxide standard of 100 ppmv for standards may not be replicable by the significantly reduce emissions of Phase I sources in the September 1999 best performing sources nor duplicable organic HAP given that DRE measures Final Rule. by other sources given that we cannot the destruction of organic HAP present We propose a floor level for quantify good combustion practices. in the boiler feed rather than gross hydrocarbons of 10 ppmv even though Moreover, we cannot ensure that lower emissions of organic HAP. Although a the currently enforceable standard is 20 carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon levels source’s combustion practices may be ppmv because: (1) The two sources that would significantly reduce emissions of adequate to destroy particular organic comply with the RCRA hydrocarbon nondioxin/furan organic HAP. HAP in the feed, other organic HAP that standard can readily achieve 10 ppmv; Nonair quality health and may be emitted as products of and (2) reducing hydrocarbon emissions environmental impacts and energy incomplete combustion may not be within the range of 20 ppmv to 10 ppmv requirements are not significant factors controlled by the DRE standard.157 should reduce emissions of nondioxin/ for use of better combustion practices as For these reasons, and after furan organic HAP. We do not apply a beyond-the-floor control. considering nonair quality health and prescriptive MACT methodology to For these reasons, we are not environmental impacts and energy establish a hydrocarbon floor below 10 proposing a beyond-the-floor standard requirements, we are not proposing a ppmv, however, because we have data for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. beyond-the-floor DRE standard for from only two sources. In addition, we existing sources. H. What Is the Rationale for the note that the hydrocarbon emission Proposed Standard for Destruction and 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT standard for Phase I sources established Removal Efficiency? Floor for New Sources? in the September 1999 Final Rule is 10 ppmv also. To control emissions of organic HAP, We propose to establish the RCRA There would be no incremental existing and new sources would be DRE standard as the floor for new emission reductions associated with required to comply with a destruction sources because it is a currently these floors because all sources are and removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% enforceable Federal standard. currently achieving the floor levels. for organic HAP. For sources burning 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor Standards for New Sources F023, F026, or F027, however, the DRE Standards for Existing Sources Using the same rationale as we used standard is 99.9999% for organic HAP. We considered beyond-the-floor to consider a beyond-the-floor DRE levels for carbon monoxide and 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT Floor for Existing Sources? 157 The carbon monoxide/hydrocarbon emission hydrocarbons based on use of better standard would control organic HAP that are combustion practices but conclude that Liquid fuel-fired boilers that burn products of incomplete combustion by also they may not be replicable by the best hazardous waste are currently subject to ensuring use of good combustion practices.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21293

standard for existing sources, we XII. How Did EPA Determine the furnaces that burn hazardous waste are conclude that a beyond-the-floor DRE Proposed Emission Standards for summarized in the table below. See standard for new sources is not Hazardous Waste Burning proposed § 63.1218. warranted. Consequently, after Hydrochloric Acid Production considering nonair quality health and Furnaces? environmental impacts and energy requirements, we are proposing the floor The proposed standards for existing DRE standard for new sources. and new hydrochloric acid production

PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AND NEW HYDROCHLORIC ACID PRODUCTION FURNACES

Emission standard1 Hazardous air pollutant or surrogate Existing sources New sources

Dioxin and furan ...... 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm ...... 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm. Hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas 2 ...... 14 ppmv or 99.9927% System Removal Effi- 1.2 ppmv or 99.99937% System Removal Ef- ciency. ficiency. Carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons 3 ...... 100 ppmv carbon monoxide or 10 ppmv hy- 100 ppmv carbon monoxide or 10 ppmv hy- drocarbons. drocarbons. Destruction and Removal Efficiency ...... For existing and new sources, 99.99% for each principal organic hazardous constituent (POHC). For sources burning hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027, how- ever, 99.9999% for each POHC. 1 All emission standards are corrected to 7% oxygen, dry basis. 2 Combined standard, reported as a chloride (Cl(¥)) equivalent. 3 Hourly rolling average. Hydrocarbons reported as propane.

A. What Is the Rationale for the be the case for incinerators equipped furan formation. Because we cannot Proposed Standards for Dioxin and with boilers. See 62 FR at 24220 (May quantify a dioxin/furan floor level and Furan? 2, 1997) where we explain that heat because hydrochloric acid production The proposed standard for dioxin/ recovery boilers preclude rapid furnaces are currently required to furan for existing and new sources is temperature quench of combustion operate under good combustion 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm. gases, thus allowing particle-catalyzed practices by RCRA standards for carbon formation of dioxin/furan. The dioxin/ monoxide/hydrocarbons and 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT furan data for hydrochloric acid destruction and removal efficiency, we Floor for Existing Sources? production furnaces indicate, however, identify those RCRA standards as the The proposed MACT floor for existing that furnaces with boilers have dioxin/ proposed MACT floor. See § 266.104 sources is compliance with the furan emissions ranging from 0.05 to 6.8 requiring compliance with destruction proposed CO/HC emission standard and ng TEQ/dscm, while furnaces without and removal efficiency and carbon compliance with the proposed DRE boilers have dioxin/furan emissions monoxide/hydrocarbon emission standard. ranging from 0.02 to 1.7 ng TEQ/dscm. standards.158 We also find, as required Hydrochloric acid production Based on a statistical analysis of the by CAA section 112(h)(1), that these furnaces use wet scrubbers to remove data sets (see discussion in Part Two, proposed standards are consistent with hydrochloric acid from combustion Section II.E), we conclude that the section 112(d)’s objective of reducing gases to produce the hydrochloric acid dioxin/furan emissions for furnaces emissions of these HAP to the extent product and to minimize residual equipped with boilers are not achievable. emissions of hydrochloric acid and significantly different from dioxin/furan We also request comment on an chlorine gas. Thus, dioxin/furan cannot emissions for furnaces without boilers. alternative MACT floor expressed as a be formed on particulate surfaces in the Thus, we conclude that separate dioxin/ dioxin/furan emission concentration. emission control device as can happen furan emission standards are not Although it would be inappropriate to with electrostatic precipitators and warranted. identify a floor concentration based on fabric filters. Nonetheless, dioxin/furan We cannot identify or quantify a the average emissions of the best emissions from hydrochloric acid dioxin/furan control mechanism for performing sources as discussed above, production furnaces can be very high. these furnaces. Consequently, we we could identify the floor as the We have dioxin/furan emissions data for conclude that establishing a floor highest emission concentration from 18 test conditions representing 14 of the emission level based on emissions from any source in our data base, after 17 sources. Dioxin/furan emissions the best performing sources would not considering emissions variability. Under range from 0.02 ng TEQ/dscm to 6.8 ng be appropriate because the best this approach, the highest emitting TEQ/dscm. performing sources may not be able to source could be expected to achieve the We investigated whether it would be replicate their emission levels, and floor 99 out of 100 future tests when appropriate to establish separate dioxin/ other sources may not be able to furan standards for furnaces equipped duplicate those emission levels. 158 Section 266.104 requires compliance with a carbon monoxide limit of 100 ppmv or a with waste heat recovery boilers versus We note, however, that dioxin/furan hydrocarbon limit of 20 ppmv, while we are those without boilers. Ten of the 17 emissions can be affected by the proposing today a carbon monoxide limit of 100 hydrochloric acid production furnaces furnace’s combustion efficiency. ppmv or a hydrocarbon limit of 10 ppmv (see are equipped with boilers. We Operating under poor combustion Section XII.H in the text). Although today’s proposed hydrocarbon limit is more stringent than considered whether waste heat recovery conditions can generate dioxin/furan the current limit for hydrochloric acid production boilers may be causing the elevated and organic precursors that may furnaces, all sources chose to comply with the 100 dioxin/furan emissions, as appeared to contribute to post-combustion dioxin/ ppmv carbon monoxide limit.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21294 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

operating under the same conditions as ng TEQ/dscm is consistent with 0.68 ng TEQ/dscm 161 to achieve a it did when the emissions data were historically controlled levels under beyond-the-floor emission level of 0.40 obtained. A floor that is expressed as a MACT for hazardous waste incinerators ng TEQ/dscm would be $0.15 million. dioxin/furan emission level would and cement kilns, and Portland cement These controls would provide an prevent sources from emitting at levels plants. See §§ 63.1203(a)(1), incremental reduction in dioxin/furan higher than the (currently) worst-case 63.1204(a)(1), and 63.1343(d)(3). Also, emissions of 0.66 grams TEQ per year, source (actually, the worst-case EPA has determined previously in the for a cost-effectiveness of $230,000 per performance test result) currently emits. 1999 Hazardous Waste Combustor gram TEQ removed. We evaluated We specifically request comment on this MACT final rule that dioxin/furan in the nonair quality health and environmental alternative MACT floor. range of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm or less are impacts and energy effects and necessary for the MACT standards to be determined that, for a new source with 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor considered generally protective of an average gas flowrate, this beyond-the- Standards for Existing Sources human health under RCRA (using the floor option would increase the amount We evaluated use of an activated 1985 cancer slope factor), thereby of hazardous wastewater generated by 9 carbon bed (preceded by gas reheating eliminating the need for separate RCRA tons per year, and would increase to above the dewpoint) as beyond-the- standards under the authority of RCRA electricity usage by 0.14 million kW- floor control for dioxin/furan. Carbon section 3005(c)(3) and 40 CFR 270.10(k). hours per year and natural gas beds can achieve greater than 99% Finally, we note that this decision is not consumption by 9.2 trillion Btu per reduction in dioxin/furan emissions.159 inconsistent with EPA’s decision not to year. We considered alternative beyond-the- promulgate beyond-the-floor standards We judge that the cost to achieve a floor levels of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm and for dioxin/furan for hazardous waste beyond-the-floor standard of 0.40 ng 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm. burning lightweight aggregate kilns, TEQ/dscm is warranted given our The incremental annualized cost of a cement kilns, and incinerators at cost- special concern about dioxin/furan. beyond-the-floor emission level of 0.40 effectiveness values in the range of Dioxin/furan are some of the most toxic ng TEQ/dscm would be $1.9 million $530,000 to $827,000 per additional compounds known due to their and would provide an incremental gram of dioxin/furan TEQ removed. See bioaccumulation potential and wide reduction in dioxin/furan emissions of 64 FR at 52892, 52876, and 52961. In range of health effects, including 2.3 grams TEQ per year, for a cost- those cases, EPA determined that carcinogenesis, at exceedingly low effectiveness of $0.83 million per gram controlling dioxin/furan emissions from doses. Exposure via indirect pathways is TEQ removed.160 A beyond-the-floor a level of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm to a a chief reason that Congress singled our emission level of 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm beyond-the-floor level of 0.20 ng TEQ/ dioxin/furan for priority MACT control would provide very little incremental dscm was not warranted because in CAA section 112(c)(6). See S. Rep. emissions reduction—0.1 grams TEQ dioxin/furan levels below 0.40 ng TEQ/ No. 128, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. at 154– per year—at additional costs. We dscm are generally considered to be 155. In addition, we note that the evaluated nonair quality health and below the level of health risk concern. beyond-the-floor standard of 0.40 ng environmental impacts and energy For these reasons, we believe that TEQ/dscm is consistent with effects and determined that this beyond- proposing a beyond-the-floor standard historically controlled levels under the-floor option would increase the of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm is warranted MACT for hazardous waste incinerators amount of hazardous wastewater notwithstanding the nonair quality and cement kilns, and Portland cement generated by 210 tons per year, and health and environmental impacts and plants. See §§ 63.1203(a)(1), would increase electricity usage by 1.8 energy effects identified above and costs 63.1204(a)(1), and 63.1343(d)(3). Also, million kW-hours per year and natural of approximately $0.83 million per EPA has determined previously in the gas consumption by 96 trillion Btu per additional gram of dioxin/furan TEQ 1999 Hazardous Waste Combustor year. removed. We specifically request MACT final rule that dioxin/furan in the We judge that the cost to achieve a comment on our decision to propose range of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm or less are beyond-the-floor standard of 0.40 ng this beyond-the-floor standard. necessary for the MACT standards to be TEQ/dscm is warranted given our considered generally protective of special concern about dioxin/furan. 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT human health under RCRA (using the Dioxin/furan are some of the most toxic Floor for New Sources? 1985 cancer slope factor), thereby compounds known due to their MACT floor for new sources is the eliminating the need for separate RCRA bioaccumulation potential and wide same as for existing sources under the standards under the authority of RCRA range of health effects, including same rationale: compliance with the section 3005(c)(3) and 40 CFR 270.10(k). carcinogenesis, at exceedingly low carbon monoxide/hydrocarbon emission For these reasons, we believe that doses. Exposure via indirect pathways is standard and compliance with the proposing a beyond-the-floor standard a chief reason that Congress singled out destruction and removal efficiency of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm is warranted dioxin/furan for priority MACT control standard. notwithstanding the nonair quality in CAA section 112(c)(6). See S. Rep. health and environmental impacts and 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor No. 128, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. at 154– energy effects identified above and costs Standards for New Sources 155. In addition, we note that the of approximately $0.23 million per beyond-the-floor emission level of 0.40 As for existing sources, we evaluated additional gram of dioxin/furan TEQ use of an activated carbon bed as removed. We specifically request 159 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document beyond-the-floor control for new comment on our decision to propose for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume V: Emissions Estimates and Engineering Costs,’’ March sources to achieve an emission level of this beyond-the-floor standard. 2004, Chapter 4. 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm. We estimate that the 160 Please note that, under the proposed floor incremental annualized cost for a new 161 We estimate beyond-the-floor control costs level, sources would not incur retrofit costs or hydrochloric acid production furnace assuming a new source emits the highest levels achieve dioxin/furan emissions reductions because likely under floor control based on compliance with they currently comply with the floor controls under with average gas flowrate to reduce the carbon monoxide and destruction and removal current RCRA regulations at 40 CFR 266.104. dioxin/furan emissions at the floor of efficiency standards.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21295

B. What Is the Rationale for the propose to use the total chlorine levels no greater than the level that Proposed Standards for Mercury, standard as a surrogate for the mercury, would be emitted by any source Semivolatile Metals, and Low Volatile semivolatile metals, and low volatile achieving floor SRE. Metals? metals standards. The floor SRE is 99.9927 percent. It is calculated from the five best SREs, and We propose to require compliance C. What Is the Rationale for the considers emissions variability. Floor with the total chlorine standard as a Proposed Standards for Total Chlorine? SRE is an SRE that the average of the surrogate for the mercury, semivolatile The proposed standards for total performing sources could be expected to metals, and low volatile metals chlorine are 14 ppmv or 99.9927 percent achieve in 99 of 100 future tests when standards. total chlorine system removal efficiency operating under conditions identical to As discussed above, hydrochloric acid (SRE) for existing sources and 1.2 ppmv the compliance test conditions during production furnaces use wet scrubbers or 99.99937 percent total chlorine SRE which the emissions data were to remove hydrochloric acid from for new sources. A source may elect to obtained. We estimate that this SRE is combustion gases to produce the comply with either standard. being achieved by 29% of sources. hydrochloric acid product and to The alternative floor emission limit is minimize residual emissions of 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT Floor for Existing Sources? 14 ppmv, and is the emission level that hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas. Wet the source with the highest chlorine scrubbers also remove metal HAP, The proposed MACT floor for existing feedrate—2.9E+8 µg/dscm—would including mercury, from combustion sources is compliance with either a total achieve when achieving 99.9927 percent gases. To minimize contamination of chlorine emission level of 14 ppmv or SRE. hydrochloric acid product with metals, a total chlorine SRE of 99.9927 percent. Approximately 24% of sources are hydrochloric acid production furnaces Hydrochloric acid production achieving the alternative floor levels, generally feed hazardous waste with furnaces use wet scrubbers to remove and these floor levels would reduce low levels of metal HAP. Moreover, the hydrochloric acid from combustion total chlorine emissions by 145 tons per wet scrubbers used to recover the gases to produce the hydrochloric acid year. hydrochloric acid product and product and to minimize residual minimize residual emissions of emissions of hydrochloric acid and 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas also chlorine gas. We have compliance test, Standards for Existing Sources control emissions of metal HAP to very maximum allowable total chlorine We evaluated improved design, low levels. Based on emissions testing emissions data for all 17 hydrochloric operation, and maintenance of existing within the range of normal emissions acid production furnaces. Total chlorine scrubbers to achieve a beyond-the-floor (i.e., not compliance test, maximum emissions range from 0.4 to 500 ppmv, emission level of 7 ppmv for total allowed emissions), hydrochloric acid and total chlorine system removal chlorine for existing sources, assuming production furnaces emit mercury at efficiencies (SRE) range from 98.967 to a 50% reduction in emissions from the levels from 0.1 to 0.4 µg/dscm, 99.9995 percent. floor level. semivolatile metals at levels from 0.1 to As discussed in Section VI.C above, The national annualized compliance 4.1 µg/dscm, and low volatile metals at control of the feedrate of chlorine in cost for hydrochloric acid production levels from 0.1 to 43 µg/dscm.162, 163 hazardous waste fed to the furnace is furnaces to comply with this beyond- We also note that these sources emit not an appropriate MACT emission the-floor standard would be $0.25 low levels of particulate matter. control technique because hydrochloric million, and emissions of total chlorine Compliance test, maximum allowable acid production furnaces are designed would be reduced by 3 tons per year. emissions of particulate matter range to produce hydrochloric acid from The cost-effectiveness of this beyond- from 0.001 to 0.013 gr/dscf. chlorinated feedstocks. Consequently, the-floor standard would be $76,000 per Because wet scrubbers designed to the approaches we normally use to ton of total chlorine removed. recover the hydrochloric acid product identify the best performing sources— We evaluated nonair quality health and control residual emissions of SRE/Feed Approach or Emissions and environmental impacts and energy hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas also Approach—are not appropriate because effects and determined that this beyond- control emissions of mercury, and they directly or indirectly consider the-floor option would increase both the semivolatile and low volatile metals chlorine feedrate. More simply, limiting amount of hazardous wastewater (including nonenumerated metals), use feedrate means not producing the generated and water usage by of MACT wet scrubbers to comply with intended product, a result inconsistent approximately 82 million gallons per the proposed total chlorine standard with MACT. See 2 Legislative History at year and would increase electricity discussed below will also ensure MACT 3352 (House Report) (‘‘MACT is not usage by 0.34 million kW-hours per control of metal HAP. Accordingly, we intended to * * * drive sources to the year. Generation of nonwastewater brink of shutdown’’). To avoid this hazardous waste would decrease by 7 162 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document concern, we identify a floor SRE, and tons per year. Considering these impacts for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume provide an alternative floor as a total and cost-effectiveness as well, we III: Selection of MACT Standards,’’ March 2004, chlorine emission limit based on floor Chapter 2. conclude that a beyond-the-floor 163 Except that one source emitted 330 µg/dscm SRE and the highest chlorine feedrate standard for existing sources would not low volatile metals and 0.043 gr/dscf particulate for any source in the data base. By using be warranted. matter during compliance testing. This source the highest chlorine feedrate to calculate For these reasons, we propose a floor apparently detuned the acid gas absorber and other the alternative total chlorine emission total chlorine standard of 14 ppmv or acid gas control equipment given that it achieved less than 99% system removal efficiency for total limit, we ensure that feedrate control 99.9927% SRE for existing sources. chlorine and had total chlorine emissions of 500 (i.e., nonproduction of product) is not a ppmv. This source would not be allowed to operate factor in identifying the proposed 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT under these conditions under today’s proposed MACT floor. The alternative total Floor for New Sources? rule: 14 ppmv total chlorine emission limit, or 99.9927 system removal efficiency. Thus, under the chlorine emission limit would require a The proposed MACT floor for new proposed rule, emissions of low volatile metals and source that may not be achieving floor sources is compliance with either a total particulate matter would be substantially lower. SRE to achieve total chlorine emission chlorine emission level of 1.2 ppmv or

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21296 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

a total chlorine SRE of 99.99937 that require compliance with either a 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT percent. We use the same rationale for carbon monoxide standard of 100 ppmv, Floor for Existing Sources? identifying alternative floors for new or a hydrocarbon standard of 20 ppmv. Hydrochloric acid production sources as discussed above in the Compliance is based on an hourly furnaces that burn hazardous waste are context of existing sources. rolling average as measured with a currently subject to RCRA DRE The new source floor SRE is the SRE CEMS. See § 266.104(a). All standards that require 99.99% that the single best performing source hydrochloric acid production furnaces destruction of designated principal (i.e, source with the best SRE) could be have elected to comply with the 100 organic hazardous constituents expected to achieve in 99 of 100 future ppmv carbon monoxide standard. We (POHCs). For sources that burn tests when operating under conditions propose floor standards of 100 ppmv for hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, identical to the compliance test carbon monoxide or 10 ppmv for F023, F026, or F027, however, the DRE conditions during which the emissions hydrocarbons for the same reasons standard is 99.9999% destruction of data were obtained. The new source discussed above in the context of liquid designated POHCs. See § 266.104(a). floor alternative emission limit is an fuel-fired boilers. The DRE standard helps ensure that a emission level that the source with the There would be no incremental combustor is operating under good highest chlorine feedrate—2.9E+8 µg/ emission reductions associated with combustion practices and thus dscm—would achieve when achieving these floors because sources are minimizing emissions of organic HAP. 99.99937 percent SRE. currently achieving the carbon Under the MACT compliance regime, 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor monoxide standard. sources would designate POHCs that are Standards for New Sources organic HAPs or that are surrogates for 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor organic HAPs. We evaluated a beyond-the-floor Standards for Existing Sources We propose to establish the RCRA standard for new sources of 0.60 ppmv Our considerations for beyond-the- DRE standard as the floor for existing based on achieving a 50 percent floor standards for existing hydrochloric sources because it is a currently reduction in emissions by improving the acid production furnaces are identical to enforceable Federal standard. There design/operation/maintenance of the those discussed above for existing liquid would be no incremental emission wet scrubber. The incremental fuel-fired boilers. For the reasons reductions associated with this floor annualized cost for a new solid fuel- discussed above in the context of liquid because sources are currently complying fired boiler with average gas flowrate to fuel-fired boilers, we conclude that with the standard. meet a beyond-the-floor level of 0.60 beyond-the-floor standards for carbon ppmv would be approximately $0.15 2. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor monoxide and hydrocarbons for existing Standards for Existing Sources million and would provide an hydrochloric acid production furnaces incremental reduction in total chlorine are not warranted. We considered a beyond-the-floor emissions of 0.07 tons per year, for a level for DRE based on use of better cost-effectiveness of $2.1 million per ton 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT combustion practices but conclude that of total chlorine removed. Floor for New Sources? it may not be replicable by the best We evaluated nonair quality health performing sources nor duplicable by MACT floor for new sources would be and environmental impacts and energy other sources given that we cannot the same as the floor for existing effects and determined that, for a new quantify better combustion practices. sources—100 ppmv for carbon source with average gas flowrate, this Moreover, we cannot ensure that a monoxide and 10 ppmv for beyond-the-floor option would increase higher DRE standard would hydrocarbons—and based on the same both the amount of hazardous significantly reduce emissions of rationale. wastewater generated and water usage organic HAP given that DRE measures by approximately 26 million gallons per 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor the destruction of organic HAP present year and would increase electricity Standards for New Sources in the boiler feed rather than gross usage by 0.25 million kW-hours per emissions of organic HAP. Although a Our considerations for beyond-the- year. Considering these impacts and source’s combustion practices may be floor standards for new hydrochloric cost-effectiveness as well, we conclude adequate to destroy particular organic acid production furnaces are identical to that a beyond-the-floor standard for new HAP in the feed, other organic HAP may those discussed above for new liquid sources would not be warranted. be emitted as products of incomplete fuel-fired boilers. For the reasons For the reasons discussed above, we combustion. propose a total chlorine standard of 1.2 discussed above in the context of liquid For these reasons, and after ppmv or a total chlorine SRE of fuel-fired boilers, we conclude that considering nonair quality health and 99.99937 percent for new sources. beyond-the-floor standards for carbon environmental impacts and energy monoxide and hydrocarbons for new requirements, we are not proposing a D. What Is the Rationale for the hydrochloric acid production furnaces beyond-the-floor DRE standard for Proposed Standards for Carbon are not warranted. existing sources. Monoxide or Hydrocarbons? E. What Is the Rationale for the To control emissions of organic HAP, 3. What Is the Rationale for the MACT Proposed Standard for Destruction and Floor for New Sources? existing and new sources would be Removal Efficiency? required to comply with either a carbon We propose to establish the RCRA monoxide standard of 100 ppmv or a To control emissions of organic HAP, DRE standard as the floor for new hydrocarbon standard of 10 ppmv. existing and new sources would be sources because it is a currently required to comply with a destruction enforceable Federal standard. 1. What Is the Rationale for the MACT and removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% Floor for Existing Sources? for organic HAP. For sources burning 4. EPA’s Evaluation of Beyond-the-Floor Hydrochloric acid production hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, Standards for New Sources furnaces that burn hazardous waste are F023, F026, or F027, however, the DRE Using the same rationale as we used currently subject to RCRA standards standard is 99.9999% for organic HAP. to consider a beyond-the-floor DRE

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21297

standard for existing sources, we establishing risk-based standards for today is nearly identical to the approach conclude that a beyond-the-floor DRE total chlorine because the MACT EPA recently adopted for the Industrial standard for new sources is not standards proposed today are more Boiler and Process Heater MACT source warranted. Consequently, after stringent, and in some cases category, which allows a source to considering nonair quality health and substantially more stringent, than establish a site-specific risk-based environmental impacts and energy currently applicable standards (e.g., the emission limit for threshold HAP using requirements, we are proposing the floor total chlorine standard for incinerators prescribed procedures. This approach DRE standard for new sources. is currently 77 ppmv while we propose differs from the previous MACT rules where EPA simply determined, on a XIII. What Is the Rationale for today a MACT standard of 1.4 ppmv). national basis, what level of exposure Proposing an Alternative Risk-Based A. What Is the Legal Authority To from each source in the category would Standard for Total Chlorine in Lieu of Establish Risk-Based Standards? be protective of public health with an the MACT Standard? Under the authority of section ample margin of safety, and did not Under authority of CAA section 112(d)(4), the Administrator may pose significant adverse environmental 112(d)(4), we propose standard establish emission standards based on impacts. This previous approach procedures to allow you to establish a risk, in lieu of the technology-based resulted in a determination that no risk-based emission limit for total MACT standards, when regulating HAP standard was necessary because no chlorine in lieu of compliance with the for which health threshold levels have source in the category could exceed section 112(d)(2) MACT emission been established. Under section such a risk-based standard. Today’s standard. See proposed § 63.1215. The 112(d)(4), Congress gave EPA the proposal varies in that the level of risk-based approach would be discretion to consider the health protection afforded by the standard is applicable to all hazardous waste threshold of any HAP and to use that uniform, but the limits for individual combustors except hydrochloric acid health threshold, with an ample margin sources differ due to site-specific production furnaces. Because we are of safety, to set emission standards for factors. As explained later in this proposing to use the MACT standard for the source category or subcategory. In section of the preamble, EPA is, total chlorine as a surrogate to control the legislative history accompanying however, also considering for cement metal HAP for the hydrogen chloride this provision, the Senate Report stated, kilns applying the single national production furnace source category, we ‘‘To avoid expenditures by regulated standard approach adopted in earlier cannot allow any variance from the entities that secure no public health or rules. standard. For the other hazardous waste environmental benefit, the Administrator is B. What Is the Rationale for the National combustor source categories, we are given discretionary authority to consider the proposing the section 112(d)(4) standard evidence for a health threshold higher than Exposure Standards? as an alternative to the MACT standard. MACT at the time the standard is under We identify as national exposure Sources could choose which of these review. The Administrator is not required to standards threshold levels that are two standards they would prefer to take such factors into account; that would protective of human health from both apply. jeopardize the standard-setting schedule chronic and acute exposure. In addition, The alternative risk-based emission imposed under this section with the kind of lengthy study and debate that has crippled because EPA has discretion whether or limit for total chlorine would be based the current program. But where health not to promulgate risk-based standards on national exposure standards thresholds are well established, for instance pursuant to section 112(d)(4), we would established by EPA that ensure in the case of ammonia, and the pollutant not allow an alternative standard where protection of public health with an presents no risk of other adverse health emission levels may result in adverse ample margin of safety. The standard effects, the Administrator may use the environmental effects that would would consist of a nationally- threshold with an ample margin of safety otherwise be reduced or eliminated. We applicable, uniform algorithm that (and not considering cost) to set emissions would not issue the alternative standard limitations for sources in the category or would be used to establish site-specific subcategory.’’ (S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. even though it may be shown that emission limitations based on site- 1st Sess. at 171 (1989); see also id. at 175– emissions do not approach or exceed specific input from each source 176 (1989).) levels requisite to protect public health choosing to use this approach. Thus, with an ample margin of safety because EPA has previously used section these standards would provide a we believe the statute requires that we 112(d)(4) authority in the Industrial uniform level of risk reduction, consider effects on terrestrial animals, Boiler and Process Heater MACT Final consistent with the requirement of plants, and aquatic ecosystems in Rule signed Feb. 26, 2004, the Pulp and section 112(d)(4) that EPA establish addition to public health in establishing Paper MACT Phase II (66 FR 3180, ‘‘emission standards’’, i.e., a requirement a standard pursuant to section 112(d)(4). January 12, 2001) and the Lime established by EPA which limits See S. Rep. 228 at 176: ‘‘Employing a Manufacturing MACT (69 FR 394, quantity, rate or concentration of air health threshold or safety level rather January 5, 2004), and has proposed to emissions (see CAA section 302(k)). than the MACT criteria to set standards use it in a different manner in several We also request comment on an shall not result in adverse other MACT rulemakings (e.g., the alternative approach to implement environmental effects which would Reciprocating Internal Combustion section 112(d)(4) for cement kilns in otherwise be reduced or eliminated.’’ Engine MACT (67 FR 77830, December which we establish a national risk-based 164 emission standard for total chlorine that 19, 2002). The approach we propose 1. What Are the Human Health would be applicable to all cement kilns. Threshold Levels? 164 The Agency also proposed to use Section Under this approach, EPA would issue 112(d)(4) authority in two other MACT a. Chronic Exposure. Hydrogen a single total chlorine emission standard rulemakings—the Combustion Turbine MACT (68 chloride is corrosive to the eyes, skin, using an emission level that meets our FR 1888, January 14, 2003), and the Chlorine and mucous membranes. Chronic national exposure standards if each Production MACT (67 FR 44671)—but determined exposure may cause gastritis, bronchitis, that MACT standards for those source categories are cement kiln were to emit at that level. not warranted and delisted the source categories dermatitis, and dental discoloration and We believe that most hazardous waste from the section 112(c) list of major sources erosion. Chronic exposure to chlorine combustors are likely to consider pursuant to the authority in section 112(c)(9). gas can cause respiratory effects

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21298 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

including eye and throat irritation and photolysis depends on the particular 3).168 To be protective of public health, airflow obstruction. See discussion in wavelength and intensity of solar we propose to use the AEGL–1 values to Part One, Section I.E of this preamble. radiation reaching the earth’s surface assess acute exposure: 2.7 mg/m3 (1.8 Given that neither hydrogen chloride which varies greatly depending on the ppm) for hydrogen chloride, and 1.4 nor chlorine gas is known to produce a solar angle which changes with the time mg/m3 (0.5 ppm) for chlorine gas.169 carcinogenic response,165 we use of day, the season of the year, and the Airborne concentrations of a substance reference air concentrations (RfC) to latitude at a given location. While the above the AEGL–1 could cause notable assess the likelihood of non-cancer ideal approach would be explicit discomfort, irritation, or certain health effects in humans. The RfC is an modeling of photolysis rates as a asymptomatic nonsensory effects in the estimate of a continuous inhalation function of solar insolation, sky general population, including exposure to the human population, conditions, absorption cross-section, susceptible individuals. Please note, including sensitive subgroups, that is quantum yield, and subsequent however, that airborne concentrations likely to be without an appreciable risk transformation to hydrogen chloride, to below the AEGL–1 could produce mild of deleterious effects over a lifetime. We our knowledge no such regulatory air odor, taste, or other sensory irritations. use an RfC for hydrogen chloride of 20 dispersion model currently exists. Effects above the AEGL–1 (but below µg/m3, as presented in EPA’s Integrated the AEGL–2) are not disabling and are Because it is reasonable to believe that Risk Information System (IRIS). We transient and reversible upon cessation receptors will be exposed to chlorine propose to use an RfC for chlorine gas of exposure. of 0.2 µg/m3 based on a provisional gas before appreciable transformation assessment prepared by EPA on occurs due to the variability and 2. What Exposures Would You Be inhalation hazards from chlorine.166 complexity of the transformation and Required to Assess? This is the same as the value for the fact that chlorine gas is considerably We discuss below the following chlorine used by the State of California’s more toxic than hydrogen chloride, we issues: (1) Use of the Hazard Index to Office of Environmental Health Hazard conclude that, for the purpose of assess exposure to both hydrogen Assessment, which they refer to as a protection of public health, it is prudent chloride and chlorine gas; (2) exposure chronic ‘‘Reference Exposure Level’’ to assume that chlorine gas is not to emissions of respiratory irritant HAP (REL). Because RfCs can change over transformed to hydrogen chloride. other than hydrogen chloride and time based on new information, the rule b. Acute Threshold Levels. Short-term chlorine gas; (3) exposure to emissions would require you to use the current exposure to hydrogen chloride may of respiratory irritant HAP from RfC value found at http://epa.gov/ttn/ cause eye, nose, and respiratory tract collocated sources; (4) exposure to atw/toxsource/summary.html. irritation and inflamation and ambient background levels of We considered how to account for the pulmonary edema. Short-term exposure respiratory irritant HAP; and (5) our fact that chlorine gas photolyzes in the to high levels of chlorine gas can result conclusion that acute exposure need not atmosphere in bright sunlight to in chest pain, vomiting, toxic be assessed to establish emission limits chlorine ions and then quickly reacts pneumonitis, and pulmonary edema. At because the Hazard Index for chronic with hydrogen or methane to form lower levels, chlorine gas is a potent exposure is expected to be higher in all hydrogen chloride. The half-life of irritant to the eyes, the upper respiratory situations. chlorine due to photolysis in bright tract, and lungs. See Part One, Section a. Hazard Index. Noncancer risk sunlight is estimated to be 10 I.E. Please note that, although we assessments typically use a metric minutes.167 Nonetheless, this is discuss here how we would consider called the Hazard Quotient (HQ) to generally sufficient time for the plume acute exposure, we conclude below that assess risks of exposures to to reach nearby ground-level receptors you need not assess acute exposure to noncarcinogens. The HQ is the ratio of without significant transformation. In establish an emission limit for total a receptor’s potential exposure (or addition, such transformation is chlorine. See discussion in Section modeled concentration) to the health possible only a portion of the time. B.2.e. reference value or threshold level (e.g., RfC or AEGL) for an individual Photolysis does not occur at night and To assess effects from acute exposure, is reduced on overcast or cloudy days. pollutant. HQ values less than 1.0 we would use the acute exposure indicate that exposures are below the Generally speaking, the rate of guideline level (AEGL). AEGL toxicity values are estimates of adverse health 168 The full definitions of the AEGL values are 165 EPA conducted an assessment of the more nuanced. AEGL 1: The airborne concentration carcinogenicity of chlorine gas and concluded that effects due to a single exposure lasting of a substance above which it is predicted that the it is not likely to be a human carcinogen (see EPA’s 8 hours or less. Consensus toxicity general population, including susceptible June 22, 1999 Risk Assessment Issue Paper for values for effects of acute exposures individuals, could experience notable discomfort, Derivation of a Provisional Chronic Inhalation RfC have been developed by several irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory for Chlorine, p.12). The International Agency for effects. However, the effects are not disabling and Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that different organizations. EPA, in conjunction with the National Research are transient and reversible upon cessation of hydrochloric acid is not classifiable as to its exposure. AEGL 2: The airborne concentration of a carcinogenicity to humans (see IARC Monographs, Council and National Academy of substance above which it is predicted that the Vol. 54: Occupational Exposures to Mists and Sciences, is in the process of setting general population, including susceptible Vapours from Strong Inorganic Acids; and Other acute exposure guideline levels. A individuals, could experience irreversible or other Industrial Chemicals (1992) p.189). serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an 166 national advisory committee organized See EPA’s externally peer-reviewed ‘‘Risk impaired ability to escape. AEGL 3: The airborne Assessment Issue Paper for Derivation of a by EPA has developed AEGLs for concentration of a substance above which it is Provisional Chronic Inhalation RfC for Chlorine’’ priority chemicals for 10-minute, 30- predicted that the general population, including (June 22, 1999) that can be found in the docket for minute, 1-hour, 4-hour, and 8-hour susceptible individuals, could experience life- today’s proposal. airborne exposures. They have also threatening health effects or death. 167 As determined by a modeling analysis done by 169 For hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas the Air Pollution Research Center at the University determined for each exposure duration (individually), the AEGL–1 values for 10-minute, of California at Riverside, as reported in a California the levels of these chemicals that will 30-minute, 1-hour, and 8-hour exposures are the Air Resources Board fact sheet, ‘‘Toxic Air protect against notable discomfort same. Therefore, when comparing predicted Contaminant Identification List Summaries—ARB/ (AEGL–1), serious effects (AEGL–2), and ambient levels of exposure to the AEGL–1 value, we SSD/SES,’’ p. 231, September 1997. See also http:/ believe it is reasonable to evaluate maximum 1-hour /www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/tac/factshts/chlorine.pdf. life-threatening effects or death (AEGL– ground level concentrations.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21299

health reference value or threshold level Hexachlorocyclopentadiene emissions from the hazardous waste and, therefore, that such exposures are Hexamethylene 1,6-diisocyanate combustor of hydrogen chloride and without appreciable risk of adverse Hydrochloric acid chlorine gas only; you would not be effects in the exposed population. HQ Maleic anhydride required to account for these other values above 1 do not necessarily imply Methyl bromide respiratory irritant HAP because they that adverse effects will occur, but that Methyl isocyanate would not contribute substantially to the likelihood of such effects in a given Methyl methacrylate the Hazard Index. population increases as HQ values Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate c. Exposure to Emissions of exceed 1.0.170 N-hexane Respiratory Irritant HAP from When the risk of noncancer effects Naphthalene Collocated Sources. You would be from exposure to more than one Nickel required to account for exposure to Nitrobenzene pollutant to the same target organ must emissions of hydrogen chloride and Phosgene be assessed, the effects are generally chlorine gas from all on-site hazardous Phthalic anhydride waste combustors subject to subpart considered to be additive and the HQ Propylene dichloride values for each pollutant are summed to EEE, part 63. EPA will address exposure Propylene oxide to emissions of respiratory irritant HAP form an analogous metric called the Styrene oxide from other sources that may be Hazard Index (HI). Assuming additivity, Titanium tetrachloride collocated with a hazardous waste HI values less than 1.0 indicate that Toluene exposures to the mixtures are likely to Triethylamine combustor—for example, process vents be without appreciable risk of adverse Vinyl acetate and fossil fuel boilers—under the effects in the exposed population. HI residual risk requirements of section In making this determination, we 112(f) for both hazardous waste values above 1.0 do not necessarily would consider only those respiratory imply that adverse effects from exposure combustors and (potentially) other irritants that are HAP (as opposed to MACT source categories. See A to the mixture will occur, but that the also considering respiratory irritants likelihood of such effects in a given Legislative History of the Clean Air Act that are criteria pollutants) not only Amendments of 1990 (Senate Print 103– population increases as HI values because section 112 deals with control exceed 1.0. 38, 103d Cong. 1st sess.) vol. 1 at 868– of emissions of HAP, but also because 69 (floor statement of Sen. Durenberger For purposes of establishing risk- ambient levels of criteria pollutants that based emission limits for total chlorine, (Senate floor manager for section 112) have a common mechanism of action during debate on the Conference Report, we propose to allow a maximum HI with hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas value of not greater than 1.0. indicating that EPA is obligated to (e.g., SOX, NOX, PM, ozone) are consider ‘‘combined risks of all sources b. Exposure to Emissions of HAP controlled through the applicable State other than Hydrogen Chloride and that are collocated with such sources Implementation Plans demonstrating within the same major source’’ but going Chlorine Gas that Have a Common compliance with the National Ambient Mechanism of Action. We have on to state that the determination of Air Quality Standards for these ample margin of safety from emissions identified in the table below 40 HAP pollutants. that are respiratory irritants, including from all collocated sources need not In addition to hydrogen chloride and occur at the same time, but rather can hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas. chlorine gas, several of the respiratory Because these HAP have a common be spread out over the course of the irritant HAP listed in the table above residual risk determination process for mechanism of action, we must may be emitted by hazardous waste determine whether exposure to these all major sources. combustors, including the metals d. Exposure to Ambient Background HAP must be considered when antimony trioxide, beryllium, chromium Levels of Respiratory Irritant HAP. determining that the HI is less than or (VI), cobalt, and nickel, and the organic Background levels of respiratory irritant equal to 1.0. compounds Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, HAP attributable to emissions from off- Respiratory Irritant HAP formaldehyde, napthalene, and site sources would not be considered toluene.171 We do not believe, however, when establishing risk-based limits for 1,2-Epoxybutane that these respiratory irritant HAP 1,3-dichloropropene total chlorine under section 112(d)(4). would be emitted by hazardous waste Rather, these background levels will be 2,4-Toluene diisocyanate combustors at levels that would result 2-Chloroacetophenone addressed (as may be necessary) through in significant Hazard Quotient values. Acetaldehyde other CAA programs such as the urban Beryllium and chromium would be Acrolein air toxics program. controlled by emission standards for e. Acute Exposure Need Not Be Acrylic acid low volatile metals and the remaining Assessed. We have determined that you Acrylonitrile metal HAP would be controlled by a need not assess acute exposure to Antimony particulate matter standard. Emissions establish an emission limit for total Beryllium of the respiratory irritant organic HAP chlorine. You would not be required to Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate would be controlled to trace levels by model maximum 1-hour average off-site Chlorine the MACT standards for carbon ground level concentrations to calculate Chloroprene a Hazard Index (HI) based on acute Chromium monoxide or hydrocarbons and exposure for purposes of establishing an Cobalt destruction and removal efficiency emission limit for total chlorine. We Diethanolamine (DRE). Accordingly, we propose to conclude that the chronic exposure Epichlorohydrin require you to quantify and assess Hazard Index (HI) for the hazardous Ethylene glycol 171 Formaldehyde Betty Willis, et al., Agency for Toxic waste combustor(s) would always Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department exceed the acute exposure HI. Thus, the of Health and Human Services, ‘‘Public Health 170 See US EPA Glossary of Key Terms for Reviews of Hazardous Waste Thermal Treatment emission limit for total chlorine based National Air Toxics Assessment, at http:// Technologies: A Guidance Manual for Public Health on chronic exposure would always be www.epa.gov//ttn/atw/nata/gloss1.html. Assessors,’’ March 2002, Table 4. more stringent than the limit based on

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21300 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

acute exposure. As an example, the whereby EPA ‘‘first [determines] * * * 5. How Are Effects on Plants Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition a ‘safe’ or ‘acceptable’ level of risk Addressed? evaluated both chronic and acute considering only health factors, EPA has not established ecotoxicity exposure to hydrogen chloride and followed by a second step to set a values that are protective of vegetation. chlorine gas for the 14 cement facilities standard that provides an ‘ample margin Nonetheless, for the reasons discussed that burn hazardous waste.172 In all of safety’, in which costs, feasibility, below we do not believe that ambient cases, the chronic HI exceeded the acute and other relevant factors in addition to concentrations of hydrogen chloride and HI. In addition, we determined that the health may be considered.’’ 54 FR at chlorine gas that meet the human health Hazard Quotient (HQ) for chronic 38045. It is not clear that Congress threshold values discussed above will exposure was always higher than the intended this analysis to apply to pose adverse effects on plants. HQ for acute exposure for the HAP we section 112(d)(4) standards, since the As discussed in the preamble to the evaluated in the risk assessment we principal legislative history to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP proposed used to support the 1999 Final MACT 175 provision indicates that costs are not to rule (67 FR 78056), chronic exposure Rule for hazardous waste combustors.173 to about 600 µg/m3 can be expected to Not requiring an acute exposure be considered in setting standards under section 112(d)(4) (S. Rep. 228 at 173), result in discernible effects, depending analysis reduces the burden on both the on the plant species. Effects of acute, 20- whereas cost normally is a relevant regulated community and regulatory minute exposures of 6,500 to 27,000 µg/ officials to develop and review an consideration in the second part of the m3 include leaf injury and decrease in analysis that would be superseded by ample margin of safety process, as chlorophyll levels in various species. the chronic exposure analysis when described above. Further, if issues of The hydrogen chloride RfC of 20 µg/m3 establishing an emission limit for total feasibility, cost, and other non-health is well below the 600 µg/m3 effect level, chlorine. factors are to be taken into account in and the AEGL–1 value for hydrogen Please note that this discussion relates establishing section 112(d)(4) standards, chloride of 2,700 µg/m3 is far below the to evaluating acute exposure in it would be exceedingly difficult, if not 6500 µg/m3 acute effect level. Therefore, establishing an emission limit for total practically impossible, to do so on a no adverse exposure effects are chlorine. Although we conclude that the site-specific basis, undermining the anticipated. chronic exposure Hazard Index would approach we are proposing here. Nor is We specifically request additional always be higher than the acute it clear that the two-step approach is information on ecotoxicity for both exposure Hazard Index, and thus would necessarily warranted when considering acute and chronic exposure of be the basis for the total chlorine threshold pollutants, since there is vegetation to hydrogen chloride and emission rate limit, this relates to acute greater certainty regarding levels at chlorine gas. versus chronic exposure to a constant, which adverse health effects occur. See C. How Would You Determine if Your maximum average (e.g., a maximum Vinyl Chloride, 824 F. 2d at 1165 n. Total Chlorine Emission Rate Meets the annual average) emission rate of total 11.174 Eligibility Requirements Defined by the chlorine from a hazardous waste National Exposure Standards? combustor. Acute exposure must be We specifically request comment on considered, however, when establishing how to ensure that the emission limits Under the risk-based approach to operating requirements (e.g., feedrate calculated using the health threshold establish an alternative to the MACT limit for total chlorine and chloride) to values (e.g., RfCs and AEGL–1 values), standard for your total chlorine ensure that short-term emissions do not and after considering emissions of emission limit, you would have to result in an acute exposure Hazard respiratory irritant HAP from collocated demonstrate that emissions of total Index of 1.0 or greater even though long- hazardous waste combustors, achieve an chlorine from on-site hazardous waste term (e.g., annual average) emissions do ample margin of safety. combustors result in exposure to the not exceed the limit. See discussion in actual most-exposed individual residing Section G.1 below. 4. How Are Effects on Terrestrial off site of a Hazard Index of less than Animals Addressed? or equal to 1.0. (Put another way, we are 3. Does the Proposed Approach Ensure proposing to establish this level of risk an Ample Margin of Safety? We believe the RfC values for as the national emission limitation, with hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas Section 112(d)(4) allows EPA to the rule further establishing the develop risk-based standards for HAP should be generally protective for mechanisms by which this ‘‘for which a health threshold has been chronic effects in most, if not all, fauna. demonstration can be made, such established’’, and the resulting standard We note that the RfC values are based demonstrations yielding a site-specific is to provide an ‘‘ample margin of on animal studies. Although the AEGL– limit for total chlorine.) 176 The rule safety.’’ The ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ 1 values for acute exposure are based on would also establish two ways by which standard, at least as applied to human data, we nonetheless expect that you could make this demonstration: by nonthreshold pollutants, typically they too would be generally protective a look-up table analysis or by a site- connotes a two-step process (based on of most fauna, absent information to the specific compliance demonstration (as the standard first announced in the so- contrary. explained below). The look-up table is called Vinyl Chloride decision (NRDC v. much simpler to use, but establishes EPA, 824 F. 2d at 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1987)), 174 Indeed, using the classic two-step approach to emission rates that are quite ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ could result in the same conservative because there are few site- 172 See Trinity Consultants, ‘‘Analysis of HCl/Cl2 standards we are proposing as MACT for HCl and specific parameters considered and Emissions from Cement Kilns for 112(d)(4) Cl2 for all of the affected source categories (if one Consideration in the HWC MACT Replacement assumes that all of the standards would be below 175 EPA published the final rule at 69 FR 394, Standards,’’ September 17, 2003. protective risk-based levels for all sources), since January 5, 2004. 173 See USEPA, ‘‘Human Health and Ecological we believe that the proposed technology-based 176 Rather than establishing emission rate limits Risk Assessment Support to the Development of standards would be justifiable based on for hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas, or for total Technical Standards for Emissions from considerations of technical feasibility and cost, and chlorine, for each combustor, you would actually Combustion Units Burning Hazardous Wastes: so would provide a reasonable margin of safety establish an HCl-equivalent emission rate limit for Background Document,’’ July 1999. beyond the risk-based level considered protective. each combustor, as discussed below in the text.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21301

therefore the model’s default the HCl-equivalent emission rates for limit (i.e., the sum of the HCl-equivalent assumptions are conservative. If you your hazardous waste combustors. If emission rates for all hazardous waste elect not to comply with those you elect to use the site-specific combustors) does not exceed the conservative emission rates, you may compliance demonstration to document appropriate value specified in the look- perform a site-specific compliance eligibility, you would model emission up table. Please note, however, that we demonstration. rates of hydrogen chloride and chlorine also propose to cap the HCl-equivalent The look-up table identifies the total gas that you choose for each on-site emission rate limits for incinerators, chlorine emission limit in terms of a hazardous waste combustor to cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate toxicity-weighted HCl-equivalent document that the facility Hazard Index kilns at a level that ensures that the emission rate. Under the site-specific is less than or equal to 1.0. You would current total chlorine emission compliance demonstration alternative, then use the hydrogen chloride and standards are not exceeded. See the total chlorine limit would also be chlorine gas emission rates you model discussion below in Section D. expressed as a toxicity weighted HCl- to establish an HCl-equivalent emission Please note that the emission rates equivalent emission rate even though rate limit for each combustor. provided in Table 1 are different from you would model emissions of those provided for industrial boilers in 2. How Would You Conduct a Look-Up hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas the Industrial Boiler and Process Heater Table Analysis? from each on-site hazardous waste MACT rule recently promulgated. This combustor. We define the toxicity- You would sum the HCl-equivalent is because the key parameters used by weighted HCl-equivalent emission rate rates for all combustors, and compare the SCREEN3 atmospheric dispersion below. the sum to the appropriate allowable model to predict the normalized air emission rate in Table 1 of proposed concentrations that EPA used to 1. Toxicity-Weighted HCl-Equivalent § 63.1215. Emission rates are provided establish HCl-equivalent emission rates Emission Rates as a function of stack height and as a function of stack height and Although the MACT emission distance to the nearest property distance to property boundary for standards for total chlorine are boundary. If you have more than one industrial boilers—stack diameter, stack expressed as a stack gas emission hazardous waste combustor at your exit gas velocity, and stack exit gas concentration—ppmv—we must use an facility, you would use the average temperature—are substantially different emission rate (e.g., lb/hr) format for risk- value for stack height (i.e., the averaged for hazardous waste burning based standards. This is because health stack heights of the different hazardous incinerators, cement kilns, and and environmental risk is related to the waste combustors at your facility), and lightweight aggregate kilns. Thus, the mass rate of emissions over time. the minimum distance between any maximum HCl-equivalent emission In addition, we propose to use a hazardous waste combustor stack and rates for hazardous waste combustors toxicity-weighted HCl-equivalent the property boundary.177 would generally be lower than those emission rate (HCl-equivalents) as the If one or both of these values for stack EPA established for industrial boilers. metric for the combined emissions of height and distance to nearest property To ensure that the HCl-equivalent hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas. The boundary do not match the exact values emission rate limits in a look-up table HCl-equivalent emission rate considers in the look-up table, you would use the analysis for hazardous waste the RfCs of hydrogen chloride and next lowest table value. This would combustors would not result in a chlorine gas when calculating the ensure that the HCl-equivalent emission Hazard Index of more than 1.0, we combined emission rate according to rate limits are protective. propose to establish limits based on the this equation: You would not be eligible for the maximum annual average normalized air concentrations in U.S. EPA, ‘‘A ERdtw = S(ERi x (RfCHC1/RfCi)) look-up table analysis if your facility is Tiered Modeling Approach for located in complex terrain because the where: Assessing the Risk Due to Sources of plume dispersion models used to ERtw is the HC1-equivalent emission Hazardous Air Pollutants,’’ March 1992, calculate the emission rates are not rate, lb/hr Table 1. Those normalized air applicable to sources in complex ERi is the emission rate of HAP i in concentrations are based on terrain. lbs/hr conservative simulations of toxic You would be eligible to comply with RfCi is the reference concentration of pollutant sources with Gaussian plume the risk-based alternative HCl- HAP i dispersion models. The simulations are equivalent emission rate limits you RfCHC1 is the reference concentration conservative regarding factors such as calculate for each combustor if the of HCl meteorology, building downwash, Expressing the risk-based emission facility HCl-equivalent emission rate plume rise, etc. limit as HCl-equivalents enables you to We specifically request comment on 177 HCl production furnaces are not eligible for use the equation to apportion the the risk-based total chlorine emission limits whether the HCl-equivalent emission emission rate limit between hydrogen because we are proposing that the MACT standard rates in Table 1 are too conservative and chloride and chlorine gas as you choose. for total chlorine would be used as a surrogate to thus have limited utility because they Thus, you need to be concerned with control metal HAP. Nonetheless, if you operate an apply to all hazardous waste combustors HCl production furnace at a facility where you ensuring compliance with the HCl- would establish risk-based emission limits for total generically. Alternatively, we could equivalent emission rate only, rather chlorine for other hazardous waste combustors, you establish less conservative emission than with emission rates for hydrogen would account for total chlorine emissions from the rates in look-up tables specific to chloride and chlorine gas individually. HCl production furnace in your risk-based various classes of hazardous waste eligibility demonstration for the other combustors. Under the look-up table analysis If, for example, you use the look-up table to combustors (e.g., cement kilns, discussed below, you would use the demonstrate eligibility, you would include the stack incinerators) that have similar stack hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas height of the HCl production furnace in the properties that affect predicted emission rates you choose for each on- calculation of average stack height for your emissions. We request comment on combustors, and you would consider whether the site hazardous waste combustor to HCl production furnace stack is the closest whether industry stakeholders would be calculate the HCl-equivalent emission hazardous waste combustor stack to the property likely to use the proposed look-up table rate for the combustor. You would sum boundary. eligibility demonstration or revised

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21302 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

look-up tables tailored to specific reaction or deposition of hydrogen different from the risk criteria we classes of hazardous waste combustors, chloride and chlorine gas from the propose today for invoking Section in lieu of the site-specific compliance emission point to the point of exposure. 112(d)(4), we do not believe it is eligibility demonstration. In particular, you would assume that appropriate to use the RCRA standards chlorine gas is not photolyzed to as a cap for establishing risk-based 3. How Would You Conduct a Site- hydrogen chloride, as discussed in standards under Section 112(d)(4). Specific Compliance Demonstration? Section B.1 above. Capping risk-based emission limits for If you fail to demonstrate that your If your site-specific compliance incinerators, cement kilns, and facility is able to comply with the demonstration documents that the lightweight aggregate kilns at an HCl- alternative risk-based emission limit maximum Hazard Index from your equivalent emission rate corresponding using the look-up table approach, you hazardous waste combustors is less than to the MACT interim standards would may choose to perform a site-specific or equal to 1.0, you would establish a not increase compliance costs (by compliance demonstration. We are maximum HCl-equivalent emission rate definition). Thus, the cap would help proposing that you may use any limit for each combustor using the ensure that emissions are protective of scientifically-accepted peer-reviewed hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas public health with an ample margin of risk assessment methodology for your emission rates you modeled in the site- safety, and that there are no significant site-specific compliance demonstration. specific compliance demonstration. adverse environmental impacts. An example of one approach for Please note, however, that we also To implement the cap, you would performing the demonstration for air propose to cap the HCl-equivalent ensure that the hydrogen chloride and toxics can be found in the EPA’s ‘‘Air emission rate limits for incinerators, chlorine gas emission rates you use to Toxics Risk Assessment Reference cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate calculate the HCl-equivalent emission Library, Volume 2, Site-Specific Risk kilns at a level that ensures that the rate for incinerators, cement kilns, and Assessment Technical Resource current total chlorine emission lightweight aggregate kilns would not Document,’’, which may be obtained standards are not exceeded. See result in total chlorine emission through the EPA’s Air Toxics Web site discussion below in Section D. concentrations exceeding the standards at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw. provided by §§ 63.1203, 63.1204, and D. What Is the Rationale for Caps on the 63.1205. Your facility would be eligible for the Risk-Based Emission Limits? alternative risk-based total chlorine The HCl-equivalent emission rate E. What Would Your Risk-Based emission limit if your site-specific Eligibility Demonstration Contain? compliance demonstration shows that limits would be capped for incinerators, To enable regulatory officials to the maximum Hazard Index for cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns at a level that ensures total review and approve the results of your hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas chlorine emissions do not exceed the risk-based demonstration, you would emissions from all on-site hazardous interim standards provided by include the following information, at a waste combustors at a location where §§ 63.1203, 63.1204, and 63.1205. These minimum: (1) Identification of each people live (i.e., the maximum actual caps on the risk-based emission limits hazardous waste combustor combustion most exposed individual) is less than or would ensure that emission levels do gas emission point (e.g., generally, the equal to 1.0, rounded to the nearest not increase above the emission levels flue gas stack); (2) the maximum tenths decimal place (0.1).178 You that sources are currently required to capacity at which each combustor will would estimate long-term inhalation achieve, thus precluding ‘‘back-sliding.’’ operate, and the maximum rated exposures for this individual most Given the discretionary nature of capacity for each combustor, using the exposed to the facility’s emissions section 112(d)(4), and the general metric of stack gas volume emitted per through the estimation of annual or purpose of the section 112(d) standard- unit of time, as well as any other metric multi-year average ambient setting process to lock-in performance of that is appropriate for the combustor concentrations. You would use site- current emission control technology, we (e.g., million Btu/hr heat input for specific, quality-assured data wherever think it appropriate to invoke the boilers; tons of dry raw material feed/ possible, and health-protective default provision in a manner that does not hour for cement kilns); (3) stack assumptions wherever site-specific data result in emission increases over current parameters for each combustor, are not available. You would document regulatory levels. including, but not limited to stack the data and methods used for the We considered whether to propose height, stack area, stack gas temperature, assessment so that it is transparent and emission caps for boilers at the levels and stack gas exit velocity; (4) plot plan can be reproduced by an experienced allowed by the RCRA emission showing all stack emission points, risk assessor and emissions standards under § 266.107 but conclude nearby residences, and property measurement expert. that this would be inappropriate. This is boundary line; (5) identification of any Your site-specific compliance because the RCRA emission standards stack gas control devices used to reduce demonstration need not assume any are also risk-based standards but are emissions from each combustor; (6) attenuation of exposure concentrations based on risk criteria that we considered identification of the RfC values used to due to the penetration of outdoor appropriate in 1987 when we proposed calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions pollutants into indoor exposure areas. In those rules. The risk criteria we propose rate; (7) calculations used to determine addition, we are proposing that the today are substantially different from the HCl-equivalent emission rate as demonstration need not assume any those used to implement § 266.107. For prescribed above; (8) for incinerators, example, the RfC for hydrogen chloride cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate 178 When calculating Hazard Index values, the final HI value should be rounded to one decimal is higher now while the RfC for chlorine kilns, calculations used to determine place given the uncertainties in the analyses. For gas is lower. In addition, we considered that the HCl-equivalent emission rate example, an HI calculated to be 0.94 would be a Hazard Index of 0.25 acceptable under limit for each combustor does not presented as 0.9, while an HI calculated to be 0.96 the RCRA rule, while we propose today exceed the standards for total chlorine would be presented as 1.0 (which would pass the eligibility demonstration). Intermediate calculations a Hazard Index limit of less than or at §§ 63.1203, 63.1204, and 63.1205; and should use as many significant figures as equal to 1.0. Because the risk criteria for (9) the HCl-equivalent emission rate appropriate. the current RCRA rules are substantially limit for each hazardous waste

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21303

combustor that you will certify in the Emission Standards Division (C404–01), the MACT emission standards for total Documentation of Compliance required Attn: Group Leader, Research Triangle chlorine unless and until your eligibility under § 63.1211(d) that you will not Park, North Carolina 27711. demonstration has been approved by the exceed, and the limits on the operating Requiring prior approval of these permitting authority. parameters specified under § 63.1209(o) eligibility demonstrations is warranted If you operate a new or reconstructed that you will establish in the because hazardous waste combustor source that starts up before the effective Documentation of Compliance. may feed chlorine at high feedrates date of the emission standards proposed If you use the look-up table analysis which may result in emissions of today, or a solid fuel-fired boiler or to demonstrate that your facility is hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas that liquid fuel-fired boiler that is an area eligible for the risk-based alternative for approach or exceed the RfCs (i.e., absent source that increases its emissions or its the total chlorine emission limit, your compliance with either the MACT potential to emit such that it becomes a eligibility demonstration would also standards or the section 112(d)(4) risk- major source of HAP before the effective contain, at a minimum, the following: based standards). Thus, prior approval date of the emission standards proposed (1) Calculations used to determine the of alternative HCl-equivalent emission today (and thus becomes subject to average stack height of on-site rate limits is warranted to ensure that emission standards applicable to major hazardous waste combustors; (2) emissions are protective with an ample sources, including the standard for total identification of the combustor stack margin of safety. chlorine), you would be required to with the minimum distance to the comply with the emission standards 1. Existing Sources property boundary of the facility; (3) under §§ 63.1216 and 63.1217 until your comparison of the values in the look-up If you operate an existing source, you eligibility demonstration is completed, table to your maximum HCl-equivalent must be in compliance with the submitted, and approved by your emission rate. emission standards on the compliance permitting authority. If you use a site-specific compliance date. Consequently, if you elect to If you operate a new or reconstructed demonstration to demonstrate that your comply with the alternative risk-based source that starts up after the effective facility is eligible for the risk-based emission rate limit for total chlorine, date of the emission standards proposed alternative for the total chlorine you must have completed the eligibility today, or a solid fuel-fired boiler or emission limit, your eligibility demonstration and received approval liquid fuel-fired boiler that is an area demonstration would also contain, at a from your delegated permitting source that increases its emissions or its minimum, the following: (1) authority by the compliance date. potential to emit such that it becomes a Identification of the risk assessment You would submit documentation major source of HAP after the effective methodology used; (2) documentation of supporting your eligibility date of the emission standards proposed the fate and transport model used; and demonstration not later than 12 months today (and thus becomes subject to (3) documentation of the fate and prior to the compliance date. emission standards applicable to major transport model inputs, including the Your permitting officials will notify sources including the standard for total stack parameters listed above converted you of approval or intent to disapprove chlorine), you would be required to to the dimensions required for the your eligibility demonstration within 6 comply with the emission standards model. In addition, you would include months after receipt of the original under §§ 63.1216 and 63.1217 until your all of the following that apply: (1) demonstration, and within 3 months eligibility demonstration is completed, Meteorological data; (2) building, land after receipt of any supplemental submitted, and approved by your use, and terrain data; (3) receptor information that you submit. A notice of permitting authority. intent to disapprove your eligibility locations and population data; and (4) G. How Would the Risk-Based HCl- other facility-specific parameters input demonstration will identify incomplete or inaccurate information or Equivalent Emission Rate Limit Be into the model. Your demonstration Implemented? would also include: (1) Documentation noncompliance with prescribed of the fate and transport model outputs; procedures and specify how much time Upon approval by the permitting (2) documentation of any exposure you will have to submit additional authority of your eligibility assessment and risk characterization information. If your permitting authority demonstration, the HCl-equivalent calculations; and (3) documentation of has not approved your eligibility emission rate limit established in the the predicted Hazard Index for HCl- demonstration to comply with a risk- demonstration for your hazardous waste equivalents and comparison to the limit based HCl-equivalent emission rate(s) combustor(s) becomes the applicable of less than or equal to 1.0. by the compliance date, you must emission limit for total chlorine in lieu comply with the MACT emission of the MACT standard for total chlorine. F. When Would You Complete and standards for total chlorine gas under Submit Your Eligibility Demonstration? §§ 63.1216, 63.1217, 63.1219, 63.1220, 1. What Are the Testing and Monitoring Requirements? You would be required to submit your and 63.1221.180 To ensure compliance with the eligibility demonstration to the 2. New Sources permitting authority for review and alternative HCl-equivalent emission rate approval.179 In addition you would If you operate a source that is not an limit for your combustor(s), you would submit an electronic copy of the existing source and that becomes subject conduct performance testing as required demonstration to [email protected] to Subpart EEE, you must comply with for the MACT standards and establish (preferably) or a hard copy to: U.S. EPA, limits on the same operating parameters 180 Please note that, if your eligibility that apply to sources complying with Risk and Exposure Assessment Group, demonstration is not approved prior to the compliance date, a request to extend the the MACT standards for total chlorine 179 Since the Title V permitting authority is compliance date to enable you to undertake under § 63.1209(o). You would establish delegated to States in virtually all instances, the measures to comply with the MACT standards for and comply with these operating permit limit would thus be issued as a matter of total chlorine will not be approved unless you made parameter limits just as you would State authority (generally in parallel with a a good faith effort to submit a complete, accurate, delegation of section 112 authority pursuant to CAA and timely eligibility demonstration and to respond establish and comply with the limits for section 112(l)), and be reviewable only in State to concerns raised by the permitting authority or the MACT emission standard for total courts. U.S. EPA. chlorine, with the exception of the

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21304 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

chlorine feedrate limit, as discussed would be a 1-hour average feedrate stack Method 26/26A, certain sources below. For example, existing sources limit. This approach uses the reasonable would not be allowed to use that would establish these limits in the assumption that there is a proportional method to demonstrate compliance with Documentation of Compliance required relationship between chlorine feedrate the risk-based HCl-equivalent emission under § 63.1211(c) and begin complying and the emission rate of hydrogen rate limit.184 Cement kilns and sources with them not later than the compliance chloride and chlorine gas. To equipped with a dry acid gas scrubber date. Existing sources would also revise extrapolate feedrates, you would should use EPA Method 320/321 or the operating limits as necessary based consider the system removal efficiency ASTM D 6735–01 to measure hydrogen on the initial comprehensive achieved during the performance test for chloride, and the back-half (caustic performance test and begin complying sources equipped with wet or dry acid impingers) of Method 26/26A to with the revised operating limits not gas scrubbers and for cement kilns.182 measure chlorine gas. Incinerators, later than when the Notification of Other sources would assume a zero boilers, and lightweight aggregate kilns Compliance is postmarked, as required system removal efficiency because any should use EPA Method 320/321 or under §§ 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(b). removal efficiency that may be ASTM D 6735–01 to measure hydrogen The limit on chlorine feedrate measured would be incidental and not chloride, and Method 26/26A to required under § 63.1209(o)(1) would be reproducible. measure total chlorine, and calculate established differently to ensure The approach discussed above would chlorine gas by difference if: (1) the compliance with the HCl-equivalent be applicable if you use the site-specific bromine/chlorine ratio in feedstreams is emission rate limit rather than the total compliance eligibility demonstration. If greater than 5 percent; or (2) the sulfur/ chlorine emission standard. To ensure you use the look-up table for your chlorine ratio in feedstreams is greater that facility-wide hazardous waste eligibility demonstration, an alternative than 50 percent. combustor emissions of HCl-equivalents approach would be needed to establish a. Method 26/26A Has a Low Bias for result in exposures equivalent to a a short-term chlorine feedrate limit. One Hydrogen Chloride in Certain Hazard Index of less than or equal to approach would be to establish a look- Situations. Method 26/26A has a low 1.0, the feedrate limit for chlorine up table for maximum 1-hour average bias for hydrogen chloride for sources would be established as the average of HCl-equivalents based on acute that emit particulate matter than can the test run averages and the averaging exposure. Acute exposure HCl- adsorb hydrogen chloride: cement kilns period for compliance would be one equivalents would be calculated using and sources equipped with a dry acid year. A yearly rolling average is the AEGL–1 values for hydrogen gas scrubber. Particulate matter caught appropriate for risk-based emission chloride and chlorine gas, and the look- by the Method 26/26A filter scrubs limits rather than the 12-hour rolling up table of acute exposure maximum hydrogen chloride from the sample gas, average applicable to the MACT emission rate limits would be based on and can result in measurements that are standards because the risk-based normalized air concentrations for biased low by 2 to 30 times.185 Chlorine emission limit is based on chronic maximum 1-hour average ground level gas is not adsorbed so that chlorine gas exposure. concentrations.183 You would emissions are not biased by this As discussed in Section B.2.e above, extrapolate the chlorine feedrate from mechanism. although we conclude that the chronic the level achieved during the b. Method 26/26A Can Have a Low exposure Hazard Index would always be comprehensive performance test to a Bias for Chlorine Gas and a High Bias higher and thus be the basis for the total level that would not exceed the acute for Hydrogen Chloride, but Has No Bias chlorine emission rate limit, we still exposure HCl-equivalent emission rate for Total Chlorine. Method 26/26A also must be concerned about acute exposure limit for each combustor provided in the has a low bias for chlorine and a high attributable to short-term emission rates look-up table. This feedrate would be a bias for hydrogen chloride when higher than the maximum average 1-hour average feedrate limit. bromine is present at significant levels. emission rate limit. For example, the We specifically request comment on Bromine has a strong effect on the bias. annual average limit on chlorine (i.e., these approaches to establish a short- Although the various interhalogen total chlorine and chloride) feedrate term limit on the feedrate of total reactions are extremely complex and would allow a source to feed very high chlorine and chloride to ensure that the may depend on a variety of system levels of chlorine for short periods of acute exposure Hazard Index for parameters, it appears that each bromine time, potentially resulting in hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas is molecule can react with a chlorine exceedances of the acute exposure less than or equal to 1.0. molecule in the acidic impingers of Hazard Index based the AEGL–1 values 2. What Test Methods Would You Use? Method 26/26A where hydrogen for hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas. chloride is captured, converting the We specifically request comment on Although you would comply with the chlorine to chloride ions which are how a short-term limit on chlorine MACT standard for total chlorine using feedrate could be established for each 184 Even though Method 26/26A may bias total or whether a more conservative approach of limited chlorine emission measurements low for cement hazardous waste combustor to ensure extrapolation to a fraction of the Hazard Index (e.g., kilns for reasons discussed in the text, it is that the acute exposure Hazard Index is 0.8) would be warranted, given the uncertainties appropriate to allow compliance with the less than or equal to 1.0. One approach inherent in projecting emissions from extrapolated technology-based MACT emission standards for would be for you to extrapolate from the feedrates. total chlorine using that method. Because the 182 We request comment on whether the system MACT standards are developed using data obtained chlorine feedrate during the removal efficiency a cement kiln demonstrates using Method 26/26A, allowing that method for comprehensive performance test to the during a performance test because of the alkalinity compliance will achieve reductions in total feedrate projected to achieve emission of the raw material is reasonably indicative of the chlorine emissions. For the same reason, it would rates of hydrogen chloride and chlorine system removal efficiency it routinely achieves (i.e., be inappropriate to require compliance with is the system removal efficiency reasonably unbiased methods because the average of the best gas that result in an acute exposure reproducible). performing sources might not be able to achieve the 181 Hazard Index of 1.0. This feedrate 183 We would use the normalized maximum 1- standard. hour average concentrations in U.S. EPA, ‘‘A Tiered 185 USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document 181 We also request comment on whether Modeling Approach for Assessing the Risk Due to for HWC MACT Replacement Standards, Volume extrapolation of the chlorine feedrate should be Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants,’’ March 1992, III: Selection of MACT Standards and allowed to 100% of the Hazard Index limit of 1.0, Table 2. Technologies,’’ March 2004.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21305

reported as hydrogen chloride. Total assurance/quality control procedures 2. Changes Over Which You Do Not chlorine measurements (i.e., hydrogen are prescribed. Have Control chloride and chlorine gas, combined, H. How Would You Ensure That Your Over time, factors and information reported as Cl-equivalents), however, Facility Remains Eligible for the Risk- over which you do not have control and are not affected. To minimize this bias, Based Emission Limit? which you use to make your eligibility we propose to require sources that have demonstration may change. For a bromine/chlorine feedrate exceeding 5 1. Changes Over Which You Have example, if you use a site-specific percent to use alternative methods Control compliance demonstration, individuals discussed below. Given the strong bias Changes in design, operation, or may locate within the area impacted by that bromine can have on M26/26A emissions such that the most exposed measurements, we believe a 5 percent maintenance of a hazardous waste individual may be exposed to higher limit on the ratio is within the range of combustor that may affect the rate of ground level concentrations than reasonable values that we could select. emissions of HCl-equivalents from the previously estimated. This could lower We specifically request comment on this combustor are subject to the your allowable HCl-equivalent emission or other approaches to minimize the requirements of § 63.1206(b)(5). rate limit. Consequently, you would be bromine bias. If you change the information Method 26/26A also has a low bias for documented in the demonstration of required to review the documentation chlorine and a high bias for hydrogen eligibility for the HCl-equivalent you use in your eligibility chloride when sulfur is present at emission rate limit which is used to demonstration every five years on the substantial levels relative to the levels of establish the HCl-equivalent emission anniversary of the comprehensive chlorine. The capture of chlorine in the rate limit, you would be subject to the performance test and submit for review acidic impingers that collect hydrogen following procedures. with the test plan either a certification chloride has been shown to rapidly that the information used in your a. Changes that Would Decrease the eligibility demonstration has not increase when the ratio of SO2/HCl Allowable HCl-Equivalent Emission (both expressed in ppmv) exceeds 0.5. changed in a manner that would Rate Limit. If you plan to make a change decrease the allowable HCl-equivalent Again, total chlorine measurements are that would decrease the allowable HCl- not biased. To minimize this bias, we emission rate limit, or a revised equivalent emission rate limit eligibility demonstration for a revised believe that a 50 percent limit on the documented in your eligibility ratio of the sulfur/chlorine feedrate is HCl-equivalent emission rate limit. demonstration, you would comply with If you determine that you cannot within the range of reasonable values § 63.1206(b)(5)(i)(A–C) regarding that we could select. We specifically demonstrate compliance with a lower notifying the permitting authority of the allowable HCl-equivalent emission rate request comment on this or other change, submitting a comprehensive approaches to minimize the sulfur limit during the (subsequent) performance test schedule and test plan, comprehensive performance test dioxide bias. comprehensive performance testing, and c. Unbiased Methods Are Available. because you cannot complete changes to restriction on burning hazardous waste The Agency recently developed three the design or operation of the source prior to submitting a revised methods for hydrogen chloride in the prior to the test, you may request that Notification of Compliance. An example context of the Portland Cement MACT the permitting authority grant you of a change that would decrease the rule for purposes of area source additional time as necessary to make allowable HCl-equivalent emission rate determinations: Methods 320, 321, and those changes, not to exceed three years. limit is location of the property 322. Although M322 (GFCIR, Gas Filter boundary closer to the nearest I. Request for Comment on an Correlation Infra-Red) is easier to use hazardous waste combustor stack when Alternative Approach: Risk-Based and less expensive than M320/M321 National Emission Standards (FTIR, Fourier Transform Infra-Red), the using the look-up table to make the Agency did not promulgated M322 in eligibility demonstration. As noted earlier, another approach to the final Portland Cement MACT rule b. Changes that Would Not Decrease implement section 112(d)(4)—and one because of accuracy concerns resulting the Allowable HCl-Equivalent Emission EPA has used in past MACT rules— from emissions sampling of lime Rate Limit. If you determine that a would be to establish national emission manufacturing kilns in the context of change would not decrease the standards for each source category to developing the Lime Manufacturing allowable HCl-equivalent emission rate ensure that the emissions from each MACT rule. limit documented in your eligibility source within the category are The Agency has also adopted an demonstration, you would document protective of public health with an American Society of Testing and the change in the operating record upon ample margin of safety (and do not pose Materials (ASTM) standard for making such change. If the change adverse environmental impacts). Under measuring hydrogen chloride emissions: would increase your allowable HCl- this approach, dispersion modeling of ASTM D 6735–01. This method (and equivalent emission rate limit and you representative worst-case sources (or all M321) is allowed for area source elect to establish a higher HCl- sources) within a category would be determinations under the Lime equivalent limit, you must submit a used to identify an emission level that Manufacturing MACT rule. 69 FR 394 revised eligibility demonstration for meets the section 112(d)(4) criteria for (Jan. 5, 2004). The method is an review and approval. Upon approval of all sources within the category. Thus, impinger method, like M26/26A, but the revised eligibility demonstration, the same risk-based national emission with several improvements. For you must comply with standard would be established for each example, the method uses a rejection § 63.1206(b)(5)(i)(A)(2), (B), and (C) source in each source category under probe (i.e., the probe is directed counter regarding submitting a comprehensive this approach, rather than the approach to the gas flow), the filter is heated to performance test schedule and test plan, we discuss above of establishing a minimize adsorption of hydrogen comprehensive performance testing, and national exposure standard based on a chloride on particulate matter that may restriction on burning hazardous waste uniform level of protection that you catch on the filter, glassware must be prior to submitting a revised would use to establish a site-specific conditioned, and improved quality Notification of Compliance. emission limit.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21306 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

The approach of establishing a risk- of total chlorine between hydrogen hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas for based national emission standard for a chloride and chlorine gas could change each source, the calculated Hazard source category has the advantage of so that a greater portion is emitted as Index values are not compromised. being less burdensome to implement chlorine; and (3) the mass emission rate Given that the hydrogen chloride both for the regulated community and of hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas emission levels are biased low, the regulatory authorities. It has the would increase if the stack gas flowrate chlorine gas/hydrogen chloride ratio disadvantage, however, of requiring increases. that CKRC used to apportion the 130 documentation ‘‘up front’’ to support the Because of these concerns, the more ppmv total chlorine emissions between proposed emission standards. EPA does appropriate metric for a risk-based chlorine gas and hydrogen chloride not have the time, data, or resources to standard for total chlorine would be the emissions for each source is biased high. conduct the analyses required to toxicity-weighted HCl-equivalent Thus, CKRC projected chlorine gas support this approach. emission rate discussed above in emissions that are biased high and The Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition Section C.1. hydrogen chloride emissions that are (CKRC), however, has submitted To achieve our dual objective of biased low. These biases result in documentation supporting a national establishing a protective risk-based calculating conservative (i.e., higher risk-based emission standard for total emission standard expressed as a than actual) Hazard Index values chlorine for cement kilns.186 CKRC uses toxicity-weighted HCl-equivalent because the health threshold values are normalized air concentrations from ISC– emission rate (lb/hr) and ensuring that lower for chlorine gas than for hydrogen PRIME and ISCST3 to estimate the standard does not allow total chloride.188 Thus, actual Hazard Index maximum annual average and chlorine emission concentrations values at an emission level of 130 ppmv maximum 1-hour average off-site (ppmv) higher than the current interim total chlorine would be lower than those ground level concentrations of hydrogen standard of 130 ppmv, we propose that that CKRC calculated. an HCl-equivalent emission rate limit be chloride and chlorine gas for each XIV. How Did EPA Determine Testing source. CKRC assumes that each kiln established that is achievable by all cement facilities. This would be an HCl- and Monitoring Requirements for the emits total chlorine at 130 ppmv, the Proposed Rule? current Interim Standard, and that equivalent emission rate for which on- emissions of hydrogen chloride and site cement kiln emissions of hydrogen The CAA requires us to develop chlorine gas partition at the same ratio chloride and chlorine gas do not exceed regulations that include monitoring and as measured during the most recent a Hazard Index of 1.0. To make this testing requirements. CAA section 114 compliance test. The analysis indicates determination, facilities would assume (a) (3). The purpose of these that the facility Hazard Index for 1-hour that emissions of hydrogen chloride and requirements is to allow us to determine exposures was below 0.2 for the kilns at chlorine gas partition at the same ratio whether an affected source is operating all facilities, and the facility Hazard as measured during the most recent in compliance with the rule. We propose testing and monitoring Index for long-term exposures was compliance test. Finally, the HCl- requirements for solid fuel-fired boilers, below 0.2 for the kilns at 8 of 14 equivalent emission rate limit would be liquid fuel-fired boilers and facilities. Emissions from kilns at the capped, if necessary, at a limit that hydrochloric acid production furnaces remaining 6 facilities can potentially ensures that total chlorine that are identical to those applicable to result in facility Hazard Index values up concentrations for each kiln do not incinerators, cement kilns, and to 0.7. exceed 130 ppmv. If this information and supporting lightweight aggregate kilns under Notwithstanding that CKRC followed documentation is provided to us, we §§ 63.1207, 63.1208, and 63.1209.189 the guidance we suggested to identify a would promulgate a toxicity-weighted Please note, however, that we discuss section 112(d)(4) risk-based emission HCl-equivalent emission rate that would below a proposed requirement for standard for a source category, we be applicable to cement kilns. boilers that would not be subject to a conclude that establishing a stack gas On a related matter, we evaluated numerical dioxin/furan emission concentration-based total chlorine whether using hydrogen chloride and standard to conduct a one-time test for standard of 130 ppmv may not be chlorine gas emissions data obtained dioxin/furan emissions. In addition, in protective with an ample margin of with stack sampling Method 26/26A to Part Three of today’s preamble, we safety. Even though the highest Hazard project hydrogen chloride and chlorine request comment on, or propose Index for any facility in the category is gas emissions in CKRC’s analysis revisions to, several compliance below the maximum HI of less than 1.0, compromised the results. Method 26/ requirements. Any amendments to the the Hazard Index value for a facility 26A is known to underestimate compliance requirements that we could increase even though sources do hydrogen chloride emissions from promulgate would be applicable to all not exceed an emission standard of 130 cement kilns.187 We discuss above in hazardous waste combustors. In ppmv. This is because the Hazard Index Section F.2 concerns about Method 26/ addition, we discuss below in this is affected by the mass emission rate 26A and the rationale for proposing to (e.g., lb/hr) of hydrogen chloride and require sources to use methods other 188 For the same reasons, HCl-equivalent emission chlorine gas individually. Thus the than Method 26/26A to measure rates that CKRC may use in an eligibility demonstration for the source category would be Hazard Index could increase from the emissions of hydrogen chloride and values CKRC has calculated even biased conservatively high. chlorine gas for compliance with risk- 189 though each source complies with a 130 Please note that we also propose to revise the based standards. Briefly, Method 26/ existing schedule for the initial comprehensive ppmv total chlorine emission standard 26A results for hydrogen chloride are performance test for incinerators, cement kilns, and given that: (1) The RfC for chlorine gas biased low for cement kilns, although lightweight aggregate kilns. Under the proposed is 100 times lower than the RfC for revised schedule, owners and operators of results for chlorine gas are unaffected. incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight hydrogen chloride; (2) the partitioning Even though CKRC used Method 26A aggregate kilns would be required to conduct the results to apportion the 130 ppmv total initial comprehensive performance test to 186 Trinity Consultants, ‘‘Analysis of HCl/Cl2 document compliance with the replacement Emissions from Cement Kilns for 112(d)(4) chlorine assumed emissions between standards proposed today (§§ 63.1219, 63.1220, and Consideration in the HWC MACT Replacement 63.1221) within 12 months of the compliance date. Standards,’’ September 17, 2003. 187 See 63 FR at 14196 (March 24, 1998). See discussion in Part Three, Section I.F.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21307

section proposed compliance efficiency. Finally, all three source destruction and removal efficiency procedures for emission standards that categories would be required to standard to help minimize dioxin/furan would be based on normal rather than demonstrate compliance with the emissions. See discussion in Part Two, compliance test data and that would be carbon monoxide/hydrocarbon emission Sections X.A and XI.A. applicable to all hazardous waste standard during the comprehensive We propose that solid fuel-fired combustors subject to such a standard. performance test (and at all other times). boilers and those liquid fuel-fired Finally, we discuss below in this section The comprehensive performance test boilers that would not be subject to a proposed compliance procedures for would be conducted every five years to numerical dioxin/furan emission emission standards based on hazardous ensure that the performance of the air standard conduct a one-time dioxin/ waste thermal emissions that would be pollution control device has not furan emission test to quantify the applicable to all hazardous waste deteriorated and that other factors that effectiveness of today’s proposed combustors. may affect emissions have not caused an surrogate dioxin/furan emission The rationale for the testing and increase in emissions above the controls. This test would be performed monitoring requirements, and standards. no later than the initial comprehensive implementation of the requirements, is The proposed rule also requires performance test required under the the same as discussed in the confirmatory testing to ensure proposed standards. The results of this rulemakings promulgating those compliance with the dioxin/furan one-time test would be reported with requirements for hazardous waste- emission standards, the test to be the test results for the first burning incinerators, cement kilns, and conducted mid-way between comprehensive performance test. See lightweight aggregate kilns, and as comprehensive performance tests when proposed § 3.1207(b)(3). discussed in Part Three of today’s operating under typical conditions 1. What Is the Rationale for Requiring preamble. See 61 FR 43501 (August 23, rather than at performance test the Test? 1996), 62 FR 24212 (May 2, 1997), 67 FR conditions. More frequent confirmatory 6791 (February 13, 2002), and 67 FR testing for dioxin/furan is needed We are adopting this provision 6967 (February 14, 2002). For this because dioxin/furan emissions can be pursuant to our authority in CAA reason, we only summarize those affected by various and interrelated section 114 (a)(1)(D), which allows EPA identical requirements and our rationale factors, some of which are not fully to require ‘‘any person * * * who is for them in today’s notice.190 understood, and because of the subject to any requirement of this particular health hazard posed by chapter’’ (which includes section 112) A. What Is the Rationale for the on a one-time, periodic or continuous Proposed Testing Requirements? emissions of dioxin/furan. To ensure continuous compliance basis, to ‘‘sample such emissions (in The proposed rule requires solid fuel- with the emissions standards, you accordance with such procedures or fired boilers and liquid fuel-fired boilers would be required to establish limits on methods, at such locations, at such to perform an initial comprehensive key operating parameters susceptible to intervals, during such periods and in 191 performance test for dioxin/furan, continuous monitoring. The limits such manner as the Administrator shall mercury, particulate matter, would be based on operating values prescribe)’’. The purpose of such ‘‘ semivolatile metals, low volatile metals, achieved during the comprehensive monitoring is developing or assisting in and total chloride to demonstrate performance test when the source the development of’’ standards under compliance with emission standards. successfully demonstrates various provisions of the Act, including Hydrochloric acid production furnaces compliance.192 Because operating limits section 112. In this case, monitoring will assist in making determinations would be required to perform an initial are calibrated based on operations comprehensive performance test for under both section 112(d)(6) and section during the comprehensive performance dioxin/furan and total chloride to 112(f), which could lead to development test, sources generally operate at the demonstrate compliance with emission of standards under either or both of upper end of the range of normal standards. All three source categories these provisions. operations during these tests. These are also subject to the destruction and Section 112(d)(6) of the Act requires proposed requirements are discussed removal efficiency standard. us to ‘‘review, and revise as necessary below in Section XII.C. Compliance with the destruction and emission standards promulgated under removal efficiency standard, however, is B. What Are the Dioxin/Furan Testing this section no less than every eight based on a one-time emissions test, and Requirements for Boilers That Would years.’’ We believe testing that results previous destruction and removal Not Be Subject to a Numerical Dioxin/ from compliance with today’s proposed efficiency testing under RCRA Furan Emission Standard? standards will, in nearly all cases, establish an adequate database for us to requirements may be used for that As explained earlier, we are not perform this review. However, we demonstration if design, operation, or proposing numerical dioxin/furan would not have sufficient dioxin/furan maintenance of the source has not emission standards for solid fuel-fired emissions data for those boilers that are changed in a manner that could boilers and for those liquid fuel-fired subject to the carbon monoxide/ adversely affect combustion efficiency boilers that are equipped with wet hydrocarbon standard and destruction and, thus, destruction and removal scrubbers or no particulate control and removal efficiency standard in lieu device. Rather, those boilers would be 190 of a numerical dioxin/furan standard. For this reason, in the technical support subject to the carbon monoxide/ documents for today’s proposed rule we also refer We have data from approximately one- hydrocarbon emission standard and the extensively to the technical support documents for third of the boilers that are not subject the Phase I rule. 191 Those boilers that would be subject to a 192 Because the dioxin/furan confirmatory test is to a numerical dioxin/furan standard. numerical dioxin/furan standard (i.e., liquid fuel- conducted under operating conditions that are Although those data indicate that these fired boilers equipped with an electrostatic within the range of normal operations rather than sources emit low concentrations of precipitator or fabric filter) would be required to at the upper end of the range of normal operations dioxin/furan despite the absence of any conduct periodic comprehensive and confirmatory as during a comprehensive performance test, you testing. Other boilers would be required to conduct would not reestablish operating conditions for dioxin/furan control equipment, we are a one-time test for dioxin/furan emissions under the dioxin/furan based on the confirmatory concerned about extrapolating this conditions discussed below in the text. performance test. performance to the entire universe of

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21308 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

the subject boilers because our data set combustion conditions; (6) for units For units equipped with wet air may not be statistically random and the equipped with wet air pollution control pollution control systems, it is also potential hazard posed by dioxin/furan systems, the testing should be recommended that testing be conducted is high. In fact, the design of these conducted after a high solids loading after a high solids loading has sources would seem to have the has developed in the scrubber system; developed in the scrubber system. potential for formation of significant and (7) for solid fuel-fired boilers, the Research conducted to explore the dioxin/furan concentrations.193 We sulfur content of the coal should be phenomenon of increased dioxin/furan think this proposed testing would add a equivalent to or lower than normal coal flue gas concentrations across some wet one-time cost of approximately $10,000 sulfur levels, and the gas temperature at scrubber systems has shown differing for each source for which dioxin/furan the inlet to the electrostatic precipitator flue gas outlet dioxin/furan homologue test data are not already available, and or fabric filter should be close to the profiles than flue gas inlet profiles to the the cost appears reasonable to enable us operating limit. In addition, unless scrubber, but similar flue gas outlet to meet our section 112(d)(6) and 112(f) sulfur compounds are routinely fed to homologue profiles to scrubber mandates. Section 112(d)(6) requires the unit, dioxin/furan testing should not suspended solids and sludge profiles.196 EPA, at specified times, to determine if be performed after a period of firing This result suggests that some type of further technology-based emission high sulfur fuel or injection of sulfur memory effect may be associated with reductions are warranted. Quantified additives. suspended solids in a scrubber system dioxin/furan emission information from The majority of these which can cause higher dioxin/furans these sources will assist in this recommendations are based on research emissions. determination. Section 112(f) requires demonstrating that soot deposits can You may use data-in-lieu of testing to EPA (among other things) to determine enhance dioxin/furan formation in the document dioxin/furan emissions for if emissions from all sources subject to presence of chlorine and catalytic metal similar on-site boilers. In addition, section 112(d) standards must be further contaminants, with formation dioxin/furan emission data from reduced in order to assure an ample continuing even after cessation of those previous testing would be acceptable, margin of safety to protect public health. contaminant feeds to the system.194, 195 provided the test was performed in a Having actual emission data from these The boiler tube deposits serve as a sink manner likely to maximize dioxin/furan sources obviously will assist in making emissions. the required section 112(f) and source for dioxin/furan reactants determinations for these sources. (catalytic metals and chlorine), and C. What Are the Proposed Test combined soot-copper deposits have Methods? 2. What Are the Operating Requirements been shown to cause more dioxin/furan for the Test? formation than a deposit of soot or The proposed emission standards are method-based standards, meaning that You must perform the dioxin/furan copper alone. From analysis of soot the stack test methods used for test under feed and operating conditions deposits taken from different sections of compliance must be the same as those that are most likely to maximize dioxin/ a firetube boiler, the highest measured used to generate the emissions data we furan emissions, similar to a dioxin/ dioxin/furan concentrations were found used to calculate the standards. Because furan comprehensive performance test. in those deposits containing the highest alternative stack methods may report Based on currently available research, concentrations of copper and chloride. lower emissions, it is appropriate to the following factors should be Those same deposits were removed require use of the same methods for considered for the testing: (1) Dioxin/ from the boiler passages where flue gas compliance as sources used to generate furan testing should be conducted at the temperatures ranged from 600–300°C, the emissions data in our data base. point in the maintenance cycle for the which is within the often-cited optimal For this reason, you would be boiler when the boiler tubes are more temperature region for dioxin/furan required to use the following stack test fouled and soot-laden, and not after formation. Tube deposits have also been methods for compliance: (1) Method 29 maintenance involving soot or ash shown to have a negative effect on for mercury, semivolatile metals, and removal from the tubes; (2) dioxin/furan dioxin emissions when those deposits low volatile metals; and (2) Method 26/ testing should be performed following have been affected by sulfur dioxide, 26A for total chlorine.197 (or during) a period of feeding normal which is why dioxin/furan testing is not For dioxin/ or greater quantities of metals; (3) recommended following a period of furan, the rule would require use of dioxin/furan testing should be feeding higher-than-normal levels of Method 0023A unless you receive performed while feeding normal or sulfur to the boiler. approval to use Method 23. We discuss greater quantities of chlorine; (4) the the rationale for allowing site-specific The recommendation not to test under approvals to use Method 23 in Part flue gas temperature in some portion of optimal combustion conditions has been the heat recovery section of the boiler Three, Section II.D of today’s preamble. explained previously in the September In addition, for particulate matter, you should be within the dioxin formation 1999 Final Rule preamble discussion. temperature window of 750 to 400°F would be required to use either Method See 64 FR at 52937. Good combustion 5, the method used to generate the data during the testing; (5) the testing should practices minimize dioxin/furan not be conducted under optimal in our data base or Method 5i. We allow emissions by: (1) Destroying trace use of Method 5i because it is more dioxins/furans that may be present in 193 Incinerators equipped with waste heat feed streams; (2) minimizing gas-phase recovery boilers are known to emit high levels of 196 Takaoka, M.; Liao, P.; Takeda, N.; Fujiwara, T.; dioxin/furan, and hydrochloric acid production formation of dioxins/furans; and (3) Oshita, K. Chemosphere 2003, 53, 153–161. furnaces with waste heat recovery boilers can also minimizing dioxin/furan precursors that 197 Please note that we discuss in Section XIII of emit high levels of dioxin/furan. Because the may enhance post-combustion the preamble above concerns with the accuracy of mechanisms that affect formation and control of formation. M26/26A for measuring emissions of total chlorine dioxin/furan are complex and not fully understood, for cement kilns. As we explain there, although we are concerned that some of the factors that cause M26/26A is appropriate for demonstrating high dioxin/furan emissions from incinerators and 194 Lee, C.W.; Kilgroe, J.D.; Raghunathan, K. compliance with the MACT standards for cement hydrochloric acid production furnaces equipped Environ. Eng. Sci. 1998, 15(1), 71–84. kilns, it is not acceptable for demonstrating with waste heat recovery boilers may also affect 195 Gullett, B.K.; Touati, A.; Lee, C.W. Environ. compliance with risk-based standards developed dioxin/furan emissions from boilers. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 2069–2074. under authority of section 112(d)(4) of the Act.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21309

precise than Method 5 at lower $33,000 per unit. We determined these to the levels required by the emission particulate matter loadings. costs would be unreasonably high standards; you must replace the bed or These test methods are codified in 40 considering: (1) The CEMS detects bed segment before it has reached the CFR part 60, appendix A.198 hydrogen chloride but not chlorine gas, end of its useful life; you must specify D. What Is the Rationale for the so that compliance with the total and use the brand (i.e., manufacturer) Proposed Continuous Monitoring chlorine emission standard could not be and type of carbon used during the Requirements? monitored; (2) the effectiveness of comprehensive performance test, unless operating parameter limits to ensure you document key parameters that affect The most direct means of ensuring compliance with the emission standard adsorption and establish limits on those compliance with emissions limits is the for total chlorine; and (3) the relatively parameters based on the carbon used in use of continuous emission monitoring low level of hazard posed by emissions the comprehensive performance test; systems (CEMS). We consider other of total chlorine. and you must establish a limit on options when CEMS are not available or Finally, we conclude that the use of maximum gas temperature either at the when we consider the impacts of CEMS to document compliance with bed inlet or outlet; (7) if your combustor including such requirements particulate matter or metal HAP is equipped with a catalytic oxidizer: unreasonable. When monitoring options emission standards has not been limits on minimum and maximum gas other than CEMS are considered, it is demonstrated on hazardous waste temperature at the inlet to the catalyst; often necessary for us to balance more combustors in the United States. you must replace the oxidizer when it reasonable costs against the quality or has reached the maximum service time accuracy of the emissions monitoring 2. What Operating Parameter Limits Would Be Required? specified by the manufacturer; and data. Although monitoring operating when replacing the catalyst, the new parameters cannot provide a direct To ensure continuous compliance catalyst must be equivalent to or better measurement of emissions, it is often a with the proposed emission limits, you than the one used during the previous suitable substitute for CEMS. The would be required to establish limits on comprehensive performance test as information provided can be used to key operating parameters and measured by catalytic metal loading for ensure that air pollution control continuously monitor the parameters each metal, space time, and substrate equipment is operating properly. including: feedrate of metals, chlorine, construction; (8) if you feed a dioxin/ Because most parameter requirements and, for some source categories, ash; key furan inhibitor into the combustion are calibrated during comprehensive combustor operating parameters; and system: a limit on minimum inhibitor performance testing,199 they provide a key operating parameters of the control feedrate; and you must specify and use reasonable surrogate for direct device. See § 63.1209(j–o). You would the brand (i.e., manufacturer) and type monitoring of emissions. This also be required to document of inhibitor used during the information reasonably assures the monitoring by recordkeeping and comprehensive performance test, unless public that the reductions envisioned by reporting. We selected the following you document key parameters that affect the proposed rule are being achieved. requirements based on reasonable cost, the effectiveness of the inhibitor and ease of execution, and usefulness of the establish limits on those parameters 1. What CEMS Requirements Did EPA resulting data to both owners and Consider? based on the inhibitor used in the operators and EPA for ensuring comprehensive performance test. See To comply with the carbon monoxide continuous compliance with the § 63.1209(k). or hydrocarbon emission limits, you emission limits. To ensure continuous compliance would be required to use a carbon To ensure continuous compliance with the mercury emission limit, monoxide or hydrocarbon CEMS as well with the dioxin/furan emission limit, owners and operators of boilers would as an oxygen CEMS to correct the you would be required to establish: (1) be required to establish: (1) A limit on carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon values A limit on maximum gas temperature at the total feedrate of mercury in all to 7% oxygen. See § 63.1209(a). Because the inlet to a dry particulate matter feedstreams for solid fuel-fired boilers, boilers and hydrochloric acid control device; (2) a limit on minimum and a limit on mercury in hazardous production furnaces are currently combustion chamber temperature; (3) a waste feedstreams per million Btu of required to use these CEMS to comply limit on maximum flue gas flowrate or hazardous waste fired for liquid-fuel- with existing RCRA emission standards production rate; (4) a limit on maximum fired boilers; 201, 202 (2) if your boiler is for carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons, waste feedrate; (5) if your combustor is equipped with a wet scrubber, limits there would be a minimal incremental equipped with an activated carbon prescribed for control of total chlorine compliance cost.200 injection system: limits on the with a wet scrubber, except for a limit We also evaluated the cost of applying particulate matter control device, as on minimum pH of the scrubber water; hydrogen chloride CEMS to boilers and discussed below; a limit on minimum (3) if your boiler is equipped with an hydrochloric acid production furnaces. carbon injection rate; a limit on activated carbon injection system, limits We estimate the capital costs for minimum carrier fluid flowrate or on the particulate matter control device hydrogen chloride CEMS to be $88,000 pressure drop; and you must specify as discussed below, and limits on the per unit and annualized costs to be and use the brand (i.e., manufacturer) activated carbon injection system as and type of carbon used during the 198 Method 0023A, however, is included in ‘‘Test comprehensive performance test, unless 201 This is because the mercury emission standard Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ you document key parameters that affect for liquid fuel-fired boilers is a hazardous waste Chemical Methods,’’ EPA Publication SW–846 adsorption and establish limits on those thermal emission concentration. Liquid fuel-fired Third Edition (November 1986), as amended. boilers would also be required to monitor the 199 Except that some parameters are limited based parameters based on the carbon used in heating value of hazardous waste feeds to ensure on the recommendations/specifications of the the comprehensive performance test; (6) compliance with the hazardous waste thermal manufacturer of the control device. if your combustor is equipped with a emission concentration. 200 If you elect to comply with the carbon carbon bed: you must monitor the bed 202 The mercury feedrate limit would be based on monoxide standard rather than the hydrocarbon levels fed during the comprehensive performance standard, you would be required to document that life to ensure that it has not reached the test unless the regulatory authority approves a hydrocarbon emissions during the comprehensive end of its useful life to minimize dioxin/ request for you to extrapolate to a higher allowable performance test meet the standard. furan (and mercury) emissions at least feedrate (and emission rate) limit.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21310 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

discussed above for dioxin/furan; and parameters, on a site-specific basis, that production furnaces, as discussed (4) if your boiler is equipped with an are representative and reliable above. See § 63.1209(n). activated carbon bed, limits on the indicators that the control device is To ensure continuous compliance carbon bed as discussed above for operating within the same range of with the total chlorine emission limit, dioxin/furan. conditions as during the comprehensive you would be required to establish: (1) You may comply with mercury performance test, and link those A limit on maximum feedrate of total feedrate limits only, however, if you operating limits to the automatic waste chlorine and chloride from all elect to assume that all mercury in the feed cutoff system. Please note that the feedstreams for solid fuel-fired boilers, feed is emitted. For solid fuel-fired particulate matter compliance and a limit on total chlorine and boilers, you would assume that all requirements would not apply to chloride in hazardous waste feedstreams mercury in all feedstreams is emitted hydrochloric acid production furnaces, per million Btu of hazardous waste fired under this alternative approach. You as discussed above. See § 63.1209(m). for liquid-fuel-fired boilers;205 (2) a limit would also establish a limit on To ensure continuous compliance on maximum flue gas flowrate or minimum flue gas flowrate to ensure with the semivolatile and low volatile production rate; (3) if your combustor is compliance with the mercury emission metal emission limits, you would be equipped with a high or low energy wet standard. For liquid fuel-fired boilers required to establish: (1) A limit on the scrubber: a limit on minimum pH of the where the mercury emission standard is maximum inlet temperature to the scrubber water; a limit on either the expressed as hazardous waste thermal primary dry particulate matter control minimum liquid to gas ratio or the emissions, you would assume that all device; (2) a limit on maximum feedrate minimum scrubber water flowrate and mercury in all hazardous waste of semivolatile and low volatile metals maximum flue gas flowrate; (4) if your feedstreams is emitted. You would have from all feedstreams for solid fuel-fired combustor is equipped with a high to comply with a hazardous waste boilers, and a limit on semivolatile energy wet scrubber, a limit on thermal feed concentration that would metals and low volatile metals in minimum pressure drop across the be expressed as the mass of mercury in hazardous waste feedstreams per scrubber; (5) if your combustor is the hazardous waste per million Btu million Btu of hazardous waste fired for equipped with a low energy wet heat input contributed by the hazardous liquid-fuel-fired boilers; 203, 204 (3) limits scrubber: a limit on minimum pressure waste. Also, please note that these (or process monitors) on the particulate drop across the scrubber; and a limit on compliance requirements would not matter control device as discussed minimum liquid feed pressure to the apply to hydrochloric acid production above; (4) a limit on maximum feedrate scrubber; and (6) if your combustor is furnaces because (as explained earlier) of total chlorine or chloride in all equipped with a dry scrubber: a limit on we propose to use the total chlorine feedstreams; and (5) a limit on minimum sorbent feedrate; a limit on standard as a surrogate for the mercury, maximum flue gas flowrate or minimum carrier fluid flowrate or particulate matter, semivolatile metal, production rate. You may comply with nozzle pressure drop; and you must and low volatile metal standards for semivolatile and low volatile metal specify and use the brand (i.e., these sources. See § 63.1209(l). feedrate limits only, however, if you manufacturer) and type of sorbent used To ensure continuous compliance elect to assume that all semivolatile and during the comprehensive performance with the particulate matter emission low volatile metals in the feed is test, unless you document key limit, you would be required to emitted. For solid fuel-fired boilers, you parameters that affect the effectiveness establish: (1) Limits on the control would assume that all semivolatile and of the sorbent and establish limits on device operating parameters; (2) a limit low volatile metals in all feedstreams those parameters based on the sorbent on maximum flue gas flowrate or are emitted under this alternative used in the comprehensive performance production rate; and a limit on approach. You would also establish a test. If your combustor is equipped with maximum ash feedrate. If your boiler is limit on minimum flue gas flowrate to an ionizing wet scrubber, please note equipped with a wet scrubber, you ensure compliance with the semi- and that we discuss in Part Three, Section would establish limits on: (1) For high low volatile metals emission standard. II.I. below proposed compliance energy scrubbers only, minimum For liquid fuel-fired boilers where the parameters for this control device. pressure drop across the scrubber and semivolatile and low volatile metals Briefly, if your combustor is equipped either minimum liquid to gas ratio or emission standards are expressed as with an ionizing wet scrubber, you must minimum scrubber water flowrate and hazardous waste thermal emissions, you either: (1) Install and operate a maximum flue gas flowrate; and (2) for would assume that all semivolatile and particulate matter loading detector as a all scrubbers, the solids content of the low volatile metals in all hazardous process monitor to indicate when you scrubber liquid or a minimum waste feedstreams are emitted. You must take corrective measures; or (2) blowdown rate. If your boiler is would have to comply with a hazardous equipped with an electrostatic waste thermal feed concentration that 204 The semivolatile and low volatile metal precipitator, ionizing wet scrubber, or would be expressed as the mass of feedrate limits would be based on levels fed during fabric filter, please note that we discuss semivolatile (or low volatile) metals in the comprehensive performance test unless the in Part Three, Section II.I. below the hazardous waste per million Btu regulatory authority approves a request for you to extrapolate to higher allowable feedrate (and proposed compliance parameters for heat input contributed by the hazardous emission rate) limits. Please note that the these control devices. Briefly, if your waste. Also, please note that the semivolatile and low volatile metal feed limits for boiler is equipped with a fabric filter, semivolatile metal and low volatile liquid fuel-fired boilers are hazardous waste you must comply with bag leak metal compliance requirements would thermal concentration limits (pounds of metal per detection system requirements. If your million Btu), not mass feedrate limits, given that the not apply to hydrochloric acid emission standards are expressed as hazardous boiler is equipped with an electrostatic waste thermal emissions. precipitator or ionizing wet scrubber, 203 This is because the semivolatile metal and low 205 This is because the total chlorine emission you must either: (1) Install and operate volatile metal emission standards for liquid fuel- standard for liquid fuel-fired boilers is a hazardous a particulate matter loading detector as fired boilers are hazardous waste thermal emission waste thermal emission concentration. You would concentrations. You would also be required to also be required to monitor the heating value of a process monitor to indicate when you monitor the heating value of hazardous waste hazardous waste feedstreams to ensure compliance must take corrective measures; or (2) feedstreams to ensure compliance with the with the hazardous waste thermal emission establish limits on key operating hazardous waste thermal emission concentration. standard.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:56 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21311

establish limits on key operating combustion chamber pressure to control Because sources can readily control parameters, on a site-specific basis, that combustion system leaks; 206 (2) 12-hour (during the performance test and are representative and reliable rolling averages for maximum feedrate thereafter) the parameters for which indicators that the control device is of mercury, semivolatile metals, low limits are established, the operating operating within the same range of volatile metals, total chlorine and limits based on the average of the conditions as during the comprehensive chloride, and ash; and (3) one-hour performance test runs should be readily performance test, and link those rolling averages for all other operating achievable under routine operations. operating limits to the automatic waste parameters. We propose a 12-hour feed cutoff system. rolling average for metal, total chlorine F. How Would Sources Comply With You may comply with a total chlorine and chloride, and ash feedrate limits to Emissions Standards Based on Normal and chloride feedrate limit only, correspond to the potential duration of Emissions? however, if you elect to assume that all three runs of a comprehensive Several proposed emission standards chlorine in the feed is emitted. For solid performance test, considering that would be based on emissions that are fuel-fired boilers, you would assume feedrate and emissions, are, for the most within the normal range of operations that all chlorine in all feedstreams is part, linearly related. We propose an for the source rather than on compliance emitted under this alternative approach. hourly rolling average limit for all test emissions that represent the You would also establish a limit on parameters that are based on operating extreme upper end of the range of minimum flue gas flowrate to ensure data from the comprehensive normal emissions: 208 mercury compliance with the total chlorine performance test, except combustion standards for cement kilns, lightweight standard. For liquid fuel-fired boilers chamber pressure and metal, chlorine, aggregate kilns, and liquid fuel-fired where the total chlorine emission and ash feedrate limits. Hourly rolling boilers, and semivolatile metal standard is expressed as hazardous averages are appropriate for these emissions for liquid fuel-fired boilers. waste thermal emissions, you would parameters rather than averaging To ensure compliance with emission assume that all chlorine in all hazardous periods based on the duration of the standards based on normal emissions waste feedstreams is emitted. You performance test because we are data, you would document during the would have to comply with a hazardous concerned that there may be a nonlinear comprehensive performance test a waste thermal feed concentration that relationship between operating system removal efficiency for the metals would be expressed as the mass of parameter levels and emission levels of and back-calculate from the emission chlorine in the hazardous waste per HAP or HAP surrogates. standard a maximum metal feedrate million Btu heat input contributed by We propose two approaches to limit that must not be exceeded on an the hazardous waste. See § 63.1209(o). calculate limits for operating annual rolling average. If your source is To ensure continuous compliance parameters: (1) Calculate the limit as the not equipped with an emission control with the destruction and removal average of the maximum (or minimum, system (such as activated carbon to efficiency standard, you would be as specified) rolling averages for each control mercury) for the metals in required to: (1) Establish a limit on run of the test; or (2) calculate the limit question, however, you must assume minimum combustion chamber as the average of the test run averages zero system removal efficiency. This is temperature; (2) establish a limit on for each run of the test. Hourly rolling because a source that is not equipped maximum flue gas flowrate or averages for two parameters— with an emission control system may be production rate; (3) establish a limit on combustion gas flowrate or production able to document a positive system maximum hazardous waste feedrate; rate and hazardous waste feedrate— removal efficiency, but it is not likely to and (4) specify operating parameters would be based on the average of the be reproducible. It is likely to be an and limits to ensure that good operation maximum hourly rolling averages for artifact of the calculation of emissions of each hazardous waste firing system is each run. Hourly rolling average and 12- and feeds rather than a removal maintained. See § 63.1209(j). hour rolling average limits for all other efficiency that is reliable and parameters, however, would be based E. What Are the Averaging Periods for reproducible. on the average level occurring during the Operating Parameter Limits, and To ensure that you can calculate a the comprehensive performance test. How Are Performance Test Data valid, reproducible system removal We conclude that this more Averaged To Calculate the Limits? efficiency for sources equipped with a conservative approach is appropriate for control system that effectively controls Except as discussed in Section XIV.F these parameters because they can have the metal in question, you may need to below, we propose that owners and a greater effect on emissions, and spike metals in the feed during the operators of solid fuel-fired boilers, because it is consistent with how comprehensive performance test at liquid fuel-fired boilers, and manual emissions results are levels that may result in emissions that hydrochloric acid production furnaces determined.207 We also conclude that are higher than the standard. This establish averaging periods for the limits based on the average level would be acceptable because operating parameter limits and calculate occurring during the comprehensive compliance with an emission standard the limits from comprehensive performance are readily achievable. derived from normal emissions data is performance test data under the same This is because sources generally based on compliance with an annual approaches required currently for conduct performance testing at the incinerators, cement kilns, and extreme upper end of the range of average feedrate limit calculated as lightweight aggregate kilns. A detailed normal operations to provide the prescribed here, rather than compliance discussion of how those approaches operating flexibility needed after with the emission standard during the work, and the rationale for them, are establishing operating parameter limits. comprehensive performance test. provided at 64 FR at 52919–22 We propose a one-year averaging (September 30, 1999). That discussion is 206 Please note, however, that we request period for the metal feedrate limit summarized below. comment on the appropriateness of these combustion system leak requirements in Part Three 208 Compliance test emissions represent the upper We propose the following averaging of today’s preamble. range of emissions from a source because operating periods: (1) No averaging period (i.e., 207 Manual method emission test results for each parameter limits for the HAP or HAP surrogate are instantaneous monitoring) for maximum run represent average emissions over the entire run. established based on this compliance test.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21312 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

because the emission standard hour rolling average updated each present above the analytical detection represents normal, average emissions. minute or, for standards based on limit. For the semi-volatile metals Although the averaging period could be normal emissions, on an annual rolling standard, this means that neither lead substantially shorter or longer, a one- average updated each hour. You must nor cadmium could be present above year averaging period is within the know the concentration of mercury, the analytical detection limits for any range of reasonable averaging periods semivolatile metals, low volatile metals, run of the test. You would assume that and would be readily achievable for a or total chlorine and chloride in the the HAP is present at the full detection standard based on normal emissions. hazardous waste at all times, and the limit, if lead or cadmium are present The annual rolling average metal heating value of the hazardous waste at above the analytical detection limit feedrate would be updated each hour all times. Using this information, you during any run of the test. based on the average of the 60 previous would calculate and record the If you wish to use this provision to 1-minute averages. hazardous waste thermal feed demonstrate compliance with the We propose to retain the hourly concentration on a 12-hour rolling standard, you would be required to rolling average requirement for the other average, or for standards based on show that all three criteria have been operating parameter limits, however, for normal emissions, on an annual rolling met in the Notification of Compliance the reasons discussed above (i.e., to be average updated each hour. sent to the appropriate permitting conservative given the nonlinear agency. You would not be required to relationship between the operating H. What Happens if My Thermal provide advance notice or obtain prior parameter and emissions, and because Emissions Standard Limits Emissions to approval from the permitting authority. the limits would be readily achievable). Below the Detection Limit of the Stack Test Methods? I. Are We Concerned About Possible G. How Would Sources Comply With Under today’s proposed thermal Negative Biases Associated With Making Emission Standards Expressed as emissions standards, the standard may Hydrogen Chloride Measurements in Hazardous Waste Thermal Emissions? limit emissions to levels that are below High Moisture Conditions? Several proposed emission standards the analytical detection limit of the Several industry stakeholders have would be expressed as hazardous waste stack test method. For example, this brought several scientific papers to our thermal emissions: mass of pollutant may occur with the semi-volatile metals attention that indicate that Method 26A, emissions attributable to the hazardous standard for liquid fuel boilers when used for compliance with the hydrogen waste feed per million Btu of hazardous allowable emission levels are below the chloride and chlorine gas standards, waste fed to the combustor. analytical detection capabilities of may have a significant low bias at wet To demonstrate compliance with a Method 29 when the hazardous waste stacks with low hydrogen chloride hazardous waste thermal emissions- firing rate or heating value is low. To concentrations. These stakeholders have based standard during a comprehensive address this issue, we are requesting asked us not to establish standards for performance test, you would calculate comment on an approach that would hydrogen chloride and chlorine the hazardous waste thermal emissions allow you to be in compliance with standard below 20 ppmv to address this by apportioning mass emissions of today’s proposed thermal emission substantial negative bias. mercury, semivolatile metals, low standards if certain sampling and We agree that there was a concern volatile metals, or total chlorine analytical criteria are met. early in the development and according to the ratio of the mass The first criterion would ensure that deployment of Method 26A that water feedrate of mercury, semivolatile metals, the test crew accumulates enough of the droplets would not evaporate in the low volatile metals, or total chlorine and analyte (e.g., metal HAP) in the sample sampling train and would therefore chloride from hazardous waste train to ensure that it is measurable by dissolve hydrogen chloride in the feedstreams to the feedrate for all the laboratory. For example, the amount sample train, before the hydrogen feedstreams and dividing by the heat of HAP accumulated in a one hour chloride can be caught by the impingers. input rate (i.e., million Btu/hr) sample may not be sufficient for the EPA determined that this potential attributable to the hazardous waste. laboratory to quantify. On the other problem can be precluded by providing To ensure continuous compliance hand, a three hour test would be more enough heat to the sample train to with the hazardous waste thermal likely to accumulate enough sample, evaporate all water droplets that might emissions-based standard, you would since three times the amount of that collect in the sample probe or filter. calculate an operating limit based on the HAP would be collected. Most Method Once the water is evaporated, the hazardous waste thermal feed 29 results that comprise our emissions hydrogen chloride reenters the sample concentration during the performance database are from two to three hour gas stream and is collected by the test.209 The hazardous waste thermal samples. The first criterion would be impingers. feed concentration limit would be met if the facility samples the flue gas EPA’s Office of Research and calculated as the mass feedrate (lb/hr) of for at least three hours for each run. Development (ORD) performed mercury, semivolatile metals, low The second criterion would ensure laboratory studies to document and volatile metals, or total chlorine and that the laboratory uses adequate quality fully understand this problem. We also chloride from hazardous waste assurance procedures to measure the monitored the application of Method feedstreams divided by the heat input HAP in the sample. Section 13.2 of 26A and it’s SW–846 equivalent to rate (million Btu/hr) from hazardous Method 29 provides the analytical determine how these concerns may waste feedstreams. For compliance, you detection limits for the various impact hydrogen chloride would continuously monitor the laboratory methods used to determine measurements made on wet stacks. Our feedrate of hazardous waste on a 12- the amount of HAP accumulated in the conclusion is that the situations sample. The second criterion would be encountered in ORD’s laboratory studies 209 If the hazardous waste thermal emission met if the laboratory reports analytical are not encountered when making stack standard is derived from normal rather than detection limits that are less than or test measurements. compliance test emissions data, however, the hazardous waste thermal feed concentration would equal to those reported in section 13.2. The Coalition for Responsible Waste be calculated as discussed above in Section F of the The final criterion is that no HAP Incineration, CRWI, provided a paper preamble. represented by the standard can be authored by Joette Steger, et al., which

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21313

illustrates this point. (See memorandum and certification requirements; and A. Summary of Requirements Currently to docket for today’s proposed rule from requirements for sources that elect to Applicable to Incinerators, Cement H. Scott Rauenzahn, U.S. EPA, entitled comply with the carbon monoxide Kilns, and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns ‘‘Method 26A and CRWI’s Concerns,’’ standard to document one-time that and That Would Be Applicable to dated March 25, 2004.) Steger found hydrocarbons also meet the Boilers and Hydrochloric Acid that Method 26A has a significant hydrocarbon standard; and provisions Production Furnaces negative bias when 40 to 50 percent of allowing a one-time demonstration of Owners and operators of solid fuel- the water in the sample is in the form compliance with the destruction and fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers, of water droplets. Under similar sample removal efficiency standard. and hydrochloric acid production conditions, with 60 percent of the water furnaces would be required to submit in the form of droplets, Steger found Please note that we propose revisions to, or request comment on, some of the following notifications to the that providing more heat to the sample Administrator in addition to those these compliance requirements in Part train corrected the negative bias required by the NESHAP General concern. Three of the preamble. Any revisions to Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63: We also checked our hydrogen these requirements that we might make (1) Notification of changes in design, chloride emissions data for hazardous in the final rule would be applicable to operation, or maintenance waste combustors to see if water all hazardous waste combustors. (§ 63.1206(b)(5)(i)); (2) notification of droplets could be present in the sample XV. How Did EPA Determine performance test and continuous line. We found that water droplets could monitoring system evaluation, including be present in three of our incinerator Compliance Times for this Proposed Rule? the performance test plan and test conditions: 327C10 at 5 percent continuous monitoring system water droplets; 808C1 at 12.5 percent Section 112 of the CAA specifies the performance evaluation plan water droplets; and 3024C1 at 8 percent (§§ 63.1207(e)); and (3) notification of water droplets. None of these stack dates by which affected sources must comply with the emission standards. compliance, including results of conditions approach the 40 to 50 performance tests and continuous percent water droplets observed to be a New or reconstructed units must be in compliance with the proposed rule monitoring system evaluations problem by Steger. These stack gas (§§ 63.1210(b), 63.1207(j); 63.1207(k), conditions most closely resemble immediately upon startup or [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN and 63.1207(l)). You would also be Steger’s run B–5, with 10% water required to submit notifications to the THE Federal Register], whichever is droplets. No negative bias was observed Administrator if you request or elect to for Steger’s run B–5. We conclude that later. A new or reconstructed unit for comply with various alternative this negative bias, while conceptually purposes of complying with this requirements. Those notifications are possible, is not encountered at proposed rule is one that begins listed at § 63.1210(a)(2). 210 hazardous waste combustors with wet construction after April 20, 2004. Owners and operators of solid fuel- stacks. Existing sources are allowed up to fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers, We request comments on our analysis and hydrochloric acid production of these trade association’s concerns, three years to comply with the final furnaces would be required to submit and request more data regarding this rule. See proposed § 63.1206(a)(1)(ii) the following reports to the issue. and (a)(2). This is the maximum period allowed by the CAA. We believe that Administrator in addition to those J. What Are the Other Proposed three years for compliance is necessary required by the NESHAP General Compliance Requirements? to allow adequate time to design, install, Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63: We propose other compliance and test control systems that will be (1) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements for solid fuel-fired boilers, retrofitted onto existing units. plan (if electing to comply with liquid fuel-fired boilers, and § 63.1206(c)(2)(ii)(B)); (2) excessive hydrochloric acid production furnaces XVI. How Did EPA Determine the exceedances report (§ 63.1206(c)(3)(vi)); that are the same as those currently in Required Records and Reports for the and (3) emergency safety vent opening place at § 63.1206 for incinerators, Proposed Rule? reports (§ 63.1206(c)(4)(iv)). Owners and operators of solid fuel- cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate We propose notification, reporting, kilns. The rationale for the requirements fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers, and recordkeeping requirements for is the same as discussed in previous and hydrochloric acid production solid fuel-fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired rulemakings for incinerators, cement furnaces would be required to keep kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns, boilers and hydrochloric acid records documenting compliance with and compliance procedures would be production furnaces that are identical to the requirements of Subpart EEE. the same as currently required for those those already in place at §§ 63.1210 and Recordkeeping requirements are sources. 63.1211 and applicable to incinerators, prescribed in § 63.1211(b), and include The other compliance requirements cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate requirements under the NESHAP include provisions for: startup, kilns. Please note, however, that we are General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR shutdown, and malfunction plans; proposing a new requirement applicable part 63. operation and maintenance plans to all hazardous waste combustors that B. Why Is EPA Proposing Notification of including a requirement for bag leak would require you to submit a Intent to Comply and Compliance detector systems for fabric filters; Notification of Intent to Comply and a Progress Report Requirements? automatic hazardous waste feed cutoff Compliance Progress Report. systems, including a requirement for 1. What Is the Notification of Intent to exceedance reporting; combustion Comply? 210 Please note that a new or reconstructed unit system leak requirements; changes in for purposes of complying with the Interim In the June 1998 ‘‘fast track’’ rule (63 design, operation, or maintenance that Standards applicable to incinerators, cement kilns, FR 33782), we required that sources could adversely affect compliance with and lightweight aggregate kilns is a unit that began subject to the Phase I subpart EEE emission standards; operator training operation after September 30, 1999. standards complete a Notification of

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21314 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Intent to Comply (NIC) no later than met the goals of both the source and the or less hazardous waste generated) and October 2, 2000 and conduct a NIC surrounding community. that this was an impermissible statutory public meeting no later than July 31, Fourth, the public involvement aspect interpretation. See 217 F. 3d at 865–67. 2000. The NIC and its associated public of the NIC also offset any public The panel majority further held that meeting served four primary purposes participation opportunities that may because it could not determine whether during the early implementation and have been ‘‘lost’’ if sources chose to take we would have promulgated the NIC compliance phases of the Phase I advantage of the RCRA streamlined and Progress Report requirements subpart EEE requirements which we permit modification process. Many absent the Early Cessation provision, believe were of benefit to regulators, Phase I sources had to modify their both the NIC and Progress Report sources and the public alike. combustion systems’ design and/or requirements should be vacated as well. First, the NIC served as a compliance operations in order to comply with the However, the panel did agree to issue a planning tool for Phase I sources MACT standards. Sources that were stay of its mandate for a long enough because it required you to develop an already operating under RCRA period of time to allow sources to outline of the key activities that needed combustion permits needed to first submit their NICs so that they would be to be completed in order to meet the modify those permits before initiating eligible for the RCRA streamlined subpart EEE standards by the any MACT compliance related changes. permit modification. compliance date. It also required that Normally, a Class 2 or 3 modification As discussed above, the NIC was you include the estimated dates for each would be necessary to incorporate into intended to serve as a compliance of those key activities. Because the NIC a RCRA permit the types of changes we planning and communication tool. We was required to be completed within the expected would be necessary for sources did not intend the NIC to serve as the first year of implementing the Phase I complying with Phase I standards. basis for requiring a source to cease requirements, it also may have had the Given that Class 2 and 3 modifications burning hazardous waste. However, as a added and important benefit of could have consumed a year or more of planning and communication tool we encouraging sources to reduce their a source’s three-year subpart EEE expected sources that did not intend to HAP emissions early. By focusing a compliance period, we developed a comply with the standards to state this source’s attention on the means by streamlined permit modification process in their NIC and include a schedule of which it would achieve compliance solely for the purpose of implementing activities that the source would need to well before the actual compliance date, subpart EEE upgrades. Under the complete in order to stop burning the NIC may have prompted some streamlined process, you could request hazardous waste within the two-year sources to upgrade their combustion a Class 1 modification with prior Early Cessation time frame. We believe design and operations earlier, thereby Agency approval to address and that the court recognized this yielding an early reduction in HAP incorporate any necessary MACT interpretation as our original intent in emissions. The NIC also may have upgrades into your RCRA permit. To be their agreement to stay their issuance of prompted earlier waste minimization eligible to use the streamlined permit the mandate until after sources had efforts for the same reason. modification, however, you first must submitted their final NICs on October 1, Second, the NIC also served as a have complied with the NIC 2000. By allowing the Phase I sources to planning tool for regulatory authorities. requirements, including those related to complete the NIC process, the court Based on the information provided in public involvement. provided sources with the opportunity the NIC, regulators could determine to effectively plan their compliance what activities were likely to occur and 2. What Happened to the NIC strategies and take advantage of the when over the course of the three-year Provisions? RCRA streamlined permit modification. compliance period. For example, they We promulgated the NIC on June 19, It also provided the public with the could estimate how many sources 1998 (63 FR 33782) along with several opportunity for a level of participation needed to modify their combustion other requirements related to the Phase that they may not have had otherwise. units and existing RCRA permits prior I NESHAP. On May 14, 2001, we to performance testing, how many 3. Why Is EPA Proposing To Re-Institute removed the NIC and two other the NIC for Phase I Sources? sources intended to stop burning provisions from the federal regulations hazardous waste, and how many in response to a court mandate to As stated above, we believe that the sources intended to apply for the vacate. See 66 FR 24270. In Chemical NIC was a valuable planning and comparable fuels exclusion. Using this Manufacturers Ass’n v EPA, 217 F. 3d communication tool for sources, information, regulators could plan how 861 (D.C. Cir. 2000), the court vacated regulators, and the public during the to most efficiently allocate their three provisions of the Phase I rule: the early implementation and compliance resources in response to the forthcoming Early Cessation requirement, the NIC stages of the 1999 Phase I subpart EEE compliance activities of the sources. and the Compliance Progress Report.211 requirements. The NIC also provided an Third, the NIC promoted early public While the panel majority held that we additional benefit to sources upgrading involvement by fostering an open possessed the legal authority to impose their combustion systems by compensating for any ‘‘lost’’ public dialogue between sources and the an Early Cessation requirement, the participation opportunities when using public regarding compliance strategies panel also held that we had claimed the the RCRA streamlined permit for meeting the Phase I subpart EEE authority to do so without making a modification process. As discussed in standards. Experience has shown that showing of a health and environmental Part One, I. B and D, we are proposing members of the public are interested in benefit (such as reduced HAP emissions being kept adequately informed of and in today’s notice to supplant the having input into the compliance and 211 Under the Early Cessation provision, we existing Phase I standards with final permitting activities of hazardous waste required sources that did not intend to comply with Replacement standards. We anticipate combustion facilities. The NIC and its the Phase I standards to stop burning hazardous that a significant number of Phase I associated public meeting provided an waste within two years of the effective date of the sources may need to conduct additional Phase I rule. Under the Compliance Progress Report opportunity for the public to share their provision, we required sources to report to their upgrades, or in some cases upgrade for views, thereby allowing the source to regulatory agencies the status of their progress the first time, to comply with the develop a final compliance strategy that toward compliance with the standards. Replacements standards. See

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21315

§§ 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221. Re- currently allows a source to use the 5. How Will the NIC Process Work? instituting the NIC for these sources RCRA streamlined modification process could provide the same planning and provided that the source first complied We are proposing to apply a similar communication benefits during the with the NIC requirements that were in NIC process to that which we initial Replacement standards place prior to October 11, 2000. Since promulgated in the June 19, 1998 ‘‘fast compliance period that it did for the many sources complied with those NIC track’’ rule (63 FR 33782). The following original Phase I standards. requirements in 1999 and 2000, the is a general description of that process. Specifically, we expect that by existing regulatory language would Within nine months of the promulgation focusing attention early on the allow those same sources to further of the final Phase I Replacement necessary tasks and strategies for modify their RCRA permits for standards and Phase II standards, you achieving compliance, Phase I sources would develop and make publicly will be in a better position to meet the Replacement standards upgrades. The regulatory language does not make any available a draft NIC. The draft NIC Replacement standards by the would contain general information such compliance date. Regulators will gain distinction regarding when the upgrades are to take place in relation to when the as whether you are a major or an area insight from the information provided source and what waste minimization, in the NIC to effectively allocate their NIC requirements were to have been emission control techniques, and resources to accommodate future fulfilled. We do not believe that it is emission monitoring techniques you regulatory activities. And, the NIC will appropriate for a source to rely on provide the public with the opportunity previous informational and public might be considering. At the same time, and mechanism to keep abreast of any participation activities carried out to you would also provide a notice to the significant changes an existing source comply with the earlier NIC public of at least one informal NIC might need to make as a result of the requirements and emission standards to public meeting. Within ten months, you Replacement standards. We do not address upgrades occurring years later would hold this public meeting to believe that the same planning and in response to a different set of discuss the activities you described in communication opportunities gained standards any more than it would be the draft NIC for achieving compliance from completing the NIC process are appropriate to allow the public with the subpart EEE standards. The available from other portions of the air participation activities of a previous meeting provides an opportunity for a regulatory program. For example, RCRA modification to suffice for a later mutual understanding between you and although the public will be notified of modification. By requiring sources that the public regarding compliance a source’s obligation to comply with the choose to use the RCRA streamlined options, including consideration of both Replacement standards during the permit modification process for technical (e.g., equipment changes to reopening or renewal of the source’s upgrade air pollution control devices) title V, this notification, in most cases, Replacement standards upgrades to first complete a NIC, including its associated and operational (e.g., process changes to will not occur as early in the three-year minimize waste generation) alternatives. subpart EEE compliance period, nor is public meeting, that specifically addresses those Replacement standards We expect the exchange between you it likely to include the specific and the community at the meeting to be information regarding the source’s upgrades, the community will be kept similar to that which would occur at compliance strategy.212 better informed of additional changes to In addition, while we believe that the combustion system and the impact RCRA pre-application meetings. That is, there will be fewer Phase I sources in on the RCRA permit. we intend for the meeting to provide an the position of having RCRA open, flexible and informal occasion for combustion permit conditions after 4. Why Is EPA Proposing To Require the you and the public to discuss various demonstrating compliance with the NIC for Phase II Sources? aspects of your compliance strategy, provide an opportunity for sharing ideas Interim standards, for those that do and We believe that the NIC would and provide an opportunity for building wish to use the streamlined permit provide the same benefits with respect modification process to allow any a framework for a solid and positive to communication and compliance necessary Replacement standards working relationship. Lastly, you would strategy planning for the Phase II upgrades, a second NIC would provide submit a final NIC to your regulatory sources that it has for Phase I sources. the same public participation benefits as authority that would include the In addition, without completing the NIC did the first NIC.213 40 CFR 270.42(j) information provided in the draft NIC process, Phase II sources will not be (revised as necessary after the public 212 eligible to take advantage of the RCRA If a major title V source has a remaining meeting) as well as a summary of the permit term of three or more years on the date the streamlined permit modification when public meeting. This final NIC would be Replacement standards are promulgated, the title V upgrading their combustion systems. permitting authority must complete a reopening of submitted to your regulatory authority We are proposing that Phase II sources the source’s title V permit to incorporate the within one year of the promulgation of requirements of these standards not later than 18 comply with the same NIC requirements the final Phase I Replacement standards months after promulgation. Major sources having as their Phase I counterparts. remaining permit terms of less than three years on and Phase II standards. the date the Replacement standards are promulgated may wait until permit renewal to compliance with the Subpart EEE standards, the In summary, we believe that the NIC incorporate the new standards. Area sources with source may request that its RCRA permit be would provide important planning and title V permits likewise may wait until permit modified to remove any duplicative limits or communication opportunities for both renewal. Permitting authorities must follow the conditions. Only those risk-based provisions that Phase I and Phase II sources. It also same public notice procedures for title V permit are more stringent than the MACT requirements as reopenings and renewals as is required for initial specified in the Notification of compliance or that would allow all Phase I, as needed, and permit issuance under title V, including providing address other emission hazards will remain in the Phase II sources to take advantage of the public notice of the action, providing a public RCRA permit. We expect that many sources will RCRA streamlined permit modification comment period of at least 30 days, and providing document compliance with the Phase I Interim an opportunity for a public hearing. See 40 CFR standards between 2003 and 2004 and will request procedure. Thus, we are proposing NIC 70.7 and 71.7. the removal of any duplicative, less stringent requirements for both Phase I and Phase 213 Once a source conducts its CPT and submits provisions from their RCRA permits shortly II sources. an Notification of compliance documenting thereafter.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21316 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

6. What Is the Compliance Progress 8. How Would the Compliance Progress and the facility that are governed by Report? Report Requirement Work? RCRA, is still the most appropriate The Compliance Progress Report method to meet our obligations under In addition to the NIC, we also requirements would be similar to those both statutes. In 1999, our goal in promulgated Compliance Progress promulgated for Phase I sources in the developing a permitting scheme to ‘‘ Report requirements in the 1998 fast June 19, 1998 ‘‘fast track’’ rule (63 FR accommodate both statutes with respect track’’ rule. See 63 FR 33782. The 33782). Within two years of the to air emission limitations and purpose of the Progress Report was to promulgation of the final standards, you standards, was to avoid duplication to help regulatory agencies determine if would develop and submit to your the extent practicable and to streamline sources were making reasonable regulatory authority a Compliance requirements. We remain committed to headway in their efforts to come into Progress Report. The Report would that goal, as we revise and refine the compliance. The Progress Report was include information which permitting approach we finalized in required to be submitted at the midpoint demonstrates your progress toward 1999. of the three-year compliance period and compliance. This could include, for A. What Is the General Approach To contain information that essentially example, completed engineering designs Permitting Hazardous Waste built on the information you previously for any physical modifications to the Combustion Sources? provided in the NIC. For example, if you combustion unit that are needed to In the September 1999 rule, we indicated in the NIC that you needed to comply with the standards; copies of construction applications; and binding finalized a permitting approach that make specific physical modifications to places the MACT air emissions and your combustion system in order to contractual commitments to purchase, fabricate, and install any necessary related operating requirements in the comply with the standards, you would title V permit and retains all other be expected to describe your progress in equipment, devices, and ancillary structures. In addition, you would be RCRA related requirements (e.g., making those modifications in your corrective action, general facility Compliance Progress Report. Although expected to include a detailed schedule that lists the dates for all remaining key standards, other combustor specific the Progress Report was primarily concerns such as material handling, intended as a tool for the regulatory activities and projects that will bring you into compliance with the standards. risk-based emission limits and operating agencies, we believe it also may have For example, you would include bid requirements, and other hazardous been beneficial to sources as well. For and award dates for construction waste management units) in the RCRA example, the Progress Report could have contracts, milestones for permit. See 64 FR 52828, 52833–52834 been used by sources as a mechanism to groundbreaking, and dates for the (September 30, 2000). Under this review and make any necessary changes approval of permits and licenses. We approach, sources comply with their to their original strategy for achieving would also expect you to include in RCRA emission limits and operating compliance. your report any updates or changes to requirements until they demonstrate As discussed in the previous section, the information you previously compliance with the MACT standards the Court vacated the early cessation, provided in your NIC, including if you by conducting a comprehensive NIC and Compliance Progress Report have changed your compliance plan performance test and submitting a provisions of the Phase I rule in based on engineering studies or Notification of Compliance (NOC) to the evaluations that you have conducted Administrator (or authorized State) that Chemical Manufacturers Ass’n v EPA, 215 217 F. 3d 861 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Although since your NIC submittal.214 Sources documents compliance. Upon documenting compliance through the the Court’s primary focus was the early that intend to cease burning hazardous NOC, sources may begin the transition cessation provision, it also vacated the waste prior to or on the compliance date from RCRA permitting to title V Progress Report requirements because it would still be expected to submit a report describing key activities and permitting. could not determine whether we would We believe that this approach still have promulgated those requirements projected dates for initiating RCRA closure and discontinuing hazardous makes the most sense in terms of absent the early cessation provision. waste activities at the combustion unit. providing flexibility and minimizing 7. Why Is EPA Requesting Comment on duplication between the two permitting XVII. What Are the Title V and RCRA programs, while ensuring that there is Requiring the Compliance Progress Permitting Requirements for Phase I Report for Phase I and Phase II Sources? no break in regulatory coverage. It is and Phase II Sources? also appropriate given where sources We believe that the Progress Report In today’s notice of proposed will be in the transition process of would be a useful tool for both rulemaking, we are maintaining the complying with the MACT Interim regulators and sources in measuring same general approach we took in the Standards upon promulgation of the progress toward achieving compliance 1999 rule with respect to title V and Phase I Replacement standards and the with the Subpart EEE standards and RCRA permitting requirements and the Phase II standards. The majority of determining if any revisions to a Phase I sources. We feel that this Phase I sources will have initiated a source’s compliance strategy are approach, to place the MACT air necessary. Unlike the NIC, however, we emissions and related operating 215 There is no change to our decision to subject Phase I area sources to the same MACT standards do not have practical experience with requirements in the title V permit and to continue to require RCRA permits for and title V permitting requirements as the major the application of the Compliance sources. For Phase II sources, area sources are all other aspects of the combustion unit Progress Report, because the Court required to meet the same MACT standards as vacated its requirements prior to their major sources, but only for: dioxin/furan, mercury, 214 For example, if you reported in your NIC that carbon monoxide/hydrocarbons, and destruction implementation. As a result, we are you intended to upgrade your existing unit, but and removal efficiency. See Part Two, Section I.A. requesting comment on whether or not later determined that it was more appropriate to for more information on regulation of area sources. the Compliance Progress Report should replace the unit with a new unit, we would expect Therefore, Phase II area sources will be required to you to inform your regulatory agency of this change obtain a title V permit only for those MACT be required for Phase I or Phase II in your compliance plan in your Compliance standards as discussed later in Paragraph C.4. of sources. Progress Report. this section.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21317

significant modification of their title V provisions of the Clean Air Act (and was agreed (during litigation settlement permits to include the operating other federal statutes). This integration discussions), that we would revisit and requirements of their NOC and a must be done in a way that is consistent address the issues in the Phase I modification of their RCRA permits to with the goals and policies of these Replacement standards and Phase II remove duplicative conditions. By this statutes. Therefore, section 1006(b) standards rulemaking. time, permitting authorities and sources provides further authority for EPA to a. Why Is EPA Proposing a Different are familiar with the current permitting eliminate the existing RCRA stack Permitting Approach for New Sources? approach and have worked through emissions standards to avoid In the September 1999 rule, we had many issues to make compliance with duplication with the new MACT amended language in 40 CFR 264.340, the Interim Standards and the ensuing standards. 265.340, 266.100, 270.19, 270.22, transition successful. We feel that We are not proposing, however, that 270.62, and 270.66 to accommodate the permitting authorities and sources RCRA permit conditions to control permit transition from RCRA to the would prefer to draw upon their emissions from these sources will never CAA. To summarize, the amended experiences and utilize the expertise be necessary, only that the national language in these sections says that once they have developed, rather than RCRA standards appear to be a source demonstrates compliance with exploring ways to implement a new unnecessary. Under the authority of the standards in 40 CFR part 63 subpart permitting scheme. Therefore, we are RCRA’s ‘‘omnibus’’ clause section EEE, the requirements in specified part retaining the same general approach to 3005(c)(3); see 40 CFR 270.32(b)(2)), 264, 265, 266, and part 270 sections permitting for Phase I sources and are RCRA permit writers may impose would no longer apply. However, the proposing to apply this same general additional terms and conditions on a amended language neglected to approach to Phase II sources in today’s site-specific basis as may be necessary specifically address if, how, or when Notice of proposed rulemaking: to place to protect human health and the new sources would make the transition the MACT emission standards only in environment. Thus, if MACT standards from RCRA permitting requirements to the CAA regulation at 40 CFR part 63 are not protective of human health and CAA MACT requirements. subpart EEE, and rely on the environment in an individual As we discussed in the preamble to implementation through the air program instance, RCRA permit writers will the July 3, 2001, proposed amendments, and operating permit programs establish permit limits that are under RCRA, new sources must obtain developed under title V. protective. a permit or a permit modification before In RCRA, Congress gave EPA broad they may start construction of a new 1. What Is the Authority for the authority to provide for public source/unit. The way the current part Proposals Discussed in This Section? participation in the RCRA permitting 270 language reads, new sources subject EPA is issuing these proposals to process. Section 7004(b) of RCRA to the 1999 rule and the Interim modify RCRA permits under the requires EPA to provide for, encourage, Standards rule are not able to authority of sections 1006(b), 2002, and assist public participation in the demonstrate compliance with the part 3004, 3005 and 7004(b) of RCRA. With development, revision, implementation, 63 standards until after a RCRA permit regard to the regulatory framework that and enforcement of any regulation, is issued, the source is built, and they would result from today’s proposal, we guideline, information, or program conduct performance testing. This are proposing to eliminate the existing under the Act. means they would have to submit a trial RCRA stack emissions national burn plan with their RCRA permit 2. Is EPA Proposing a Different standards for hazardous air pollutants application and also submit suggested Permitting Approach for New Sources? for hazardous waste combustors. That conditions for the various phases of is, after submittal of the NOC As discussed above, we are operation—start-up/shake-down, trial established by today’s rule and, where maintaining the same general permitting burn, and post-trial burn. Likewise, applicable, RCRA permit modifications approach as before. However, we are RCRA permitted facilities that are at individual facilities, RCRA national proposing to eliminate the unintended adding a new combustion source would stack emission standards will no longer result of the previous regulatory have to provide the same information apply to these hazardous waste construct, which caused new sources to with their permit modification request. combustors. We originally issued initially be subject to the RCRA air Whether the source is new or adding a emission standards under the authority emission and operating requirements. In new combustion source, the permit of section 3004(a) and (q) of RCRA, particular, we want to specify that any writer would have to review this which calls for EPA to promulgate hazardous waste burning incinerators, information and write conditions into standards ‘‘as may be necessary to cement kilns, lightweight aggregate the RCRA permit governing all phases of protect human health and the kilns, boilers, and hydrochloric acid combustor operations. This expenditure environment.’’ We believe that the production furnaces newly entering the of resources, on the part of the source proposed MACT standards are generally RCRA permitting process (e.g., sources and the permitting agency, is protective of human health and the that are seeking an initial RCRA permit unnecessary given that the conditions environment, and that separate RCRA or permit modification to include a new will become inactive or be removed emission standards are not needed to hazardous waste combustion unit) after from the RCRA permit upon compliance protect human health and the promulgation of the Phase I with the MACT standards. For new environment. Refer to Part Four, Section Replacement standards and Phase II sources, compliance with the MACT IX. How Does the Proposed Rule Meet standards are not subject to certain standards is upon start-up. Therefore, the RCRA Protectiveness Mandate? for a specified RCRA permit requirements or today we are proposing that new discussion on this topic. performance standards. The approach sources (whether a new source or a new In addition, RCRA section 1006(b) we are proposing today is similar to the source at an existing permitted source) directs EPA to integrate the provisions one we proposed in the July 3, 2001, who will be subject to the Phase I of RCRA for purposes of administration proposed amendment rule (see 66 FR Replacement standards and Phase II and enforcement and to avoid 35146), but was not finalized. The standards upon start-up, not follow the duplication, to the maximum extent amendment was not finalized due to RCRA permitting process for practicable, with the appropriate several unresolved issues and thus, it establishing combustor emissions and

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21318 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

operating requirements (i.e., submission which will tell community members standards. With regard to early public of a trial burn plan with the RCRA where they can view the application involvement, a draft of the NIC must be permit application, submission of while the agency reviews it; (3) made available to the public for review suggested conditions for the various permitting agencies may require a within 9 months of the effective date of phases of operation—start-up/shake- facility to set up an information the final Replacement Standards and down, trial burn, and post-trial burn, repository at any point during the Phase II Standards rule. One month and ultimately obtaining a permit with permitting process if warranted; and (4) later, the source must hold an informal operating and emission standards). permitting agencies must notify the public meeting to discuss the activities b. How Is EPA Proposing to Change public prior to a trial (or test) burn. described in the NIC. The NIC the Current Requirements for New Consequently, we will focus on each of requirements apply to new sources as Sources? In the July 3, 2001 proposal, these and propose mechanisms that well (see § 63.1212(b)(1) in today’s we developed regulatory language to mirror or fulfill the RCRA public Notice), but the timing will vary clarify our intent not to require new participation requirements. according to the date a new source sources to obtain a RCRA permit with We stated earlier in this section that begins burning hazardous waste. For respect to combustor operations and under RCRA, new sources must obtain example, if a new source begins burning emissions. In response to that proposal, a permit (or a permit modification at an 3 months after the rule’s effective date, we received comments from the Sierra existing source) before they may start then it will have only 6 months before Club expressing concerns that the construction of a new source. This holds it must prepare and make a draft NIC increased opportunities for public true regardless of whether we finalize an available for public review.216 More approach that does not require new participation established in the RCRA significantly, according to 40 CFR Expanded Public Participation Rule (60 sources to obtain a RCRA permit that 63.1212(b)(2), as proposed in today’s FR 63417, December 11, 1995) would be contains the combustor operating and Notice, new sources that are to begin lost. This rule involves communities emissions standards (i.e., a RCRA burning more than 9 months after the earlier in the permitting process, permit will still be required to address effective date of the final rule will be provides more opportunities for all other activities at the facility participation, expands public access to including corrective action, general required to meet all of the NIC and information, and offers guidance on facility standards, other combustor Compliance progress report how facilities can improve public specific concerns such as material requirements in §§ 63.1210(b) and (c), participation. In a follow-up discussion handling, risk-based emission limits and 63.1211(c), and 63.1212(a) prior to with the Sierra Club, they specifically operating requirements, and other burning hazardous waste. expressed interest in being able to hazardous waste management units). So, We feel that the NIC requirements are influence decisions on the construction in applying for a RCRA permit, new commensurate with the public of hazardous waste combustors. Upon hazardous waste facilities/sources will participation requirements to hold an consideration, we agree with the Sierra still be required to meet the public informal public meeting to inform the Club that in our previous effort to participation requirements. However, community of the proposed combustor streamline the RCRA permitting process the problem arises if new sources are operations and to make the compliance for new sources, we did not fully not required to provide information information available for public review consider that important opportunities relative to the combustor (i.e., sources and comment. On the other hand, we for public participation may be lost. were formerly, at this point in the also recognize that there are a few gaps. Although we still believe that new process, required to submit a trial burn For instance, the NIC requirements are sources, whether a new source or an plan), but only for the other proposed not associated with a permit action and existing source adding a new source, hazardous waste management activities the regulatory agency is not required to should not be required to follow the at the source. Thus, the source would be present at the NIC public meeting. RCRA permitting process, we also not be required to discuss the proposed We would, however, expect the source believe that the Sierra Club’s concerns combustor-specific operations and to consider any comments raised during have merit. It makes sense to afford the emissions at the informal public the NIC process as it develops its final public the same (or as close as possible) meeting, nor would the permit compliance strategy and final NIC.217 public participation opportunities for application that is made available to the Also, if a new source begins burning new units under the HWC MACT/CAA public to review, contain information after the effective date of today’s rule, framework that they had under the regarding the combustor operations or but prior to 9 months after the effective RCRA regulations. Therefore we are emissions. date, the NIC is not required to be made modifying our earlier proposal as In an effort to provide an opportunity available for public review before a new discussed in the paragraphs below, to for public participation equivalent to source begins burning. In other words, consider several options that will RCRA, we believe that the Notification the public is not provided information attempt to address these concerns, as of Intent to Comply (NIC) requirements, relative to the combustor’s operations, well as provide a means to improve the as proposed in Part Two, Section emissions, and compliance schedule existing regulatory requirements for new XVI.B., serve in place of the first two prior to it beginning operations. Given sources. RCRA public participation these gaps, we are proposing a scenario The RCRA Expanded Public requirements. The primary functions of in which the NIC requirements for new Participation Rule implemented four the NIC are to serve as a compliance sources under MACT, could be crafted new requirements for facilities and planning tool and to promote early permitting agencies that enable public involvement in the permitting 216 Note that new sources must have prepared and communities to become more active process. In terms of compliance included their documentation of compliance in the participants throughout the permitting planning, the draft NIC must contain operating record upon start-up. New sources then process. They are: (1) Permit applicants general information including the waste have 6 months from the date of start-up to begin must hold an informal public meeting minimization, emission control, and their comprehensive performance test. 217 If necessary, concerns raised regarding the before applying for a permit; (2) emission monitoring techniques that are regulation of the combustor can be addressed permitting agencies must announce the being considered and how the source through application of RCRA’s omnibus provision submission of a permit application intends to comply with the emission (RCRA section 3005(c)(3)).

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21319

to achieve a comparable level of public maintain one. Therefore, so that the in this Notice, specify that sources must participation as under RCRA. public is afforded the same make the test plans available for review We are proposing to require that all opportunities to view and copy at least 60 days prior to commencement new sources prepare a draft NIC and information such as the NIC, test plans, of the test and must provide the make it available to the public at the draft Title V permit and application, expected time period for commencing same time as their RCRA pre- reports and so forth under MACT, we (and completing) the test. Thus, the application meeting notice. We also are considering two options. We could public is informed of the test and propose that new sources submit their include a provision similar to § 124.33 provided estimates of test dates through comprehensive performance test plan at in the NIC regulations for new sources. public notice of the approved test plan. this time. By submitting the NIC and It would allow a regulatory agency, on Thus far, the approach we have CPT plan together, the public would be a case-by-case basis, to require a source proposed is intended to ensure that the provided with compliance-related to establish an information repository public will have the same opportunities information relevant to the combustor as specific to the combustor. We believe for participation and access to well as the proposed combustor the NIC regulations are a suitable information as they would if new operations and emissions (i.e., the location to place such a provision, since sources continued to be subject to the public is provided testing information the NIC is the first opportunity for the RCRA permit process to include the through the CPT that they would have public to discuss the combustor combustor emission and operating received via the trial burn plan). Lastly, operations and emissions. Alternatively, requirements. By proposing that new as part of this option we propose that rather than incorporate provisions for an sources not be required to obtain a the NIC public meeting coincide with information repository in the NIC RCRA permit with combustor emission the informal public meeting for the regulations, the applicability language and operating requirements, it provides RCRA permit. By holding a in § 124.33 could be amended to include for the smoothest and most practical simultaneous meeting, the public is new combustion sources that will transition from RCRA requirements to 220 given the opportunity to inquire and comply with Part 63, subpart EEE upon MACT requirements. comment on both the source’s proposed start-up. We request comment on this Aside from the approach we have activities and the combustor’s proposed discussion. focused on, there are others that may be operations with regulatory officials from worthy of consideration. We can also The last RCRA public participation both the Air and RCRA programs look at the option of a transition point requirement requires the permitting present. We request comment on this for new sources that would specify how discussion.218 agency to notify the public prior to a far a new source would proceed down With respect to the information trial burn or test burn at a combustion the RCRA permit path before it could repository regulations at 40 CFR 124.33, facility. If new sources are not required ‘‘transition’’ over to compliance with the the purpose of the information to follow the RCRA permitting process MACT standards and CAA permitting. repository is to make information (i.e., with respect to combustor emissions There are three additional options we documents, reports, data, and and operations, they also would not be can consider relative to a transition information deemed necessary) required to submit a trial burn plan with point: (1) After the RCRA Part B available to the public during the permit their permit application or conduct a application is submitted; (2) after the issuance process and during the life of trial burn. However, under MACT, new RCRA permit is issued; and (3) after the a permit. While the Title V permit (and existing) combustion sources are source places its Documentation of procedures specify that information required to submit performance test and Compliance (DOC) in the operating relevant to the permitting decision be continuous monitoring system (CMS) record. made available to the public,219 this performance evaluation test plans for Beginning with the first option, each information would not be accessible approval. The MACT performance test successive one moves in the direction prior to construction or operation of the serves the same purpose as the RCRA toward the way new sources currently combustor. Under RCRA, the trial burn test: To demonstrate make the transition from RCRA to information repository would be compliance with the relevant emission MACT and includes modifications to established some time after submission standards and to collect data to the RCRA information requirements. We of the permit application, but before determine at what levels the envision each of these options to be a construction and operation of the corresponding operating conditions variation of the current RCRA permit combustor. Even though an information should be set. Similar, but not identical process. Under the first option, the repository is not a required component to the RCRA requirements at 40 CFR transition point would occur after the of the RCRA permit process, the 270.62 and 270.66 requiring the source submits its RCRA Part B regulations provide a permitting agency permitting agency to notify the public application. The key to this option is with the discretion to evaluate the need prior to a trial/test burn, the MACT that the source would be subject to the for and require a source to establish and performance test regulations (see public participation requirements of 40 § 63.1207(e)(2)), specify that a source CFR 124.31 and 124.32, to hold an 218 Since the public participation requirements of must issue a public notice announcing informal public meeting and to have the 40 CFR 124.31 and 124.32 only apply to initial the approval of the test plans and submission of the permit application RCRA permits and renewals with significant provide a location where the public may changes, a corresponding regulatory amendment noticed. However, new sources would would need to be made to the applicability view them. Although the timing of the paragraphs to include modifications to RCRA public notices are slightly different, the 220 This approach does not eliminate the permits only for new combustion sources that will regulations both provide notice to the possibility that some combustor-specific comply with Part 63, subpart EEE upon start-up. requirements may be retained in the RCRA permit Also, 63.1212(b) would need to be amended to public about testing. Under RCRA, such as: Risk-based conditions, compliance with an reference §§ 124.31 and 124.32. notice is given to the public prior alternative MACT standard, compliance with 219 40 CFR § 70.7(h)(2) requires that information (usually 30 days) to commencement of startup, shutdown and malfunction events under including the draft Title V permit, the application, the trial burn, whereas under MACT, RCRA rather than the CAA, etc. See section XVII, all relevant supporting materials, and other notice is given when the test plans are D.2. for a more complete discussion. Consequently, materials available to the permitting authority that sources would be expected to include the are relevant to the permit decision, be made approved. The newly amended applicable RCRA conditions in their RCRA permit available to interested persons. regulations of § 63.1207(e)(2) proposed application.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21320 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

not be required to include the the notice of the performance test is source to request a temporary combustor’s operation and emission equivalent. authorization that would allow specific information in the Part B application. In summary, our proposed approach RCRA permit requirements to be waived Rather, the source would only be involves modifying the NIC provisions for a period of 180 days (see required to discuss the compliance- to include RCRA public participation § 270.42(e)). related activities related to the requirements. The second group of We do not believe that any of the combustor as part of the informal public options consider a range of transition options discussed above provide an meeting. For the second option, the points that are also worthy of optimal solution to resolving conflicts transition point would be after the consideration. We invite comment on between a source’s performance test permitting agency issues the RCRA this discussion. protocol and its RCRA permit operating permit. The source would not only 3. What Are the Proposed Changes to and emissions limits. A Class 2 or 3 discuss the combustor’s compliance- the RCRA Permitting Requirements That RCRA permit modification may not be related activities as part of the RCRA Will Facilitate the Transition to MACT? an option for many sources due to the time typically involved in processing informal public meeting as in the first To alleviate potential conflicts option, but it would also address the these requests. Sources that choose to between the RCRA permit requirements modify their permits would need to do operations and emissions through and MACT, we are proposing an development of a trial burn plan, or a so well in advance of conducting their additional streamlined permit performance test to ensure that the CPT plan in lieu of the trial burn plan, modification provision, requiring prior or even a coordinated CPT/RCRA trial modification would be processed in Agency approval, which would allow an time to conduct the test on schedule. burn plan, if it is likely that the source existing RCRA permit to be better This may result in sources submitting will require some RCRA permit aligned with specific provisions modification requests prior to approval conditions (i.e., risk-based conditions). contained in the Subpart EEE of their performance test plans. We With this option, even though all requirements. The intent of this believe that RCRA permit writers are activities pre-permit issuance must provision is to reduce potential burdens unlikely to approve any modifications address the source and the combustor’s associated with compliance with to RCRA permit requirements without operations and emissions, the approved overlapping RCRA and MACT the assurance that the source will be permit would not contain the operating requirements, while still maintaining operating under an approved test plan. and emission requirements (with the the overall integrity of the RCRA permit. Resolving conflicts using a trial burn or a. How Will the Overlap During exception of risk-based or alternative coordinated test plan is not a viable Performance Testing Be Addressed? standards). For the third option, the option for a source that has already When we finalized the performance test transition point would be after the completed its trial burn/risk burn requirements and the changes to the source places its DOC in the operating testing. Lastly, while a temporary record, which indicates the source’s RCRA permitting requirements in the September 30, 1999, rule, we did not authorization is relatively streamlined, compliance with the MACT standards. it is meant to be used in unique cases Basically, the source would proceed consider how sources would conduct their performance tests while at the affecting an individual facility. We down the RCRA permit path as in believe that it is most logical and easily option two by complying with the same time, maintain compliance with their RCRA permit requirements. For implemented to propose a modification public participation requirements, that can be used consistently to remedy submitting a trial burn plan/CPT plan/ instance, during the performance test, a source will likely want to conduct a common problem affecting an entire coordinated plan, suggesting conditions group of facilities with similar for the various phases of operation, and testing at the edge of the operating envelope or the worst case for certain operations (e.g., hazardous waste receiving a RCRA permit. However, in burning combustors facing barriers to this option, the permit would need to parameters to ensure operating flexibility. This could conflict with testing due to RCRA permit address combustor operations and requirements). Therefore, in today’s emissions to the extent that it would established operating and emissions limits required in the source’s RCRA Notice, we are proposing to allow cover the construction and start-up/ sources to waive specific RCRA permit shakedown periods. permit and consequently, prevent the source from optimizing its testing range. operating and emissions limits during With respect to the public Currently, sources have three options pretesting, initial, and subsequent participation requirements, all three that would allow them to resolve any performance testing through a new options automatically factor in the first potential conflicts between their streamlined permit modification two RCRA public participation performance test and their RCRA permit procedure.221 requirements (by virtue of where the requirements. One option would be for We believe that a process for waiving transition would be made). However, we a source to submit a RCRA Class 2 or 3 specific RCRA permit requirements did not discuss how we would account permit modification request to during performance testing is consistent for the remaining two public temporarily change or waive specific with our objectives to streamline participation requirements. We believe RCRA permit requirements during the requirements and minimize conflicts that the information repository and the MACT performance test (see § 270.42, between the RCRA and CAA programs notification of a trial burn requirements appendix I, L.5). Another option would without sacrificing the protections can be addressed in the same manner as be for a source to request approval for afforded by RCRA. Moreover, we view we discussed in our proposed approach. such changes through its RCRA trial this new permit modification to be So, for these options, we would burn plan or coordinated MACT / RCRA complementary to the provisions of incorporate an appropriate requirement, test plan (see § 270.42, appendix I, L.7.a. § 63.1207(h) for waiving operating either through the NIC regulations or the or d.). In this case, a source could parameter limits (OPLs) during public participation regulations, that include proposed test conditions in its 221 would allow for an information For subsequent performance tests, we plan to temporarily waive specific anticipate that this modificaiton would be useful for repository to be established. Regarding RCRA permit requirements during the sources that may have risk-based or alternative the notice of a trial burn, we believe that test. The last option would be for a requirements in their RCRA permits.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21321

performance testing. In the February 14, physical or operating upgrades, allowed minimum of 30 days (with the option to 2002 final amendments rule, we sources that were already operating extend the deadline for another 30 days) reiterated that OPLs in the under RCRA combustion permits to to review and approve your request. For Documentation of Compliance (DOC) modify their combustion systems’ purposes of performance testing, we may be revised at any time to reflect design and/or operations in order to propose that you submit your request at testing parameters for the initial comply with the MACT standards the time you receive approval of your performance test prior to submission of without having to obtain a Class 2 or 3 performance test plan, which is 90 days the NOC and so, in effect, are RCRA permit modification. Thus, L(9) in advance of the test and coincides automatically waived. Also, we revised was not intended to account for with the time limitations imposed on the language in § 63.1207(h)(1) and (2) overlapping requirements. Further, to be the Director for approval. Additionally, to not require that subsequent eligible to use L(9), you first must have we are requiring that the waiver of performance test plans be approved in complied with the NIC requirements, permit limits only be relevant during order to waive OPLs, but rather that including those related to public the actual testing events and during sources only record the emission test involvement. Refer to Part Two, Section pretesting for an aggregate period of up results of the pretesting. XVI for a discussion of the NIC. to 720 hours of operation. In other b. Are There Other Instances Where However, similar to the streamlined words, it would not apply for the the New Streamlined Permit modification we finalized as L(9), we duration of time allotted to begin and Modification Can Be Used? In addition feel that this new streamlined complete the test (i.e., the entire 60 to our efforts today to minimize modification warrants a Class 1 days). overlapping permit requirements during modification with prior Agency As a side note, we realize that some performance testing, we are also approval. We feel that a Class 1 is sources may not have an approved proposing to allow the new streamlined appropriate considering that: we do not performance test plan by the date their permit modification to address other expect that there would be significant test is scheduled to begin because the potential conflicts. In implementing the changes when requesting certain RCRA Administrator failed to approve (or 1999 rule, it has become clear that there permit requirements to be waived; it deny) it within the specified time are several other instances when would be applicable for a relatively period, which could render this new conflicts may arise where RCRA permit short period of time; regulatory streamlined modification impractical. requirements overlap with MACT oversight is incorporated via approval of However, we expect that sources would requirements. For example, the required the modification request and; the petition the Administrator to waive averaging period for an operating intended goal of the modification is to their performance test date for up to 6 parameter might be slightly different achieve environmental improvement months, with an additional 6 months between MACT and the RCRA permit, ultimately through implementation of possible, rather than to proceed with the requiring two different data acquisition more protective standards. performance test without the surety of d. How Will the New Streamlined schemes during the interim period an approved test plan.223 between submittal of the Documentation Permit Modification Work? Our of Compliance (DOC) and the final proposed approach allows for a waiver B. How Will the Replacement Standards modification of the RCRA permit after of specific RCRA permit requirements Affect Permitting for Phase I Sources? provided that you: (1) Submit a Class 1 receipt of the NOC. Or, if a RCRA permit 1. Where Will Phase I Sources Be in requires periodic emissions testing, the permit modification request specifying Their Transition to MACT With Respect specified test schedule in the permit the requested changes to the RCRA to Their RCRA Permits? might not be aligned with the required permit, with an accompanying test schedule for MACT, causing a explanation of why the changes are We discussed earlier that by the time facility to perform duplicate testing necessary and how the revised the Phase I Replacement standards and instead of allowing a single coordinated provisions will be sufficiently Phase II standards are finalized, most RCRA/MACT test event. Conflicts in protective, and (2) obtain Agency Phase I sources will have completed operating limitations, monitoring and approval prior to implementing the their initial comprehensive performance recordkeeping requirements, and changes.222 When utilized to waive test and submitted their NOC scheduling provisions can be especially permit requirements during the documenting compliance with the prevalent during this interim period. performance test, you also must have an MACT Interim Standards.224 This marks Consequently, we believe the new approved performance test plan prior to the point at which sources will begin to streamlined permit modification submitting your modification request. transition from RCRA permitting procedure would be appropriate to (We believe that the Class 1 requirements to CAA requirements and address these probable overlaps. modification with prior Agency title V permitting. For sources with c. Why Is a New Streamlined Permit approval will ensure that your proposed RCRA permits, they must continue to Modification Procedure Being test conditions are reasonable with comply with the operating standards Proposed? This new streamlined respect to your existing permit limits and emission limits in their permits modification differs from the one we (i.e. that they are sufficiently until any duplicative requirements are finalized in the June 1998 ‘‘fast track’’ protective); and that an approved either removed through a permit rule (63 FR 33782). In 1998, we performance test plan confirms that you modification, expire, or are provided for a streamlined RCRA permit have met the regulatory requirements automatically inactivated via a sunset modification process whereby you for performance test plans.) clause contained in the permit. For could request a Class 1 modification We propose that you submit your sources operating under interim status, with prior Agency approval to address streamlined modification request in and incorporate any necessary MACT sufficient time to allow the Director a 223 See 40 CFR 63.1207(e)(3) for performance test upgrades into your RCRA permit (see 40 time extension requirements. CFR 270.42, appendix I, L(9)). The 222 Refer to the new section in the RCRA permit 224 Some sources will receive extensions of up to streamlined permit modification modification table in 40 CFR 270.42, appendix I, one year to conduct their initial comprehensive L(10) and new regulatory language in 270.42(k), that performance test (see 40 CFR 63.1207(e)(3)). provision, which was intended solely must be used to waive specified permit Therefore, their transition point will occur at a later for the purpose of implementing requirements. time designated by the extension.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21322 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

they must comply with the RCRA again need to reopen within 18 months sources and to require the NIC for Phase interim status requirements until they or wait until renewal to incorporate the II sources. While the NIC serves as a demonstrate and document compliance MACT Replacement standards. compliance planning tool and to with the MACT Interim Standards. We promote early public involvement, it is 3. What Is Different With Respect To anticipate that sources who are in the also a requirement before the Permitting in Today’s Notice of process of renewing their RCRA permits streamlined permit modification Proposed Rulemaking? would work with their permit writers to procedure in 40 CFR 270.42(j) and include sunset clauses to inactivate Based upon our decision to utilize the 270.42, appendix I, section L.9, can be duplicative requirements upon same general permitting approach as in utilized to make changes to either the compliance with the MACT Interim the 1999 and Interim Standards rules, combustor design or operations, in order Standards. Given the permit actions we expect sources to follow the same to comply with the final Replacement taken during the transition period transition scheme as it relates to RCRA Standards. Thus, sources who have not leading up to compliance with the permit requirements and the CAA yet made the transition from their RCRA Interim Standards, we believe that many requirements and title V permitting for permits to title V permits must comply sources will have had duplicative the Replacement Standards rule. One with the NIC requirements to take requirements removed from their aspect, however, that was not addressed advantage of the streamlined permit permits by the time the Replacement in those rules was how the permitting modification. Standards are promulgated. For sources of new sources would be affected. Last, a subtle difference pertaining to that have not had their RCRA permits Hence, we discuss approaches in this the transition scheme stems from the modified, we expect that they will Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (see time span between compliance with the proceed with a modification to remove Section A.1. above) that would require Interim Standards and the effective date duplicative requirements.225 them to obtain RCRA permits only for of the Replacement Standards relative to corrective action, general facility RCRA permits. Sources who received 2. Where Will Phase I Sources Be in standards, other combustor specific extensions to the date for commencing Their Transition to MACT With Respect concerns such as material handling, their initial comprehensive performance to Their Title V Permits? risk-based emission limits and operating test, whether a 6 month or 12 month With regard to title V permits, Phase requirements, and other hazardous extension, will not be required to I major and area sources were required waste management units at the source. submit an NOC until either a few to submit a title V permit application 12 Should the approach we are proposing months before or just after the effective months after the effective date of the be finalized, there may not be any date of the final Replacement Standards 1999 rule—or were required to reopen operating requirements and emission rule. Therefore, these sources would be existing title V permits with 3 or more standards to remove from their RCRA modifying their RCRA permits just years remaining in the permit term, 18 permits. before or after the effective date of the months after the effective date—to We also discussed a new streamline final rule. Nevertheless, we anticipate include the MACT standards. Sources permit modification procedure in that sources will proceed with with less than 3 years remaining could section A.2. ‘‘What Are the Proposed modification of their RCRA permits to wait until renewal to incorporate the Changes to the RCRA Permitting remove duplicative requirements. 1999 standards.226 Upon promulgation Requirements that Will Facilitate the of the Interim Standards on February 13, Transition to MACT?’’. This new C. What Permitting Requirements Is EPA 2002, major sources were required to procedure allows sources to waive Proposing for Phase II Sources? reopen their permits or could wait until specific RCRA permit operating and Phase II sources are presently subject renewal to include the revised standards emission limits during pretesting, to the RCRA permitting requirements for according to the same time frames performance testing, and other instances hazardous waste combustors provided mentioned above. Therefore, we expect where there may be conflicts during the in 40 CFR 270.22 and 270.66. We are that all Phase I sources would have title interim period between submission of proposing in today’s notice to apply the V permits containing the MACT Interim the Documentation of Compliance and same approach to permitting Phase II Standards and potentially, operating final RCRA permit modification. sources that we did for Phase I sources standards in accordance with their DOC, Another important difference is our in the September 1999 rule. at the time the Replacement Standards proposal to codify the authority for Specifically, we propose to: rule is promulgated. Furthermore, most permit writers to evaluate the need for (1) Place the new Phase II emission sources will have initiated a significant and, where appropriate, require Site- standards only in the CAA regulations modification to their permits to include Specific Risk Assessments (SSRA). We at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, and rely the revised operating requirements of are also proposing to codify the on their implementation through the air their NOC. Regardless of these required authority for permit writers to add program, compliance activities leading up to the conditions to RCRA permits that they (2) Specify that, with few exceptions, promulgation date of the Replacement determine, based on the results of an the analogous standards in the RCRA Standards rule, Phase I sources will SSRA, are necessary to protect human regulations no longer apply once a health and the environment. In doing facility demonstrates compliance with 225 A streamlined permit modification was so, our intent is to change the regulatory the MACT standards in subpart EEE, developed in the 1999 rule to allow the removal of mechanism that is the basis for SSRAs, and duplicative conditions from RCRA permits (see while retaining the same SSRA policy (3) Require that the new standards be § 270.42, appendix I, section A.8). from a substantive standpoint. Under incorporated into operating permits 226 Only major sources are required to reopen their title V permits when 3 or more years remain this approach, permitting authorities issued under title V of the CAA rather in the permit term. Even though area sources were continue to have the responsibility to than be incorporated into RCRA subject to the same standards and title V permit ensure the protectiveness of RCRA permits. requirements, they can wait until renewal permits. Our goal with regard to permitting regardless of the time remaining to incorporate new or revised standards. The reopening provisions of Next, we have proposed to re-institute Phase II sources remains the same as the 40 CFR 70.7(f) and 71.7(f) only apply to major the NIC (see Part Two, Section XVI for goal that we had for Phase I sources— sources. a discussion of the NIC) for Phase I to accommodate the requirements of

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21323

both the RCRA and CAA statutes, while 1. What Other Permitting Requirements implementation of the new standards at the same time avoiding duplication Are We Proposing To Apply To Phase and transition combustion sources from between the two programs to the extent II Sources? RCRA to the CAA. practicable. The permitting approach we As part of the Phase I rule, we We did not amend any title V developed for Phase I sources in the promulgated additional specific changes regulations in 40 CFR parts 70 or 71 for September 1999 rule enables us to to the RCRA permitting requirements in Phase I sources. It was our intent during achieve this goal. In that rule, we 40 CFR part 270 to facilitate the Phase I rulemaking, and continues amended the applicability of 40 CFR implementation of the new standards to be our intent for Phase II, to rely on 270.19, 270.22, 270.62, and 270.66 so and permit transition from RCRA to the the existing air program to implement that once a source demonstrates CAA. First, we added a streamlined the new MACT requirements, including their incorporation into a title V compliance with the MACT standards, RCRA permit modification process to operating permit. Thus, we are it is no longer subject to the full array allow sources to make changes to either their combustor design or operations, as proposing that all current CAA title V of RCRA combustion permitting requirements governing permit activities, unless the Director of the necessary, in order to comply with the Phase I standards. This modification applications, permit content, permit permitting agency decides to apply issuance, renewal, reopenings and specific RCRA regulatory provisions, on process, a Class 1 with prior Agency approval, was promulgated in the June revisions will apply to air emissions a case-by-case basis, for purposes of from Phase II sources. In addition, the information collection in accordance 19, 1998 ‘‘Fast Track’’ rule and is provided in 40 CFR 270.42(j) and requirements of other CAA permitting with §§ 270.10(k) and 270.32(b)(2). We programs, such as air construction are proposing to make a similar change 270.42, appendix I, section L.9. See 63 FR 33785. Second, we further amended permits, likewise will continue to apply, to 40 CFR 270.22 and 270.66 for Phase the § 270.42, appendix I permit as appropriate. We also included II sources. In addition, we are proposing modification table to add a new line provisions in the subpart EEE for Phase II sources, as we are for Phase item that streamlines modification requirements that address the I sources, that new sources not follow procedures for removing conditions relationship between the standards and the RCRA permitting process for from a permit that are no longer title V permits. Specifically, we stated establishing combustor emissions and applicable (e.g., because the standards in 40 CFR 63.1206(c)(1)(iv) and (v) that operating requirements. Of course, as for upon which they are based are no longer the operating requirements in the Phase I sources, Phase II sources would applicable to the source). This new line Notification of Compliance are remain subject to the RCRA permitting item is a Class 1 modification requiring applicable requirements for purposes of requirements for all other aspects of prior Agency approval and is provided parts 70 and 71, and that these operating their combustion unit and facility in section A.8 of appendix I.228 Third, requirements will be incorporated into operations, including general facility we added a new section, 40 CFR title V permits. We are proposing the standards, corrective action, other 270.235, to the RCRA permitting same approach for the interface between combustor-specific concerns such as requirements that address startup, the Phase II standards and title V materials handling, risk-based emission shutdown, and malfunction events and permits. limits and operating requirements, as the integration of those requirements 2. What Other Permitting Requirements appropriate, and other hazardous waste between the RCRA program and the Are We Proposing in Today’s Notice management units at the site.227 Also, CAA program. Fourth, we amended the That Would Also Be Applicable to some sources will retain specific RCRA requirements in 40 CFR 270.72 Phase II Sources? permitting requirements if they choose governing changes that facilities can In today’s notice, we are proposing to comply with an alternative MACT make while they are operating under 229 three changes to the general permitting standard; address startup, shutdown interim status. We believe that each approach for all sources subject to part and malfunction events under RCRA of the above changes that we made to 63, subpart EEE, including Phase II rather than the CAA; or, if an area the RCRA permitting regulations for sources. First, we are proposing to allow source, comply with the RCRA metals, Phase I sources are also appropriate for sources to waive specific RCRA permit particulate matter, or chlorine standards Phase II sources and thus, are proposing operating and emission limits using a and associated requirements. It is also that these same features apply to Phase streamlined permit modification important to note that if you later decide II sources. They will serve to ease procedure. This would apply for to add a new combustion unit to your pretesting, performance testing, and 228 It is important to note that you only may facility, you must first modify your request the removal of duplicative combustion other instances where there may be RCRA permit to include the new unit. limits and conditions from your RCRA permit. Any conflicts during the interim period This is because your RCRA permit must risk-based conditions that are more stringent than between submittal of the DOC and final reflect all hazardous waste management the MACT requirements would be retained. RCRA permit modification. Second, we 229 Section 270.72(b) imposes a limit on the units at the facility. Although the extent of the changes, stating that they cannot are proposing that new units not be emissions from the new unit will be amount to ‘‘reconstruction’’ (defined in the required to obtain a RCRA permit that regulated under the CAA MACT regulation as ‘‘when the capital investment in the includes emission limits or conditions, changes to the facility exceeds 50 percent of the with certain exceptions (e.g., more standards, as noted above, your RCRA capital cost of a comparable entirely new hazardous permit must address any other related waste management facility’’). Although we did not stringent risk-based limits). Third, we requirements for the new unit. expect the individual costs to perform changes are proposing to codify the authority for required to comply with the MACT standards to permit writers to evaluate the need for exceed this 50 percent limit, the limit is cumulative and, where appropriate, require SSRAs. 227 Even though the RCRA air emission standards for all changes at an interim status facility. Thus, for combustors will no longer apply once conceivably there could be situations where MACT- We are also proposing to codify the compliance is demonstrated with MACT (except in related changes would cause a source to exceed the authority for permit writers to add certain cases), other RCRA air emission standards limit. To ensure that the limit would not be a conditions to RCRA permits that they will continue to apply to other hazardous waste hindrance to MACT compliance, we added an determine, based on the results of an management units at the facility. For example, part exemption to paragraph (b) of that section for 264, subpart CC, still applies to air emissions from changes necessary to comply with standards under SSRA, are necessary to protect human tanks, surface impoundments, and containers. 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. health and the environment. We believe

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21324 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

that each of the above proposals are standard or limitation documented in to transition, both the regulators and the appropriate for Phase II as well as Phase the Notification of Compliance would facility owners or operators should keep I sources and, therefore, are applying have to remain in the RCRA permit. You in mind the goal we mentioned earlier them to all hazardous waste combustors should also inform your RCRA permit of minimizing the amount of time a subject to part 63, subpart EEE. See the writer if you intend to comply with any facility might be subject to duplicative discussions provided in A.1 and A.2 of specific RCRA requirements in lieu of requirements under the two programs. this section. those provided in part 63, subpart EEE, Factors they should take into such as the RCRA startup, shutdown, consideration include, but are not 3. How Will the Permitting Approach and malfunction requirements. limited to the following. (1) The status Work for Phase II Sources? Providing this information to the RCRA of the facility in the RCRA permitting In the preamble to the September permit writer likely will expedite process at the time the final MACT rule 1999 rule, we discussed at length how review of your permit modification is promulgated. For example—If a to implement the new permitting request. facility is on the verge of conducting a approach, including aspects such as We expect that in some situations RCRA trial burn, it should proceed with when and how to transition sources RCRA permit writers may not approve the trial burn and continue through the from RCRA permitting to title V. See 64 a request to remove conditions until RCRA permitting process. (2) The FR 52981. We have also provided a fact they know that their counterparts in the facility’s anticipated schedule for sheet on permit transition in our Air program have reviewed the demonstrating compliance with the Hazardous Waste Combustion NESHAP Notification of Compliance and verified MACT standards. For example—If the Toolkit, which is available at the that the facility has successfully facility plans to come into compliance following Internet address: http:// demonstrated compliance with the with the standards early, it may make www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ MACT standards. This may happen, for sense to transition before completing the combust/toolkit/index.htm. The example, with facilities that have RCRA permitting process. (3) The information provided in the above- historically generated a lot of interest or priorities and schedule of the regulatory mentioned preamble and the fact sheet concern from the community or that agency. For example—A state agency is appropriate for Phase II as well as have had previous problems in may have made certain commitments Phase I sources. Below is a summary of maintaining compliance with (e.g., to the public or to its state this information for sources that already performance standards. If you have legislature) regarding their RCRA or have RCRA permits and for sources that received confirmation that the CAA programs that might impact its are currently operating under RCRA regulatory agency has made a Finding of decisions regarding the transition. (4) Interim Status. The permitting approach Compliance based on your Notification The level of environmental concern at a for new sources is discussed earlier in of Compliance, we recommend you given site. For example—To make sure A.1 of this section. include that with your RCRA permit that the facility is being operated in a a. Implementing the New Permitting modification request as well. Once manner protective of human health and Approach for Phase II Sources that people in the Air program responsible the environment, the regulatory agency Already Have RCRA Permits. If you for reviewing the Notification of may decide to proceed with RCRA already have a RCRA permit, you must Compliance have completed their permitting, including the site-specific continue to comply with the conditions evaluation of the documentation and risk assessment, rather than delay the in your permit until either they expire test results, we encourage them to RCRA process to coordinate with testing or your permitting authority modifies inform their RCRA counterparts. This under MACT. your permit to remove them. You can courtesy will help RCRA permit writers If after evaluating all the relevant request a permit modification, using complete their review of the RCRA factors a decision is made to proceed line item A.8 provide in appendix I of permit modification requests, thereby with a RCRA permit in advance of a § 270.42, to request that your permitting facilitating the permit transition. source’s MACT compliance authority remove any duplicative b. Implementing the New Permitting demonstration, we suggest including conditions once you have conducted Approach for Sources that Are language to facilitate the eventual your comprehensive performance test Operating under RCRA Interim Status. If transition. Regulators can attach and submitted a Notification of you are currently operating under RCRA ‘‘sunset’’ provisions to those conditions Compliance documenting compliance to interim status, you must continue to that will no longer apply once a source your CAA regulatory agency. The meet RCRA performance standards demonstrates compliance with the part appropriate CAA regulatory agency in governing emissions of hazardous air 63 subpart EEE standards. most cases will be the state pollutants in 40 CFR part 266 until you In making the transition from one environmental agency. conduct your comprehensive program to the other, testing under one When you submit your RCRA permit performance test and submit your program should not be unnecessarily modification request you should Notification of Compliance delayed in order to coordinate with identify the conditions in your RCRA documenting compliance with the testing required under the other. As permit that you believe should be MACT standards to the regulatory proposed for Phase II, sources would be removed. We recommend that you also agency. The RCRA combustion conducting periodic performance testing attach a copy of your Notification of permitting procedures in 40 CFR part (every five years) anyway, just as the Compliance. This information will help 270 also continue to apply until you Phase I sources are required to do. In the RCRA permit writer determine demonstrate compliance. both our Hazardous Waste Minimization whether there are any risk-based There is not a ‘‘one size fits all’’ and Combustion Strategy and in the conditions that need to remain in your answer to how facilities operating under September 1999 Phase I rule, we RCRA permit. For example, any RCRA interim status should make the emphasized the importance of bringing conditions imposed under RCRA transition. RCRA permit writers, in hazardous waste combustion units omnibus authority, or similar state coordination with facility owners or under enforceable controls that have authority, based on the results of a site- operators, should map out the most been demonstrated to achieve specific risk assessment that are more appropriate route to follow in each case. compliance with performance stringent than the corresponding MACT In mapping out site-specific approaches standards. Stack testing is essentially

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21325

the way to make this demonstration, and HAP metals other than mercury, we 2. Are SSRAs Likely To Be Necessary whether it is performed under the RCRA are proposing that area sources have the After Sources Comply With the Phase I or CAA regulatory schemes, and so option of complying with the MACT Replacement Standards and Phase II should be performed as expeditiously as standards for Phase II major sources or Standards? possible. continuing to comply with the RCRA As explained earlier, all Phase I 4. How Do We Propose Regulating Phase emission standards and requirements. replacement standards must be II Area Sources? Those Phase II area sources that choose equivalent to or more stringent than the to comply with the RCRA standards and negotiated interim standards. Many of In today’s Notice, we are not making requirements will be subject to title V a positive area source finding as we the replacement standards proposed in permits for some of their emissions and today’s notice would be more stringent have with the Phase I area sources. RCRA permits for others. In summary, µ However, we are using the ‘‘specific than the interim standards (e.g., 64 g/ regardless of whether an area source µ pollutants’’ authority in section dscm as opposed to 120 g/dscm for the elects to comply with all or only the existing source cement kiln mercury 112(c)(6) of the CAA to propose that pollutants pursuant to CAA section area sources be subject to MACT standard). And, with the exception of 112(c)(6), a title V permit will be the mercury standard for both new and standards only for certain hazardous air required. pollutants. Thus, area sources will be existing LWAKs and the total chlorine subject to title V permitting D. How Would this Proposal Affect the standard for new LWAKs, they are also requirements for those pollutants RCRA Site-Specific Risk Assessment equivalent to or more stringent than the specified per CAA section 112(c)(6). Policy? 1999-promulgated standards, which Under 40 CFR 63.1(c)(2), area sources EPA determined to be generally 1. What Is the Site-Specific Risk protective in a national risk assessment subject to MACT standards are also Assessment Policy? subject to title V permitting, unless the conducted for that rulemaking.231, 232 standards for the source category In the September 30, 1999 Phase I For today’s proposed action, we specifies that: (1) states will have the rule, we articulated a revised Site- conducted a comparative risk analysis option to exclude area sources from title Specific Risk Assessment (SSRA) policy of the Phase I replacement standards to V permit requirements; or (2) states will recommendation for hazardous waste the 1999-promulgated Phase I standards. have the option to defer permitting of burning incinerators, cement kilns and Specifically, we compared certain area sources. We did not allow the states light-weight aggregate kilns. characteristics of the Phase I source these options in the September 1999 Specifically, we recommended that for universe as it exists today to the 1999 rule for Phase I sources, and we are not hazardous waste combustors subject to Phase I source universe to determine if proposing to offer them for Phase II the Phase I MACT standards, permitting there were any significant differences sources either. Since the RCRA program authorities should evaluate the need for that might influence or impact the does not make a distinction between an SSRA on a case-by-case basis. We potential risk. We focused on the regulating major and area sources and further stated that while SSRAs are not following four key characteristics: would no longer be able to address the anticipated to be necessary for every emission rates, stack gas characteristics, pollutants covered by MACT (because facility, they should be conducted meteorological conditions, and exposed the underlying RCRA standards in 40 where there is some reason to believe populations. Based on the results of our CFR parts 264, 265, and 266 would no that operation in accordance with the comparative analysis, we believe that longer be applicable once the source MACT standards alone may not be the risk to human health and the demonstrates compliance with subpart protective of human health and the environment from Phase I sources EEE), we believe that area sources environment. If the permitting authority complying with the proposed should not be exempt from the title V concludes that a risk assessment is replacement standards will be, for the permitting requirements. It is important necessary for a particular combustor, the most part, the same or less than the that there not be a gap in permitting permitting authority must provide the estimated risk from sources complying coverage as we implement the deferral factual and technical basis for its with the 1999-promulgated standards. from regulation under RCRA to decision in the facility’s administrative See Part Four, Section IX, How Does the regulation under the CAA. In addition, record. Should the SSRA demonstrate Proposed Rule Meet the RCRA section 502(a) of the CAA requires that that supplemental requirements are Protectiveness Mandate?. any area source exemptions from the needed to protect human health and the title V permitting requirements be environment, additional conditions and Policy and Guidance for Hazardous Waste predicated on a finding that compliance limitations should be included in the Combustion Facilities. This document is available with the requirements is impracticable, facility’s RCRA permit pursuant to the in the docket (Docket # RCRA–2003–0016) infeasible, or unnecessarily established for today’s proposed action. omnibus authority. The basis and 231 The 1999-promulgated total chlorine standard burdensome. We do not believe that the supporting information for those for new LWAKs was 41 ppmv. The proposed title V permitting requirements will be supplemental requirements also must be replacement standard is 150 ppmv. We do not view impracticable, infeasible, or documented in the facility’s the total chlorine replacement standard as a unnecessarily burdensome for Phase II concern because the 1999-promulgated total administrative record. For hazardous chlorine standard for existing sources was higher area sources, because these sources are waste combustors not subject to the (230 ppmv) and found to be generally protective in already complying with RCRA Phase I standards, we continued to the national risk assessment conducted for that permitting requirements. recommend that SSRAs be conducted as rulemaking. With respect to risk from mercury for As explained above, we are using the LWAKs, see ‘‘Inferential Risk Analysis in Support part of the RCRA permitting process. of Standards for Emissions of Hazardous Air 230 ‘‘specific pollutants’’ authority to See 64 FR 52841. Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors,’’ propose that area sources be subject to prepared under contract to EPA by Research MACT standards only for certain 230 We provided further clarification of the Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC. hazardous air pollutants: dioxin/furans, appropriate use of the SSRA policy and technical 232 See Human Health and Ecological Risk guidance in an April 10, 2003 memorandum from Assessment Support to the Development of mercury, DRE and carbon monoxide/ Marianne Lamont Horinko, Assistant Administrator Technical Standards for Emissions from hydrocarbons. (See Part Two, Section for OSWER, to the EPA Regional Administrators Combustion Units Burning Hazardous Wastes: II.C.) For particulate matter, chlorine titled Use of the Site-Specific Risk Assessment Background Document, July 1999.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21326 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Although the replacement standards necessary to ensure that all metal HAP determine that an SSRA is necessary to are generally equivalent to or more emissions from the combustion unit ensure that all emissions from liquid stringent than both the interim and remain at a level that is protective of fuel-fired boilers are protective of 1999-promulgated standards, we cannot human health and the environment. human health and the environment. assess to what extent this may change With respect to Phase II sources, the Second, we are proposing that liquid the frequency with which SSRAs are standards we are proposing in today’s fuel-fired boilers with wet APCD or no determined to be necessary. In the end, notice are significantly more stringent APCD and solid fuel-fired boilers the MACT standards are technology- than the existing technical standards comply with a CO or total hydrocarbon based and so, risk analysis required under RCRA (40 CFR part 266, limit as a surrogate for the dioxin/furan notwithstanding, cannot assure that subpart H). To evaluate the emission standard. Permitting emissions from each affected source will protectiveness of the proposed Phase II authorities may determine that an SSRA be protective of human health and the standards, we conducted the same is necessary for these sources if there is environment. For example, a particular comparative risk analysis for Phase II some concern that the CO or total source could emit types and sources that we conducted for Phase I hydrocarbon limit alone may not be concentrations of non-dioxin PICs sources. Specifically, we evaluated the adequately protective. Third, we are not different from those we modeled, and so differences between the 1999 Phase I proposing standards for all HAPs could continue to pose risk not source universe and the existing Phase emitted by Phase II area sources. accounted for in our analysis. Sources’ II source universe with respect to the Instead, consistent with CAA section emissions of criteria pollutants, which four key source characteristics 112(c)(6), we are proposing MACT are non-HAPs and so are beyond the mentioned above to determine if there standards only for dioxin/furans, direct scope of MACT, also could were any significant differences that mercury, carbon monoxide and possibly pose risk which could might influence or impact the potential hydrocarbons, and DRE. For the necessitate site specific risk risk. As discussed in the background remaining metals, particulate matter and assessment.233 Another potential document, (‘‘Draft Technical Support TCl, we are providing area sources with example involves emissions of Document for HWC MACT Replacement the option of complying with the MACT nonmercury metal HAP by cement kilns Standards, Volume V: Emissions standards for major sources or and lightweight aggregate kilns. The Estimates and Engineering Costs’’) we continuing to comply with the existing semivolatile and low volatile metal estimated emissions for each facility RCRA technical standards. Sources that thermal emission standards directly based on site-specific stack gas choose to comply with the RCRA address emissions attributable to the concentrations and flow rates measured standards may need to consider an hazardous waste, as opposed to a during trial burn or compliance tests. SSRA, because the RCRA standards source’s total HAP metal emissions. We then assumed that sources would alone may not be sufficiently protective Thus, although these proposed limits design their systems to meet an (i.e., since they do not address the reflect MACT, by normalizing the emission level below the proposed potential risk from indirect exposures to standards to thermal firing rate (for the standard. For today’s proposed long-term deposition of metals onto appropriate reasons explained earlier), standards, the design level is generally soils and surface waters). To date, we they do not create a HAP metal the lower of: (1) 70% of the standard; or have identified only three area sources ‘‘emissions cap.’’ HAP metal emission (2) the arithmetic average of the in the Phase II universe. Thus, the contributions from nonhazardous waste emissions data of the best performing number of sources that could decide to fuels and raw materials are not directly sources.235 We believe the comparative continue complying with the above- regulated by this type of emission analysis lends support to our view that mentioned RCRA standards is expected standard, but are rather controlled the standards for Phase II sources are to be very limited. appropriately with the particulate generally protective. For a detailed matter standard.234 It is useful to note that there are other discussion of the comparative risk site-specific factors or circumstances In contrast, RCRA permits can address analysis methodology and results, see the total emissions from the combustion beyond the standards themselves that the background document entitled can be important to the SSRA decision unit, assuming an appropriate nexus ‘‘Inferential Risk Analysis in Support of with hazardous waste combustion. making process for an individual Standards for Emissions of Hazardous Thus, for those combustors that must combustor. For example, a source’s Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste comply with a thermal emission proximity to a water body or an Combustors,’’ prepared under contract standard and that feed materials other endangered species habitat, repeated to EPA by Research Triangle Institute, than hazardous waste, the permitting occurrences of contaminant advisories Research Triangle Park, NC. authority may decide that an SSRA is for nearby water bodies, the number of As with the Phase I sources, we hazardous air pollutant emission appropriate to determine if additional cannot reliably predict to what extent limits (i.e., a total emissions cap) are sources within a facility and the SSRAs will continue to be necessary for surrounding community, whether or not Phase II sources once they have 233 See 56 FR at 7145 (Feb. 21, 1991) explaining the waste feed to the combustor is why there can be circumstances where a risk-based complied with the MACT standards. In comprised of persistent, standard for particulate matter (a criteria pollutant) view of the standards alone there are at bioaccumulative or toxic contaminants, for hazardous waste combustion sources may be least three possible scenarios for which needed, and how such a standard could be and sensitive receptors with potentially integrated into the National Ambient Air Quality SSRAs may continue to be needed. significantly different exposure Standard implementation process. First, we are proposing thermal pathways, such as Native Americans, 234 Particulate matter is an appropriate surrogate emission standards for liquid fuel-fired will likely influence a permitting to control metal emissions in nonhazardous waste boilers. Thus, similar to cement kilns fuels and raw material in lieu of a numerical metal authority’s decision of whether or not emission limit because a numerical metal emission and LWAKs, permitting authorities may an SSRA is necessary. In addition, standard may inappropriately control feedrate of uncertainties inherent in our 235 HAP metals in the raw materials and fossil fuels If available test data in our data base indicate comparative risk analysis and the (since such control would be neither replicable nor that the source was emitting below the design level, duplicable, and is not justified as a beyond-the-floor we assumed that the source would continue to emit national risk assessment conducted in standard). at the levels measured in test. support of the 1999-promulgated

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21327

standards also may influence a directs us to integrate the provisions of the convenience of both regulators and permitting authority’s decision. For RCRA with the appropriate provisions the regulated community. example, the 1999 national risk of the CAA and other federal statutes to We are not proposing that SSRAs assessment contained some the maximum extent practicable. Thus, automatically be conducted for uncertainties regarding the fate and to the extent that the RCRA emission hazardous waste combustion units, transport of mercury in the environment standards and associated requirements because we continue to believe that the and the biological significance of promulgated under section 3004(a) or decision of whether or not a risk mercury exposures in fish. Another (q) are duplicative of the CAA MACT assessment is necessary must be made example relates to nondioxin products standards, section 1006(b) provides us based upon relevant site-specific factors of incomplete combustion. Due to with the authority to eliminate associated with an individual insufficient emissions data and duplicative RCRA standards and combustion unit and that there are parameter values, the 1999 national risk associated requirements. For this combustion units for which an SSRA assessment did not include an reason, we have provided that most will not be necessary. We further evaluation of risk posed by nondioxin RCRA emission standards and believe that it is the permitting products of incomplete combustion. See associated requirements no longer apply authority, with information provided by 64 FR 52840 and 52841 for additional to incinerators, cement kilns, and hazardous waste combustion facilities, discussion of uncertainties regarding the lightweight aggregate kilns once these that is best equipped to make this national risk assessment. Also, the sources demonstrate compliance with decision. comparative risk analysis conducted in MACT requirements. As explained 4. How Would the New SSRA support of today’s action did not earlier, we are proposing to do the same Regulatory Provisions Work? account for cumulative emissions at a in today’s notice for solid fuel-fired The SSRA regulatory provisions are source or background exposures from boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers and HCl proposed under both base program other sources. production furnaces. authority (sections 3004(a) and 3005(b)) 3. What Changes Are EPA Proposing Although the Phase I replacement and and HSWA authority (section 3004(q)). With Respect To the Site-Specific Risk Phase II standards provide a high level Thus, where EPA or a state regulator has Assessment Policy? of protection to human health and the determined that a risk assessment is As stated earlier in this section, we environment, thereby allowing us to necessary, the applicability of the new recommended in the preamble to the nationally defer the RCRA emission provisions will vary according to the 1999 rulemaking that permitting requirements to MACT, additional nature of the combustion unit in authorities evaluate the need for an controls may be necessary on an question (whether it is regulated under SSRA on a case-by-case basis for individual source basis to ensure that 3004(q), or only 3004(a) and 3005(b)), hazardous waste combustors subject to adequate protection is achieved in and the authorization status of the state. the Phase I MACT standards. For accordance with RCRA. We believe that Depending on the facts, the new hazardous waste combustors not subject this will continue to be the case even authority would be applicable, or the to the Phase I standards, we continued after the Phase I replacement and Phase omnibus provision would remain the to recommend that SSRAs be conducted II standards are promulgated as principal authority for requiring site- as part of the RCRA permitting process discussed earlier in this section. Up to specific risk assessments and imposing if necessary to protect human health this point in time, we have relied risk-based conditions where and the environment. We indicated that exclusively on RCRA section 3005(c)(3) appropriate. the RCRA omnibus provision authorized and its associated regulations (e.g., 40 As explained in the state permit writers to require applicants to CFR 270.10(k)) when conducting or authorization section of this preamble submit SSRA results where an SSRA requiring a risk assessment on a site- (see Part Two, Section XIX.C), EPA does was determined to be necessary. Today, specific basis. Because risk assessments not consider these provisions to be we are proposing to codify the authority are likely to continue to be necessary at either more or less stringent than the for permit writers to evaluate the need some facilities, we are proposing to pre-existing federal program, since they for and, where appropriate, require explicitly codify the authority to require simply make explicit an authority that SSRAs. We are also proposing to codify them on a case-by-case basis and add has been and remains available under the authority for permit writers to add conditions to RCRA permits based on the omnibus authority and its conditions to RCRA permits that they SSRA results under the authority of implementing regulations. Thus, states determine, based on the results of an sections 3004(a) and (q) and 3005 of with authorized equivalents to the SSRA, are necessary to protect human RCRA. We continue to believe that federal omnibus authority will not be health and the environment. In doing section 3005(c)(3) and its associated required to adopt these provisions, so so, our intent is to change the regulatory regulations provide the authority to long as they interpret their omnibus mechanism that is the basis for SSRAs, require and perform SSRAs and to write authority broadly enough to require risk while retaining the same SSRA policy permit conditions based on SSRA assessments where necessary. from a substantive standpoint. Under results. Indeed, as explained below, Nonetheless, we encourage states to this approach, permitting authorities EPA will likely continue to include adopt these provisions to promote continue to have the responsibility to permit conditions based on the omnibus regulatory transparency. ensure the protectiveness of RCRA authority in some circumstances when We are proposing to add a paragraph permits. We are requesting comment on conducting these activities, and state to the general permit application this proposal. agencies in states with authorized requirements of 40 CFR 270.10 to RCRA sections 3004(a) and (q) require programs will continue to rely on their specifically allow a permit writer to that we promulgate standards for own authorized equivalents, at least for require that a permittee or an applicant hazardous waste treatment, storage and some period of time. However, since we submit an SSRA or the information disposal facilities and hazardous waste foresee that SSRAs will likely continue necessary for the regulatory agency to energy recovery facilities as may be to be necessary at some hazardous waste conduct an SSRA, if one is determined necessary to protect human health and combustion facilities, we are proposing to be necessary. The permit writer may the environment. RCRA section 1006(b) to expressly codify these authorities for decide that an SSRA is needed if there

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21328 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

is some reason to believe that additional factors into more definitive criteria. 6. What Is the Cement Kiln Recycling controls beyond those required pursuant Since that time, we have reaffirmed our Coalition’s SSRA Rulemaking Petition? to 40 CFR parts 63, 264 or 266 may be belief that the decision process On February 28, 2002, the Cement needed to ensure protection of human regarding SSRAs does not lend itself to Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC) health and the environment under the application of required national submitted a petition for rulemaking RCRA. We are also proposing to allow criteria. Most combustors may be ‘‘Petition Under RCRA § 7004(a) For (1) the permit writer to require that the characterized using one or more of the Repeal of Regulations Issued Without applicant provide information, if qualitative guiding factors we provided Proper Legal Process and (2) needed, to make the decision of whether in 1999, but not all. These factors were Promulgation of Regulations If a risk assessment should be required. In not intended to be an exclusive list of Necessary With Proper Legal Process’’ to addition, we are proposing to amend the considerations, nor do we believe that the Administrator containing two applicability language of 40 CFR 270.19, this decision is necessarily susceptible independent requests with respect to 270.22, 270.62, and 270.66 to allow a to an exclusive list of factors. The SSRAs. First, CKRC requested that we permit writer that has determined that decision whether to require a risk repeal the existing SSRA policy and an SSRA is necessary for a specific assessment is inherently site specific, technical guidance because it believes combustion unit to continue to apply and permitting authorities need to have that the policy and guidance ‘‘are the relevant requirements of these the flexibility to evaluate a range of regulations issued without appropriate sections on a case-by-case basis and as factors that can vary from facility to notice and comment rulemaking they relate to the performance of the facility. In addition, it is useful to procedures.’’ Second, CKRC requested SSRA after the source has demonstrated recognize that as risk assessment that after we repeal the policy and compliance with the MACT standards. science continues to mature, the factors The basis for the decision to conduct guidance, ‘‘should EPA believe it can may change in terms of relative the risk assessment must be included in establish the need to require SSRAs in importance and it may not be prudent the administrative record for the facility certain situations, CKRC urges EPA to to obligate permitting authorities to an and made available to the public during undertake an appropriate notice and the comment period for the draft permit. exclusive list that could not be easily comment rulemaking process seeking to If the facility, or any other party, files adjusted to keep pace with scientific promulgate regulations establishing comments on a draft permit decision advancements. such requirements.’’ objecting to the permitting authority’s In a study conducted by U.S. EPA As stated in the petition, ‘‘CKRC does conclusions regarding the need for a risk Region 4, the guiding factors were used not believe that these SSRA assessment, the authority must respond to rank 13 hazardous waste combustion requirements are in any event necessary fully to the comments. In addition, the facilities into high, medium and low or appropriate.’’ In addition, CKRC risk assessment itself also must be risk potential groupings to ascertain if disagrees with our use of the RCRA included in the administrative record the factors could be used as a omnibus provision as the authority to and made available to the public during prioritization tool for determining conduct SSRAs or to collect the the comment period for the permit. Any whether or not an SSRA was necessary. information and data necessary to resulting permit conditions from the The region found that all facilities conduct SSRAs and further contends SSRA also must be documented and evaluated exhibited a ‘‘high’’ level of that the regulations associated with the supported in the administrative record. concern with respect to at least one or omnibus provision are insufficient in We are proposing to add a paragraph to more site-specific characteristics detail. CKRC asserts that we have 40 CFR 270.32 to address the inclusion relating to the guiding factors and that chosen to establish SSRA requirements through guidance documents. CKRC of conditions and limitations in RCRA further analysis was required before the also raised the following three general permits as a result of the findings of an region could be assured that the source concerns: (1) Whether an SSRA is SSRA. would operate in a manner that is needed for hazardous waste combustors adequately protective under RCRA. As a 5. Why Is EPA Not Providing National that will be receiving a RCRA permit result, the region concluded that the Criteria for Determining When an SSRA when the combustor is in full guiding factors alone could not be used Is or Is Not Necessary? compliance with the RCRA boiler and to make a protectiveness finding. The We are not proposing national criteria industrial furnace regulations and/or region’s study, which is entitled for determining when an SSRA is with the MACT regulations; (2) How an Technical Support Assistance of MACT necessary. In the preamble to the April SSRA should be conducted; and (3) Implementation Qualitative Risk Check 1996 Phase I NPRM, we provided a list What is the threshold level for a ‘‘yes’’ of guiding factors which we later is available in the docket (Docket or ‘‘no’’ decision that additional risk- updated and modified in the preamble #RCRA–2003–0016) established for based permit conditions are necessary. to the September 1999 final rulemaking. today’s notice. In support of its petition, CKRC refers to See 61 FR 17372 and 64 FR 52842. We Moreover, simply determining Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 view these guiding factors as items that, whether a combustor fits a particular F.3d 1015 (D.C. Cir. 2000), GE v. EPA, because they may be relevant to the guiding factor does not address the 290 F.3d 377 (D.C. Cir. 2002), and Ethyl potential risk from a hazardous waste complex interplay that may exist Corporation v. EPA, 306 F.3d 1144 (D.C. combustion unit, could be considered between the guiding factors. Nor, does Cir. 2002). The petition is available in by a permitting authority when deciding it measure the level of relative the docket established for today’s if an SSRA is necessary. We did not, importance of one factor over another. proposed action. and do not, intend for them to be For example, is the proximity of CKRC filed the petition filed under definitive criteria from which potentially sensitive receptors more RCRA section 7004(a), which provides permitting authorities would make their important than multiple on-site that: ‘‘Any person may petition the decision. As we stated in 1999, we emission points? For all of these Administrator for the promulgation, believed that the complexity of multi- reasons, we believe that codification of amendment, or repeal of any regulation pathway risk assessments precluded the a list of factors would not be appropriate under this Act. Within a reasonable time conversion of these qualitative guiding here. following receipt of such a petition, the

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21329

Administrator shall take action with combustion units seeking a RCRA 52842 (September 30, 1999). Further, respect to the petition and shall publish permit determination. Specifically, we the technical requirements associated notice of such action in the Federal requested that the regions provide us with the RCRA standards have not been Register, together with the reasons with a written summary of the basis for updated to reflect changes in technology therefor.’’ any future decisions to conduct or not or science for a decade or more and, Shortly after receiving the petition, conduct an SSRA. It is our intention thus, may not be sufficiently protective we conducted a preliminary evaluation that the review process focus on with respect to the potential risk from of CKRC’s concerns as stated in the whether or not permit writers have direct exposures either. For example, petition.236 We determined that any adequately supported their decisions. It our knowledge regarding the formation, decision regarding the petition should is important to point out that because control and toxicity of dioxin/furans has be made in coordination with our many of the decisions regarding SSRAs vastly improved since the promulgation development of the proposed are now being made at the state level, of the RCRA standards. Therefore, until Replacement MACT standards for Phase we do not yet know how many regional such time that hazardous waste I sources and the proposed new MACT SSRA decision summaries will be combustors comply with the MACT standards for Phase II sources. Thus, we submitted for our review. Both the April standards, SSRAs can serve a useful decided that today’s notice was the most 10, 2003, and May 15, 2003, memoranda function in ensuring that RCRA appropriate vehicle to announce and are provided in the docket established combustor permits will be protective of request comment on our tentative for today’s proposed action. human health and the environment. decision concerning the petition. EPA is in the process of an additional Moreover, even once the MACT In the meantime, we believed that it effort to ensure proper use of the standards are fully implemented for was important to take certain measures guidance: we are reviewing the incinerators and BIFs, we believe that to ensure that the SSRA policy and guidance documents themselves, and, to there may continue to be instances in guidance were being used in the manner the extent we find language that could which the permitting authority that we had intended. In an April 10, be construed as limiting discretion, we determines that additional protections 2003 memorandum from Marianne intend to revise the documents to make are necessary (e.g., where site-specific Lamont Horinko, Assistant clear that they are non-binding. CKRC conditions indicate that there may be a Administrator of the Office of Solid indicated in its petition that, in its view, potential risk to a sensitive ecosystem or Waste and Emergency Response, to the the documents contain language that population), as was explained above in U.S. EPA Regional Administrators, we could be construed as mandatory. While Section 2, Are SSRAs Likely to be took two of these measures. First, we EPA does not necessarily agree, and Necessary After Sources Comply with requested that the regions review certain believes that, in context, it is clear that the Phase I Replacement Standards and documents (e.g., regional memoranda, the guidance in the documents is Phase II Standards? See also, the policy and guidance documents, discretionary, EPA is nonetheless explanations at 64 FR 52840–52841. Memoranda of Agreement of Grant reviewing the documents to ensure that Because there may continue to be a need Workplans with the states) to determine they are carefully drafted. for SSRAs at some level, we agree with if any contained misleading or incorrect After consideration of the petition, we CKRC that it would be appropriate to information concerning the SSRA policy have made a tentative decision to explicitly codify the authority to require and technical guidance. If any were partially grant and partially deny SSRAs and SSRA-based permit found to contain misleading or incorrect CKRC’s requests. Specifically, we are conditions, for the sake of regulatory information, we requested that the proposing to deny CKRC’s request that clarity and transparency (although we region take immediate measures to we repeal the SSRA policy and continue to believe that the RCRA clarify or correct the information. guidance and we are proposing to grant omnibus provision provides sufficient Second, we reiterated, in detail, the CKRC’s request in part by promulgating authority to conduct SSRAs). EPA appropriate use of the SSRA policy and an explicit authority to require SSRAs requests comment on the variety of site- guidance for hazardous waste on a site-specific basis using notice and specific circumstances that might give combustors, as well as the appropriate comment rulemaking procedures. We rise to the need for an SSRA, and use of the RCRA omnibus authority as are requesting comment on our tentative whether other mechanisms might exist it relates to SSRAs. In a May 15, 2002, decision. to address those circumstances. memoranda from Robert Springer, With respect to CKRC’s first request As stated earlier, CKRC raised three Director of the Office of Solid Waste, to that we repeal the SSRA policy and general concerns, the first of which we the RCRA Senior Policy Advisors, we guidance, and in response to their discussed in the preceding paragraphs. took the third measure to ensure proper specific concern of whether an SSRA is The second concern relates to the application of the SSRA policy by our necessary for combustors that are in full technical recommendations that EPA regional permit writers. In this compliance with the RCRA and/or has offered for conducting an SSRA. memorandum, we instituted an EPA MACT regulations, we believe that CKRC disagrees with our use of headquarters review process of future SSRAs do serve a useful purpose and guidance, instead arguing that EPA’s regional decisions concerning the need can be necessary even if a facility is in recommendations should have been for an SSRA for hazardous waste full compliance with the existing RCRA issued through the notice and comment and/or MACT technical standards. rulemaking process. 236 EPA does not consider the request to repeal RCRA requires that all hazardous waste We disagree that the Agency’s EPA’s guidance documents to be a valid petition permits be protective of human health technical recommendations either must under this section, since the documents are and the environment. As discussed in or should be issued as a regulation. Risk guidance documents, not regulations. Nonetheless, because CKRC has also petitioned the Agency to the preamble to the 1999 Phase I assessment—especially multi-pathway, issue regulations, and to be responsive to issues rulemaking, the existing RCRA indirect exposure assessment—is a raised by the regulated community, EPA has incinerator and Boiler and Industrial highly technical and evolving field. Any decided to use the procedure established in 40 CFR Furnace (BIF) regulations do not address regulatory approach EPA might codify 260.20 for section 7004 petitions to respond to both of CKRC’s requests. EPA does not concede by the potential risk that may be posed in this area is likely to become outdated, relying on the section 7004(a) procedure that its from indirect exposures to combustor or at least artificially constraining, guidance documents are regulations. emissions. See 64 FR 52828, 52839– shortly after promulgation in ways that

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21330 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

EPA cannot anticipate now. In EPA’s constraining because risk science is a previously, because they are guidance view, this is an area that is uniquely continually changing field. For example, recommendations and not requirements, fitted for a guidance approach, rather by codifying the toxicity values, risk the risk assessor may choose not to than regulation. In fact, across Agency managers were not able to utilize more follow them. More recently, we have programs, EPA has generally adopted a recent values available through EPA’s solicited public and peer review guidance approach to risk assessment Integrated Risk Information System comments on the 1998 guidance,239 and for exactly this reason. See, e.g., (IRIS) 238 and other resources. Also, are in the process of revising it based on Guidelines for Reproductive Toxicity shortly after we codified the air the comments received. This includes Risk Assessment, 61 FR 56274 (October modeling guidelines in support of the comments CKRC submitted related to 31, 1996). EPA’s Superfund program has risk parameters and procedures, the Air the components of the guidance they not promulgated regulations specifying program revised their air modeling contended were overly conservative.240 risk assessment methods. Instead, the guidelines, rendering some of the BIF With respect to CKRC’s assertion that program uses site-specific approaches air modeling guidelines inconsistent the guidance is ‘‘a confusing pattern of for determining risk, employing and so, they were removed. Further, it drafts over a number of years’’, we methods offered in EPA guidance as is important to note that at the time of acknowledge that we have issued a appropriate. The same is true for the codification, BIF risk assessments were number of guidance documents since RCRA corrective action program. not intended to address indirect routes 1990. However, we disagree that this Although we have attempted to provide of exposure, thus making the parameters has resulted in a confusing pattern of our guidance recommendations in a easier to implement. Today, however, drafts. The development and release of form that responds to or encompasses risk assessments are more complex due the guidance documents correspond to many of the issues that can arise when to the necessary inclusion of multi- three specific regulatory time periods in conducting an SSRA, we recognize that pathway and indirect exposure routes. the area of hazardous waste combustion. the flexibility to apply other Given the complexity of multi-pathway In addition, the issuance of subsequent methodologies, assumptions, or and indirect exposure assessments and versions relates to the fact that the recommendations has been important to the fact that risk science is continuously Agency has repeatedly solicited public both regulators and the regulated evolving, it would be difficult and and peer review comments on its community in terms of developing an again, overly constraining, to codify risk technical guidance, and has built upon appropriate site-specific protocol.237 For parameters today. the experience of regulators and example, some of EPA’s technical We also believe that a guidance facilities in using earlier guidance. recommendations may not be approach is consistent with the fact that In 1990, EPA developed its initial appropriate for the combustion device permit writers must make site-specific guidance document during the same in question, and risk assessors must decisions whether to do risk time period as the RCRA BIF emission have the flexibility to make adjustments assessments at all. We expect that standards. In 1993, we released an for the specific conditions present at the permit writers will reach their decisions addendum to the 1990 guidance in source, and the state of risk assessment based on different factors and response to the draft Hazardous Waste science at the time that the SSRA is concerns—in some cases, factors and Minimization and Combustion Strategy being performed. As an obvious concerns that we may not have and our increasing concerns about the example, sources that are located in a identified at this time. We think that it potential impacts from indirect routes of dry, desert climate with no nearby makes little sense to allow this kind of exposure, and solicited comments from the public and the Science Advisory permanent or temporary water bodies of flexibility regarding whether to do a risk Board. A revised document taking into concern should not be required to assessment and for what purposes, account these comments was issued one include a fisher exposure scenario in an while prescribing how one must be year later.241 SSRA. In addition, risk assessors should conducted if one is required. CKRC further contends that the At the time that we were developing be free to use the most recent air guidance is overly conservative and the Phase 1 MACT standards, we again modeling tools and toxicity values constitutes ‘‘a confusing pattern of drafts updated our combustion risk assessment available rather than be limited to those over a number of years in a seemingly guidance by releasing a document that may be out-of-date because a endless fashion’’ that has resulted in specifically addressing human health regulation has not been revised their members incurring significant risk in 1998 and one addressing following the development of the new costs. Because of the variability in the ecological risk in 1999, again soliciting tools or values. Guidance allows for this many factors that influence the risk public input and peer review on these flexibility. from hazardous waste combustors, the CKRC points out the EPA codified guidance contains some conservative 239 USEPA. ‘‘Human Health Risk Assessment certain parameters for BIF risk recommendations and assumptions in Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion assessments, to show that it is possible Facilities’’ EPA–520–D–98–001A, B&C. External order to address this wide range. to do so. While EPA agrees it is possible, Peer Review Draft, 1998. (http://www.epa.gov/ However, based on input from users of epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/risk.htm) the codification in the BIF area is the the guidance, we have attempted to 240 We are not responding to the specific exception, not the rule. It has been our correct the recommendations and comments here, but will respond to them as part of experience in implementing the BIF assumptions that we consider to be the public process for developing the final guidance regulations that codification of certain documents. overly conservative and, as stated 241 risk parameters has proven to be overly USEPA. ‘‘Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities 238 IRIS is a collection of continuously updated Burning Hazardous Wastes’’ Draft, April 1994. 237 Permitting authorities, in some cases, have chemical files which contain descriptive and USEPA. ‘‘Implementation of Exposure Assessment developed their own guidance methodologies quantitative information with respect to: oral Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion responsive to the specific needs associated with reference doses and inhalation reference Facilities’’ Draft, 1994. (These documents are their facilities. For example, North Carolina, Texas, concentrations (RfDs and RfCs, respectively) for available as part of the ‘‘Exposure Assessment and New York have each developed their own risk chronic noncarcinogenic health effects; and hazard Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion assessment methodologies. We think this flexibility identification, oral slope factors, and oral and Facilities’’ EPA530–R–R–94–021. Copies may be employed in the field supports our judgment that inhalation unit risks for carcinogenic effects. For ordered through the National Service Center for risk assessment methodologies should not be more information, see http://www.epa.gov/iris/ Environmental Publications’ Web site at http:// codified. index.html. www.epa.gov/ncepihom/)

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21331

documents.242 For purposes of clarity, for the purpose of collecting data for the representatives and any member of the both of these documents refer to all SSRA). Therefore, including emission public also may comment on the risk earlier guidance where appropriate and data collection, the average cost of an assessment methodology as part of the discuss briefly the progression of the SSRA is between $141,000 and public comment process associated with guidance. Although the 1998 human $370,000. This is considerably less than the RCRA permit. health guidance and the 1999 ecological the cost range provided by CKRC of The third general concern raised by guidance provide our current thinking $200,000 to $1,000,000. Additionally, CKRC in its petition was that we had regarding SSRA methodology for EPA’s upper bound cost of $370,000 is not provided a threshold level for a hazardous waste combustors, we noted significantly less than the upper bound ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ decision to trigger the to our permit writers that we cost of $1,300,000, as reported by CKRC need for additional risk-based permit recommended that they should continue in their petition (and the attached conditions. EPA agrees that its guidance to use the 1994 guidance for those affidavit).243 We believe that the cost of does not establish a bright-line SSRAs that were in progress. SSRAs has decreased over time, threshold level for determining whether Although CKRC claims to find these particularly since the release of the 1998 to impose additional permit conditions; guidance documents confusing, EPA’s guidance. This may be in large part such a binding requirement would only judgment is that most interested because the 1998 guidance is much be appropriately established through parties—both regulators and the more comprehensive than previous rulemaking. However, EPA has regulated community—have found the guidance documents and because provided recommendations about the guidance to be useful, and that the private software companies have overall targets for acceptable risk levels. documents have substantially reduced developed computer programs based on See USEPA. Implementation of the uncertainty and confusion that the guidance, which can further Exposure Assessment Guidance for surrounded multi-pathway risk decrease costs associated with the risk RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion assessments a decade ago. As stated calculations for each exposure scenario. Facilities, Draft, 1994. Moreover, we do above, no one is obligated to follow this CKRC also expressed specific concern not intend to codify our recommended guidance, and regulators often depart that it and its members have been target levels for some of the same from it; but EPA believes it has been denied an opportunity to comment on reasons that we are not proposing to extremely helpful on the whole, rather the combustion risk assessment codify the risk assessment technical than confusing. guidance documents. We strongly guidance. Our recommended target CKRC has alleged that SSRA’s disagree with this assertion. We have levels provide risk managers with a typically cost between $200,000 and repeatedly sought public comment on starting point from which to determine $1,000,000 for an individual facility. We the guidance documents. For the 1998 if a combustor’s potential risk may or are aware that prior to the release of the human health guidance we not only may not be acceptable. However, we 1998 guidance, combustion risk requested public comment, but also believe that it is important, and indeed assessments were more costly than we submitted the document for an external essential, that risk managers be afforded understand them to be today. For an peer review and held a peer review sufficient flexibility to apply different individual facility, we do not know to meeting which was open to the public. target levels as dictated by the what extent these costs are attributed to Since the peer review meeting, we have circumstances surrounding the the act of conducting a risk assessment, been incorporating both the public and combustor. For example, a risk manager to recommendations provided in our peer review comments into the human may wish to apply a more stringent guidance, to changes that the facility health guidance. While we have not yet carcinogenic target level for a combustor chose to make during the risk completed this task and released a final that is located in a densely populated assessment, or the facility’s desire to document, any member of the public area with a high concentration of develop its own site-specific protocol. may at any time discuss any concerns industrial emission sources. Not including the collection and that they have with our In summary, we have made a tentative analysis of emission risk data, we have recommendations. In addition, decision to deny CKRC’s request that we been advised that the cost of an average regardless of whether a risk assessor repeal the SSRA policy and guidance SSRA today is approximately $84,000. uses the recommendations provided in and to grant CKRC’s request in part by (See document entitled Hazardous our guidance or not, we have proposing to codify the authority to Waste Combustion MACT— encouraged the permit writer and require SSRAs. We are not proposing to Replacement Standards: Proposed Rule. facility representatives to meet prior to codify the SSRA guidance or our Preliminary Cost Assessment for Site any analysis to discuss the appropriate recommended risk methodology for Specific Risk Assessment, November, risk methodology and data input needs hazardous waste combustors. We are 2003, as provided in the docket for for an SSRA. Such a meeting allows requesting comment on our tentative today’s action.) The emission risk data both the permitting authority and the decision. is projected to add on average between facility the opportunity to raise $57,000 (if the facility collects its XVIII. What Alternatives to the questions and objections concerning the emission risk data at the same time as Particulate Matter Standard Is EPA its emission standards performance appropriateness of different Proposing or Requesting Comment On? methodologies, assumptions, or default data) and $285,000 (if the facility must As discussed in Part Two, Section conduct a separate emission test solely values and their application to the hazardous waste combustor. Facility IV.C, we are proposing particulate matter standards as surrogates to control 242 We noted earlier that the 1998 guidance is metal HAP.244 We are not proposing currently being revised in consideration of public 243 The cost ranges for CKRC include both the and peer review comments received. With respect cost of risk assessments and emission data numerical metal HAP emission to the 1999 guidance (USEPA. ‘‘Screening Level collection. In its petition, CKRC provided a range standards that would have accounted Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous of costs ($100,000 to $500,000 for risk assessments for all metal HAP because we generally Waste Combustion Facilities’’ EPA–530–D–99– and $100,000 to $500,000 for emission data 001A, B&C. Peer Review Draft, 1999), we solicited collection), but also provided an upper bound cost do not have as much compliance test public comment and plan to conduct a peer review. ($728,297 for a risk assessment and $588,790 for (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/ emission data collection, plus additional permit 244 Particulate matter is not a listed HAP pursuant ecorisk.htm) costs to equate to $1.3M). to CAA 112(b).

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21332 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

emissions information in our database meaning of RCRA section 1006 (b) alternative in that we propose to require for the nonenumerated metal HAP (3)).246 See Part Two, Section XVII.D. you to comply only with the first compared to the enumerated metal This previously promulgated component described above, which is to HAP,245 and because we believe that a alternative to the particulate matter achieve metal emission standards for particulate matter standard, in lieu of standard has three components. The semivolatile and low volatile metals. As emission standards that directly regulate first component is simply to meet metal discussed above, the level of the all the metals in all feedstreams, emission limitations for semivolatile proposed standard is the same as that simplifies compliance activities. and low volatile metals. The emission which applies to other sources, but the Nonetheless, we are today proposing limitations apply to both enumerated standard would apply to all metal HAP, an alternative to the particulate matter and non-enumerated metal HAP, not just those enumerated in the present standard for incinerators, liquid fuel- excluding mercury. Enumerated semivolatile and low volatile metal fired boilers, and solid fuel-fired boilers semivolatile metals are those metals that standards. As with the previously that is conceptually similar to the are directly controlled with the promulgated alternative, no particulate alternative metal emission control numerical semivolatile emission matter emission standard would apply requirements that were previously standard, i.e., cadmium and lead. to these sources under subpart EEE; promulgated for incinerators. We are Enumerated low volatile metals are however, sources would remain subject also requesting comment on another those metals that are directly controlled to the RCRA particulate matter standard alternative to the particulate matter with the numerical low volatile metals of 0.08 gr/dscf pursuant to §§ 264.343(c) standard that would apply to all source emission standard, i.e., arsenic, or 266.105. categories that would be subject to beryllium and chromium. Non- We propose to eliminate the particulate matter standards (i.e., all enumerated metals are those remaining requirements for you to demonstrate source categories except hydrochloric metal HAP: antimony, cobalt, that: (1) You are using reasonable acid production furnaces). manganese, nickel, and selenium that hazardous waste metal feed control, i.e., We discuss these two different are not controlled directly with an a defined metal feed control that is alternatives below. emission standard, but are rather better than the MACT-defining feed controlled through the surrogate control level; and (2) your source is A. What Alternative to the Particulate 247 Matter Standard Is EPA Proposing For particulate matter standard. For equipped with an air pollution control Incinerators, Liquid Fuel-Fired Boilers, purposes of these alternative system that achieves at least a 90 and Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers? requirements, the non-enumerated percent system removal efficiency for metals are classified as either a semivolatile metals. We believe these We promulgated an alternative to the semivolatile or a low volatile metal, and two requirements are not necessary to particulate matter standard for included in the calculation of ensure you are in fact controlling metals incinerators feeding low levels of metals compliance with the corresponding below MACT levels given that all in the July 3, 2001, direct final rule. See emissions limit. The level of the sources electing to comply with this 66 FR at 35093. Today we propose a standard is the same as that which alternative must limit both the simplified alternative to the particulate applies to other incinerators, but the enumerated metals and non-enumerated matter standard for incinerators, and we standard would apply to all metal HAP, metals to levels below the proposed propose to expand the provision to also not just those enumerated in the present levels that apply only to enumerated apply to liquid and solid fuel-fired low volatile metal and semivolatile metals. Today’s proposed approach, in boilers. Below, we first describe the metal standards. effect, lowers the existing semivolatile alternative that was originally The second component is a and low volatile metal emissions limits promulgated for incinerators, after requirement for the incinerator to because the contribution of which we describe the simplified demonstrate that it is using reasonable nonenumerated metals must be approach and our rationale for hazardous waste metal feed control, i.e., accounted for when achieving the same proposing it. a defined metal feedrate that is better numerical semivolatile and low volatile The July 3, 2001, final rule allows than the MACT-defining metal feed emission limits. We believe this is incinerators to operate under alternative floor control level. The third component appropriate because this effectively metal emission control requirements is a requirement for the incinerator to lower emissions limit for enumerated reflecting MACT in lieu of complying demonstrate that its air pollution metals compensates for the lower with the 0.015 gr/dscf particulate control system achieves, at a minimum, emission levels that would have been emission standard. Under the a 90 percent system removal efficiency achieved if the source used a particulate alternative, no particulate matter for semivolatile metals. matter control device capable of emission standard applies to Today we propose a simplified achieving the particulate matter incinerators under subpart EEE; version of the above described standard. Put another way, we regard however, the incinerator remains this emission limitation as an equivalent subject to the RCRA particulate matter 246 Sources electing to comply with these means of meeting the standard for HAP standard of 0.08 gr/dscf pursuant to alternative requirements thus remain subject to the metals (except mercury) already § 264.343(c). This is because Clean Air RCRA PM standard in their RCRA permit. The RCRA permit must include applicable operating established in the rule. Act standards can supplant RCRA limits that ensure compliance with the RCRA PM As discussed above, the approach we standards only when the CAA standard limit. promulgated on July 3, 2001 required is sufficiently protective of human 247 Please note that the particulate matter you, in practice, to feed low levels of health and the environment to make the standard is not redundant to the semivolatile and metals on a continuous basis in order to low volatile metal standards. Although controlling RCRA standard duplicative (within the particulate matter also controls semivolatile and qualify for the alternative. The rule low volatile metals in combustion gas, these metals required that the source’s feed control 245 ‘‘Enumerated’’ metals are those HAP metals can also be controlled by feedrate control. Thus, level must be equivalent to or lower that are directly controlled with an emission limit, sources can achieve the emission standard for than 25% of the MACT-defining i.e., lead, cadmium, arsenic, beryllium, and semivolatile and low volatile metals primarily by chromium. The remaining nonmercury metal HAP feedrate control. In such cases, the particulate hazardous waste feed control level. We are controlled using particulate matter as a matter standard would be controlling considered whether it would be surrogate. nonenumerated metals primarily. appropriate to also apply such a

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21333

qualification requirement to today’s 3. What Emission Limitation Must Solid their hazardous and nonhazardous proposed alternative. Unfortunately, the Fuel-Fired Boilers Comply With Under waste feedstreams, and, for energy methodology used to calculate today’s This Alternative? recovery units, each source’s hazardous proposed emission standards does not For existing solid fuel-fired boilers, waste firing rate. We discuss this base the standards on a specific MACT- the emissions limits under this alternative below, and we request comment as to whether this approach is defining feed control level. Thus, we do alternative would be: (1) A semivolatile appropriate given the complexities not have a MACT feed control level that metal emission limit of 170 µg/dscm for associated with its implementation. we can readily use to define an the combined emissions of lead, Also see USEPA, ‘‘Draft Technical appropriate low feed control level. We cadmium, and selenium; and (2) a low Support Document for HWC MACT request comment on whether it is volatile metal emission limit of 210 µg/ Replacement Standards, Volume IV: appropriate and/or necessary to dscm for combined emissions of arsenic, Compliance With MACT Standards,’’ beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt, establish a minimum feed control level, March 2004, Chapter 23.9, for more manganese, and nickel (all emissions and if so, how it could be determined. discussion. corrected to 7% oxygen). 1. What Emission Limitation Must For new sources, the emissions limits 1. What Are the Components of the Incinerators Comply With Under This would be: (1) A semivolatile metal Total Metal Emissions Limitations? Alternative? µ emission limit of 170 g/dscm for This total metal emission limitation combined emissions of lead, cadmium, For existing incinerators, the would regulate all nonmercury metal and selenium; and (2) a low volatile emissions limits under this alternative HAP with separate semivolatile HAP metal emission limit of 190 µg/dscm for would be: (1) A semivolatile metal metal and low volatile HAP metal µ emissions of arsenic, beryllium, emission limits. Each semivolatile and emission limit of 59 g/dscm for the chromium, antimony, cobalt, combined emissions of lead, cadmium, low volatile metal limit would have manganese, and nickel (all emissions separate MACT components that would and selenium; and (2) a low volatile corrected to 7% oxygen). control and limit enumerated and metal emission limit of 84 µg/dscm for 4. Why Don’t We Offer This Alternative nonenumerated metal HAP emissions combined emissions of arsenic, that are attributable to: (1) Hazardous beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt, to Lightweight Aggregate Kilns and Cement Kilns? waste feedstreams; (2) nonhazardous manganese, and nickel (all emissions waste, non-fuel feedstreams (e.g., corrected to 7% oxygen). This alternative is intended to apply cement kiln raw material); and (3) For new sources, the emissions limits to sources that feed de minimis levels of nonhazardous waste fuels (e.g., coal). would be: (1) a semivolatile emission metal HAP. We do not believe Some of these components may or may limit of 7 µg/dscm for combined hazardous waste burning lightweight not apply depending on the source emissions of lead, cadmium, and aggregate kilns and cement kilns feed category. Each semivolatile and low selenium; and (2) a low volatile these metals at de minimis levels volatile metal component is converted primarily because raw materials and emission limit of 9 µg/dscm for to a mass emission limitation, and each coal that is co-fired may contain these emissions of arsenic, beryllium, source’s resultant total metal emissions metal HAP, and because hazardous would be limited to the summation of chromium, antimony, cobalt, waste that is combusted by sources that manganese, and nickel (all emissions each of the applicable components. We receive off-site hazardous waste describe these MACT components corrected to 7% oxygen). shipments (i.e., commercial hazardous below. 2. What Emission Limitation Must waste combustors) typically contain a. Energy Recovery Units: Allowable Liquid Fuel-Fired Boilers Comply With these metal HAP. Thus, we think that Enumerated Semivolatile and Low Under This Alternative? allowing this alternative would not be of Volatile Metal Emissions Attributable to practical significance because we do not the Hazardous Waste. This first For existing liquid fuel-fired boilers, believe these sources could meet the component limits enumerated metal the emissions limits under this standard. As a result, we are not emissions attributable to hazardous alternative would be: (1) A semivolatile proposing this alternative for these waste feedstreams from energy recovery metal emission limit of 1.1E–5 lb/MM source categories. units, i.e., liquid boilers, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns, and is BTU for the combined emissions of B. What Alternative to the Particulate equivalent to the enumerated lead, cadmium, and selenium; and (2) a Matter Standard Is EPA Requesting semivolatile and low volatile metal low volatile metal emission limit of Comment On? 7.7E–5 lb/MM BTU for combined mass emission rate that would be emissions of arsenic, beryllium, As previously discussed, we do not allowed by today’s proposed standards. have sufficient metal HAP compliance chromium, antimony, cobalt, Each source’s allowable mass emission data to calculate MACT floors that manganese, and nickel (all emissions rate limit for this component would be would account for all the nonmercury equivalent to its associated hazardous corrected to 7% oxygen). metal HAP in all feedstreams. We waste thermal feed rate (expressed as For new sources, the emissions limits discuss below, however, an alternative million Btu hazardous waste per hour) would be: (1) A semivolatile metal approach to the particulate matter multiplied by the proposed semivolatile emission limit of 4.3E–6 lb/MM BTU for standard that could be implemented if and low volatile metal thermal emission combined emissions of lead, cadmium, sources monitor and collect nonmercury standard. and selenium; and (2) a low volatile metal HAP feed concentration data prior b. Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers and metal emission limit of 3.6E–5 lb/MM to the compliance date. Such an Incinerators: Allowable Enumerated BTU for emissions of arsenic, beryllium, approach, if promulgated, would result Semivolatile and Low Volatile Metal chromium, antimony, cobalt, in site-specific metal HAP emission Emissions Attributable to All manganese, and nickel (all emissions limits that would be dependent, in part, Feedstreams. This second component corrected to 7% oxygen). on each source’s average feed applies only to solid fuel-fired boilers concentration levels of metal HAP in and incinerators, and limits enumerated

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21334 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

metal mass emissions attributable to all equivalent to its associated three year of nonenumerated semivolatile and low feedstreams, i.e., hazardous waste, average hazardous waste thermal feed volatile metal nonhazardous waste fuel nonhazardous waste, and nonhazardous concentration for each metal group thermal feed concentrations. Each waste fuels. This component limit is multiplied by: (1) One minus the MACT source’s allowable mass emission rate equivalent to the enumerated system removal efficiency; and (2) its for this component would be equivalent semivolatile and low volatile metal associated hazardous waste thermal to its associated three year average metal mass emission rate that would be feedrate (expressed as million Btu nonhazardous waste fuel thermal feed allowed by today’s proposed standards. hazardous waste per hour). The MACT concentration for each metal group 253 Today’s proposed standards for system removal efficiency that would be multiplied by: (1) One minus the MACT incinerators and solid-fuel-fired boilers applied separately for semivolatile system removal efficiency for the limits total emissions from all metals and low volatile metals would be specified metal group; and (2) its feedstreams, and are expressed as stack determined as described in Part Two, associated nonhazardous waste fuel gas concentration limits. Each source’s Section VI.G.5 for each source category. thermal feedrate (expressed as million allowable mass emission rate limit for d. Energy Recovery Units: btu per hour). As discussed above, the this component would be equivalent to Enumerated and Nonenumerated Metal MACT system removal efficiency that its gas flowrate multiplied by the HAP Emissions Attributable to would be applied separately for proposed standard. Nonhazardous Waste Fuels. The fourth semivolatile metals and low volatile c. All Source Categories: Allowable component limits enumerated and metals would be determined as Nonenumerated Semivolatile and Low nonenumerated semivolatile and low described in Part Two, Section VI.G.5 Volatile Metal Emissions Attributable to volatile metal mass emissions for each source category. the Hazardous Waste. This third attributable to nonhazardous waste fuels f. Incinerators and Solid Fuel-Fired component limits nonenumerated (e.g., coal) and is applicable to energy Boilers: Nonenumerated Metal HAP semivolatile and low volatile metal recovery units, i.e., cement kilns, Emissions Attributable to Nonfuel emissions attributable to hazardous lightweight aggregate kilns, and liquid Nonhazardous Waste. The sixth waste feedstreams, and is applicable to fuel-fired boilers. Energy recovery units component limits nonenumerated metal all source categories. We currently do complying with this alternative would HAP emissions attributable to nonfuel not have sufficient data to calculate a be required to collect three years of nonhazardous waste feedstreams from MACT emission limitation for enumerated and nonenumerated incinerators and solid fuel-fired boilers. nonenumerated metals in the hazardous semivolatile and low volatile metal Sources complying with this alternative waste. As a result, sources complying nonhazardous waste fuel thermal feed would be required to collect three years with this alternative would be required concentration levels.250 Each source’s of nonenumerated semivolatile and low to collect three years of nonenumerated allowable mass emission rate for this volatile metal nonfuel nonhazardous semivolatile and low volatile metal component would be equivalent to its waste feedstream concentration data, hazardous waste feed control associated three year average metal expressed as mass of metal fed in its concentrations.248 Incinerators and solid nonhazardous waste fuel thermal feed nonfuel nonhazardous waste feedstream fuel-fired boilers would be required to concentration for each metal group 251 per total thermal input into the collect hazardous waste maximum multiplied by: (1) One minus the MACT combustor. Each source’s allowable theoretical emissions concentrations, system removal efficiency for the mass emission rate for this component and energy recovery units would be specified metal group; and (2) its would be equivalent to its associated required to collect three years of associated nonhazardous waste thermal three year average metal nonfuel hazardous waste thermal feed feedrate.252 As discussed above, the nonhazardous waste thermal feed concentration data for these metal MACT system removal efficiency that concentration for each metal group 254 groups.249 Each incinerator and solid would be applied separately for multiplied by: (1) One minus the MACT fuel-fired boiler’s allowable semivolatile semivolatile metals and low volatile system removal efficiency for the and low volatile metal mass emission metals would be determined as specified metal group; and (2) its rate for this component would be described in Part Two, Section VI.G.5 associated total thermal feedrate equivalent to its associated three year for each source category. (expressed as million Btus per hour). As average hazardous waste maximum e. Incinerators and Solid Fuel-Fired discussed above, the MACT system theoretical emissions concentrations for Boilers: Nonenumerated Metal HAP removal efficiency that would be each metal group multiplied by: (1) One Emissions Attributable to Nonhazardous applied separately for semivolatile minus the MACT system removal Waste Fuels. The fifth component limits metals and low volatile metals would be efficiency; and (2) its associated nonenumerated semivolatile and low determined as described in Part Two, volumetric gas flow rate. Each energy volatile metal mass emissions Section VI.G.5 for each source category. recovery unit’s allowable mass emission attributable to nonhazardous waste fuels g. Cement Kilns and Lightweight rate for this component would be (e.g., coal, fuel oil) and is applicable to Aggregate Kilns: Enumerated and incinerators and solid fuel-fired boilers. Nonenumerated Metal HAP Emissions 248 We request comment on how such an Sources complying with this alternative Attributable to Raw Materials. The approach would work for new sources, given that would be required to collect three years new sources may not have historical feed concentration data at the time they begin 253 Each source would be required to calculate its operations. 250 Sources would not be required to collect three associated three year average nonenumerated metal 249 Each source would be required to calculate its years of data if the nonhazardous waste fuels such concentrations in their nonhazardous waste fuel for associated three year average nonenumerated metal as natural gas do not contain metal HAP. both semivolatile metals (selenium) and low hazardous waste concentrations for both 251 Each source would be required to calculate its volatile metals (antimony, cobalt, manganese, and semivolatile metals (selenium) and low volatile associated three year average metal concentrations nickel) expressed in pounds per million Btu. metals (antimony, cobalt, manganese, and nickel) in their coal for both semivolatile metals (lead, 254 Each source would be required to calculate its expressed in either hazardous waste thermal cadmium, and selenium) and low volatile metals associated three year average nonenumerated metal concentrations, i.e., pounds per million Btus (for (arsenic, beryllium, chromium, antimony, cobalt, thermal feed concentrations in their nonfuel energy recovery units) or maximum theoretical manganese, and nickel) expressed in pounds per nonhazardous waste feedstreams for both emissions concentrations, i.e., pounds per dry million Btu of coal. semivolatile metals (selenium) and low volatile standard cubic feet (for incinerators and solid fuel- 252 This would be equivalent to a kiln’s coal metals (antimony, cobalt, manganese, and nickel) fired boilers). feedrate expressed in million Btus per hour. expressed in pounds per million Btu.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21335

seventh component limits enumerated standard of 0.08 gr/dscf pursuant to lightweight aggregate kilns that burn and nonenumerated metal HAP § 264.343(c).258 hazardous waste, and it also amends subpart EEE to establish MACT emissions attributable to raw material 3. How Would Sources Demonstrate standards for the Phase II source from cement kilns and lightweight Compliance With This Alternative? aggregate kilns. Cement kilns and categories—boilers and hydrochloric lightweight aggregate kilns complying Sources complying with this acid production furnaces that burn with this alternative would be required alternative would be required to hazardous waste. Additionally, this rule to collect three years of enumerated and calculate its site-specific semivolatile amends several RCRA regulations nonenumerated semivolatile and low and low volatile metal mass emission located in 40 CFR part 270 to reflect volatile metal raw material feed rate limitation as described above. Each changes in applicability, addition of a concentration data, expressed as mass of source’s emission limitation would not new permit modification procedure and metal fed in raw material per total only be a function of its average three additions related site-specific risk years of metal concentration data thermal input into the kiln.255 Each assessments and permitting. collected, but also would be a function cement kiln and lightweight aggregate of either its gas flowrate (for incinerators 1. How Is This Rule Delegated Under kiln’s allowable mass emission rate for and solid fuel fired boilers), hazardous the CAA? this component would be equivalent to waste thermal firing rate (for cement Consistent with the September 1999 its associated three year average metal kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and rule, we recommend that state, local, raw material thermal feed concentration liquid fuel-fired boilers), and total and tribal (S/L/T) air pollution control 256 for each metal group multiplied by: thermal input rate (for all sources). As agencies apply for delegation of this (1) one minus the MACT system a result each source’s mass emission subpart (and all NESHAP) under section removal efficiency for the specified limitation would vary over time as the 112(l) of the CAA, if they have not done metal group; and (2) its associated total dependent variables change (e.g., a so already, so that they can exercise thermal feedrate. As discussed above, cement kiln’s allowable mass emission delegable authorities for the final Phase the MACT system removal efficiency limitation would increase if its I Replacement standards and Phase II that would be applied separately for hazardous waste thermal firing rate standards. Delegable authorities are the semivolatile metals and low volatile increases). discretionary activities, such as metals would be determined as Sources would demonstrate approving changes to the reporting described in Part Two, Section VI.G.5 compliance with these site-specific schedule, that are part of each NESHAP. for each source category. metal emission rate limitations during EPA retains some of those authorities, 2. Would Sources Still Be Required To its comprehensive performance test and but allows most to be implemented by would establish operating parameter those S/L/T agencies who accept Comply With a Particulate Matter limits on its air pollution control device straight delegation of the NESHAP; in Standard if They Comply With This to ensure that the source achieves the this case, subpart EEE. The delegable Alternative? metal system removal efficiency that authorities, those that can and cannot be As previously discussed in Part Two, was demonstrated during the test during delegated, are described in section Section VI.F, we conclude that today’s normal day-to-day operations. Sources 63.1214 of this subpart. (For more proposed floor levels can be no higher would then establish total metal information on delegation of part 63 than the interim standards because all feedrate limits that would assure provisions, see 65 FR 55810–55846.) All sources, not just the best performing compliance with this site-specific metal major sources of air pollutants, such as sources, are achieving the interim emission limitation. Given that these all sources subject to this subpart, must standards. It is not clear whether this metal emission limitations may vary have a title V operating permit which alternative total metal emission over time, we request comment as to would contain all applicable limitation is less stringent than the whether these emission limitations (and requirements, including those for this current interim particulate matter associated feedrate operating limits) subpart. (For more information, please standard for incinerators, cement kilns, should be instantaneous limits based on see 40 CFR part 70.) While S/L/T and lightweight aggregate kilns.257 As a each source’s current operating levels agencies can implement and enforce (e.g., hazardous waste thermal input rate MACT standards through their result, incinerators, cement kilns, and for energy recovery units, or gas approved title V programs, approval of lightweight aggregate kilns complying flowrate for incinerators), or rather 12 title V programs alone do not allow S/ with this alternative would also be hour rolling average limits that would L/T authorities to be the primary required to comply with the interim be updated each minute. enforcement authority and they cannot standard for particulate matter. Liquid exercise delegable provisions’ XIX. What Are the Proposed RCRA and solid fuel-fired boilers complying authorities. An approved title V State Authorization and CAA with this alternative would remain program means that S/L/T agencies Delegation Requirements? subject to the RCRA particulate matter commit to incorporating all MACT A. What Is the Authority for This Rule? standards into title V permits as permit 255 Total thermal input to kiln would include conditions and to enforcing all the terms both hazardous and nonhazardous fuel thermal Today’s rule amends the promulgated 259 input. standards located at 40 CFR part 63, and conditions of the permit. Having 256 Each source would be required to calculate its subpart EEE. It amends the standards for an approved title V program, for associated three year average metal thermal feed the Phase I source categories— concentrations in their raw material for both 259 Accordingly, S/L/T agencies are required to semivolatile metals (lead, cadmium, and selenium) incinerators, cement kilns, and reopen existing title V permits that have 3 or more and low volatile metals (arsenic, beryllium, years remaining in the permit term to include the chromium, antimony, cobalt, manganese, and 258 As previously discussed, this is because Clean promulgated standards. If there are less than 3 years nickel) expressed in pounds per million Btus. Air Act standards can supplant RCRA standards remaining, S/L/T agencies may wait until renewal 257 There is not a direct correlation between only when the CAA standard is sufficiently to incorporate the standards. Provided that a source particulate matter emissions and metal emissions protective of human health and the environment to is not required to reopen its title V permit, it must given that metal emission levels are both a function make the RCRA standard duplicative (within the still fully comply with the promulgated standards of feed control and particulate matter control. meaning of RCRA section 1006 (b) (3)). (40 CFR 70.7(f)(1)(i)).

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21336 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

instance, does not automatically allow § 63.8(f) and; (4) approval of major to be a test method since it serves as the S/L/T agencies to approve test plans, alternatives to recordkeeping and benchmark measurement method for requests for (minor and intermediate) reporting under § 63.10(f). It is demonstrating compliance with changes to monitoring, performance test important to note that if the alternatives emission standards. The authority to waivers, document notifications, or mentioned in items (2) through (4) are approve changes to the CEMS-related other Category I Authorities (see 40 CFR determined to be minor or intermediate requirements is also delegable to S/L/T 63.91(g)(1)(i)). For those S/L/T agencies according to the definitions in agencies as long as the request is not a who have been previously delegated § 63.90(a), then they are considered major change. To summarize, if a source authority for the MACT standards under delegable and can be approved by a S/ proposes a major change to a test 40 CFR part 63 subpart EEE, we L/T agency who has been granted method specified in §§ 63.1208(b) and encourage you to request approval of the authority for subpart EEE.260 To aid in 63.1209(a)(1), it must send the request revisions to emission standards and the determination of whether a request to the appropriate EPA Region and various other compliance requirements is major, intermediate, or minor, we EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning of today’s proposal when promulgated. recommend that you consult the and Standards,261 since major changes September 14, 2000 final rule, to test methods are not delegable. We B. Are There Any Changes to the CAA Hazardous Air Pollutants: Amendments are adding §§ 63.1208(b) and Delegation Requirements for Phase I to the Approval of State Programs and 63.1209(a)(1), to the authorities in Sources? Delegation of Federal Authorities (65 FR § 63.1214(c)(2) that are not delegable for With regard to CAA delegation 55810). The preamble to this rule major changes. requirements for Phase I sources, we provides examples, as well as the Consistent with the major alternatives intend to clarify which provisions in 40 regulatory definitions as they exist to test methods, major alternatives to CFR part 63 subpart EEE are delegable today in 40 CFR 63.90(a). Additionally, monitoring are not delegable. (See 40 and those that are not in today’s Notice you may consult a guidance document CFR 63.90(a) for definitions of major, of proposed rulemaking. We recently entitled, How to Review and Issue Clean intermediate, and minor changes to test published a final rule, Clarifications to Air Act Applicability Determinations methods.) We noted in § 63.1214(c)(2) Existing National Emissions Standards and Alternative Monitoring (EPA 305-B– that major alternatives to monitoring as for Hazardous Air Pollutants 99–004, February 1999). addressed in the general provisions in Delegations’ Provisions on June 23, 2003 While § 63.1214(c) and § 63.90(a) § 63.8(f) were not delegable, but we did (see 68 FR 37334), that clarifies and provide which authorities are not not specifically address the relevant streamlines delegable provisions for delegable for subpart EEE sources and monitoring requirements in subpart each existing NESHAP. Prior to define degrees of changes, they may not EEE. Section 63.1209 specifies the finalization of this rule, many be clear in certain applications. We will monitoring requirements sources must permitting authorities and sources alike address specific sections in subpart EEE, use to determine compliance with were left to interpret which Category I through the following preamble emission standards in EEE. Depending authorities were delegable according to discussion and through regulatory upon the pollutant to be monitored, provisions specific to one NESHAP amendments, where we believe there is either a CEMS or COMS is required. versus another. In light of this final rule, a need for clarity based upon our Before discussing whether changes to which outlines the non-delegable experiences with the implementation of monitoring in subpart EEE are provisions for subpart EEE, some the Phase I standards thus far. Also, delegable, it is important first to review confusion remains today as to which there are some alternatives in subpart how requests for changes to monitoring actions can be taken by a delegated S/ EEE that were inadvertently left out of are handled under the general L/T agency. Therefore, we intend to § 63.1214(c) which we are adding provisions of § 63.8(f). In general, clarify specific actions in subpart EEE through this Notice of proposed requests for alternative monitoring that can or cannot be taken by rulemaking. follow the same approach, with respect permitting agencies who have received Beginning with test methods, major to delegation authority, as requests for delegation under 112(l) of the CAA for alternatives are not delegable. (See 40 alternative test methods discussed subpart EEE. CFR 63.90(a) for definitions of major, above; requests that are defined as major Sections 63.91(g)(1)(i) and (g)(2)(i) list intermediate, and minor changes to test should be sent to the appropriate EPA authorities that are generally delegable methods.) We noted in § 63.1214(c)(2) Region and requests that are to S/L/T agencies and those that are not, that major alternatives to the test intermediate or minor should be sent to respectively. These apply to all methods as addressed in the general the delegated S/L/T agency. A request to NESHAP. Similar information contained provisions at § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) were use other monitoring in lieu of a CEMS in § 63.1214 explains that some of the not delegable, however, we did not is always considered a major change. discretionary authorities, such as specifically include test methods However, if a source proposes to use a approval of alternative reporting relevant to subpart EEE. Section CEMS in lieu of an operating parameter, schedules, under subpart EEE, can be 63.1208(b) specifies the test methods the request may be considered an implemented and enforced by a sources must use to determine intermediate change, so long as the delegated authority. It also lists the compliance with emission standards in CEMS to be used is regarded as a authorities that are retained by EPA and subpart EEE. This section is delegable in ‘‘proven technology’’ and could be are not delegable to S/L/T agencies even its entirety to S/L/T agencies who have submitted to a S/L/T agency for if they have received delegation for been delegated authority for subpart approval. The rationale for this is that subpart EEE. These non-delegable EEE, as long as the request is not a major the use of a CEMS, rather than authorities are: (1) Approval of change. Additionally, the CEMS monitoring via an operating parameter, alternatives to requirements in required in § 63.1209(a)(1), although a provides a better measure of compliance §§ 63.1200, 63.1203 through 63.1205, monitoring requirement, is considered and 63.1206(a); (2) approval of major 261 Send requests to: Conniesue B. Oldham, Ph.D., alternatives to test methods under Group Leader, Source Measurement Technology 260 EPA Regions may choose whether they will or Group (D205–02), Office of Air Quality Planning § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f); (3) approval of will not delegate authority to S/L/T agencies to and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection major alternatives to monitoring under approve minor and intermediate changes. Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21337

and thus, we want to encourage the use stringent than the applicable standard. This guidance was not affected by the of CEMS when possible. While we want For example, sources equipped with wet court’s vacatur of portions of this rule, to encourage the use of CEMS, we scrubbers are required to establish a so it remains in effect. Consequently, recognize that S/L/T agencies may not minimum pressure drop limit to assure this allows permitting authorities to be always have the technical resources to adequate contact between the gas and consistent in their evaluation of review these applications, particularly liquid. A source may petition to have requests. We view paragraph (e) to be a when there are no federally this monitoring requirement waived if minor change itself and so a written promulgated performance specifications the manufacturer does not recommend request to use data compression for the CEMS. In such cases, we expect pressure drop as a critical control techniques can be submitted to a that the S/L/T agency will rely on EPA parameter that affects the unit’s delegated S/L/T agency. We are adding Regions for approval. operating efficiency. Depending upon § 63.1211(a)—(d) to the authorities in In subpart EEE, § 63.1209, there are the type of wet scrubber, an appropriate § 63.1214(c)(2) that are not delegable for two alternative approaches to minimum limit may be specified for major changes. monitoring that sources may use. One is steam injection rate, disk spin rate, or a In addition to the clarifications and located at § 63.1209(a)(5), Petitions to maximum temperature limit on liquid amendments addressed above, there are use CEMS for other standards, and the and flue gas, rather than pressure drop. two important delegation issues we other is at § 63.1209(g)(1), Alternative Also, sources could request more would like to emphasize. The first is monitoring requirements other than stringent averaging periods in order to simply to remind sources and continuous emissions monitoring ‘‘mirror’’ the averaging periods required permitting authorities alike that, if a systems. Section 63.1209(a)(5) allows under RCRA. This may facilitate an provision in this subpart specifies that sources to request to use CEMS to easier transition from RCRA to MACT you may petition or request that the monitor particulate matter, mercury, during the time period sources may ‘‘Administrator or State with an semivolatile metals, low volatile metals, need to comply with both sets of approved Title V program * * *,’’ then and/or hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas in requirements. Since we do not consider a state that has not been delegated for lieu of compliance with operating these changes to be major, requests that requirement, but has an approved parameter limits. In these cases, a under § 63.1209(g)(1) should be sent to Title V program, does have the authority source would be monitoring the the delegated S/L/T agency for approval. to approve or disapprove the request. pollutant of concern and comparing the Accordingly, we are amending the For instance, § 63.6(i)(1) and emissions measurements directly language in § 63.1209(g)(1) to specify § 63.1213(a) both specify that the against an emission limitation rather that a source may submit an application ‘‘Administrator (or a State with an than comparing the measurements to an to the Administrator or a State with an approved permit program)’’ can grant a operating parameter. We consider a approved Title V program. Also, we are compliance extension request. The request under § 63.1209(a)(5) to be a revising the title under § 63.1209(g)(1) second is that EPA Regions can decide major change to monitoring and so that it is more specific regarding its whether or not to delegate the authority consequently, it is not delegable. We intended use. to approve intermediate changes to state classify § 63.1209(a)(5) to be a major and local agencies. In some cases, a state change (rather than an intermediate Lastly, major alternatives to may have received delegation to change which can be delegable) mainly recordkeeping and reporting also are not approve only minor changes. Where because we have not yet promulgated delegable. (See 40 CFR 63.90(a) for there is uncertainty, we recommend that Performance Specifications for the definitions of major, intermediate, and sources try to determine if a request is CEMS that may be used. In other words, minor changes to test methods.) We major, intermediate, or minor based on it could be argued that these CEMS do noted in § 63.1214(c)(2) that major the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90(a), and not yet qualify as fully ‘‘proven alternatives to the general provisions of then consult with their S/L/T agency technology’’. We understand that it § 63.10(f) were not delegable, but we did and/or EPA Region to determine where could be argued either way, but for the not specifically address any relevant to submit the request. Or, sources may reasons discussed in the previous recordkeeping and reporting submit requests to the S/L/T agency or paragraph and as an added measure of requirements in subpart EEE. Section EPA Region who will then determine consistency, requests to use CEMS in 63.1211 specifies the recordkeeping and where it should go for approval. lieu of operating parameters should be reporting requirements sources must C. What Are the Proposed CAA submitted to the EPA Region for comply with in subpart EEE. This Delegation Requirements for Phase II approval. Therefore, we are adding section is delegable in its entirety to S/ Sources? § 63.1209(a)(5) to the authorities in L/T agencies who have been delegated § 63.1214(c)(2) that are not delegable for authority to implement and enforce With respect to CAA delegation major changes. subpart EEE, as long as the request is requirements for Phase II sources, they The other alternative monitoring not a major change. It is worthwhile to are the same as those for Phase I provision, § 63.1209(g)(1), allows note that paragraph (e), Data sources. Since both Phase I and Phase sources to use alternative monitoring compression, may be incorrectly II MACT standards are located in the methods, with the exception of the interpreted as a major change itself to same subpart, EEE, the same delegation standards that must be monitored with the recordkeeping and reporting provisions apply to both. Generally a CEMS, and to request a waiver of an requirements, because it appears as speaking, authority to approve operating parameter limit. Section though there are no criteria to define alternatives to standards or major 63.1209(g)(1) applies to requests for fluctuation or data compression limits. changes to test methods, monitoring, alternative parameter monitoring that However, this is not the case. In the and recordkeeping and reporting are not involve the use of a different detector preamble to the September 1999 final delegated to S/L/T agencies. Authority (i.e., thermocouple, pressure transducer, rule (see 64 FR 52961 and 52962), we to approve intermediate and minor or flow meter), a different monitoring provided guidance for preparing a changes to test methods, monitoring, location, a different method as request to use data compression and recordkeeping and reporting are recommended by the manufacturer, or a techniques and recommended delegated to S/L/T agencies who have different averaging period that is more fluctuation and data compression limits. been delegated authority to implement

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21338 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

subpart EEE. All other subpart EEE HSWA, that are considered less requirements that we proposed (or implementation requirements may be stringent than previous federal requested comment on) previously. handled by the delegated S/L/T agency. regulations. I. Why Is EPA Proposing To Allow For specific information, please refer to The amendments to the RCRA the previous section, A.1. What are the regulations proposed today in sections Phase I Sources To Conduct the Initial clarifications and changes to CAA 40 CFR 270.10, 270.22, 270.32, 270.42, Performance Test To Comply With the delegable authorities for this rule? 270.66, and 270.235 are considered to Replacement Rules 12 Months After the How Would States Become be either less stringent or equivalent to Compliance Date? Authorized under RCRA for this Rule? the existing Federal program. Thus, Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may We propose to allow owners and states are not required to modify their operators of incinerators, cement kilns, authorize qualified states to administer programs to adopt and seek and lightweight aggregate kilns to their own hazardous waste programs in authorization for these provisions, commence the initial comprehensive lieu of the federal program within the although we strongly encourage them to state. Following authorization, EPA do so to facilitate the transition from the performance test to comply with the retains enforcement authority under RCRA program to the CAA program and replacement standards proposed at sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, to promote national consistency. §§ 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221 within although authorized states have primary Additionally, EPA will not implement 12 months of the compliance date rather enforcement responsibility. The those provisions promulgated under than within six months of the standards and requirements for state HSWA authority that are not more compliance date. See proposed authorization are found at 40 CFR part stringent than the previous federal § 63.1207(c)(3). Owners and operators of 271. regulations in States that have been solid fuel-fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired Prior to enactment of the Hazardous authorized for those previous federal boilers, and hydrochloric acid and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 provisions. production furnaces, however, must (HSWA), a State with final RCRA commence the initial comprehensive authorization administered its The amendments in sections 40 CFR performance test within six months of hazardous waste program entirely in 270.22 and 270.66 in today’s notice are the compliance date. lieu of EPA administering the federal proposed under the HSWA amendments program in that state. The federal to RCRA. Further, today’s proposed During development of the joint requirements no longer applied in the amendment in 40 CFR 270.235 to apply motion by petitioners to the United authorized state, and EPA could not this provision to solid and liquid fuel- States Court of Appeals for the District issue permits for any facilities in that fired boilers and HCL production of Columbia Circuit that resulted in the state, since only the state was furnaces, is proposed under HSWA Agency promulgating the Interim statutory authority. The amendments to authorized to issue RCRA permits. Standards Rule on February 13, 2002,262 the RCRA regulations proposed today in When new, more stringent federal stakeholders representing owners and sections 40 CFR 270.10 and 270.32 are requirements were promulgated, the operators of incinerators, cement kilns, state was obligated to enact equivalent proposed under both non-HSWA and HSWA authority, depending on the type and lightweight aggregate kilns authorities within specified time frames. requested that we propose to allow them However, the new federal requirements of unit to which these amendments are applied (under HSWA authority if 12 months after the compliance date to did not take effect in an authorized state commence the initial comprehensive until the state adopted the federal applied to BIFs or non-HSWA authority performance test. These stakeholders requirements as state law. if applied to incinerators). Refer to Part In contrast, under RCRA section Two, Section XVII.D.4 for a more request a 12 month window rather than 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which was detailed discussion of the implementing the six month window currently added by HSWA, new requirements and authorities for proposed regulations in required under § 63.1207(c) to give them prohibitions imposed under HSWA 40 CFR 270.10 and 270.32. The longer to amortize the cost of the authority take effect in authorized states following RCRA sections, enacted as comprehensive performance test at the same time that they take effect in part of HSWA, apply to today’s rule: demonstrating compliance with the unauthorized states. EPA is directed by 3004(o), 3004(q), and 3005(c)(3). As a Interim Standards before having to the statute to implement these part of HSWA, these RCRA provisions retest to demonstrate compliance with requirements and prohibitions in are federally enforceable in an the replacement standards proposed authorized states, including the authorized State until the necessary today.263 We believe this request has issuance of permits, until the state is changes to a State’s authorization are merit and so are proposing to allow granted authorization to do so. While approved by us. See RCRA section 3006, them to commence the initial states must still adopt HSWA related 42 U.S.C. 6926. The Agency is adding comprehensive performance test within provisions as state law to retain final these requirements to Table 1 in 12 months after the compliance date.264 authorization, EPA implements the 271.1(j), which identifies rulemakings HSWA provisions in authorized states that are promulgated pursuant to 262 See discussion in Part One, Section I.B.1. until the states do so. HSWA. 263 These stakeholders assumed, correctly, that Authorized states are required to Part Three: Proposed Revisions to today’s proposed replacement emission standards modify their programs only when EPA Compliance Requirements would be substantially more stringent than the enacts federal requirements that are current (September 1999 Final Rule) standards. more stringent or broader in scope than In this section, we discuss proposed 264 Please note that this does not affect the existing federal requirements. RCRA revisions to compliance requirements compliance date. You must be in compliance with section 3009 allows the states to impose that may affect all hazardous waste the replacement standards on the compliance date, standards more stringent than those in combustors. We also request comment and certify in the Documentation of Compliance that you have established operating parameter the federal program (see also 40 CFR on whether we should make revisions to limits that you believe will ensure compliance with 271.1). Therefore, authorized states may, other compliance requirements, and the standards. You must record the Documentation but are not required to, adopt federal explain why we conclude not to make of Compliance in the operating record by the regulations, both HSWA and non- revisions to other compliance compliance date.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21339

II. Why Is EPA Requesting Comment on Industry stakeholders noted that would it be appropriate to require Requirements Promulgated as Interim requiring compliance with emission compliance with those standards and Standards or as Final Amendments? standards and operating requirements operating requirements during As discussed in Part One, Section I.B., during startup, shutdown, and malfunctions to ensure that owners and EPA promulgated interim standards malfunctions is inconsistent with the operators have an incentive to minimize (called the Interim Standards Rule) on General Provisions of subpart A, part 63, the frequency and duration of February 13, 2002 that amended that apply to MACT sources (unless malfunctions that result in exceedances alternative requirements are prescribed compliance and implementation of the standards or operating for a source category). Stakeholders provisions of the September 1999 Final requirements. Given that most excess stated that it is inappropriate to penalize Rule. The amended provisions were emissions would occur during startup, a source for exceeding emission specified in a joint motion by shutdown, and malfunctions, should the standards and operating requirements petitioners to the United States Court of SSMP be submitted for review by the during malfunctions because some Appeals for the District of Columbia delegated regulatory authority and made exceedances are unavoidable and Circuit (the Court). Although petitioners available for public review under all sources are already required to take agreed that the amendments should be options for controlling emissions during corrective measures prescribed in the promulgated (see 67 FR at 6794), startup, shutdown, and malfunctions? startup, shutdown, and malfunction petitioners requested that EPA reopen Providing a mechanism for public plan (SSMP) to minimize emissions. review may help ensure that the SSMP certain amended provisions for public In response to industry stakeholder comment. is complete, proactive, and provides concerns, the Interim Standards Rule appropriate corrective measures.266 And Also as discussed in Part One, Section amended the SSMP requirements to: (1) I.B, EPA promulgated amendments finally, should the final rule clarify the Exempt sources from the Subpart EEE definitions of startup, shutdown, and (called Final Amendments) to the emission standards and operating September 1999 Final Rule on February malfunctions to preclude, for example, requirements during startup, shutdown, an owner or operator incorrectly 14, 2002 that revised certain and malfunctions; (2) continue to implementation and compliance classifying an exceedance of an subject sources to RCRA requirements operating limit while hazardous waste requirements. These amendments were during malfunctions, unless they also specified in the joint motion to the remains in the combustion chamber as comply with alternative MACT a malfunction when, in fact, the Court, and petitioners requested that requirements including expanding the EPA reopen specific amended exceedance occurred because of a not SSMP to minimize the frequency and infrequent event that could have been provisions for public comment. severity of malfunctions, and submit the We discuss these provisions in this prevented by proper operation and plan to the delegated CAA authority for maintenance of equipment? section, and reopen them for public review and approval 265; (3) continue to comment. (We note, however, that we subject sources that burn hazardous B. Interim Standards Amendments to are not reopening for comment any waste during startup and shutdown to the Compliance Requirements for RCRA rules, and are not soliciting RCRA requirements for startup and Ionizing Wet Scrubbers comment on any aspect of those rules, shutdown, unless they comply with or otherwise reconsidering or reexaming alternative MACT requirements, and The September 1999 Final Rule any such rules. Any references to RCRA require sources to include waste feed required sources to establish a limit on rules in the discussion which follows is restrictions and operating conditions minimum total power to an ionizing wet solely as an aid to readers.) Although we and limits in the startup, shutdown, and scrubber. The Interim Standards Rule are not proposing additional revisions to malfunction plan; (4) require sources to deleted that requirement to conform these provisions, we may determine include in the SSMP a requirement to with the requirements for electrostatic after review of public comments on the comply with the automatic hazardous precipitators given that an ionizing wet issues we raise that revisions are waste feed cutoff system during startup, scrubber is essentially an ESP integrated appropriate. If so, we would promulgate shutdown, and malfunctions; and (5) with a packed bed scrubber. See 67 FR 267 those amendments in the Replacement make conforming revisions to the at 6802–03. In lieu of establishing a Rule. emergency safety vent opening limit on the minimum total power Although these provisions currently requirements. See 67 FR at 6798–6802. requirement to an ionizing wet scrubber, apply only to incinerators, cement kilns, In response to Sierra Club’s request sources and delegated CAA authorities and lightweight aggregate kilns, we are during development of the joint motion will use the alternative monitoring proposing today to apply them to boilers to the Court, we specifically request provisions of § 63.1209(g) to identify and hydrochloric acid production comment on the following issues. appropriate controls for an ionizing wet furnaces as well. (See Part Two, Notwithstanding the rationale for scrubber on a site-specific basis. This is Sections XIII–XV.) Accordingly, any revising the September 1999 Final Rule amendments to these requirements that to exempt sources from the subpart EEE 266 We also request comment on whether the we may promulgate would also apply to emission standards and operating startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan should be expanded beyond the scope required under boilers and hydrochloric acid requirements during malfunctions, § 63.6(e)(3) (requiring appropriate corrective production furnaces. measures in reaction to a malfunction) to address 265 These requirements are needed to minimize specific, proactive measures that the owner and A. Interim Standards Amendments to emissions of HAP during startup, shutdown, and operator have considered and are taking to the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction malfunctions and, thus, help meet our RCRA minimize the frequency and severity of Plan Requirements mandate to ensure that emissions from hazardous malfunctions. waste combustors do not pose a hazard to human 267 EPA voluntarily vacated operating parameter The September 1999 Final Rule health and the environment. Sources may elect limits for electrostatic precipitators (and fabric required compliance with the emission either to remain under RCRA control during these filters) on May 14, 2001. See 66 FR at 24272. Until standards and operating requirements at events or to comply under MACT with new operating parameter limits are promulgated, requirements to develop and implement a sources and delegated CAA authorities will use all times that hazardous waste is in the comprehensive and proactive startup, shutdown, § 63.1209(g) to establish operating parameter limits combustion system, including during and malfunction plan that is reviewed and for electrostatic precipitators (and fabric filters) on startup, shutdown, and malfunctions. approved by the delegated regulatory authority. a site-specific basis.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21340 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

the same approach that is used for control combustion system leaks in the combustion system leak regulatory electrostatic precipitators. performance test workplan and revisions are appropriate. Please note that we are requesting Notification of Compliance. See D. Why Is EPA Requesting Comment on comment today on compliance § 63.1206(c)(5)(ii). Finally, in response Bag Leak Detector Sensitivity? requirements for electrostatic to numerous comments, we added a precipitators and fabric filters. In that provision that will allow sources, upon The September 1999 Final Rule discussion (see Section III.I below), we prior written approval of the required sources equipped with fabric explain that we are proposing to apply Administrator, to use other techniques filters to install a bag leak detection the same compliance requirements to that can be demonstrated to prevent system where the detector has the both electrostatic precipitators and fugitive emissions without the use of capability to detect PM emissions at ionizing wet scrubbers. instantaneous pressure limits. See concentrations of 1.0 milligrams per C. Why Is EPA Requesting Comment on § 63.1206(c)(5)(i)(D). actual cubic meter, or less. In response the Fugitive Emission Requirements? The provision allowing sources, upon to industry stakeholder concerns that a prior written approval, to use other detector need not be able to detect levels The September 1999 Final Rule techniques that are demonstrated to as low as 1.0 mg/acfm to detect subtle required sources to control combustion prevent fugitive emissions without the changes in baseline, normal emissions system leaks by either: (1) Keeping the use of instantaneous pressure limits was of PM, we proposed in the July 3, 2001, combustion zone sealed; (2) maintaining the most controversial. Specifically, proposed rule (66 FR at 35134–35) to the maximum combustion zone pressure some stakeholders believe this revised allow sources to use detectors with less lower than ambient pressure using an regulatory language is inappropriate sensitivity provided that the detector instantaneous monitor; or (3) using an because it suggests sources can sustain could detect subtle increases in normal alternative means to provide control of emissions (e.g., caused by pinhole leaks system leaks equivalent to maintaining a positive pressure event and still in the bags). The stakeholders noted that the maximum combustion zone pressure prevent fugitive emissions. We believe sources equipped with well designed lower than ambient. After publication of that all positive pressure events do not and operated fabric filters can have the September 1999 Final Rule, necessarily result in fugitive emissions. normal, baseline emissions well above stakeholders expressed concern that the As discussed in detail in the Final 1.0 mg/acfm and be in compliance with option to maintain combustion zone Amendments Rule, there are state-of- the particulate matter emission pressure lower than ambient pressure the-art rotary kiln seal designs (such as standards. Stakeholders recommended (option 2 above) could result in overly shrouded and pressurized seals) which that we revise the bag leak detection prescriptive requirements. Stakeholders are capable of handling positive requirements to explicitly allow believed that this regulatory language pressures without fugitive releases. could be interpreted to require sources However, we believe these kilns are detectors with lower sensitivity in lieu to monitor and record combustion zone highly unusual, and that other of source’s having to petition the pressure at a frequency of every 50 conventional rotary kilns used in the delegated regulatory authority under the milliseconds. Stakeholders also hazardous waste combustion industry alternative monitoring provisions of requested that we clarify that may not have seals which are designed § 63.1209(g)(1) to receive case-by-case combustion system leaks refers to for such positive pressure operation. In approval. All commenters on the fugitive emissions resulting from the fact, we believe that, for most rotary proposed amendment supported the combustion of hazardous waste, and not kilns in use today, positive pressure revision, and we finalized the fugitive emissions that originate from events can result in fugitive releases. amendment in the February 14, 2002, nonhazardous process streams. The level of such fugitive releases will Final Amendments. See 67 FR at 6981. In response to these concerns, we be dependent on factors including the In response to a petitioner’s request proposed amendments to the magnitude and duration of the pressure during development of the joint motion combustion system leak provisions on excursion and the design and operation to the Court, however, we specifically July 3, 2001. See 66 FR at 35132. We of the kiln. request additional comment on whether promulgated several revisions in the Furthermore, one commenter allowing detectors that have a level of Final Amendments Rule after recommends that sources should be detection that is higher than 1.0 mg/ considering stakeholder comments. See allowed to petition the regulatory acfm will enable the detector to detect 67 FR at 6973. official to use an alternative approach, subtle increases in normal emissions. The amended provisions that we are i.e., an approach that does not require The petitioner is concerned that a reopening for public comment today are instantaneous pressure limits, only if detector with a level of detection higher discussed below. First, we amended the they meet specific combustor design than 1.0 mg/acfm may not have the definition of an instantaneous pressure criteria. For example, it may be same sensitivity as a detector that can monitor to better clarify that the intent appropriate to apply this provision only detect PM at 1.0 mg/acfm. Thus, of the combustion system leak to sources that we know are designed in petitioner is concerned that the less requirements is to prevent fugitive manner that would not necessitate use sensitive detector may not be able to emissions from the combustion of of instantaneous pressure limits to detect subtle increases in PM emissions hazardous waste rather than from prevent fugitive emissions (e.g., kilns due to bag degredation as readily as a nonhazardous feedstreams. The revised with multiple graphite seals with detector that can detect at 1.0 mg/acfm. definition also clarifies that pressurized chambers between the seals We specifically request comment on this instantaneous pressure monitors must to prevent out-leakage, or overlapping issue. detect and record pressure at a spring plate seals to form an air seal). We reopen this issue for comment frequency adequate to detect We request comment on whether this without prejudice to the existing combustion system leak events, as specificity is necessary, or whether it is regulations which allow for less determined on a site-specific basis. See more appropriate to determine this on a sensitive bag leak detectors. You may § 63.1201(a) and § 63.1209(p). Second, site-specific basis (as is currently use less sensitive bag leak detectors we added a provision that requires required). We also request comment on until the compliance date for any sources to specify the method used to whether all the previously discussed change we may make in the final rule.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21341

E. Final Amendments Waiving compliance with the emission standards We concur with the commenters and Operating Parameter Limits During absent an approved test plan. are not proposing to amend the Testing Without an Approved Test Plan definition of research, development, and III. Why Is EPA Requesting Comment demonstration source. The September 1999 Final Rule on Issues and Amendments That Were waived operating parameter limits Previously Proposed? B. Identification of an Organics during subsequent performance testing In a July 3, 2001, proposed rule, EPA Residence Time That Is Independent of, under an approved performance test proposed several revisions to and Shorter Than, the Hazardous Waste plan. In response to stakeholder implementation and compliance Residence Time concerns, we addressed two issues in requirements, and discussed other In response to industry stakeholder the Final Amendments: (1) implementation and compliance issues. recommendations, EPA requested Applicability of operating parameter See 66 FR 35126. We promulgated comment in the July 3, 2001, proposed limits, established in the Documentation several of those amendments in the rule on whether it is practicable to of Compliance, during an initial February 14, 2002, Final Amendments calculate a hazardous waste organics performance test conducted without an Rule, and we stated in that rule that we residence time that defines when approved test plan; and (2) applicability would address the remaining proposed organic constituents in solid materials of operating parameter limits, amendments and other issues in a future have been destroyed. See 66 FR at established in the Notification of rulemaking. See 67 FR at 6970–71. We 35128–30. Under stakeholders’ Compliance, during subsequent discuss below those remaining proposed recommendation, after the hazardous performance tests conducted without an amendments and issues. waste organics residence time expires, approved test plan. See 67 FR at 6978. Although these issues and proposed sources could comply with standards Regarding the initial performance test, amendments originally pertained only the Agency has promulgated under we explained that a source can revise to incinerators, cement kilns, and sections 112 or 129 of the Clean Air Act the operating parameter limits specified lightweight aggregate kilns, any to control organic emissions for source in the Documentation of Compliance at amendments that we may promulgate categories that do not burn hazardous any time based on supporting subsequent to this notice would also waste in lieu of the hazardous waste information. This information would apply to boilers and hydrochloric acid combustor standards and associated also be included in the performance test production furnaces. compliance requirements under subpart plan to support deviating from the EEE, part 63, for dioxin/furan, A. Definition of Research, Development, operating limits established in the destruction and removal efficiency, and and Demonstration Source. previous Documentation of Compliance. carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon Given that sources operate after the In response to industry stakeholder emissions.269 compliance date until the Notification concerns, EPA requested comment in In the July 3, 2001, proposed rule, we of Compliance is submitted under the July 3, 2001, proposed rule on raised several concerns regarding the operating limits established in the approaches to preclude inappropriate approach recommended by stakeholders Documentation of Compliance, and that use of the exemption for research, to calculate an organics residence time, the technical support for the operating development, and demonstration and specifically requested comment on limits established in the Documentation sources. See 66 FR at 35128. We how these concerns could be addressed. of Compliance is the same as would be indicated we were considering two See 66 FR at 35130. Although several included in the test plan, it is approaches: (1) Clearly distinguishing stakeholders provided comment on the appropriate to allow initial performance between research and development discussion we presented in the July 3, testing and associated pretesting sources, and limiting the exemption for 2001, proposed rule, commenters did without an approved test plan. demonstration sources to one year or not address the concerns we raised. Regarding subsequent performance less; or (2) requiring documentation of Rather, commenters generally note that testing, we amended the rule to waive how a source’s demonstration of an calculation of an organics residence the operating parameter limits during innovative or experimental hazardous time for solid waste streams would be performance testing and associated waste treatment technology or process is difficult to characterize generically. pretesting even when testing without an different from the waste management Accordingly, commenters suggest that approved test plan. We reasoned that services provided by a commercial the rule be amended to specifically stack emissions data obtained during hazardous waste combustor. allow calculation of an organics the testing would document whether the Two stakeholders provided residence time on a site-specific basis. source maintained compliance with the comments, and both recommended that We are reluctant to encourage site- emission standards. (Please note that EPA not revise the definition of specific petitions to calculate an during testing, including pretesting, research, development, and stack emissions must be documented for demonstration source. One commenter permit requirements under § 270.65, which direct any emissions standard for which the suggested that EPA should be able to the Administrator to establish permit terms and source waives an operating parameter determine if a source is inappropriately conditions that will assure protection of human limit.) Absent approval of the test plan, health and the environment. claiming the exemption for research, 269 Stakeholders also wanted the hazardous waste documentation of potential violation of development, and demonstration source residence time (for organics) to expire as soon as an emission standard is nonetheless an without amending the regulation. The possible to avoid violations associated with ample incentive to operate within the other commenter suggested that, rather exceedances of an organics emission standard or emission standards. associated operating requirement during than amend the regulation, EPA should malfunctions when hazardous waste remained in In response to a petitioner’s request reiterate that RCRA regulations continue the combustion chamber. The rule has been during development of the joint motion to apply to exempt research, amended, however, to state that an exceedance of to the Court, however, we request development, and demonstration an emission standard or operating requirement comment on whether documentation of 268 during a malfuncation is not a violation provided sources. that the source has developed an appropriate stack emissions during subsequent startup, shutdown, and malfuncation plan, and performance testing and associated 268 Hazardous waste research, development, and follows the corrective measures provided by the pretesting is adequate to ensure demonstration sources remain subject to RCRA plan. See 67 FR at 6798–6801.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21342 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

organics residence time, however, given 129 standards the Agency is developing sensitive to operating conditions. And, that the concerns we raised in the July for commercial and industrial solid although liquid fuel-fired boilers would 3, 2001, proposal have not been waste incinerators, and MACT not be subject to alternative Section 129 addressed.270 Moreover, we believe that standards the Agency is developing for standards for particulate matter,273 over stakeholders’ primary motive for boilers).271 80% of liquid fuel-fired boilers that identifying an organics residence time Commenters raised several concerns burn hazardous waste are not equipped has been eliminated by the February 13, about the practicability of maintaining with a control device, and only about 2002, amendment to the rule stating that compliance with the semivolatile one third of those with a control device an exceedance of an emission standard metals, low volatile metals, and are equipped with an electrostatic or operating requirement during a particulate matter standards after the precipitator or fabric filter. Thus, the malfunction when hazardous waste hazardous waste residence time has absence of particulate matter controls remains in the combustion chamber is expired until the particulate matter under the alternative section 129 not a violation provided that the source device undergoes a complete cleaning standards is not a significant concern. follows the corrective measures cycle. Commenters explained that it is For these reasons, we are not provided by an appropriate startup, difficult to determine when a cleaning proposing to extend applicability of the shutdown, and malfunction plan. cycle has been completed for multi-field operating requirements for dry For these reasons, we are not electrostatic precipitators and multi- particulate matter control devices before proposing an organics residence time or compartment fabric filters because you could switch modes of operation explicitly encouraging sources to fabric filter cleaning is typically a and become subject to MACT standards petition the delegated CAA authority on continuous process, and electrostatic for sources that do not burn hazardous a site-specific basis to identify an precipitator plate cleaning frequency waste. organics residence time. varies significantly depending on the D. Why Is EPA Proposing To Allow Use plate position within the electrostatic C. Why Is EPA Not Proposing To Extend of Method 23 as an Alternative to precipitator. Commenters also stated APCD Controls After the Residence Method 0023A for Dioxin/Furan? Time Has Expired When Sources that the proposed requirement would Operate Under Alternative Section 112 encourage more frequent cleaning of The September 1999 Final Rule or 129 Standards? electrostatic precipitators and fabric requires use of Method 0023A for stack filters than normal, which could sampling of dioxin/furan emissions. In In the July 3, 2001, proposed rule, we increase emissions of HAP and response to industry stakeholder proposed to extend applicability of adversely affect bag life. requests, we proposed in the July 3, operating requirements for dry After review of comments and further 2001, proposed rule to allow you to particulate matter emission control consideration, we conclude that it is not petition the delegated regulatory devices before you could switch modes necessary to revise the standards to authority to use Method 23 found in 40 of operation and become subject to extend applicability of the operating CFR part 60, appendix A, instead of Section 112 or 129 standards for sources requirements for dry particulate matter Method 0023A. See 66 FR at 35137. We that do not burn hazardous waste. See control devices before you could switch are revising the proposal today to allow 66 FR at 35130–32. We proposed to modes of operation and become subject you to use Method 23 in lieu of Method require you to maintain compliance to MACT standards for sources that do 0023A after justifying use of Method 23 with applicable emission standards for not burn hazardous waste. We now as part of your performance test plan semivolatile metals, low volatile metals, believe that it is highly unlikely that that must be reviewed and approved by and particulate matter, including the entrained particulate matter the delegated regulatory authority. See operating parameter limits for dry contaminated with hazardous waste proposed § 63.1208(b)(1)(i)(B). This control systems, after the hazardous derived metals would be released from approach would achieve the same waste residence time has expired until the electrostatic precipitator or fabric objectives as a petition, but would be the control device undergoes a complete filter at rates higher than when feeding simpler to implement because it would cleaning cycle. We were concerned that hazardous waste when the source begins not require a separate petition/ dry particulate matter control devices operating under the alternative MACT document. such as electrostatic precipitators and (or section 129) standards for sources In the July 3, 2001, proposed rule, we baghouses retain collected particulate that do not burn hazardous waste. In explain that Method 0023A is an matter contaminated with waste-derived addition, incinerators, cement kilns, and improved version of Method 23 in that metals; and dioxin/furan when activated solid-fuel-fired boilers would be subject it can improve the quality assurance of carbon injection is used. In such cases, to alternative standards and operating the method. By analyzing the sampling we were concerned that waste-derived limits for particulate matter. Although train front half catch (filter and probe metals and dioxin/furan may be emitted lightweight aggregate kilns would not be rinse) separately from the back half at levels exceeding the hazardous waste subject to alternative standards for catch (sorbent and rinses), Method combustor emission standards if you particulate matter,272 lightweight 0023A provides quality assurance of were to switch modes of operation and aggregate kilns that burn hazardous recovery of dioxin/furan contained in comply with potentially less stringent waste are equipped with fabric filters solid phase particulate and collected on alternative MACT standards for sources where their performance is not highly the filter and probe. Under Method 23, that do not burn hazardous waste (e.g., poor recovery of dioxin/furan contained subpart LLL for cement kilns, section 271 Please note that you are subject to the in solid phase particulate may go standards under subpart EEE at all times, including unnoticed because the front half catch 270 We questioned whether available information after the hazardous waste residence time has and back half catch are combined before on low oxygen destruction would adequately model expired, unless you have established an alternative destruction under the pyrolytic conditions that mode of operation under § 63.1209(q)(1). analysis. This may be of particular occur within solid matrices and whether it is 272 The Agency determined that lightweight practicable to perform valid engineering aggregate kilns that do not burn hazardous waste 273 The Agency did not propose PM standards for calculations for multiple waste streams that are not are not a significant source of HAP emissions and, existing liquid fuel-fired industrial, commercial, homogeneous and that contain multiple organic thus, that MACT standards are not necessary for and institutional boilers and process heaters. See 68 constituents of concern. that source category. FR 1660.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21343

importance for sources that use parameter limits. See 66 FR at 35138– sources that achieve comprehensive activated carbon injection or sources 39. performance test emission levels well that have carbonaceous material in The alternative approach, called below the standard by requiring them to particulate matter. ‘‘matching the profile’’, was intended to establish operating limits based on Although Method 0023A can improve allow sources to identify limits for performance test operations at those low quality assurance, it is slightly more operating parameters that would allow emission levels. They note that expensive than Method 23 and, in many the operating parameters to have the operating under conditions to situations, quality assurance may not be same average variability as experienced artificially increase emissions during improved. For example, Method 0023A during the comprehensive performance testing (e.g., by detuning emission may not be warranted in the future if test. The parameter could exceed the control equipment) may not be feasible Method 0023A analyses document that average achieved during the or desirable from a worker/public health dioxin/furan are not detected, are performance test for a period of time, and cost perspective. detected at low levels in the front half provided that it was equivalently lower Although stakeholders acknowledge of Method 0023A, or are detected at than the average for the same duration that they may request such levels well below the emission standard, of time. extrapolation as an alternative and the design and operation of the Commenters generally note that the monitoring approach under combustor has not changed in a manner matching the profile approach has a § 63.1209(g)(1), they note that explicitly that could increase dioxin/furan significant disadvantage in that multiple defining an extrapolation approach in emissions. limits would be established for each the rule may better facilitate their efforts Environmental stakeholders comment parameter. Accordingly, commenters to obtain approval from the delegated that use of Method 23 would allow recommend that we not include this regulatory authority. sources to emit dioxin/furan in excess of approach in the regulation, but rather Several industry stakeholders agreed the standards without being detected. continue to offer it as guidance. with the principle of extrapolation as We disagree. Owners and operators Moreover, commenters note that sources we discussed it in the July 3, 2001, seeking to use Method 0023A would be can request approval of alternative notice, but disagreed with the required to document using data or monitoring approaches under requirements for, and limits on, information that Method 23 would § 63.1209(g)(1), and they are concerned extrapolation that we recommended. provide front half recoveries comparable that codification of only one approach, Several other stakeholders oppose the to Method 0023A. and particularly an approach with use of extrapolation generally because of Industry stakeholders comment that potentially limited utility, could lead concern that it is difficult to define we should simply revise the rule to the delegated CAA authority to completely and accurately the allow use of either method, rather than conclude incorrectly that other relationship between an operating requiring a petitioning process to use approaches may not be appropriate. parameter and emissions. Method 23. As discussed above (and in We believe that this matter is best Given the extent of the issues the July 3, 2001, proposal), we believe dealt with on a site-specific basis, but associated with explicitly providing for that there are situations where the note that by specifying one approach in extrapolation of operating parameter quality assurance and added cost of the rule, we do not mean to preclude limits, particularly on a categorical Method 0023A may be warranted, and, use of a different approach pursuant to rather than a site-specific level, and so, are not proposing to allow use of § 63.1209(g)(1). Sources thus may given that you already have the ability Method 23 without justification and request approval of the profiling to request approval of extrapolation prior approval. We agree, however, that approach, or another approach, to procedures under § 63.1209(g)(1), we are the formal petitioning process that we establish operating limits on a site- not proposing to revise the rule to proposed is not necessary. Rather, we specific basis under § 63.1209(g)(1). explicitly allow extrapolation. We propose today to require you to justify F. Why Is EPA Not Proposing To Allow believe that extrapolation must be use of Method 23 as part of the Extrapolation of OPLs? justified by a site-specific analysis. performance test plan that you submit to G. Why Is EPA Proposing To Delete the the delegated regulatory authority for In response to industry stakeholder Limit on Minimum Combustion review and approval. See proposed concerns, we requested comment in the Chamber Temperature for Dioxin/Furan § 63.1207(f)(1)(xxv). July 3, 2001, proposed rule on whether In the interim, you may request to use the rule should allow extrapolation of for Cement Kilns? Method 23 in lieu of Method 0023A an operating parameter limit to a higher In response to stakeholder concerns under § 63.7(e)(2)(i) which allows use of limit using a site-specific, empirically- that it is technically impracticable for a test method with minor changes in derived relationship between the cement kilns to establish a minimum methodology. You should submit your parameter and emissions of the combustion chamber temperature based 274 request and the supporting justification pollutant in question. See 66 FR at on the average of the test run averages to the delegated regulatory authority. 35139–40. We also requested comment for each run of the comprehensive on whether the rule should allow use of performance test, EPA requested E. Why Is EPA Not Proposing the established engineering principles that comment in the July 3, 2001, proposed ‘‘Matching the Profile’’ Alternative define the relationship between rule on whether the rule should Approach To Establish Operating operating parameter and emissions to continue to require cement kilns to Parameter Limits? extrapolate operating limits and establish and comply with a minimum In response to stakeholder concerns emissions in lieu of a site-specific, combustion chamber temperature limit. about the stringency of calculating most empirically-derived relationship. See 66 FR at 35140. operating parameter limits as the Industry stakeholders are concerned We received a total of five comments average of the test run averages of the that the rule inappropriately penalizes to the July 3, 2001, proposed rule. Three comprehensive performance test, EPA commenters opposed deleting the requested comment in the July 3, 2001, 274 Please note that the rule already allows requirement for cement kilns to extrapolation of mercury feedrates proposed rule on an alternative (§ 63.1209(l)(1)(i)) and semivolatile and low volatile establish and comply with a minimum approach to establish operating metal feedrates (§ 63.1209(n)(2)(ii)). combustion chamber temperature.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21344 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Currently, cement kilns are required to reluctant to delete this requirement, temperature limits, which could lead to establish a minimum combustion commenters may, if they choose, a situation where the controlling chamber temperature as an operating provide additional comments on minimum combustion chamber parameter limit to ensure compliance whether the rule should continue to temperature limit is based on the with the destruction and removal require cement kilns to establish a dioxin/furan test rather than the efficiency and dioxin/furan standards. minimum combustion chamber destruction and removal efficiency See §§ 63.1209(j)(1) and (k)(2). These temperature limit as specified in demonstration. commenters generally cited the need for § 63.1209(j)(1). monitoring combustion chamber We are, however, proposing to delete We believe that this may be an temperature by noting that combustion the requirement to establish a minimum inappropriate outcome given that the chamber temperature is a principal combustion chamber temperature limit operating limit for minimum factor in ensuring combustion efficiency for dioxin/furan under § 63.1209(k)(2). combustion chamber temperature is a and destruction of toxic organic As mentioned above, sources are more important parameter to ensure compounds. currently required to establish a compliance with the destruction and Two commenters support deleting the minimum combustion chamber removal efficiency standard than to minimum combustion chamber temperature as an operating parameter ensure compliance with the dioxin/ temperature requirements. Commenters limit for both the destruction and furan standard. Our data indicate that state that a cement kiln inherently removal efficiency and dioxin/furan limiting the gas temperature at the inlet controls the kiln temperature to produce standards. This proposed amendment to the particulate matter control device, clinker because the required material would not affect the requirement for an operating parameter limit established temperatures must exceed cement kilns to establish a minimum during each comprehensive ° approximately 2,500 F with combustion combustion chamber temperature under performance test (§ 63.1209(k)(1)), is a gas temperatures higher still. These § 63.1209(j)(1) during the destruction critical dioxin/furan control parameter. commenters note that a cement kiln and removal efficiency demonstration. We are, therefore, inviting comment on operates well above minimum Currently, the destruction and removal deleting the requirement to establish a temperatures required to destroy the efficiency demonstration need be made organic compounds in the hazardous only once during the operational life of minimum combustion chamber waste, and, therefore, a minimum a source provided that the design, temperature limit when complying with combustion chamber temperature limit operation, and maintenance features do the dioxin/furans standard. This is not necessary to control organic not change in a manner that could proposed amendment does not affect the hazardous air pollutant emissions. reasonably be expected to affect the other operating parameter limits under Commenters also state that ability to meet the destruction and § 63.1209(k) that must be established for combustion chamber temperatures removal efficiency standard. See dioxin/furan such as establishing a limit cannot be maintained at low enough § 63.1206(b)(7). If a facility wishes to on the gas temperature at the inlet to the levels for the duration of the operate under new operating parameter particulate matter control device. comprehensive performance test to limits that could be expected to affect For cement kilns that fire hazardous establish workable operating limits that the ability to meet the destruction and wastes at locations other than the flame would allow them to burn hazardous removal efficiency standard, then the zone, the current requirements would waste fuels economically without source will need to conduct another effectively remain the same. Given that frequent waste feed cutoffs because of destruction and removal efficiency test. a source conducts the destruction and potential exceedances of the limit. In addition, if a source feeds hazardous Commenters indicate that combustion waste at locations other than the flame removal efficiency demonstration and chamber temperature levels are fairly zone, the destruction and removal dioxin/furan test simultaneously and constant within a narrow range and note efficiency demonstration must be that a source is also required to establish that there is a very narrow range of verified during each comprehensive a minimum combustion chamber temperatures and feed composition in performance test and new operating temperature limit when demonstrating which a cement kiln must operate in parameter limits must be established. compliance with and establishing order to produce quality clinker and a Sources that fire hazardous waste operating parameter limits for the marketable product. Moreover, only at the flame zone (i.e., the kiln end destruction and removal efficiency commenters state that cement kiln where clinker product is normally standard, the minimum combustion operators must take extreme actions, discharged) are required to make only chamber temperature limits is including potentially equipment- one destruction and removal efficiency effectively retained. damaging steps, to lower kiln demonstration test during the temperatures to establish an operational life of the kiln. During this H. Why Is EPA Requesting Additional economically viable minimum destruction and removal efficiency Comment on Whether To Add a combustion chamber limit. Finally, demonstration test, the source would set Maximum pH Limit for Wet Scrubbers commenters indicate that these a minimum combustion chamber To Control Mercury Emissions? problems are compounded by the temperature limit under § 63.1209(j)(1) requirement in the MACT rule to that would be the limit for the We requested comment in the July 3, establish the hourly rolling limit based operational life of the kiln. However, as 2001, proposed rule as to whether it is on the average of the test run averages the rule is currently written, such appropriate to establish a limit on (§§ 63.1209(j)(1)(ii) and (k)(2)(ii)). sources would need to establish a maximum pH to control mercury. See We are not proposing to delete the minimum combustion chamber 66 FR at 35142–43. We are requesting requirement for cement kilns to temperature limit during subsequent additional comment today on this issue establish and comply with a minimum comprehensive performance tests for the given the results of a recent study combustion chamber temperature to dioxin/furan test under § 63.1209(k)(2). indicating that increasing the pH of help ensure compliance with the The source would be required to comply scrubber liquid can increase mercury destruction and removal efficiency with the more stringent (higher) of two emissions. standard. Even though we remain minimum combustion chamber

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21345

1. What Were the Major Comments on contrast, other studies postulate that a reduce the amount of Hgo. This might the Discussion in the July 3, 2001, high scrubber liquid pH might actually suggest that a minimum chlorine Proposed Rule? be beneficial for the control of mercury, feedrate limit is needed to ensure Hg 278 One commenter supports placing particularly elemental Hg . Basic, scrubber efficiency is maintained, limits on the maximum pH of wet high pH solutions have the increased which is counter to the maximum scrubber liquids for mercury control, ability to absorb chlorine gas. Dissolved chlorine feedrate limit used to control but did not provide any additional chlorine gas is suggested to enhance the emissions of total chlorine and rationale on the technical validity of the scrubber’s ability to oxidize and capture semivolatile and low volatile metals. limit. Other commenters oppose the Hgo (specifically, dissolved chlorine gas Speciation is also affected by the flue imposition of a maximum pH limit. One dissociates in basic solutions to produce gas temperature cooling profile, which OCl¥ ions which oxidize Hgo to soluble can impact mercury reaction kinetics. commenter wants to see stronger ∂ evidence that pH has an impact, and Hg 2). In contrast, the presence of For example, rapid cooling may limit suggests a reproposal is needed. hydrogen chloride or sulfur as SO2 or the equilibrium formation of HgCl2 (i.e., o Another suggests that EPA conduct H2SO3 in the scrubber solution reduces super equilibrium levels of Hg can ¥ source testing to confirm that pH has an the liquid scrubber pH, reduces OCl , survive from rapid cooling). This might impact. Others suggest that if EPA and reduces the Hgo oxidative potential suggest that a maximum flue gas cooling continues to believe that wet scrubber of the scrubber liquid. limit is needed, which is counter to that operating parameter limits are important Although limited test data from full- for controlling dioxin/furan. for mercury control, then the wet scale coal fired boiler evaluations Control of mercury in wet scrubbers is scrubber mercury operating parameter indicate an inconsistent impact of also affected by the scrubber liquid limits should be determined on a case- scrubber liquid pH on mercury chemical composition. As discussed by-case basis because the relationship control,279 a recent study 280 confirms above, scrubber liquid composition has a dramatic impact on the control of between mercury control and wet that ionic mercury (e.g., HgCl2) that is scrubber pH is not well established and initially captured in the scrubber can be mercury. Specifically, the presence of there are numerous other factors that reduced in the liquid to elemental Hg reducing compounds such as SO2 and affect mercury control in wet scrubbers, (i.e., Ho) and then revolatilized to the HSO3 can lead to increased mercury stack gas. The study concludes that the emission by reducing soluble HgCl2 to especially for facilities that burn waste o with various chemical compositions. reduction of ionic mercury in the liquid insoluble Hg which can be desorbed is likely due to dissolved sulfur while oxidative compounds such as 2. What Is the Rationale for Considering compounds and that decreasing the pH chlorine gas and special oxidation a Maximum pH Limit To Control of the liquid will decrease the reduction additives such as NaClO2, acidified Mercury? process and subsequently decrease KMnO3, Na2S, and TMT (tri-mercapto- The use of a low pH liquid scrubber mercury emissions. This new work is triazine) would generally help control solution has been suggested to be additional evidence that a maximum pH mercury emissions by inhibiting o beneficial for mercury control because it limit might be appropriate, especially if reduction of HgCl2 to Hg and/or o helps prevent the re-release of captured sulfur is present in feeds. enhancing the capture of Hg . mercury. Ionic mercury (Hg∂2) is highly Other recent work indicates that there Finally, control of mercury in wet soluble in wet scrubber liquid; as are numerous factors that influence the scrubbers is affected by the scrubber opposed to Hgo, which has a very low control of mercury in wet scrubbers. liquid to gas ratio. solubility in a typical water/alkali Mercury speciation in the flue gas is Given the recent study discussed ∂ above indicating that increasing the pH scrubber solution. Once absorbed, Hg 2 vitally important to the ability to control of scrubber liquid can increase mercury can be reduced to Hgo by compounds in mercury in wet scrubbers. In hazardous emissions, we request additional the liquid scrubber solution such as SO2 waste combustor flue gases, mercury o comment on whether it would be and HSO3. Hg may then be tends to be predominately in two forms: ∂ appropriate to establish a limit on the revolatilized back into the stack gas. (1) elemental (Hgo); and (2) ionic (Hg 2, maximum pH of scrubber liquid to This is supported by numerous typically as HgCl ). Speciation depends 2 ensure compliance with the mercury observations of Hgo at the wet scrubber on numerous factors including the emission standard. We also request outlet which are higher than Hgo at the presence of chlorine or sulfur, both of comment on issues relative to scrubber inlet 275, 276, 277. These studies which are reactive with mercury. For suggest that the low scrubber liquid pH establishing and complying with both a example, increased levels of chlorine maximum limit on pH to control prevents captured mercury from may increase the amount of HgCl2 and revolatilizing from the scrubber liquid mercury emissions and a minimum limit on pH to control total chlorine. For by: (1) limiting the capture of reducing 278 W. Linak, J. Ryan, B. Ghorishi, and J. Wendt, agents; and (2) favoring the formation of ‘‘Issues Related to Solution Chemistry in Mercury example, you would establish the stable mercury-chlorine compounds Sampling Impingers,’’ Journal or Air and Waste maximum and minimum pH limits such as HgCl due to available Cl¥. In Management Association, Vol. 51, pp. 688–698, under separate performance tests. You 2 May 2001. would establish the minimum pH limit 279 For example, McDermott Technology during a performance test to 275 B. Siret and S. Eagleson, ‘‘A New Wet (McDermott Technology, Internet Web page at http:/ Scrubbing Technology for Control of Elemental /www.mtiresearch.com on ‘‘Mercury Emission demonstrate compliance with the total (Metallic) and Ionic Mercury Emissions,’’ Results,’’ date unknown) report no impact, while chlorine standard while you would Proceedings of 1997 Conference on Incineration and DeVito and Rosenhoover (M. DeVito and W. establish the maximum pH limit during Thermal Treatment Technology, pp. 821–824, 1997. Rosenhoover, CONSOL Coal Inc., ‘‘Flue Gas Hg a performance test to demonstrate 276 G. T. Amrhein, G. Kudlac, D. Madden, ‘‘Full- Measurements from Coal-fired Boilers Equipped Scale Testing of Mercury Control for Wet FGD with Wet Scrubbers,’’ date unknown) observe that compliance with the mercury standard. Systems,’’ Presented at the 27th International mercury control efficiency appears to increase with In addition, we request comment on the Technical Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel increasing pH. anticipated range of pH levels between Systems, Clearwater, Fl, March 4–7, 2002. 280 J. Chang and S. Ghorishi, ‘‘Simulation and the maximum and minimum limits and 277 C.S. Krivanek, ‘‘Mercury Control Technologies Evaluation of Elemental Mercury Concentration for MWCs: The Unanswered Questions,’’ 1993 Air Increase in Flue Gas Across a Wet Scrubber,’’ whether the range could potentially be and Waste Management Sponsored Municipal Solid Environmental Science and Technology, Vol 37, small enough to inhibit operations Waste Combustor Specialty Conference, 1993. No. 24, 2003, pp. 5763–5766. substantially. For example, if the pH

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21346 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

required to achieve your desired parameter limits to ensure performance loading that enable you to take scrubber control efficiency for total of electrostatic precipitators, ionizing immediate corrective measures. chlorine (i.e., the minimum pH limit) is wet scrubbers, and fabric filters. See We conclude, however, that the bag just below the pH level required to § 63.1209(m)(1)(iv).282 Regulatory leak detection system requirements achieve your desired control efficiency officials review and approve those under § 63.1206(c)(7)(ii) are not for mercury (i.e., the maximum pH operating parameter limits and may prescriptive enough to ensure proper limit), you may have limited operating require additional or alternative limits operation and maintenance of the fabric flexibility. under § 63.1209(g)(2). filter. Current provisions require you to Finally, we note that, in the interim In the July 3, 2001 proposed rule, we take immediate corrective measures until we determine whether to requested comment on how to establish when the bag leak detection system promulgate a maximum pH limit to prescriptive requirements to ensure alarm sounds, indicating that particulate control mercury emissions, site-specific performance of these control devices. loadings exceed the set-point. There is or other information may lead the See 66 FR at 35143–45. We requested no limit on the duration of time, delegated regulatory authority to comment on four approaches to ensure however, that the bag house may be conclude under § 63.1209(g)(2) that a performance of electrostatic operating under these conditions. To limit on the maximum pH of wet precipitators: (1) Requiring an ensure that you take both corrective and scrubber liquid may be warranted to increasing kVA pattern across the proactive measures to minimize the ensure compliance with the mercury electrostatic precipitator; (2) limiting frequency and duration of bag leak emission standard. kVA on only the back 1⁄3 of fields; (3) detection system alarms, you must I. How Is EPA Proposing to Ensure use of a CMS that measures relative operate and maintain the fabric filter to Performance of Electrostatic particulate matter loadings; and (4) use ensure that the bag leak detection Precipitators, Ionizing Wet Scrubbers, of predictive emission monitoring system alarm does not sound more than and Fabric Filters? systems. These approaches would also 5 percent of the operating time during be applicable to ionizing wet scrubbers. a 6-month period.284 We note that the If your combustor is equipped with a We also requested comment on whether Agency also proposed this requirement fabric filter, you would be required to and how cell pressure drop should be for boilers and process heaters that do use the bag leak detection system under used to ensure performance of fabric not burn hazardous waste. See 68 FR at § 63.1206(c)(7)(ii) to ensure performance filters. 1708 (January 13, 2003). If you exceed of the fabric filter is maintained in lieu the alarm set-point more than 5 percent of operating parameter limits.281 In We received comments in favor of and 283 of the time during a 6-month period, addition, we propose to revise the bag opposing most of these approaches. you would be required to notify the leak requirements under Some stakeholders also recommend delegated regulatory authority within 5 § 63.1206(c)(7)(ii) to require you to other approaches. One commenter days. In the notification, you must operate and maintain the fabric filter favors use of specific power as an describe the causes of the excessive such that the bag leak detection system operating parameter for electrostatic exceedances and the revisions to the alarm does not sound more than 5 precipitator performance. Specific design, operation, or maintenance of the percent of the operating time during a power is the secondary power/gas flow combustor or baghouse you are taking to 6-month period. rate. Another commenter suggests If your combustor is equipped with an continuing with establishing site- minimize exceedances. This notification electrostatic precipitator or ionizing wet specific operating parameter limits. would alert the regulatory authority of the excessive exceedances so that they scrubber, we propose to give you the 2. What Is the Rationale for Proposing option of: (1) Using a particulate matter may review and confirm the corrective to Revise the Compliance Requirements measures you are undertaking. See continuous emissions detector for for Fabric Filters? process monitoring to signal when you proposed § 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(C). must take corrective measures to After reviewing comments and further We also conclude that the current address maintenance or other factors investigation, we conclude that controls exemption from the bag leak detection causing relative or absolute mass in addition to a bag leak detection system requirements for cement kilns particulate matter loadings to be higher system are not needed to ensure should be eliminated. We did not than the levels achieved during the performance of fabric filters. Use of require bag leak detection systems for performance test; or (2) establishing site- pressure drop to ensure performance is cement kilns in the September 1999 specific operating parameter limits. If problematic for reasons we discussed in Final Rule because cement kilns are you choose to use a continuous the July 3, 2001 proposed rule. subject to an opacity standard and must emissions detector, you must not exceed Moreover, the bag leak detection system monitor opacity with a continuous the alarm set-point you establish based provides a direct measure of small (and monitor. As a practical matter, however, on the performance test more than 5 greater) increases in particulate matter the opacity levels achieved during the percent of the operating time during a comprehensive performance test will be 6-month period. If you choose to 282 Please note that § 63.1209(m)(1)(iv) lower, often substantially lower, than establish site-specific operating inadvertently indicates that the requirement to the opacity standard. Thus, absent parameter limits, you must link each establish site-specific operating limits applies to effective operating parameter limits on control devices other than ionizing wet scrubbers, the fabric filter based on performance limit to the automatic waste feed cutoff baghouses, and electrostatic precipitators. We system. should have revised that paragraph to require site- test operations, we cannot ensure that specific operating parameter limits for those control performance is maintained at the level 1. What Is the Background of this Issue? devices when we revised paragraph (m)(1) to delete achieved during the performance test the operating parameter limits for those devices. (and that you remain in compliance The current regulations require you to The delegated regulatory authority can use establish site-specific operating § 63.1209(g)(2) to require you to establish site- with the particulate matter and other specific operating parameter limits for those control 281 As discussed below in the text, we propose to devices prior to the effective date of the final rule 284 Periods of time when the combustor is revise the current rules to delete the exemption for based on today’s proposed rule. operating but the bag leak detection system is cement kilns from the bag leak detection system 283 USEPA, ‘‘Response to Comments on July 2001 malfunctioning must be considered exceedances of requirements. Proposed Rule,’’ March 2004. the set-point.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21347

standards 285). Consequently, we The one-hour block average would be month period, you would be required to propose to require that cement kilns the average of the detector responses notify the delegated regulatory. This comply with the bag leak detection over each 15-minute block. notification would alert the regulatory requirements (as proposed to be revised) authority of the excessive exceedances 3. What Is the Rationale for Proposing under § 63.1206(c)(7)(ii).286 We note so that they may take corrective to Revise the Compliance Requirements that, although triboelectric detectors are measures, such as requiring you to generally used as bag leak detectors for Electrostatic Precipitators and revise the operation and maintenance given their ability to detect very low Ionizing Wet Scrubbers? plan. loadings of particulate matter, cement We propose a two-tiered approach to You may use any detector as a kilns may use the transmissometers they ensure performance of electrostatic particulate matter continuous monitor currently use for opacity monitoring precipitators and ionizing wet provided that the detector response provided that the transmissometer is scrubbers: (1) Use of a particulate matter correlates with relative or absolute sensitive enough to detect subtle continuous emissions detector for particulate matter mass emissions and increases in particulate matter loading process monitoring to signal when you that it can detect small changes in over normal (not performance test) must take corrective measures to particulate matter loadings.289 You loadings. address maintenance or other factors would include in the performance test Finally, we request comment on causing relative or absolute mass plan a description of the particulate whether it is practicable to establish the particulate matter loadings to be higher matter detector you select and alarm set-point for the back leak than the levels achieved during the information documenting that the detection system based on the detector performance test; or (2) use of site- detector response correlates with response achieved during the specific operating parameter limits. You relative or absolute particulate matter performance test rather than as could choose to comply with either tier. loadings and that the detector can detect recommended in the Agency’s guidance a. How Would Tier I Work? Under small changes in particulate matter document.287 The guidance document Tier I, you would use a particulate loadings above the levels anticipated recommends that you establish the matter continuous emissions detector during the comprehensive performance alarm set-point at a level that is twice for process monitoring to signal when test. For example, if you anticipate to the detector response achieved during you must take corrective measures to achieve a particulate matter emission bag cleaning. Although establishing the address maintenance or other factors level of 0.010 gr/dscf during the set-point at this level would avoid causing relative or absolute mass comprehensive performance test, your frequent exceedances due to normal bag particulate matter loadings to be higher detector should be able to distinguish cleaning, we are concerned that it may than the levels achieved during the between particulate matter loadings of not be low enough to detect gradual performance test. You would establish 0.010 gr/dscf and 0.011 gr/dscf. degradation in fabric filter performance an alarm set-point as the average b. How Would Tier II Work? Under that, for example, can be caused by detector response achieved during the Tier II, you would comply with site- pinholes in the bags. Moreover, particulate matter emissions specific operating parameter limits you establishing the set-point at a detector performance test. The limit would be establish under § 63.1209(m)(1)(iv). As response that is twice the response applied as a 6-hour rolling average currently required, the operating limits achieved during bag cleaning may not updated each hour with a one-hour would be linked to the automatic waste be low enough to require you to take block average to correspond to the time feed cutoff system. Exceedance of an corrective measures if particulate matter it could take to conduct three runs of a operating limit would be a violation and loadings increase above the levels performance test. The one-hour block is evidence of failure to ensure achieved during the performance test, average would be the average of the compliance with the particulate matter, and thus at loadings that may indicate detector responses over each 15-minute semivolatile metal, and low volatile an exceedance of the particulate matter block. metal emission standards. emission standard. To avoid alarms If you exceed the alarm set-point, you IV. Other Proposed Compliance caused by bag cleaning cycles, the alarm must immediately take the corrective Revisions set-point would be established as the measures you specify in your operation average detector response of the test run and maintenance plan to bring the A. What Is the Proposed Clarification to averages during the particulate matter response below the set-point. To ensure the Public Notice Requirement for performance test, and would be that you take both corrective and Approved Test Plans? established as a 6-hour rolling average proactive measures to minimize the We are proposing in today’s notice to updated each hour with a one-hour frequency and duration of exceedances, add clarifying language to the section block average. This is the time that you would be required to operate and 1207(e)(2) public notification could be required to conduct three runs maintain the electrostatic precipitator requirement for approved performance of a particulate matter performance test. and ionizing wet scrubber to ensure that test and CMS performance evaluation the alarm set-point is not exceeded more test plans. The Agency believes that 285 Because controlling particulate matter also than 5 percent of the operating time adequate public involvement is an controls semivolatile and low volatile metals (and during a 6-month period.288 This is essential element to the continuing and dioxin/furan if you use activated carbon injection), exceeding the particulate matter loadings achieved consistent with the proposed successful management of hazardous during the performance test is also evidence of requirement to limit the period of time waste. Providing opportunities for failure to ensure compliance with the emission that a fabric filter may be operating timely and adequate public notice is standards for those pollutants. under conditions of poor performance. necessary to fully inform nearby 286 Because the proposed bag leak detection communities of a source’s plans to requirements are more stringent than the opacity If you exceed the alarm set-point more standard, exempting cement kilns from the New than 5 percent of the time during a 6- initiate important waste management Source Performance Standards for particulate matter and opacity under § 60.60 continues to be 288 Periods of time when the combustor is 289 Please note that, for the purpose of process appropriate. See §§ 63.1204(h) and 63.1220(h). operating but the bag leak detection system is monitoring proposed here, you need not correlate 287 USEPA, ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection malfunctioning must be considered exceedances of the particulate matter detector to particulate matter Guidance,’’ September 1997. the set-point. emission concentrations.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21348 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

activities. In 1995, we expanded the outreach to local community, 4. Where Should the Plans Be Made RCRA public participation requirements professional, and interest groups in Available and for How Long? for hazardous waste combustion sources addition to the required distribution to The site-specific performance test and to require that the State Director issue the facility/public mailing list. CMS performance evaluation test plans a public notice prior to a source 2. When Should Sources Notify the must be made available at an conducting a RCRA trial burn emission Public of Approved Test Plans? unrestricted location which is accessible test. See 60 FR 63417, 40 CFR to the public during reasonable hours The existing regulations require that 270.62(b)(6) and 40 CFR 270.66(d)(3). and provides a means for the public to The purpose of this notification sources issue a public notice after the obtain copies of the plans if needed. To requirement was to inform the public of Administrator has approved the site- provide for adequate time for the public an upcoming trial burn should an specific performance test and CMS to review the test plans, we are individual be interested in reviewing performance evaluation test plans. It is proposing that the plans be made the results of the test. When we important to remember that the purpose available for a total of 60 days, promulgated the Phase I hazardous of this notification is similar to that beginning on the date that the source waste combustion NESHAP in 1999, we required under RCRA for trial burn issues its public notice. included a similar requirement in tests. See 60 FR 63417, 40 CFR subpart EEE for the same general 270.62(b)(6) and 40 CFR 270.66(d)(3). B. What Is the Proposed Clarification to purpose. Section 1207(e)(2) of subpart The notification is intended to provide the Public Notice Requirement for the EEE requires that sources issue a public information to the public regarding the Petition To Waive a Performance Test? notice announcing the approval of site- upcoming performance test. It is not Sources that petition the specific performance test plans and intended to solicit comment on the Administrator for an extension of time CMS performance evaluation test plans performance test plan. We considered to conduct a performance test (in other and provide the location where the proposing that the notification occur words, obtain a performance test plans will be made available to the within 30 days of the source’s receipt of waiver), are required under section public for review. We neglected, test plan approval. However, we chose 1207(e)(3)(iv) to notify the public of however, to include direction regarding not to proceed with this option because their petition. Although the regulatory how and when sources should notify we were concerned that the notification language does provide some direction the public, what the notification should would not be as meaningful to the regarding how the source may notify the contain, or where and for how long the public if too much time elapses between public (e.g., using a public mailing list), test plans should be made available. As the test plan approval notification and it does not provide any direction a result, we are proposing to add the actual initiation of the performance regarding when this notice must be clarifying language to the section test. In order to provide the public with issued or what it must contain. As a 1207(e)(2) public notification adequate notice of the upcoming test result, we are proposing in today’s requirement. We are using the RCRA and a reasonable period of time to notice to add clarifying language to the trial burn notification requirements as a review the approved plans prior to the Section 1207(e)(3)(iv) public notice foundation for the proposed test, we are proposing that the source requirement. clarifications. issue its notice after test plan approval, but no later than 60 days prior to 1. When Should Sources Notify the 1. How Should Sources Notify the Public of a Petition To Waive a Public? conducting the test. We believe that this also will allow the source sufficient Performance Test? The source must make a reasonable time to prepare its public notice and We are proposing that a source notify effort to provide adequate notification of corresponds to the 40 CFR the public of a petition to waive a the approval of their site-specific 63.1207(e)(1)(i)(B) requirement for a performance test at the same time that performance test and CMS performance source to notify the Administrator of its the source submits its petition to the evaluation test plans. Because this intention to initiate the test. Administrator. Although not explicitly notification is intended for stated in section 1207(e)(3)(iv), this was informational purposes only, we are 3. What Should the Notification our original intent. In the July 3, 2001, proposing that sources use their facility/ Include? preamble to the subpart EEE proposed public mailing list. We expect that by Similar to the public involvement technical amendments, we provided a the time a source receives approval of requirements for RCRA trial burn tests, time line of the waiver petitioning its subpart EEE test plans, a facility/ we are proposing that the notification process for an initial Comprehensive public mailing list already would have contain the following information: Performance Test.290 In that time line, been developed in response to the (1) The name and telephone number we indicated that the submittal of the source’s RCRA and CAA permitting of the source’s contact person; activities. As such, we are proposing petition and the public notification (2) The name and telephone number should occur at the same time. that sources use the facility/public of the regulatory agency’s contact mailing list developed under 40 CFR person; 2. What Should the Notification 70.7(h)(1), 71.11(d)(3)(i)(E) and (3) The location where the approved Include? 124.10(c)(1)(ix), for purposes of this performance test and CMS performance The notification of a petition to waive notification. Sources may voluntarily evaluation test plans and any necessary a performance test is an informational choose to use other mechanisms in supporting documentation can be notification. As such, we are proposing addition to a distribution to the facility/ reviewed and copied; that it include the same level of public mailing list, if previous (4) The time period for which the test information as that provided by a source experience has shown that such plans will be available for public for the notification of an approved test additional mechanisms are necessary to review, and; plan: reach all interested segments of the (5) An expected time period for community. For example, sources may commencement and completion of the 290 It should be noted that the petition for waiver consider using press releases, performance test and CMS performance of a performance test applies to both the initial test advertisements, visible signs, and evaluation test. and all subsequent tests. See 40 CFR 1207(e)(3).

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21349

(1) The name and telephone number methodology and results is presented in IV. What Are the Control Costs? of the source’s contact person; ‘‘Draft Technical Support Document for Control costs, as presented in this (2) The name and telephone number HWC MACT Replacement Standards, section, refer only to engineering, of the regulatory agency’s contact Volume V: Emission Estimates and operation, and maintenance costs person; Engineering Costs’’ (Chapter 3) in the associated with unit/system upgrades (3) The date the source submitted its docket for today’s proposal. necessary to meet the proposed site-specific performance test plan and replacement standards. These costs do CMS performance evaluation test plans; TABLE 1.—NATIONWIDE ANNUAL EMIS- not incorporate any market-based and SIONS REDUCTIONS OF HAPS AND adjustments. All costs presented in this (4) The length of time requested for OTHER POLLUTANTS section are annualized estimates in 2002 the waiver. dollars. Part Four: Impacts of the Proposed Rule Estimated emis- We estimate there are a total of 276 Pollutant sion reductions sources 292 that may be subject to I. What Are the Air Impacts? (tons per year) 1 requirements of the proposed rule. Liquid and solid fuel boilers represent Table 1 of this preamble shows the Dioxin/furans ...... 0.3 approximately 43 percent of this total, emissions reductions achieved by the Mercury ...... 0.93 followed by on-site incinerators at 33 proposed rule for all existing hazardous Cadmium ...... 0.50 percent, and cement and lightweight waste combustor sources. For Phase I Lead ...... 3 .30 sources—incinerators, cement kilns, and Arsenic ...... 1 .27 aggregate kilns at 12 percent. lightweight aggregate kilns—the Beryllium ...... 0.31 Commercial incinerators and emission reductions represent the Chromium ...... 8.97 hydrochloric acid production furnaces difference in emissions between sources Antimony ...... 1.18 make up the remaining 12 percent of the controlled to the proposed standards Cobalt ...... 0.42 total. and estimated emissions when Nickel ...... 1 .57 Total national engineering costs for complying with the interim MACT Selenium ...... 0.28 the proposed standards are estimated to standards promulgated on February 13, Manganese ...... 4.50 range from $57.7 million to $77.9 2002. For Phase II sources—industrial/ Hydrogen Chloride ...... 1470 million per year. The low end of this commercial/institutional boilers and Chlorine Gas ...... 107 range reflects total upgrade costs Particulate Matter ...... 1727 excluding controls to meet the total process heaters and hydrochloric acid 293 production facilities—the reductions chlorine standard. All Phase II 1 Dioxin/furan emissions reductions and re- sources combined represent about 66 represent the difference in emissions ductions expressed as grams TEQ. between the proposed standards and the percent or 80 percent of this total, current baseline of control provided by II. What Are the Water and Solid Waste depending upon section 112(d)(4) 40 CFR part 266, subpart H. Impacts? scenario. The average cost per source is Nationwide baseline HAP emissions expected to be highest for lightweight aggregate kilns and solid fuel boilers, from hazardous waste combustors are We estimate that water usage would ranging from $329,000 to $400,000 and estimated to be approximately 13,000 increase by 4.8 billion gallons per year $217,000 to $283,000, respectively. tons per year at the current level of if the proposed MACT standards were Average liquid fuel boiler costs range control. Today’s proposed standards adopted. In addition to the increased from $378,000 to $419,000 per system. would reduce emissions of hazardous water usage, an additional 4.6 billion Hydrochloric acid production furnaces air pollutants and particulate matter by gallons per year of wastewater would be were found to have average system costs approximately 3,300 tons per year. produced. We estimate the additional of about $200,000 under both section Nationwide emissions of dioxin/ solid waste that would need to be 112(d)(4) scenarios. On-site incinerators furans from all hazardous waste treated as a result of the proposed and commercial incinerators were found combustors will be reduced by 4.7 standards to be 10,400 tons per year. to generally have the lowest average cost grams TEQ per year. Emissions of HAP The costs associated with these ranges. Average annualized engineering metals from all hazardous waste hazardous waste treatment/disposal and costs for on-site incinerators are combustors will be reduced by 23 tons water requirements are accounted for in estimated to range from $16,300 to per year, including one ton per year of the national annualized compliance cost $139,000 per source, while average mercury. We estimate that particulate estimates. A discussion of the annual per source engineering costs for matter itself, a surrogate for HAP metals methodology used to estimate impacts is ‘‘ commercial incinerators are estimated will be reduced by over 1,700 tons per presented in Draft Technical Support to range from $67,000 to $247,000. For year. Finally, emissions of hydrogen Document for HWC MACT Replacement all Phase I sources (140 sources; chloride and chlorine gas from all Standards, Volume V: Emission commercial incinerators, on-site hazardous waste combustors will Estimates and Engineering Costs’ incinerators, cement kilns, and reduced by nearly 1,500 tons and over (Chapters 4 and 5) that is available in 291 the docket. 100 tons per year, respectfully. A 292 For purposes of this discussion, a source is discussion of the emission estimates III. What Are the Energy Impacts? defined as the air pollution control system associated with the hazardous waste combustion 291 We are, however, proposing to establish We estimate an increase of unit(s). A source may contain one or more alternative risk-based standards, pursuant to CAA approximately 133 million kilowatt combustion units, and a facility may operate one or section 112(d)(4), which could be elected by the hours (kWh) in national annual energy more sources. source in lieu of the MACT emission standards for 293 We are proposing using section 112(d)(4) of total chlorine. The emission limits would be based usage as a result of the proposed the Clean Air Act to establish risk-based standards on national exposure standards that ensure standards. The increase results from the for total chlorine for hazardous waste combustors protection of public health with an ample margin electricity required to operate air (except for hydrochloric acid production furnaces). of safety. See Part Two, Section XIII for additional pollution control devices installed to The low-end of this cost range assumes all facilities details.If we were to adopt alternative risk-based emit total chlorine levels below risk-based levels of standards, then the national annual emissions meet the proposed standards, such as concern. Under this scenario, no total chlorine reductions for total chlorine are overstated. baghouses and wet scrubbers. controls are assumed to necessary.

VerDate mar<24>2004 20:18 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21350 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

lightweight aggregate kilns), average V. Can We Achieve the Goals of the measures. This occurs because the annualized engineering costs are Proposed Rule in a Less Costly Manner? individuals and entities who bear the estimated to range from $76,000 to Section 1(b)(3) of Executive Order negative human health and ecological $184,000 per source. The combined 12866 instructs Executive Branch impacts associated with these actions Phase II sources (136 sources; solid and Agencies to consider and assess have no direct control over waste liquid fuel-fired boilers and available alternatives to direct burning decisions. This environmental hydrochloric acid production furnaces) regulation prior to making a externality occurs because the private had average annualized engineering determination for regulation. This industry costs of combustion do not costs ranging from $341,000 to $380,000 regulatory determination assessment fully reflect the human health and per source. Across all sectors covered by should be considered, ‘‘to the extent environmental costs of hazardous waste combustion. Second, the parties injured today’s proposal (Phase I and Phase II permitted by law, and where by the combusted pollutants are not applicable.’’ The ultimate purpose of the sources), average annualized costs were likely to have the resources or regulatory determination assessment is found to range from $209,000 to technological expertise to seek to ensure that the most efficient tool, $282,000 per source. compensation from the damaging entity regulation, or other type of action is Engineering compliance (control) (combustion source) through legal or applied in meeting the targeted costs have also been assessed on a per other means.294 Finally, emissions from objective(s). Requirements for MACT hazardous waste combustion facilities ton of waste burned basis. Captive standards under the Clean Air Act, as directly affect a ‘‘public good,’’ the air. energy recovery sources (includes solid mandated by Congress, have compelled Improved air quality benefits human and liquid fuel-fired boilers, and us to select today’s regulatory approach. hydrochloric acid production furnaces), health and the environment. The Furthermore, we are under legal absence of government intervention, burning a total of 1,001,500 tons of obligation to meet the targeted hazardous waste per year, are projected therefore, will perpetuate a market that objectives of today’s proposal through a fails to fully internalize key negative to experience the highest average regulatory action. As a result, incremental costs, ranging from $46 to externalities, resulting in a sub-optimal alternatives to direct regulatory action quantity and quality of public goods, $52 per ton. Commercial energy were not evaluated. such as air. recovery sources (cement kilns and In addition to the statutory and legal We have assessed several regulatory LWAKs), burning approximately mandates necessitating today’s options designed to mitigate the 1,093,800 tons per year, may see proposed rulemaking, we believe that unacceptable levels of risk to human incremental control costs ranging from federal regulation is the most efficient health and the environment resulting $7.50 to $8.50 per ton. Captive (on-site) approach for helping to correct market from the combustion of hazardous waste and commercial incinerators burn an failures leading to the negative in the targeted units. We believe, based estimated 1,010,600 tons and 452,200 environmental externalities resulting on available data, that our preferred tons per year, respectively. These from the combustion of hazardous regulatory approach,295 as presented in sources are estimated to experience waste. The complex nature of the today’s proposed rule, is the most cost- average incremental engineering costs pollutants, waste feeds, waste efficient method for reducing the level ranging from $1.50 to $12.70 per ton for generators, and the diverse nature of the of several hazardous air pollutants. captive and $2.20 to $8.20 per ton for combustion market would limit the These include: dioxin and furan, effectiveness of a non-regulatory commercial sources. mercury, semivolatile and low volatile approach such as taxes, fees, or an metals, and total chlorine emissions The aggregate control costs presented educational-outreach program. (i.e., hydrogen chloride and chlorine). in this section do not reflect the The hazardous waste combustion Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and anticipated real world cost burden on industry operates in a dynamic market. particulate matter will also be reduced. the economy. Any market disruption, Several combustion facilities and We evaluated seven alternative such as the implementation of systems have closed or consolidated methodologies in the development of hazardous waste MACT or risk-based over the past several years and this today’s proposed approach. These were: standards will cause a short-tem trend is likely to continue. These system removal efficiency plus feed disequilibrium in the hazardous waste closures and consolidations may lead to control, straight emission-based, burning market. Following the reduced air pollution, in the aggregate, modified emission-based, exclusive implementation of the replacement from hazardous waste facilities. technology approach, simultaneous standards, market adjustments will However, the ongoing demand for achievability, using the CAA section occur in a natural economic process hazardous waste combustion services 112(d)(4) to establish risk-based designed to reach a new market will ultimately result in a steady standards for total chlorine, and equilibrium. Actual cost impacts to equilibrium as the market adjusts over beyond-the-floor. Numerous different society are more accurately measured by the long-term. We therefore expect that combinations of these methodologies taking into account market adjustments. air pollution problems from these were assessed. Selection of the Agency facilities, and the corresponding threats These costs are commonly termed preferred approach was based, in part to human health and ecological on methodological clarity, Social Costs, and are generally less than receptors, will continue if a regulatory implementation simplicity, cost and total engineering costs due to cost action was not implemented. economic impacts, stakeholder input, efficiencies implemented during the We believe that the market has and necessary protectiveness to human market adjustment process. Social Costs generally failed to correct the air health and the environment. theoretically represent the total real pollution problems resulting from the world costs of all goods and services combustion of hazardous wastes for 294 Some economists consider this a failure of full society must give up in order to gain the several reasons. First, there exists no and proper enforcement of property rights. added protection to human health and natural market incentive for hazardous 295 Including our proposal to apply section 112(d)(4) to establish risk-based standards for total the environment. Social Costs are waste combustion facilities to incur chlorine for all sources, except hydrochloric acid presented in Part VIII of this Section. additional costs implementing control production furnaces.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21351

VI. What Are the Economic Impacts? the remaining. No cement kilns, These shifts may occur as specific Various market adjustments (i.e., lightweight aggregate kilns, or combustion facilities find it no longer economic impacts) are expected in hydrochloric acid production furnaces economically feasible to keep all of their response to the changes in hazardous are projected to exit the market as a systems running, or to stay in the waste combustion costs anticipated as a result of the rule. Market exits are hazardous waste market at all. When result of the replacement standards, as estimated to change only slightly under this occurs, workers at these locations proposed. Economic impacts may be the alternative regulatory options. may lose their jobs or experience forced relocations. At the same time, the rule measured through several factors. This B. Quantity of Waste Reallocated may result in employment gains, as new section presents estimated economic Some combustion systems (sources) impacts relative to market exits, waste purchases of pollution control may no longer be able to cover their equipment stimulate additional hiring reallocations, and employment impacts. hazardous waste burning costs as a Economic impacts presented in this in the pollution control manufacturing result of rule requirements, as proposed. sector, and as additional staff are section are distinct from social costs, These sources are expected to divert or which correspond only to the estimated required at selected combustion reroute their wastes to alternative facilities to accommodate reallocated monetary value of market disturbances. burners.297 For multiple system waste and/or various compliance A. Market Exit Estimates facilities, this diversion may include on- activities. site (non-commercial) waste The hazardous waste combustion consolidation among fewer systems at 1. Employment Impacts—Dislocations industry operates in a dynamic market, the same facility. A certain portion of (losses) with systems entering and exiting the this waste may also be reallocated to Primary employment dislocations market on a routine basis. Our analysis waste management alternatives (e.g., (losses) in the combustion industry are defines ‘‘market exit’’ as ceasing to burn solvent reclamation). Combustion, likely to occur when combustion hazardous waste. We have projected however, is likely to remain the lowest systems consolidate the waste they are post-rule hazardous waste combustion cost option. Thus, we expect that the burning into fewer systems or when a system market exits based on economic vast majority of reallocated waste will facility exits the hazardous waste feasibility only. Market exit estimates continue to be managed at combustion combustion market altogether. are derived from a breakeven analysis facilities. Operation and maintenance labor hours designed to determine system viability. Our economic model indicates that, in are expected to be reduced for each This analysis is subject to several response to today’s rule, approximately system that stops burning hazardous assumptions, including: engineering 87,500 to 120,900 tons of hazardous waste. For each facility that completely cost data on the baseline costs of waste waste may be reallocated, representing exits the market, employment losses burning, cost estimates for pollution up to 3.4 percent of the total 1999 will likely also include supervisory and control devices, prices for combustion estimated quantity of hazardous waste administrative labor. services, and assumptions about the burned at all sources. This estimate Total incremental employment waste quantities burned at these includes on-site consolidations and off- dislocations potentially resulting from facilities. It is important to note that, for site diversions. Off-site diversions alone the proposed replacement standards are most sectors, exiting the hazardous represent no more than 1.5 percent of estimated to range from 308 to 387 full- waste combustion market is not the total waste burned. About 56 time-equivalent (FTE) jobs. Depending equivalent to closing a plant. (Actual percent to 65 percent of the total upon the scenario, on-site incinerators plant closure would only be expected in reallocated waste quantity is expected to and boilers are responsible for anywhere the case of an exit from the hazardous be consolidated among fewer systems at from about 85 to 100 percent all waste combustion market of a the same non-commercial facility. potential job dislocations. Their commercial incinerator closing all its Commercial incinerators and significant share of the losses is a systems.) commercial energy recovery (cement function of both the large number of Under the Agency’s proposed kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns) systems affected, and the number of approach, we estimate there may be facilities are projected to receive all expected exits within these sectors. anywhere from 51 to 58 systems hazardous waste that is rerouted off-site. (sources) that stop burning hazardous Onsite incinerators and boilers are the 2. Employment Impacts—Gains waste. This represents anywhere from primary source of all off-site diverted In addition to employment 18 percent to 21 percent of the total waste. Based on the high estimate for dislocations, today’s rule is also number of systems affected by the rule. total waste reallocated (120,900 tons), expected to result in job gains. These The range is based on the inclusion or commercial incinerators and cement gains are projected to occur to both the exclusion of total chlorine controls.296 kilns are projected to receive 37 percent air pollution control industry and to At the high-end of this range, onsite and 7 percent, respectively. The combustion firms as they hire personnel incinerators represent about 55 percent remainder, as mentioned above, is to accommodate reallocated waste and/ of the total number of market exits. projected to be consolidated on-site. or comply with the various Liquid and solid fuel boilers (includes Currently, there is more than adequate requirements of the rule. Hazardous process heaters) account for 41 percent, capacity to accommodate all off-site waste combustion sources are projected and commercial incinerators account for waste diversions. to need additional operation and C. Employment Impacts maintenance personnel for the new 296 Even though we are proposing to allow pollution control equipment and other sources (except hydrochloric acid production Today’s rule is likely to cause compliance activities, such as new furnaces) to invoke section 112(d)(4) in lieu of employment shifts across all of the MACT chlorine control requirements, we have not reporting and record keeping attempted to estimate the following: (1) The total hazardous waste combustion sectors. requirements. number of sources that may elect to implement this The total annual employment gains provision, and, (2) what level of control may be 297 This analysis includes the cost of waste associated with the proposed standards necessary following a section 112(d)(4) risk-based transport to alternative combustion sources, determination, since this would vary on a site-by- burning fees, and purchase of alternative fuels (if are estimated to range from 407 to 525 site basis. appropriate). FTEs. Job gains to the air pollution

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21352 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

control industry 298 represent about 31 defined by 4 concentric rings out to a al. in 1995.304 Since that time, health percent of this total. Among all distance of 20 kilometers (about 12 scientists have refined estimates of the combustors, boilers are projected to miles), each of which was divided into concentration-response relationship, experience the greatest number of job 4 quadrants. The sector-specific rates and EPA has updated its methodology gains, followed by cement and were weighted by facility-specific for estimating benefits to reflect these lightweight aggregate kilns. Job gains in sampling weights and then summed to more recent estimates. In the regulatory these sectors alone represent about 55 give the total incidence rates for a given impact analysis of the non-hazardous percent to 61 percent of total projected source category.300 boiler MACT standards, EPA used the gains, depending upon regulatory Since performing the risk assessment Krewski, et al. re-analysis of the 1995 scenario. for the 1999 Assessment, the Agency has Pope study to estimate avoided While it may appear that this analysis updated its benefits methodology to premature mortality.305 Since the suggests overall net job creation, such a reflect recent advances in air quality relative risk estimated in the Krewski conclusion would be inappropriate. modeling and human health benefits study (1.18) is nearly the same as that Because the gains and losses occur in modeling. To estimate PM exposure for presented in Pope et al. (1.17), the different sectors of the economy, they the 1999 risk assessment, the Agency Agency assumes that updating the 1999 should not be added together. Doing so used the Industrial Source Complex risk assessment to reflect the results of would mask important distributional Model-Short Term Version 3 (ISCST3). the 2000 Krewski study would have effects of the rule. In addition, the More recent EPA benefits analyses have minimal impact on the estimated employment gain estimates reflect used more advanced air-quality models. benefits associated with the proposed within sector impacts only and therefore For example, the Agency’s assessment HWC MACT replacement standards. do not account for potential job of the industrial boilers and process For the current proposal, we took the displacement across sectors. This may heaters NESHAP used the avoided incidence estimates from the occur if investment funds are diverted Climatological Regional Dispersion September 1999 final rule and adjusted from other areas of the larger economy. Model (CRDM), which uses a national them to reflect the particulate matter emission reductions projected to occur VII. What Are the Benefits of source-receptor matrix to estimate exposure associated with PM under the proposed standards and the Reductions in Particulate Matter reduction in the numbers of facilities Emissions? emissions.301 Similarly, the Agency’s analysis of the proposed Inter-state Air burning hazardous wastes since the For the 1999 rule, we estimated the Quality Rule used the Regional analysis for the final rule was avoided incidence of mortality and Modeling System for Aerosols and completed. For cement kilns, morbidity associated with reductions in Deposition (REMSAD), which also lightweight aggregate kilns, and particulate matter (PM) emissions.299 accounts for the long-range transport of incinerators, the estimates were made Estimates of cases of mortality and particles.302 In contrast, ISCST3 by adjusting the respective estimates at morbidity avoided were made for modeled exposure within a 20-kilometer the source category level by the ratio of children and the elderly, as well as the radius of each emissions source for the emission reductions (for today’s general population, using concentration- 1999 risk assessment.303 To the extent proposed rule vs. the 1999 final rule) response functions derived from human that PM is transported further than 20 and the ratio of the number of facilities epidemiological studies. Morbidity km from each emissions source, the affected by the rules (facilities currently effects included respiratory and 1999 risk assessment may underestimate burning hazardous wastes vs. facilities cardiovascular illnesses requiring burning hazardous wastes in the PM exposure. In addition, to estimate hospitalization, as well as other analysis for the September 1999 final exposure in the 1999 risk assessment, illnesses not requiring hospitalization, rule).306 For liquid and solid fuel-fired EPA used block-group-level data from such as acute and chronic bronchitis boilers and hydrochloric acid the 1990 Census. More recent studies and acute upper and lower respiratory production furnaces, we extrapolated use data from the 2000 Census. symptoms. Decreases in particulate the avoided incidence from the More recent EPA benefits analyses matter-related minor restricted activity incinerator source category using a also apply a different concentration- days (MRADs) and work loss days similar approach except that the ratios response function for PM mortality than (WLDs) were also estimated. Rates of of the exposed populations were used that used for the 1999 risk assessment. avoided incidence, work days lost, and (corresponding to the concentration- In 1999, EPA used the concentration- days of restricted activity were response function published by Pope, et estimated for each of 16 sectors 304 Pope, C.A., III, M.J. Thun, M.M. Namboodiri, surrounding a facility using the D.W. Dockery, J.S. Evans, F.E. Speizer, and C.W. 300 It should be noted that the avoided incidence Heath, Jr. 1995. Particulate air pollution as a concentration-response functions and estimates were based entirely on the incremental predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.S. sector-specific estimates of the decrease in ambient air concentrations associated adults. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical corresponding population and model- with emission controls on the hazardous waste Care Medicine151:669–674, as cited in Research derived ambient air concentration, sources subject to the 1999 rule. Background levels Triangle Institute, op. cit. of particulate matter were assumed to be 305 Krewski D, Burnett RT, Goldbert MS, Hoover either annual mean PM10 or PM2.5 sufficiently high to exceed any possible threshold K, Siemiatycki J, Jerrett M, Abrahamowicz M, White concentrations or distributions of daily of effect but ambient background levels of WH. 2000. Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities particulate matter were not otherwise considered in PM10 or PM2.5 concentrations, Study and the American Cancer Society Study of depending on the concentration- the analysis. Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. Special 301 U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis of The Report to the Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, response function. The sectors were Final Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters MA, July 2000. NESHAP: Final Report, February 2004. 306 To account for the increase in population 298 Manufacturers and distributers of air pollution 302 U.S. EPA, Benefits of the Proposed Inter-State since the 1990 census was taken, for the Phase I control devices are expected to increase sales as a Air Quality Rule, January 2004. sources we also adjusted the avoided incidence result of this action. 303 Research Triangle Institute, Human Health estimates by the ratio of the population at the 299 See ‘‘Human Health and Ecological Risk and Ecological Risk Assessment Support to The national level (corresponding to the concentration- Assessment Support to the Development of Development of Technical Standards for Emissions response function) for the year 2000 census vs. the Technical Standards for Emissions from from Combustion Units Burning Hazardous Wastes: 1990 census. For Phase II source, we used the year Combustion Units Burning Hazardous Wastes: Background Document, prepared for U.S. EPA, 2000 census to develop source category-specific Background Document,’’ July 1999. Office of Solid Waste, July 1999. population estimates for use in the extrapolations.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21353

response functions from the 1999 production furnaces using the same GIS estimates of avoided incidence of analysis), instead of the number of methods as the September 1999 final mortality and morbidity are shown in facilities. We estimated the exposed rule (i.e., a 16 sector overlay). Table 2. The estimates of days of populations for hazardous waste- Nonetheless, the extrapolated estimates restricted activity and days of work lost burning boilers and hydrochloric acid are subject to some uncertainty. The are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 2.—PM-RELATED AVOIDED INCIDENCE OF MORTALITY AND MORBIDITY

Hospital admissions Respiratory Illnesses Source category Respiratory Chronic Acute Lower Upper Mortality illness Cardiovascular bronchitis bronchitis respiratory respiratory

Cement Kilns...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Lightweight Aggregate Kilns ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incinerators ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Solid Fuel Boilers...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 HCl Production Fur- naces ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Liquid Fuel Boilers...... 0.3 0.9 0.4 5.5 4.2 37.2 4.3 Total ...... 0.3 0.9 0.4 5.6 4.3 38.0 4.4

TABLE 3.—PM-RELATED RESTRICTED ACTIVITY AND WORK LOSS DAYS

Minor Restricted Work Source category restricted activity days loss days

Cement Kilns ...... 3.1 1.0 0.4 Lightweight Aggregate Kilns ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incinerators ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers ...... 59.0 19.4 7.1 HCl Production Furnaces ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 Liquid Fuel-Fired Boilers ...... 3692.2 1215.9 443.2

Total ...... 3754.4 1236.4 450.7

We also conducted an analysis of key we examined the current combustion systems that handle liquids and factors that influence the PM-related market and practices, developed and pumpable solids. Waste burning kilns health benefits by statistically implemented a methodology for and boilers generally burn hazardous comparing attributes of the sources examining compliance and social costs, wastes to generate heat and power for subject to today’s proposed rule versus applied an economic model to analyze their manufacturing processes. the sources subject to the 1999 rule. The industry economic impacts (results As discussed above, we have greater the similarities between the discussed above), examined benefits, identified a total of 276 sources sources covered by today’s proposal and and followed appropriate guidelines (systems) permitted to burn hazardous the sources subject to the 1999 rule, the and procedures for examining equity waste in the United States. Liquid fuel- more confidence we have in the considerations, children’s health, and fired boilers account for 107 sources, extrapolated incidence estimates. The other impacts. The data we used in this followed by on-site incinerators at 92 more the dissimilarities, the greater is analysis were the most recently sources. Cement kilns, hydrochloric the uncertainty in the estimates. The available at the time of the analysis. comparative analysis is discussed in a Because our data were limited, the acid production furnaces, and separate background document for findings from these analyses are more commercial incinerators account for 26, today’s rule.307 accurately viewed as national estimates. 17, and 15 sources, respectively. Solid fuel-fired boilers and lightweight VIII. What are the Social Costs and A. Combustion Market Overview aggregate kilns make up the remaining, Benefits of the Proposed Rule? The hazardous waste industry at 12 and seven systems, respectively. The value of any regulatory action is consists of three key segments: These 276 sources are operated by a traditionally measured by the net hazardous waste generators, fuel total of 150 different facilities. On-site change in social welfare that it blenders/intermediaries, and hazardous incinerators account for 69 facilities, or generates. Our economic assessment for waste burners. Hazardous waste is 46 percent of this total, followed by all today’s rule evaluates compliance costs, combusted at four main types of boiler facilities at 45 percent (67 social costs, benefits, economic impacts, facilities: commercial incinerators, on- facilities). There are 14 cement kilns, 10 selected other impacts (e.g., children’s site incinerators, waste burning kilns commercial incineration facilities and health, unfunded mandates), and small (cement kilns and lightweight aggregate three lightweight aggregate kilns. A entity impacts. To conduct this analysis, kilns), and industrial boilers. single facility may have one or more Commercial incinerators are generally combustion systems. Facilities with 307 See ‘‘Inferential Risk Analysis in Support of larger in size and designed to manage multiple systems may have the same or Standards for Emissions of Hazardous Air virtually all types of solids, as well as different types. Thus, the numbers Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors,’’ prepared under contract to EPA by Research liquid wastes. On-site incinerators are presented above will not sum to 150 Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC. more often designed as liquid-injection facilities.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21354 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

The number of sources per facility in Regulatory forces influence the demand C. Analytical Methodology and the combustion universe ranges from for combustion by mandating certain Findings—Social Cost Analysis one to 12. On average, boilers, hazardous waste treatment standards Total social costs include the value of hydrochloric acid production furnaces, (land disposal restriction requirements, resources used to comply with the and lightweight aggregate kilns, with an etc.). Liability concerns of waste standards by the private sector, the average of 2.0 sources per facility, generators affect combustion demand value of resources used to administer contain more waste burning combustion because combustion, by destroying the regulation by the government, and systems per facility than do incinerators organic wastes, greatly reduces the risk the value of output lost due to shifts of and cement kilns, with an average of 1.4 of future environmental problems. resources away from the current market sources per facility. On-site incinerators, Finally, if alternative waste management equilibrium. To evaluate these shifts in with 1.3 sources per facility, have the options are more expensive, hazardous resources and changes in output lowest average among all types of waste generators will likely choose to requires predicting changes in behavior combustion devices in the universe. send their wastes to combustion by all affected parties in response to the Combustion systems operating at facilities in order to increase their regulation, including responses of chemical and allied product facilities overall profitability. directly-affected entities, as well as represent 72 percent (199 sources) of the Throughout much of the 1980s, indirectly-affected private parties. total number of hazardous waste hazardous waste combustors enjoyed a For this analysis, social costs are burning systems. Stone, clay, and glass strong competitive position and grouped into two categories: economic production accounts for 12 percent (34 generally maintained a high level of welfare (changes in consumer and sources), followed by electric, gas, and profitability. During this period, EPA producer surplus), and government sanitation services at 8 percent (22 regulations requiring combustion greatly administrative costs. The economic sources). expanded the waste tonnage for this welfare analysis conducted for today’s The EPA Biennial Reporting System market. In addition, federal permitting rule uses a simplified partial (BRS) reports a total demand for all requirements, as well as powerful local equilibrium approach to estimate social combusted hazardous waste, across all opposition to siting of new incinerators, costs. In this analysis, changes in facilities, at 3.56 million tons (U.S. ton) constrained the entry of new economic welfare are measured by in 1999. Commercial energy recovery combustion systems. As a result, summing the changes in consumer and (cement kilns and lightweight aggregate combustion prices rose steadily, producer surplus. This simplified kilns) burned about 31 percent of this ultimately reaching record levels in approach bounds potential economic total, followed by on-site incinerators at 1987. The high profits of the late 1980s welfare losses associated with the rule just over 28 percent, captive energy induced many firms to enter the market, by considering two scenarios: recovery (all boilers) at 28 percent, and in spite of the difficulties and delays compliance costs assuming no market commercial incineration at nearly 13 anticipated in the permitting and siting adjustments, and market adjusted percent. About 62 percent of all waste process. Hazardous waste markets have compliance costs. The private sector burned in 1999 was organic liquids. changed significantly since the late compliance costs of $57.7 million to This is followed by inorganic liquids (15 1980s. In the early 1990s, substantial $77.9 million per year, as presented in percent), sludges (13 percent), and overcapacity resulted in fierce Section IV, assume no market solids (9 percent). Hazardous gases competition, declining prices, poor adjustments. These costs may be represent about 0.1 percent of the total financial performance, numerous considered to represent the high-end of annual quantity burned. In terms of project cancellations, system total social costs. Our best estimate of waste source, the industrial organic consolidations, and facility closures. social costs assume rational market chemicals sector generates Since the mid 1990s, several additional adjustments. Under this scenario, approximately a third of all hazardous combustion facilities have closed, while increased compliance costs are waste burned, followed by pesticides many of those that have remained open examined in the context of likely and agricultural chemicals, business have consolidated, or further incentives combustion facilities would services, organic fibers, medicinal consolidated their operations. Available have to continue burning hazardous chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics excess capacity is currently estimated at wastes, and the competitive balance in materials and resins, petroleum, and about 20 percent of the total 1999 different combustion sectors. miscellaneous. quantity combusted. For all sectors to meet the proposed Companies that generate large replacement standards, total annualized quantities of uniform hazardous wastes B. Baseline Specification market-adjusted costs are estimated to generally find it more economical and range from $41 to $50 million. The low Proper and consistent baseline efficient to combust these wastes on-site end of this range assumes no chlorine specification is vital to the accurate using their own noncommercial control costs.309 The Phase II sources assessment of incremental costs, systems. Commercial incineration represent about 83 percent of the high- benefits, and other economic impacts facilities manage a wide range of waste end total. Our economic model associated with today’s proposed rule. streams generated in small to medium indicates that two sectors as a whole, The baseline essentially describes the quantities by diverse industries. Cement commercial incinerators and cement world absent the proposed rule. The kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and kilns, would experience net gains incremental impacts of today’s rule are boilers derive heat and energy by following all market adjustments. This evaluated by predicting post MACT combining clean burning (solvents and occurs due to marginally higher prices, organics) high-Btu liquid hazardous compliance responses with respect to wastes 308 with conventional fuels. the baseline. The baseline, as applied in 309 We are proposing using section 112(d)(4) of Regulatory requirements, liability this analysis, is the point at which the Clean Air Act to establish risk-based standards concerns, and economics influence the today’s rule is promulgated. Thus, for total chlorine for hazardous waste combustors incremental cost and economic impacts (except for hydrochloric acid production furnaces). demand for combustion services. The low-end of this cost range assumes all facilities are projected beyond the standards emit total chlorine levels below risk-based levels of 308 Many cement kilns are also able to burn a established in the February 13, 2002, concern. Under this scenario, no total chlorine certain level of solid waste. Interim Standards Final Rule. controls are assumed to be necessary.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21355

increased waste receipts, and relatively benefits would be $1.70 million and dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. This low upgrade costs. Total annual $1.54 million, respectively. Our reassessment 312 will soon be under government costs are approximately discounted analysis of PM mortality review at the National Academy of one-half million dollars for the benefits assumes that 25 percent of Sciences (NAS), as specified by proposed approach. premature mortalities occur during the Congress in the Conference Report first year, 25 percent occur during the accompanying EPA’s fiscal year 2003 D. Analytical Methodology and second year, and 16.7 percent occur in appropriation (Title IV of Division K of Findings—Benefits Assessment each of the three subsequent years after the Conference Report for the This section discusses the monetized exposure. This methodology is Consolidated Appropriations Resolution and non-monetized benefits to human consistent with the Agency’s analysis of of 2003). Evidence compiled from this health and the environment potentially the proposed Clear Skies Act of 2003. draft reassessment indicates that the associated with today’s rule. Monetized Total monetized PM benefits, therefore, carcinogenic effects of dioxin/furans human health benefits are derived from are estimated to range from $4.24 may be six times as great as believed in reductions in PM and dioxin/furan million/year to $4.52 million per year. 1985, reflecting an upper bound cancer exposure and are based on a Value of These findings appear to indicate that risk slope factor of 1 × 106 [mg/kg/ Statistical Life (VSL) estimate of $5.5 particulate matter reductions from the day]¥1 for some individuals. Agency million.10 Monetized environmental interim baseline to the replacement scientists’ more likely (central tendency) benefits are estimated from visibility standards are small relative to the estimates (derived from the ED01 rather improvements expected in response to reductions achieved in going to the than the LED01) result in slope factors reduced air pollution. Non-monetized interim standards. This assessment does and risk estimates that are within 2–3 benefits are associated with human not consider corresponding health times of the upper bound estimates (i.e., health, ecological, and waste benefits associated with the reduction of between 3 × 105 [mg/kg/day]¥1 and 5 × minimization factors. metals carried by the PM. 105 [mg/kg/day]¥1) based on the Dioxin/furan—Dioxin/furan available epidemiological and animal 1. Monetized Benefits emissions are projected to be reduced by cancer data. Risks could be as low as Particulate Matter—We developed a total of 4.68 grams per year under the zero for some individuals. Use of the monetized estimates of human health Agency Preferred Approach. Of this alternative upper bound cancer risk benefits associated with reduced total, 0.42 grams/year are derived in slope factor would result in up to 0.35 emissions of particulate matter (PM). going from the interim standards premature cancer deaths avoided in We also estimated the value of baseline to the floor levels. The response to the proposed replacement improved visibility associated with remaining 4.26 grams/year are derived standards for dioxin/furans. The reduced PM emissions. by going from the floor to beyond-the- assessment of upper bound cancer risk Results from our risk assessment floor (BTF) standards. In the July 23, using this alternative slope factor extrapolation procedure, as discussed 1999 Addendum to the Assessment, should not be considered Agency under Section VII above, are used to cancer risk reductions linked to policy. The proposed standards for evaluate incremental human health consumption of dioxin-contaminated dioxin in today’s rule were not based on benefits potentially associated with agricultural products accounted for the this draft reassessment. particulate matter emission reductions vast majority of the 0.36 cancer cases Total non-discounted human health at hazardous waste combustion per year that were expected to be benefits associated with projected facilities. This analysis used avoided avoided due to the 1999 standards. dioxin reductions are estimated at $0.32 cost factors from the July 1999 Cancer risk reductions associated with million/year. Total benefits are Assessment document, combined with the replacement standards are expected estimated to range from $0.12 million/ the updated estimates of avoided to be less than 0.36 cases per year, but year to $0.17 million/year at a 3 percent adverse health effects related only to greater than zero. discount rate, and $0.03 million/year to particulate matter emissions. Assuming that the proportional $0.08 million/year at a 7 percent rate. Under the Agency preferred approach, relationship between dioxin/furans The two figures under each discount reduced PM emissions are estimated to emissions and premature cancer deaths scenario reflect an assumed latency result in monetized human health is constant, we estimate that period of 21 or 34 years. benefits of approximately $4.18 million approximately 0.058 premature cancer Visibility Benefits—In addition to the per year. This is an undiscounted figure. deaths will be avoided on an annual human health benefits discussed above, Avoided PM morbidity cases account basis under the Agency Preferred we also assessed visibility for $2.34 million of this total and Approach because of reduced dioxin/ improvements. Particulate matter include: respiratory illness, furans emissions. This estimate reflects emissions are a primary cause of cardiovascular disease, chronic a cancer risk slope factor of 1.56 × 105 reduced visibility. Changes in the level ¥ bronchitis, work loss days, and minor [mg/kg/day] 1. This cancer slope factor of ambient particulate matter caused by restricted activity. Chronic bronchitis is derived from the Agency’s 1985 the reduction in emissions associated accounts for approximately 90 percent health assessment document for with the Agency preferred approach are of the total morbidity cases. All polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins 311 expected to increase the level of morbidity cases are assumed to be and represents an upper bound 95th visibility in some parts of the United avoided within the first year following percentile confidence limit of the excess States. We derived upper and lower reduced PM emissions and are not cancer risk from a lifetime exposure. bound benefits estimates associated discounted under any scenario. For the past 12 years the Agency has with particulate matter emissions Avoided premature deaths (mortality) been conducting a reassessment of the account for the remaining $1.84 million human health risks associated with 312 U.S.EPA, Exposure and Human Health per year. Assuming a discount rate of Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p- 311 three and seven percent, PM mortality USEPA, 1985. Health Assessment Document Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, September for Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins. EPA/600/8– 2000. Note: Toxicity risk factors presented in this 84/014F. Final Report. Office of Health and document should not be considered EPA’s official 310 Office of Management and Budget. Circular A– Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC. estimate of dioxin toxicity, but rather reflect EPA’s 4. September 17, 2003. September, 1985. ongoing effort to reevaluate dioxin toxicity.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21356 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

reductions using two different tons per year (tpy). Of this total, about methylmercury, the ingested methodologies, each comparing 1,000 tpy are estimated to be natural methylmercury is almost completely reductions to those associated with the emissions and about 2,000 tpy are absorbed into the blood and distributed Clean Air Act. The first approach estimated to be contributions through to all tissues (including the brain); it assumes a linear relationship between the natural global cycle of re-emissions also readily passes through the placenta particulate matter reductions and of mercury associated with past to the fetus and fetal brain.314 visibility improvements. Under this anthropogenic activity. Current Based on the findings of the National approach, the Agency preferred anthropogenic emissions account for the Research Council, EPA has concluded replacement standards may result in a remaining 2,000 tpy. Point sources such that benefits of Hg reductions would be visibility benefit of approximately $5.78 as fuel combustion; waste incineration; most apparent at the human million per year. Our second approach industrial processes; and metal ore consumption stage, as consumption of is to assume a linear relationship roasting, refining, and processing are the fish is the major source of exposure to between health benefits and visibility largest point source categories on a methylmercury. At lower levels, benefits associated with reduction in world-wide basis. Given the global documented Hg exposure effects may particulate matter emissions. Under this estimates noted above, U.S. include more subtle, yet potentially approach, the proposed replacement anthropogenic mercury emissions are important, neurodevelopmental effects. standards could result in a visibility estimated to account for roughly 3 Some subpopulations in the U.S., benefit of approximately $0.11 million/ percent of the global total, and U.S. such as: Native Americans, Southeast year. This method represents our lower hazardous waste burning incinerators, Asian Americans, and lower income bound estimate of visibility benefits. kilns, and boilers are estimated to subsistence fishers, may rely on fish as account for about 0.0045 percent of total a primary source of nutrition and/or for 2. Non-Monetized Benefits global emissions. cultural practices. Therefore, they We examined, but did not monetize Mercury exists in three forms: consume larger amounts of fish than the human health benefits potentially elemental mercury, inorganic mercury general population and may be at a associated with reduced exposure to compounds (primarily mercuric greater risk to the adverse health effects lead, mercury, and total chlorine. Non chloride), and organic mercury from Hg due to increased exposure. In monetized ecological benefits compounds (primarily methylmercury). pregnant women, methylmercury can be potentially associated with reductions Mercury is usually released in an passed on to the developing fetus, and in dioxin/furan, selected metals, total elemental form and later converted into at sufficient exposure may lead to a chlorine, and particulate matter were methylmercury by bacteria. number of neurological disorders in also examined. Finally, waste Methylmercury may be more toxic to children. Thus, children who are minimization is examined as a non- humans than other forms of mercury, in exposed to low concentrations of monetized benefit. part because it is more easily absorbed methylmercury prenatally may be at Lead—The proposed replacement in the body.313 If the deposition is increased risk of poor performance on standards are expected to reduce lead directly to a water body, then the neurobehavioral tests, such as those emissions by approximately five tons processes of aqueous fate, transport, and measuring attention, fine motor per year. In comparison, the 1999 transformation begin. If deposition is to function, language skills, visual-spatial standards were expected to reduce lead land, then terrestrial fate and transport abilities (like drawing), and verbal emissions by 89 tons per year, and were processes occur first and then aqueous memory. The effects from prenatal expected to reduce cumulative lead fate and transport processes occur once exposure can occur even at doses that exposures for two children age 0–5 to the mercury has cycled into a water µ do not result in effects in the mother. less than 10 g/dL. The lead benefits body. In both cases, mercury may be Mercury may also affect young children associated with the proposed returned to the atmosphere through who consume fish containing mercury. replacement standards are therefore resuspension. In water, mercury is Consumption by children may lead to expected to be modest, reducing the transformed to methylmercury through neurological disorders and cumulative lead exposures for less than µ biological processes and for exposures developmental problems, which may two children age 0–5, less than 10 g/ affected by this rulemaking. lead to later economic consequences. dL annually. The proposed replacement Methylmercury is considered to be the In response to potential risks of standards will also result in reduced form of greatest concern. Once mercury mercury-containing fish consumption, lead levels for children of sub- has been transformed into EPA and FDA have issued fish populations with especially high levels methylmercury, it can be ingested by consumption advisories which provide of exposure. Children of subsistence the lower trophic level organisms where recommended limits on consumption of fishermen, commercial beef farmers, it can bioaccumulate in fish tissue (i.e., certain fish species for different and commercial dairy farmers who face concentrations of mercury remain in the populations. EPA and FDA have the greatest levels of cumulative lead fish’s system for a long period of time developed a new joint advisory that was exposure will also experience and accumulates in the fish tissue as released in March 2004. This new FDA- comparable reductions in overall predatory fish consume other species in EPA fish advisory recommends that exposure as a result of the MACT the food chain). Fish and wildlife at the women and young children reduce the standards. top of the food chain can, therefore, risks of Hg consumption in their diet by Mercury—Mercury emitted from have mercury concentrations that are moderating their fish consumption, hazardous waste burning incinerators, higher than the lower species, and they diversifying the types of fish they kilns, boilers, and other natural and can have concentrations of mercury that consume, and by checking any local man-made sources is carried by winds are higher than the concentration found advisories that may exist for local rivers through the air and eventually is in the water body itself. In addition, and streams. This collaborative FDA- deposited to water and land. Recent when humans consume fish containing EPA effort will greatly assist in estimates (which are highly uncertain) of annual total global mercury emissions 313 Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final 314 Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final from all sources (natural and Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP: Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP: anthropogenic) are about 5,000 to 5,500 Final Report, February 2004. Final Report, February 2004.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21357

educating the most susceptible age are regarded as the population of inflamation, and pulmonary edema. populations. Additionally, the greatest interest. The EPA, Food and Chronic occupational inhalation has reductions of Hg from this regulation Drug Administration, and many States been reported to cause gastritis, may potentially lead to fewer fish have issued fish consumption advisories bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. consumption advisories (both from to inform this population of protective Long term exposure can also cause federal or state agencies), which will consumption levels. dental discoloration and erosion. No benefit the fishing community. The EPA’s 1997 Mercury Study RTC information is available on the Currently 44 states have issued fish supports a plausible link between reproductive or developmental effects in anthropogenic releases of Hg from consumption advisories for non- humans. Chlorine gas inhalation can commercial fish for some or all of their industrial and combustion sources in cause bronchitis, asthma and swelling of waters due to contamination of mercury. the U.S. and methylmercury in fish. the lungs, headaches, heart disease, and The scope of FCA issued by states varies However, these fish methylmercury considerably, with some warnings concentrations also result from existing meningitis. Acute exposure causes more applying to all water bodies in a state background concentrations of Hg (which severe respiratory and lung effects, and and others applying only to individual may consist of Hg from natural sources, can result in fatalities in extreme cases. lakes and streams. Note that the absence as well as Hg which has been re-emitted No information is available on the of a state advisory does not necessarily from the oceans or soils) and deposition reproductive or developmental effects in indicate that there is no risk of exposure from the global reservoir (which humans. The proposed replacement to unsafe levels of mercury in includes Hg emitted by other countries). standards are expected to reduce recreationally caught fish. Likewise, the Given the current scientific chlorine exposure for people in close presence of a state advisory does not understanding of the environmental fate proximity to hazardous waste indicate that there is a risk of exposure and transport of this element, it is not combustion facilities, and are therefore to unsafe levels of mercury in possible to quantify how much of the likely to reduce the risk of all associated recreationally caught fish, unless people methylmercury in locally-caught fish health effects. consumed by the U.S. population is consume these fish at levels greater than Ecological Benefits—We examined those recommended by the fish contributed by U.S. emissions relative to ecological benefits through a advisory. other sources of Hg (such as natural Reductions in methylmercury sources and re-emissions from the comparison of the 1999 Assessment and concentrations in fish should reduce global pool). As a result, the the proposed replacement standards. exposure, subsequently reducing the relationship between Hg emission Ecological benefits in the 1999 risks of mercury-related health effects in reductions from Phase I and Phase II Assessment were based on reductions of the general population, to children, and sources assessed in this rule, and approximately 100 tons per year in to certain subpopulations. Fish methylmercury concentrations in fish dioxin/furans and selected metals. Lead consumption advisories (FCA) issued by cannot be calculated in a quantitative was the only pollutant of concern for the States may also help to reduce manner with confidence. In addition, aquatic ecosystems, while mercury exposures to potential harmful levels of there is uncertainty regarding over what appeared to be of greatest concern for methylmercury in fish. To the extent time period these changes would occur. terrestrial ecosystems. Dioxin/furan and that reductions in mercury emissions Given the present understanding of lead emission reductions also provided reduces the probability that a water the Hg cycle, the flux of Hg from the some potential benefits for terrestrial body will have a FCA issued, there are atmosphere to land or water at one ecosystems. The proposed replacement a number of benefits that will result location is comprised of contributions standards are expected to reduce from fewer advisories, including from: the natural global cycle; the cycle dioxin/furan and selected metal increased fish consumption, increased perturbed by human activities; regional emissions by about 15 to 20 percent of sources; and local sources. Recent fishing choices for recreational fishers, the 1999 estimate. The proposed increased producer and consumer advances allow for a general replacement standards will produce surplus for the commercial fish market, understanding of the global Hg cycle fewer incremental benefits than those and increased welfare for subsistence and the impact of the anthropogenic fishing populations. sources. It is more difficult to make estimated for the 1999 Assessment (and There is a great deal of variability accurate generalizations of the fluxes on later, for the 2002 Interim Standards). among individuals in fish consumption a regional or local scale due to the site- However, the 1999 Assessment did not rates; however, critical elements in specific nature of emission and estimate the ecological benefits of estimating methylmercury exposure and deposition processes. Similarly, it is MACT standards for industrial boilers risk from fish consumption include the difficult to quantify how the water and industrial furnaces. These systems species of fish consumed, the deposition of Hg leads to an increase in were excluded from the universe in concentrations of methylmercury in the fish tissue levels. This will vary based 1999 but are part of the universe fish, the quantity of fish consumed, and on the specific characteristics of the addressed by the proposed replacement how frequently the fish is consumed. individual lake, stream, or ocean. standards. As a result, while the total The typical U.S. consumer eating a wide Total Chlorine—We were not able to ecological benefits of the proposed rule variety of fish from restaurants and quantify the benefits associated with are likely to be modest, areas near grocery stores is not in danger of reductions in total chlorine emissions. facilities with boilers may enjoy more consuming harmful levels of Total chlorine is a combination of significant ecological benefits under the methylmercury from fish and is not hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas. The proposed replacement standards than advised to limit fish consumption. replacement standards proposed today areas near facilities that have already Those who regularly and frequently are expected to reduce total chlorine complied with the 2002 Interim consume large amounts of fish, either emissions by 2,638 tons. Hydrogen standards. marine or freshwater, are more exposed. chloride is corrosive to the eyes, skin, Because the developing fetus may be the and mucous membranes. Acute Mercury, lead, and chlorides are most sensitive to the effects from inhalation can cause eye, nose, and among the HAPs that can cause damage methylmercury, women of child-bearing respiratory tract irritation and to the health and visual appearance of

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21358 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

plants.315 While the total value of forest Assessment we conducted a waste the benefits are not monetized. health is difficult to estimate, visible minimization analysis to inform the Specifically, ecological benefits, and deterioration in the health of forests and expected price change. The analysis human health benefits associated with plants can cause a measurable change in concluded that the demand for reductions in chlorine, mercury, and recreation behavior. Several studies that combustion is relatively inelastic. While lead are not quantified or monetized. In measure the change in outdoor a variety of waste minimization some locations these benefits may be recreation behavior according to forest alternatives are available for managing significant. In addition, specific sub- health are available to place a value on hazardous waste streams that are populations near combustion facilities, aesthetic degradation of forests.316 currently combusted, the costs of these including children and minority Although these studies are available, alternatives generally exceed the cost of populations, may be disproportionately additional research is needed to fully combustion. When the additional costs affected by environmental risks and may understand the effects of these HAPs on of compliance with the MACT standards therefore enjoy more significant the forest ecosystem. Thus, these are taken into account, waste benefits. For a complete discussion of benefits are not quantified in this minimization alternatives still tend to the methodology, data, findings, and analysis. exceed the higher combustion costs. limitations associated with our benefits Emissions that are sufficient to cause This inelasticity suggests that, in the analysis the reader is encouraged to structural and aesthetic damage to short term, large reductions in waste review the Assessment and Addendum vegetation are likely to affect growth as quantities are not likely. However, over documents, as identified under Part well. Little research has been done on the longer term (i.e., as production Five, Section I. systems are updated), companies may the effects of compounds such as IX. How Does the Proposed Rule Meet continue to seek alternatives to chlorine, heavy metals (as air the RCRA Protectiveness Mandate? pollutants), and PM on agricultural expensive waste-management (i.e., productivity.317 Even though the source reduction). To the extent that As discussed in more detail below, we potential for visible damage and increases in combustion prices provide believe today’s proposed standards, production decline from metals and additional incentive to adopt more based on evaluating estimated emissions other pollutants suggests the proposed efficient processes, the proposed from sources, are generally protective. replacement standards could increase replacement standards may contribute We therefore propose that these agricultural productivity, these changes to the longer term process based waste standards apply in lieu of RCRA air cannot be quantified. minimization efforts. emission standards in most instances. No waste minimization impacts are A. Background 3. Waste Minimization Benefits captured in our quantitative analysis of Facilities that burn hazardous waste costs and benefits. A quantitative Section 3004(a) of RCRA requires the and remain in operation following assessment of the benefits associated Agency to promulgate standards for implementation of the replacement with waste minimization may result in hazardous waste treatment, storage, and standards are expected to experience double-counting of some of the benefits disposal facilities as necessary to protect marginally increased costs as a result of described earlier. For example, waste human health and the environment. The the MACT standards. This will result in minimization may reduce emissions of standards for hazardous waste an incentive to pass these increased hazardous air pollutants and therefore incinerators generally rest on this costs on to their customers in the form have a positive effect on public health. authority. In addition, section 3004(q) of higher combustion prices. In the 1999 Furthermore, emission reductions requires the Agency to promulgate beyond those necessary for compliance standards for emissions from facilities 315 Although the primary pollutants which are with the replacement standards are not that burn hazardous waste fuels (e.g., detrimental to vegetation aesthetics and growth are addressed in the benefits assessment. In cement and lightweight aggregate kilns, tropospheric ozone, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen addition, waste minimization is likely to boilers, and hydrochloric acid fluoride, three pollutants which are not regulated in production furnaces) as necessary to the MACT standards, some literature exists on the result in specific types of benefits not relationship between metal deposition and captured in this Assessment. For protect human health and the vegetation health. (Mercury Study Report to example, waste generators that engage environment. Using RCRA authority, the Congress Volume VI, 1997) (Several studies are in waste minimization may experience Agency has historically established cited in this report.) emission (and other) standards for 316 a reduction in their waste handling See, for example, Brown, T.C. et al. 1989, hazardous waste combustors that are Scenic Beauty and Recreation Value: Assessing the costs and could also reduce the risk Relationship, In J. Vining, ed., Social Science and related to waste spills and waste either entirely risk-based (e.g., site- Natural Resources Recreation Management, management. Finally, waste specific standards for metals under the Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado; this work minimization procedures potentially Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule), or studies the relationship between forest are technology-based but determined by characteristics and the value of recreational stimulated by today’s action, as participation. Also see Peterson, D.G. et al. 1987, proposed, may result in additional costs a generic risk assessment to be Improving Accuracy and Reducing Cost of to facilities that implement these protective (e.g., the DRE standard for Environmental Benefit Assessments. Draft Report to technologies. These have not been incinerators and BIFs). the U.S. EPA, by Energy and Resource Consultants, The MACT standards proposed today Boulder, Colorado; Walsh et al. 1990, Estimating assessed in our analysis but are likely to the public benefits of protecting forest quality, at least partially offset corresponding implement the technology-based regime Journal of Forest Management, 30:175–189., and benefits. of CAA section 112. There is, however, Homes et al. 1992, Economic Valuation of Spruce- a residual risk component to air toxics Fir Decline in the Southern Appalachian 4. Conclusion standards. Section 112(f) of the Clean Mountains: A comparison of Value Elicitation Methods. Presented at the Forestry and the Total non-discounted monetized Air Act requires the Agency to impose, Environment: Economic Perspectives Conference, benefits are estimated to range from within eight years after promulgation of March 9–11, 1992 Jasper, Alberta, Canada for $$4.6 million/year to $10.3 million/ the technology-based standards estimates of the WTP of visitors and residents to year. It is important to emphasize that promulgated under section 112(d) (i.e., avoid forest damage. 317 MacKenzie, James J., and Mohamed T. El- monetized benefits represent only a the authority for today’s proposed Ashry, Air Pollution’s Toll on Forests and Crops portion of the total benefits associated standards), additional controls if needed (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989). with this rule. A significant portion of to protect public health with an ample

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21359

margin of safety or to prevent adverse characteristics, meteorology, and environment, public health or safety, or environmental effect. population). In the 1999 rule we State, local, or tribal governments or RCRA section 1006 directs that EPA concluded that the promulgated communities; ‘‘integrate all provisions of [RCRA] for standards were sufficiently protective (2) Create a serious inconsistency or purposes of administration and and the existing RCRA standards for otherwise interfere with an action taken enforcement and . . . avoid duplication, incinerators, cement kilns, and or planned by another agency; to the maximum extent possible, with lightweight aggregate kilns need not be (3) Materially alter the budgetary the appropriate provisions of the Clean retained. Based on the results of impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, Air Act. . . .’’ Thus, although statistical comparisons, we infer or loan programs or the rights and considerations of risk are not ordinarily whether risks for incinerators, cement obligations of recipients thereof; or part of the MACT process, in order to kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues avoid duplicative standards where boilers, and hydrochloric acid arising out of legal mandates, the possible, we have evaluated the production furnaces will be about the President’s priorities, or the principles protectiveness of the standards same, less than, or greater than the risks set forth in the Executive Order. proposed today. estimated for the 1999 rule. We think Pursuant to the terms of Executive As noted above, under RCRA, EPA the comparative analysis lends Order 12866, it has been determined must promulgate standards ‘‘as may be additional support to our view regarding that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory necessary to protect human health and the protectiveness of the proposed action’’ because this action may raise the environment.’’ RCRA section standards.319 novel legal or policy issues due to the 3004(a) and (q). Technology-based We believe today’s proposed standards development methodology standards developed under CAA section standards provide a substantial degree applied in development of the proposed 112 do not automatically satisfy this of protection to human health and the replacement standards. As such, this requirement, but may do so in fact. See environment. We therefore do not action was submitted to OMB for 59 FR at 29776 (June 6, 1994) and 60 FR believe that we need to retain the review. Changes made in response to at 32593 (June 23, 1995) (RCRA existing RCRA standards for boilers and OMB suggestions or recommendations regulation of secondary lead smelter hydrochloric acid production furnaces will be documented in the public emissions unnecessary at this time (just as we found that existing RCRA record. The aggregate annualized social costs given stringency of technology-based standards for incinerators, cement kilns, for this rule are under $100 million standard and pendency of section 112(f) and lightweight aggregate kilns were no (ranging from $41 to $50 million/yr). We determination). If the MACT standards, longer needed after the 1999 rule). have prepared an economic assessment as a factual matter, are sufficiently However, as previously discussed in in support of today’s action. This protective to also satisfy the RCRA more detail in Part Two, Section XVII.D, document is entitled: Assessment of the mandate, then no independent RCRA site-specific risk assessments may be Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other standards are required. Conversely, if warranted on an individual source basis Impacts of the Hazardous Waste MACT standards are inadequate, the to ensure that the MACT standards Combustion MACT Replacement RCRA authorities would have to be used provide adequate protection in Standards—Proposed Rule, March 2004. to fill the gap. accordance with RCRA. This Assessment is designed to adhere B. Assessment of Risks Part Five: Administrative Requirements to analytical requirements established The Agency has conducted an I. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory under Executive Order 12866, and evaluation, for the purposes of satisfying Planning and Review corresponding Agency and OMB the RCRA statutory mandates, of the guidance; subject to data, analytical, and degree of protection afforded by the Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR resource limitations. An Addendum MACT standards being proposed today. 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the Agency entitled: Addendum to the Assessment We have not conducted a must determine whether a regulatory of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and comprehensive risk assessment for this action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste proposal; however, a comprehensive subject to OMB review and the Combustion MACT Replacement risk assessment for incinerators, cement requirements of the Executive Order. Standards—Proposed Rule, March 2004, kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns The Order defines ‘‘significant has also been prepared. This Addendum was conducted for the 1999 MACT rule. regulatory action’’ as one that is likely addresses belated changes made to the For this proposed rule, we are instead to result in a rule that may: final proposed standards that were not comparing characteristics of the sources (1) Have an annual effect on the captured in the Assessment. The RCRA covered by the 1999 rule to the sources economy of $100 million or more or docket established for today’s covered by the replacement rule that are adversely affect in a material way the rulemaking maintains a copy of the related to risk (e.g., emissions318, stack economy, a sector of the economy, Assessment and Addendum documents productivity, competition, jobs, the for public review. Interested persons are 318 We estimated emissions for each facility based encouraged to read both documents for on site-specific stack gas concentrations and flow emitting below the design level, we assumed that rates measured during trial burn or compliance the source would continue to emit at the levels a full understanding of the analytical tests. For sources where stack gas measurements measured in test. For sources emitting above the methodology, findings, and limitations were unavailable, data were imputed by random design level of a standard, we assumed they would associated with this report. Comments selection from a pool of measurements for similar need to reduce emissions to the design level. In the and supporting data are encouraged and units. We assumed that sources would design their 1999 rule, the design level was taken as 70% of the systems to meet an emission level below the standard. For today’s proposed standards, the welcomed. proposed standard. (In the case of dioxin/furan for design level is generally the lower of: (1) 70% of II. Paperwork Reduction Act sources that would not be subject to a numerical the standard; or (2) the arithmetic average of the emission standard, we assumed liquid boilers emissions data of the best performing sources. The information collection without dry air pollution control systems and solid 319 See ‘‘Inferential Risk Analysis in Support of requirements in this proposed rule have fuel-fired boilers were emitting at their baseline Standards for Emissions of Hazardous Air emissions level as portrayed in the data base.) We Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors,’’ been submitted for approval to the called this the ‘‘design level.’’ If available test data prepared under contract to EPA by Research Office of Management and Budget in our data base indicate that the source was Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC. (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21360 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The acquire, install, and utilize technology We have determined that hazardous Information Collection Request (ICR) and systems for the purposes of waste combustion facilities are not document prepared by EPA has been collecting, validating, and verifying owned by small entities (local assigned EPA ICR number 1773.07. information, processing and governments, tribes, etc.) other than EPA is proposing today’s regulations maintaining information, and disclosing businesses. Therefore, only businesses under section 112 of the CAA, to protect and providing information; adjust the were analyzed for small entity impacts. and enhance the quality of our nation’s existing ways to comply with any For the purposes of the impact analyses, air resources, and to promote public previously applicable instructions and small entity is defined either by the health and welfare and the productive requirements; train personnel to be able number of employees or by the dollar capacity of the population. See CAA to respond to a collection of amount of sales. The level at which a section 101(b)(1). To this end, CAA information; search data sources; business is considered small is sections 112(a) and (d) direct EPA to set complete and review the collection of determined for each North American standards for stationary sources emitting information; and transmit or otherwise Industrial Classification System the hazardous air pollutants. The disclose the information. (NAICS) code by the Small Business records and reports required by the An agency may not conduct or Administration. information collection under this sponsor, and a person is not required to Affected individual waste combustors proposal will be used to show respond to a collection of information (incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight compliance with the requirements of the unless it displays a currently valid OMB aggregate kilns, solid and liquid fuel- rule. EPA believes that if these control number. The OMB control fired boilers, and hydrochloric acid minimum requirements specified under numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 production furnaces) will bear the the regulations are not met, EPA will CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. impacts of today’s rule. These units will not fulfill its Congressional mandate to incur direct economic impacts as a To comment on the Agency’s need for protect public health and the result of today’s rule. Few of the this information, the accuracy of the environment. hazardous waste combustion facilities provided burden estimates, and any The information collection required affected by this proposed rule were suggested methods for minimizing under this ICR is mandatory for the found to be owned by small businesses, respondent burden, including the use of regulated sources as it is essential to as defined by the Small Business automated collection techniques, EPA properly enforce the emission limitation Administration (SBA). From our has established a public docket for this requirements of the rule and will be universe of 150 facilities, we identified used to further the proper performance rule, which includes this ICR, under six facilities that are currently owned by of the functions of EPA. EPA has made Docket ID number RCRA–2003–0016. small businesses. Three of these are extensive efforts to integrate the Submit any comments related to the ICR liquid boilers, one is an on-site monitoring, compliance testing and for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. incinerator, one is a cement kiln, and recordkeeping requirements of the CAA See ADDRESSES section at the beginning one is an LWAK. Annualized economic and RCRA, so that the burden on the of this notice for where to submit impacts of the proposed replacement sources is kept to a minimum, and the comments to EPA. Send comments to standards were found to range from 0.01 facilities are able to avoid duplicate and OMB at the Office of Information and percent to 2.23 percent of gross annual unnecessary submissions. We also Regulatory Affairs, Office of corporate revenues. Economic impacts ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, Management and Budget, 725 17th to five of the companies were found to the confidentiality of the submitted Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, be less than one percent, while the sixth information. Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since company was found to experience The projected annual burden under OMB is required to make a decision potential impacts between one and 3 today’s proposal is estimated at 70,199 concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 percent (2.23 percent). These findings hours at a total cost of $5.1 millions. For days after April 20, 2004, a comment to reflect worst-case cost estimates under the hour burden, we estimate a total of OMB is best assured of having its full the Agency Preferred Approach. Actual 2,612 responses from 243 respondents, effect if OMB receives it by May 20, economic impacts are likely to be less or an average of 27 hours per response, 2004. The final rule will respond to any as market adjustments take effect (see or 289 hours per respondent. The cost OMB or public comments on the appendix H of the Assessment and burden to respondents or recordkeepers information collection requirements Assessment of Small Entity Impacts in resulting from the collection of contained in this proposal. the Addendum). information includes a total capital and III. Regulatory Flexibility Act Based on the above findings we start-up cost component, a total believe that one small company with operation and maintenance component The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) potential impacts between one and 3 and a purchase of services component. as amended by the Small Business percent of gross revenues does not The capital and start-up cost component Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of reflect a significant economic impact on is estimated at $36,184 annualized over 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. a substantial number of potentially its expected useful life, and the generally requires an agency to prepare affected small entities. Therefore, after operation and maintenance component a regulatory flexibility analysis of any considering the economic impacts of is estimated at $488,947 annualized rule subject to notice and comment today’s proposed rule on small entities, over its expected useful life. The rulemaking requirements under the I certify that this action will not have a frequency of different responses varies Administrative Procedure Act, or any significant economic impact on a and is monthly or annually for some other statute. This analysis must be substantial number of small entities. and on occasion for others. completed unless the agency is able to The reader is encouraged to review and Burden means the total time, effort, or certify that the rule will not have a comment on our regulatory flexibility financial resources expended by persons significant economic impact on a screening analysis prepared in support to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose substantial number of small entities. of this determination: Regulatory or provide information to or for a Small entities include small businesses, Flexibility Screening Analysis for the Federal agency. This includes the time small not-for-profit enterprises, and Proposed Hazardous Waste Combustion needed to review instructions; develop, small governmental jurisdictions. MACT Replacement Standards. This

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21361

document is incorporated as Appendix governments. Thus, Executive Order the Agency must evaluate the H of the Assessment document. 13132 does not apply to this rule. environmental health or safety effects of Although section 6 of Executive Order the planned rule on children, and IV. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA explain why the planned regulation is Signed into law on March 22, 1995, did include three State representatives preferable to other potentially effective the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act on our Agency workgroup. These and reasonably feasible alternatives (UMRA) calls on all federal agencies to representatives participated in the considered by the Agency. Today’s final provide a statement supporting the need development of this proposed rule. State rule is not subject to the Executive to issue any regulation containing an officials were contacted concerning the Order because it is not economically unfunded federal mandate and methodology used in standards significant as defined under point one of describing prior consultation with development. the Order, and because the Agency does representatives of affected state, local, In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, not have reason to believe the and tribal governments. and consistent with EPA policy to environmental health or safety risks Today’s proposed rule is not subject promote communications between EPA addressed by this action present a to the requirements of sections 202, 204 and State and local governments, EPA disproportionate risk to children. and 205 of UMRA. In general, a rule is specifically solicits comment on this VIII. Executive Order 13211: Actions subject to the requirements of these proposed rule from State and local That Significantly Affect Energy sections if it contains ‘‘Federal officials. mandates’’ that may result in the Supply, Distribution, or Use expenditure by State, local, and tribal VI. Executive Order 13175: This rule is not subject to Executive governments, in the aggregate, or by the Consultation and Coordination With Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning private sector, of $100 million or more Indian Tribal Governments Regulations That Significantly Affect in any one year. Today’s final rule does Executive Order 13175 320: Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 not result in $100 million or more in Consultation and Coordination with FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This rule, as expenditures. The aggregate annualized Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR proposed will not seriously disrupt social cost for today’s rule is estimated 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA energy supply, distribution patterns, to range from $41 to $50 million. to develop an accountable process to prices, imports or exports. Furthermore, this rule is not an economically V. Executive Order 13132: Federalism ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of significant action under Executive Order Executive Order 13132, entitled regulatory policies that have tribal 12866. ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, implications.’’ Our Agency workgroup 1999), requires EPA to develop an IX. National Technology Transfer and for this rulemaking includes Tribal Advancement Act accountable process to ensure representation. We have determined ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State that this rule, as proposed, does not Section 12(d) of the National and local officials in the development of have tribal implications, as specified in Technology Transfer and Advancement regulatory policies that have federalism the Order. No Tribal governments are Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have known to own or operate hazardous 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) federalism implications’’ is defined in waste combustors subject to the directs EPA to use voluntary consensus the Executive Order to include requirements of this proposed rule. standards in its regulatory activities regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Furthermore, this proposed rule focuses unless to do so would be inconsistent effects on the States, on the relationship on requirements for all regulated with applicable law or otherwise between the national government and sources without affecting the impractical. Voluntary consensus the States, or on the distribution of relationships between tribal standards are technical standards (e.g., power and responsibilities among the governments in its implementation, and materials specifications, test methods, various levels of government.’’ applies to all regulated sources, without sampling procedures, and business Under Executive Order 13132, EPA distinction of the surrounding practices) that are developed or adopted may not issue a regulation that has populations affected. Thus, Executive by voluntary consensus standards federalism implications, that imposes Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to substantial direct compliance costs, and EPA specifically solicits additional provide Congress, through OMB, that is not required by statute, unless comment on this proposed rule from explanations when the Agency decides the Federal government provides the tribal officials. not to use available and applicable funds necessary to pay the direct voluntary consensus standards. compliance costs incurred by State and VII. Executive Order 13045: Protection This proposed rulemaking involves local governments, or EPA consults with of Children From Environmental Health environmental monitoring or State and local officials early in the and Safety Risks measurement. Consistent with the process of developing the proposed Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of Agency’s Performance Based regulation. Children from Environmental Health Measurement System (‘‘PBMS’’), EPA This proposed rule does not have Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR. 19885, proposes not to require the use of federalism implications. It will not have April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: specific, prescribed analytic methods. substantial direct effects on the States, (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically Rather, the Agency plans to allow the on the relationship between the national significant’’ as defined under E.O. use of any method that meets the government and the States, or on the 12866, and (2) concerns an prescribed performance criteria. The distribution of power and environmental health or safety risk that PBMS approach is intended to be more responsibilities among the various EPA has reason to believe may have a flexible and cost-effective for the levels of government, as specified in the disproportionate effect on children. If regulated community; it is also intended Order. The proposed rule focuses on the regulatory action meets both criteria, to encourage innovation in analytical requirements for facilities burning technology and improved data quality. hazardous waste, without affecting the 320 Executive Order 13084 is revoked by this EPA is not precluding the use of any relationships between Federal and State Executive Order. method, whether it constitutes a

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21362 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

voluntary consensus standard or not, as within one and five mile radii. The 40 CFR Part 270 long as it meets the performance criteria reduced emissions at these facilities due Environmental protection, specified. to today’s rule could represent Administrative practice and procedure, EPA welcomes comments on this meaningful environmental and health Confidential business information, aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, improvements for these populations. Hazardous materials transportation, specifically, invites the public to Overall, today’s rule should not result in Hazardous waste, Reporting and identify potentially-applicable any adverse or disproportional health or recordkeeping requirements. voluntary consensus standards and to safety effects on minority or low-income explain why such standards should be populations. Any impacts on these 40 CFR Part 271 used in this regulation. populations are likely to be positive due Administrative practice and X. Executive Order 12898: Federal to the reduction in emissions from procedure, Hazardous materials Actions To Address Environmental combustion facilities near minority and transportation, Hazardous waste, Justice in Minority Populations and low-income population groups. The Intergovernmental relations, Reporting Low-Income Populations Assessment document available in the and recordkeeping requirements. RCRA docket established for today’s Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal Dated: March 31, 2004. rule presents the full Environmental Michael O. Leavitt, Actions To Address Environmental Justice Analysis. Justice in Minority Populations and Administrator. Low-Income Populations’’ (February 11, XI. Congressional Review For the reasons set out in the 1994) requires us to complete an preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code analysis of today’s rule with regard to The Congressional Review Act (CRA), of Federal Regulations is proposed to be equity considerations. The Order is 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the amended as follows: designed to address the environmental Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and human health conditions of Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION minority and low-income populations. that before a rule may take effect, the STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR This section briefly discusses potential agency promulgating the rule must POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE impacts (direct or disproportional) submit a rule report, which includes a CATEGORIES today’s rule may have in the area of copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General 1. The authority citation for part 63 environmental justice. continues to read as follows: To comply with the Executive Order, of the United States. Prior to publication we have assessed whether today’s rule of the final rule in the Federal Register, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. may have negative or disproportionate we will submit all necessary 2. Section 63.1200 is amended by effects on minority or low-income information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. revising the introductory text and populations. We have recently analyzed House of Representatives, and the paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: demographic data from the U.S. Census. Comptroller General of the United States. Under the CRA, a major rule § 63.1200 Who is subject to these Previously we examined data from two regulations? other reports: ‘‘Race, Ethnicity, and cannot take effect until 60 days after it Poverty Status of the Populations Living is published in the Federal Register. As The provisions of this subpart apply Near Cement Plants in the United proposed, this action is not a ‘‘major to all hazardous waste combustors: States’’ (EPA, August 1994) and ‘‘Race, rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). incinerators that burn hazardous waste, cement kilns that burn hazardous waste, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status of the List of Subjects Populations Living Near Hazardous lightweight aggregate kilns that burn Waste Incinerators in the United States’’ 40 CFR Part 63 hazardous waste, solid fuel-fired boilers (EPA, October 1994). These reports that burn hazardous waste, liquid fuel- Environmental protection, Air fired boilers that burn hazardous waste, examine the number of low-income and pollution control, Hazardous and hydrochloric acid production minority individuals living near a substances, Incorporation by reference, furnaces that burn hazardous waste. relatively large sample of cement kilns Reporting and recordkeeping Hazardous waste combustors are also and hazardous waste incinerators and requirements. subject to applicable requirements provide county, state, and national under parts 260–270 of this chapter. population percentages for various sub- 40 CFR Part 264 (a) * * * populations. The demographic data in (2) Both area sources and major these reports provide several important Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, sources subject to this subpart, but not findings when examined in conjunction previously subject to title V, are with the risk reductions projected from Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping immediately subject to the requirement today’s rule. to apply for and obtain a title V permit We find that combustion facilities, in requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds. in all States, and in areas covered by general, are not located in areas with part 71 of this chapter. disproportionately high minority and 40 CFR Part 265 * * * * * low-income populations. However, 3. Section 63.1201 is amended in there is evidence that hazardous waste Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, paragraph (a) by revising the definition burning cement kilns are somewhat ‘‘ Insurance, Packaging and containers, of New source’’, and adding definitions more likely to be located in areas that ‘‘ Reporting and recordkeeping for Hydrochloric acid production have relatively higher low-income ‘‘ requirements. furnace’’, Liquid fuel-fired boiler’’, and populations. Furthermore, there are a ‘‘Solid fuel-fired boiler’’ in alphabetical small number of commercial hazardous 40 CFR Part 266 order to read as follows: waste incinerators located in highly urbanized areas where there is a Environmental protection, Energy, § 63.1201 Definitions and acronyms used disproportionately high concentration of Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting in this subpart. minorities and low-income populations and recordkeeping requirements. (a) * * *

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21363

Hydrochloric acid production furnace paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B)(2) of this section. final rule in the Federal Register]. As and HCl production furnace mean a The costs of retrofitting and replacement provided by § 63.6(b)(7), such sources halogen acid furnace defined in § 260.10 of equipment that is installed must comply with the standards under of this chapter that produces aqueous specifically to comply with this subpart, §§ 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221 at hydrochloric acid (HCl) product and between April 19, 1996 and a source’s startup. that burns hazardous waste at any time. compliance date, are not considered to (2) Compliance dates for solid fuel- * * * * * be reconstruction costs. fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers, Liquid fuel-fired boiler and liquid (2) For a standard under §§ 63.1203, and hydrogen chloride production boiler mean a boiler defined in § 260.10 63.1204, and 63.1205 that is more furnaces that burn hazardous waste for of this chapter that does not burn solid stringent than the standard proposed on standards under §§ 63.1216, 63.1217, fuels and that burns hazardous waste at April 19, 1996, you may achieve and 63.1218.—(i) Compliance date for any time. Liquid fuel-fired boiler compliance no later than September 30, existing sources. You must comply with includes boilers that only burn gaseous 2003 if you comply with the standard the standards of this subpart no later fuels. proposed on April 19, 1996 after than the compliance date, [date three September 30, 1999. This exception years after date of publication of the * * * * * does not apply, however, to new or final rule in the Federal Register], New source means any affected source reconstructed area source hazardous unless the Administrator grants you an the construction or reconstruction of waste combustors that become major extension of time under § 63.6(i) or which is commenced after the dates sources after September 30, 1999. As § 63.1213. specified under §§ 63.1206(a)(1)(i)(B), provided by § 63.6(b)(7), such sources (ii) New or reconstructed sources. (A) (a)(1)(ii)(B), and (a)(2)(ii). must comply with the standards under If you commenced construction or * * * * * §§ 63.1203, 63.1204, and 63.1205 at reconstruction of your hazardous waste Solid fuel-fired boiler and solid boiler startup. combustor after April 20, 2004, you mean a boiler defined in § 260.10 of this (ii) Compliance date for standards must comply with this subpart by the chapter that burns a solid fuel and that under §§ 63.1219, 63.1220, and later of [date of publication of the final burns hazardous waste at any time. 63.1221—(A) Compliance dates for rule in the Federal Register] or the date * * * * * existing sources. You must comply with the source starts operations, except as 4. Section 63.1206 is amended by: the emission standards under provided by paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) of a. Revising paragraph (a). §§ 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221 and this section. The costs of retrofitting and b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(6) the other requirements of this subpart replacement of equipment that is introductory text, (b)(7)(i)(A), (b)(9)(i) no later than the compliance date, [date installed specifically to comply with introductory text, (b)(10)(i) introductory three years after date of publication of this subpart, between April 20, 2004, text, (b)(11), (b)(13)(i) introductory text, the final rule in the Federal Register], and a source’s compliance date, are not and (b)(3)(ii). unless the Administrator grants you an considered to be reconstruction costs. c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) extension of time under § 63.6(i) or (B) For a standard in the subpart that introductory text and (c)(7)(ii) § 63.1213. is more stringent than the standard introductory text. (B) New or reconstructed sources. (1) proposed on April 20, 2004, you may d. Adding paragraphs (c)(7)(ii)(C) and If you commenced construction or achieve compliance no later than [date (c)(7)(iii). reconstruction of your hazardous waste three years after date of publication of The revisions and additions read as combustor after April 20, 2004, you the final rule in the Federal Register] if follows: must comply with the emission you comply with the standard proposed standards under §§ 63.1219, 63.1220, on April 20, 2004, after [date of § 63.1206 When and how must you comply and 63.1221 and the other requirements publication of the final rule in the with the standards and operating of this subpart by the later of [date of Federal Register]. This exception does requirements? publication of the final rule in the not apply, however, to new or (a) Compliance dates. (1) Compliance Federal Register] or the date the source reconstructed area source hazardous dates for incinerators, cement kilns, and starts operations, except as provided by waste combustors that become major lightweight aggregate kilns that burn paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(2) of this section. sources after [date three years after date hazardous waste—(i) Compliance date The costs of retrofitting and replacement of publication of the final rule in the for standards under §§ 63.1203, of equipment that is installed Federal Register]. As provided by 63.1204, and 63.1205—(A) Compliance specifically to comply with this subpart, § 63.6(b)(7), such sources must comply dates for existing sources. You must between April 20, 2004, and a source’s with this subpart at startup. comply with the emission standards compliance date, are not considered to (3) Early compliance. If you choose to under §§ 63.1203, 63.1204, and 63.1205 be reconstruction costs. comply with the emission standards of and the other requirements of this (2) For a standard under §§ 63.1219, this subpart prior to the dates specified subpart no later than the compliance 63.1220, and 63.1221 that is more in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this date, September 30, 2003, unless the stringent than the standard proposed on section, your compliance date is the Administrator grants you an extension April 20, 2004, you may achieve earlier of the date you postmark the of time under § 63.6(i) or § 63.1213. compliance no later than [date three Notification of Compliance under (B) New or reconstructed sources. (1) years after date of publication of the § 63.1207(j)(1) or the dates specified in If you commenced construction or final rule in the Federal Register] if you paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this reconstruction of your hazardous waste comply with the standard proposed on section. combustor after April 19, 1996, you April 20, 2004, after [date of publication (b) * * * must comply with the emission of the final rule in the Federal Register]. (1) * * * standards under §§ 63.1203, 63.1204, This exception does not apply, however, (ii) When hazardous waste is not in and 63.1205 and the other requirements to new or reconstructed area source the combustion chamber (i.e., the of this subpart by the later of September hazardous waste combustors that hazardous waste feed to the combustor 30, 1999 or the date the source starts become major sources after [date three has been cut off for a period of time not operations, except as provided by years after date of publication of the less than the hazardous waste residence

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21364 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

time) and you have documented in the Notification of Compliance under cutoff system under paragraph (c)(3) of operating record that you are complying §§ 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d). this section, you must continuously with all otherwise applicable * * * * * operate a particulate matter detection requirements and standards (13) * * * system that meets the specifications and promulgated under authority of sections (i) Cement kilns that feed hazardous requirements of paragraph (c)(7)(iii)(A) 112 (e.g., subparts LLL, NNNNN, waste at a location other than the end of this section and you must comply DDDDD) or 129 of the Clean Air Act in where products are normally discharged with the corrective measures lieu of the emission standards under and where fuels are normally fired must requirements of paragraph (c)(7)(iii)(B) §§ 63.1203, 63.1204, 63.1205, 63.1215, comply with the carbon monoxide and of this section. 63.1216, 63.1217, 63.1218, 63.1219, and hydrocarbon standards of this subpart as (A) Particulate matter detection 63.1220; the monitoring and compliance follows: system requirements.—(1) The standards of this section and §§ 63.1207 * * * * * particulate matter detection system through 63.1209, except the modes of (ii) Lightweight aggregate kilns that must be certified by the manufacturer to operation requirements of § 63.1209(q); feed hazardous waste at a location other be capable of continuously detecting and the notification, reporting, and than the end where products are and recording particulate matter recordkeeping requirements of normally discharged and where fuels emissions at the loadings you expect to §§ 63.1210 through 63.1212. are normally fired must comply with the achieve during the comprehensive * * * * * hydrocarbon standards of this subpart as performance test; (2) The particulate matter detector follows: (6) Compliance with the carbon shall provide output of relative or monoxide and hydrocarbon emission (A) Existing sources must comply with the 20 parts per million by volume absolute particulate matter loadings; standards. This paragraph applies to (3) The particulate matter detection hydrocarbon standard of this subpart; sources that elect to comply with the system shall be equipped with an alarm carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon (B) New sources must comply with the 20 parts per million by volume system that will sound an audible alarm emissions standards of this subpart by when an increase in relative or absolute hydrocarbon standard of this subpart. documenting continuous compliance particulate loadings is detected over the with the carbon monoxide standard * * * * * set-point using a continuous emissions (c) * * * (1) * * * (i) You must (4) You must install and operate the monitoring system and documenting operate only under the operating particulate matter detection system in a compliance with the hydrocarbon requirements specified in the manner consistent with available standard during the destruction and Documentation of Compliance under written guidance from the U.S. removal efficiency (DRE) performance § 63.1211(d) or the Notification of Environmental Protection Agency or, in test or its equivalent. Compliance under §§ 63.1207(j) and the absence of such written guidance, 63.1210(d), except: * * * * * the manufacturer’s written * * * * * (7) * * * (i) * * * specifications and recommendations for (7) * * * installation, operation, and adjustment (A) You must document compliance (ii) Bag leak detection system of the system; with the Destruction and Removal requirements. If your combustor is (5) You must establish the alarm set- Efficiency (DRE) standard under this equipped with a baghouse (fabric filter), point as the average detector response of subpart only once provided that you do you must continuously operate a bag the test run averages achieved during not modify the source after the DRE test leak detection system that meets the the comprehensive performance test in a manner that could affect the ability specifications and requirements of demonstrating compliance with the of the source to achieve the DRE paragraph (c)(7)(ii)(A) of this section particulate matter emission standard. standard. and you must comply with the You must comply with the alarm set- * * * * * corrective measures requirements of point on a 6-hour rolling average, (9) * * * (i) You may petition the paragraph (c)(7)(ii)(B) of this section. updated each hour with a one-hour Administrator to recommend alternative * * * * * block average that is the average of the semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, (C) Excessive exceedances detector responses over each 15-minute mercury, or hydrogen chloride/chlorine notification. If you operate the block. gas emission standards under § 63.1205 combustor when the detector response (6) Where multiple detectors are if: exceeds the alarm set-point more than 5 required to monitor multiple control * * * * * percent of the time during any 6-month devices, the system’s instrumentation block time period, you must submit a and alarm system may be shared among (10) * * * (i) You may petition the notification to the Administrator within the detectors. Administrator to recommend alternative 5 days that describes the causes of the (B) Particulate matter detection semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, exceedances and the revisions to the system corrective measures mercury, or hydrogen chloride/chlorine design, operation, or maintenance of the requirements. The operating and gas emission standards under § 63.1204 combustor or baghouse you are taking to maintenance plan required by paragraph if: minimize exceedances. (c)(7)(i) of this section must include a * * * * * (iii) Particulate matter detection corrective measures plan that specifies (11) Calculation of hazardous waste system requirements for electrostatic the procedures you will follow in the residence time. You must calculate the precipitators and ionizing wet case of a particulate matter detection hazardous waste residence time and scrubbers. If your combustor is system alarm. The corrective measures include the calculation in the equipped with an electrostatic plan must include, at a minimum, the performance test plan under § 63.1207(f) precipitator or ionizing wet scrubber, procedures used to determine and and the operating record. You must also and you elect not to establish under record the time and cause of the alarm provide the hazardous waste residence § 63.1209(m)(1)(iv) site-specific as well as the corrective measures taken time in the Documentation of operating parameter limits that are to correct the control device Compliance under § 63.1211(d) and the linked to the automatic waste feed malfunction or minimize emissions as

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21365

specified below. Failure to initiate the operating conditions that are most likely 71.11(d)(3)(i)(E) and 124.10(c)(1)(ix)) corrective measures required by this to maximize dioxin/furan emissions, announcing the approval of the test paragraph is failure to ensure similar to a dioxin/furan compliance plans and the location where the test compliance with the emission standards test. plans are available for review. The test in this subpart. (i) You must conduct the dioxin/furan plans must be accessible to the public (1) You must initiate the procedures emissions test no later than the deadline for 60 calendar days, beginning on the used to determine the cause of the alarm for conducting the initial date that you issue your public notice. within 30 minutes of the time the alarm comprehensive performance test. The location must be unrestricted and first sounds; and (ii) You may use dioxin/furan provide access to the public during (2) You must alleviate the cause of the emissions data from previous testing to reasonable hours and provide a means alarm by taking the necessary corrective meet this requirement, provided that: for the public to obtain copies. The measure(s) which may include shutting (A) The testing was conducted under notification must include the following down the combustor. feed and operating conditions that are information at a minimum: (C) Excessive exceedances most likely to maximize dioxin/furan (i) The name and telephone number of notification. If you operate the emissions, similar to a dioxin/furan the source’s contact person; combustor when the detector response compliance test; (ii) The name and telephone number exceeds the alarm set-point more than 5 (B) You have not changed the design of the regulatory agency’s contact percent of the time during any 6-month or operation of the boiler in a manner person; block time period, you must submit a that could significantly affect stack gas (iii) The location where the approved notification to the Administrator within dioxin/furan emission concentrations; test plans and any necessary supporting 5 days that describes the causes of the and documentation can be reviewed and exceedances and the revisions to the (C) The data meet quality assurance copied; design, operation, or maintenance of the objectives that may be determined on a (iv) The time period for which the test combustor or electrostatic precipitator site-specific basis. plans will be available for public or ionizing wet scrubber you are taking (iii) You may use dioxin/furan review; and to minimize exceedances. emissions data from a boiler to represent (v) An expected time period for 5. Section 63.1207 is amended by: emissions from another on-site boiler in commencement and completion of the a. Revising paragraph (b)(1). lieu of testing (i.e., data in lieu of performance test and CMS performance b. Adding paragraph (b)(3). testing) if the design and operation, evaluation test. c. Revising paragraph (c)(1). including fuels and hazardous waste (3) * * * d. Adding paragraph (c)(3). feed, of the boilers are identical. (iv) Public notice. At the same time e. Revising paragraphs (e)(2) and (iv) You must include the results of that you submit your petition to the (e)(3)(iv). the one-time dioxin/furan emissions test Administrator, you must notify the f. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(D ), with the results of the initial public (e.g., distribute a notice to the (f)(1)(xiii), and (f)(1)(xiv). comprehensive performance test in the facility/public mailing list developed g. Adding paragraph (f)(1)(xv). Notification of Compliance. pursuant to 40 CFR 70.7(h), h. Revising paragraphs (j)(1)(ii) and (v) You must repeat the dioxin/furan 71.11(d)(3)(i)(E) and 124.10(c)(1)(ix)) of (j)(3). emissions test if you change the design your petition to waive a performance i. Revising paragraph (l)(1) or operation of the source in a manner test. The notification must include all of introductory text. that may increase dioxin/furan the following information at a The revisions and additions read as emissions. minimum: follows: (c) * * * (1) Test date. Except as (A) The name and telephone number provided by paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of the source’s contact person; § 63.1207 What are the performance (B) The name and telephone number testing requirements? of this section, you must commence the of the regulatory agency’s contact initial comprehensive performance test * * * * * person; not later than six months after the (b) * * * (C) The date the source submitted its compliance date. (1) Comprehensive performance test. site-specific performance test plan and You must conduct comprehensive * * * * * CMS performance evaluation test plans; performance tests to demonstrate (3) For incinerators, cement kilns, and and compliance with the emission standards lightweight aggregate kilns, you must (D) The length of time requested for provided by the subpart, establish limits commence the initial comprehensive the waiver. for the operating parameters provided performance test to demonstrate (f) * * * by § 63.1209, and demonstrate compliance with the standards under (1) * * * compliance with the performance §§ 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221 not (ii) * * * specifications for continuous later than 12 months after the (D) The Administrator may approve monitoring systems. compliance date. on a case-by-case basis a hazardous * * * * * * * * * * waste feedstream analysis for organic (3) One-Time Dioxin/Furan Test for (e) * * * hazardous air pollutants in lieu of the Boilers Not Subject to a Numerical (2) After the Administrator has analysis required under paragraph Dioxin/Furan Standard. For boilers that approved the site-specific test plan and (f)(1)(ii)(A) of this section if the reduced are not subject to a numerical dioxin/ CMS performance evaluation test plan, analysis is sufficient to ensure that the furan emission standard under but no later than 60 calendar days POHCs used to demonstrate compliance §§ 63.1216 and 63.1217—solid fuel-fired before initiation of the test, you must with the applicable DRE standards of boilers, and those liquid fuel-fired make the test plans available to the this subpart continue to be boilers that are not equipped with a dry public for review. You must issue a representative of the organic hazardous particulate matter control device—you public notice to all persons on your air pollutants in your hazardous waste must conduct a one-time emission test facility/public mailing list (developed feedstreams; for dioxin/furan under feed and pursuant to 40 CFR 70.7(h), * * * * *

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21366 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

(xiii) For cement kilns with in-line Administrator determines may emit e. Revising paragraph (l)(1). raw mills, if you elect to use the carbonaceous particulate matter that f. Revising paragraph (m)(1)(iv) emissions averaging provision of this may bias Method 23 results, you may introductory text. subpart, you must notify the use Method 23 only upon the g. Revising paragraph (n)(2). Administrator of your intent in the Administrator’s approval. In h. Revising paragraph (o)(1). initial (and subsequent) comprehensive determining whether to grant approval i. Revising paragraph (q)(1)(ii). performance test plan, and provide the to use Method 23, the Administrator The revisions read as follows: information required by the emission may consider factors including whether § 63.1209 What are the monitoring averaging provision; dioxin/furan are detected at levels requirements? (xiv) For preheater or preheater/ substantially below the emission (a) * * * (1) * * * precalciner cement kilns with dual standard, and whether previous Method (ii) * * * stacks, if you elect to use the emissions 0023 analyses detected low levels of (A) You must maintain and operate averaging provision of this subpart, you dioxin/furan in the front half. each COMS in accordance with the must notify the Administrator of your * * * * * requirements of § 63.8(c) except for the intent in the initial (and subsequent) (5) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine requirements under § 63.8(c)(3). The comprehensive performance test plan, gas—(i) Compliance with MACT requirements of § 63.1211(d) shall be and provide the information required by standards. To determine compliance complied with instead of § 63.8(c)(3); the emission averaging provision; with the emission standard for hydrogen and (xv) If you request to use Method 23 chloride and chlorine gas (combined), * * * * * for dioxin/furan you must provide the you must use: (iv) * * * information required under (A) Method 26/26A as provided in (D) To remain in compliance, all six- § 63.1208(b)(1)(i)(B); appendix A, part 60 of this chapter; or minute block averages must not exceed * * * * * (B) Methods 320 or 321 as provided the opacity standard. (j) * * * (1) * * * in appendix A, part 60 of this chapter, (v) * * * (ii) Upon postmark of the Notification or ASTM D 6735–01, Test Method for (D) To remain in compliance, all six- of Compliance, you must comply with Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and minute block averages must not exceed all operating requirements specified in Fluorides from Mineral Calcining the opacity standard. the Notification of Compliance in lieu of Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method to * * * * * the limits specified in the measure emissions of hydrogen (f) * * * Documentation of Compliance required chloride, and Method 26/26A to (1) Section 63.8(c)(3). The under § 63.1211(d). measure emissions of chlorine gas. requirements of § 63.1211(d), that (ii) Compliance with risk-based limits * * * * * requires CMSs to be installed, under § 63.1215. To demonstrate (3) See §§ 63.7(g), 63.9(h), and calibrated, and operational on the compliance with emission limits 63.1210(d) for additional requirements compliance date, shall be complied with established under § 63.1215, you must pertaining to the Notification of instead of § 63.8(c)(3). use Methods 26/26A, 320,or 321, or Compliance (e.g., you must include * * * * * ASTM D 6735–01, Test Method for results of performance tests in the (g) * * * Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Notification of Compliance). (1) Requests to use alternatives to Fluorides from Mineral Calcining * * * * * operating parameter monitoring Exhaust Sources—Impinger Method, requirements. (i) You may submit an (l) Failure of performance test—(1) except: Comprehensive performance test. The application to the Administrator or State (A) For cement kilns and sources with an approved Title V program under provisions of this paragraph do not equipped with a dry acid gas scrubber, apply to the initial comprehensive this paragraph for approval of you must use Methods 320 or 321, or alternative operating parameter performance test if you conduct the test ASTM D 6735–01 to measure hydrogen prior to your compliance date. monitoring requirements to document chloride, and the back-half, caustic compliance with the emission standards * * * * * impingers of Method 26/26A to measure of this subpart. For requests to use 6. Section 63.1208 is amended by chlorine gas; and additional CEMS, however, you must revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(5) to (B) For incinerators, boilers, and use paragraph (a)(5) of this section and read as follows: lightweight aggregate kilns, you must § 63.8(f). use Methods 320 or 321, or ASTM D § 63.1208 What are the test methods? 6735–01 to measure hydrogen chloride, * * * * * * * * * * and Method 26/26A to measure total (k) * * * (1) * * * (i) For sources other than a (b) * * * chlorine, and calculate chlorine gas by lightweight aggregate kiln, if the (1) * * * (i) To determine compliance difference if: with the emission standard for dioxins (1) The bromine/chlorine ratio in combustor is equipped with an and furans, you must use: feedstreams is greater than 5 percent; or electrostatic precipitator, baghouse (A) Method 0023A, Sampling Method (2) The sulfur/chlorine ratio in (fabric filter), or other dry emissions for Polychlorinated Dibenzp-p-Dioxins feedstreams is greater than 50 percent. control device where particulate matter is suspended in contact with and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans * * * * * combustion gas, you must establish a emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA 7. Section 63.1209 is amended by: Publication SW–846, as incorporated by a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A), limit on the maximum temperature of reference in paragraph (a) of this (a)(1)(iv)(D), and (a)(1)(v)(D). the gas at the inlet to the device on an section; or b. Revising paragraph (f)(1). hourly rolling average. You must (B) Method 23, provided in appendix c. Revising the heading of paragraph establish the hourly rolling average limit A, part 60 of this chapter, except that for (g)(1) introductory text and paragraph as the average of the test run averages. coal-fired boilers, sources equipped (g)(1)(i). * * * * * with an activated carbon injection d. Revising paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (2) * * * (i) For sources other than system, and other sources that the (k)(2)(i). cement kilns, you must measure the

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21367

temperature of each combustion (A) You must calculate a mercury (2) Whether the extrapolated feedrates chamber at a location that best system removal efficiency for each test you request are warranted considering represents, as practicable, the bulk gas run as [1—mercury emission rate (g/s) / historical metal feedrate data. temperature in the combustion zone. mercury feedrate (g/s)], and calculate (B) The Administrator will review the You must document the temperature the average system removal efficiency of performance test results in making a measurement location in the test plan the test run averages, except if your finding of compliance required by you submit under §§ 63.1207(e) and (f); source is not equipped with a control §§ 63.6(f)(3) and 63.1206(b)(3) to ensure * * * * * system that consistently and that you have interpreted the (l) * * * reproducibly controls mercury performance test results properly and (1) Feedrate of mercury. (i) For emissions, you must assume zero the extrapolation procedure is incinerators, cement kilns, and system removal efficiency. If emissions appropriate for your source. lightweight aggregate kilns, when exceed the mercury emission standard, * * * * * complying with the mercury emission it is not a violation because compliance (m) * * * standards under §§ 63.1203, 63.1204, with the mercury emission standard, (1) * * * and 63.1205, and for solid fuel-fired which is derived from normal emissions (iv) Other particulate matter control boilers, you must establish a 12-hour data, is based on compliance with the devices. For each particulate matter rolling average limit for the total hazardous waste mercury thermal control device that is not a fabric filter feedrate of mercury in all feedstreams as concentration limit on an annual rolling or high energy wet scrubber, or is not an the average of the test run averages. average. electrostatic precipitator or ionizing wet (ii) For incinerators, cement kilns, and (B) You must calculate the annual scrubber for which you elect to monitor lightweight aggregate kilns, when average hazardous waste mercury particulate matter loadings under complying with the mercury emission thermal concentration limit as the § 63.1206(c)(7)(iii) of this chapter for standards under §§ 63.1219, 63.1220, mercury emission standard (lb/MM Btu) process control, you must ensure that and 63.1221, you must establish an divided by the system removal the control device is properly operated annual rolling average limit for the total efficiency. The hazardous waste thermal and maintained as required by feedrate of mercury in all feedstreams as concentration limit is expressed as: lb § 63.1206(c)(7) and by monitoring the follows: mercury in hazardous waste feedstreams operation of the control device as (A) You must calculate a mercury per million Btu of hazardous waste. follows: system removal efficiency for each test (C) You must comply with the annual * * * * * run as [1—mercury emission rate (g/s) / average hazardous waste mercury (n) * * * mercury feedrate (g/s)], and calculate thermal concentration limit by (2) Maximum feedrate of semivolatile the average system removal efficiency of measuring the feedrate of mercury in all and low volatile metals—(i) General. the test run averages, except if your hazardous waste feedstreams (lb/s) and You must establish feedrate limits for source is not equipped with a control the hazardous waste thermal feedrate semivolatile metals (cadmium and lead) system that consistently and (MM Btu/s) at least once a minute to and low volatile metals (arsenic, reproducibly controls mercury calculate a 60-minute average thermal beryllium, and chromium) as follows, emissions, you must assume zero emission concentration as [hazardous except as provided by paragraph system removal efficiency. If emissions waste mercury feedrate (g/s) / hazardous (n)(2)(vii) of this section. exceed the mercury emission standard, waste thermal feedrate (MM Btu/s)]. (ii) For incinerators, cement kilns, and it is not a violation because compliance lightweight aggregate kilns, when (D) You must calculate an annual with these mercury emission standards, complying with the emission standards rolling average hazardous waste which are derived from normal under §§ 63.1203, 63.1204, 63.1205, and mercury thermal concentration that is emissions data, is based on compliance 63.1219 and for solid fuel-fired boilers, updated each hour. with the mercury feedrate limit on an you must establish 12-hour rolling annual rolling average. (iv) Extrapolation of feedrate levels. average limits for the total feedrate of (B) You must calculate the annual (A) In lieu of establishing mercury semivolatile and low volatile metals in average mercury feedrate limit as the feedrate limits as specified in all feedstreams as the average of the test mercury emission standard (µg/m 3) paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii) of this run averages and as specified in divided by the system removal section, you may request as part of the paragraph (n)(2)(iv) of this section. efficiency. The feedrate limit is performance test plan under §§ 63.6(b) (iii) For cement kilns, when expressed as an emission concentration, and (c) and §§ 63.1207 (e) and (f) to use complying with the emission standards µg mercury/m 3 of stack gas. the mercury feedrates and associated under § 63.1220, you must establish 12- (C) You must comply with the emission rates during the hour rolling average feedrate limits for emission concentration-based annual comprehensive performance test to semivolatile and low volatile metals as average mercury feedrate limit by extrapolate to higher allowable feedrate the thermal concentration of measuring the mercury feedrate (g/s) limits and emission rates. The semivolatile metals or low volatile and the stack gas flowrate (m 3/s) at least extrapolation methodology will be metals in all hazardous waste once a minute to calculate a 60-minute reviewed and approved, as warranted, feedstreams. You must calculate average emission concentration-based by the Administrator. The review will hazardous waste thermal concentrations feedrate as [mercury feedrate (g/s) / gas consider in particular whether: for semivolatile metals and low volatile flowrate (m 3/s)]. (1) Performance test metal feedrates metals for each run as the total mass (D) You must calculate an annual are appropriate (i.e., whether feedrates feedrate of semivolatile metals or low rolling average mercury feedrate that is are at least at normal levels; depending volatile metals for all hazardous waste updated each hour. on the heterogeneity of the waste, feedstreams divided by the total heat (iii) For liquid fuel-fired boilers, you whether some level of spiking would be input rate for all hazardous waste must establish an annual rolling average appropriate; and whether the physical feedstreams. The 12-hour rolling hazardous waste mercury thermal form and species of spiked material is average feedrate limits for semivolatile concentration limit, as follows: appropriate); and metals and low volatile metals are the

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21368 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

average of the hazardous waste thermal feedstreams (lb/s) and the hazardous (C) Whether you have interpreted the concentrations for the runs. waste thermal feedrate (MM Btu/s) at performance test results properly and (iv) Lightweight aggregate kilns under least once a minute to calculate a 60- the extrapolation procedure is § 63.1221—(A) Existing sources. When minute average thermal emission appropriate for your source. complying with the emission standards concentration as [hazardous waste * * * * * under § 63.1221, you must establish semivolatile metals feedrate (g/s) / (o) * * * semivolatile metal and low volatile hazardous waste thermal feedrate (MM metal feedrate limits as 12-hour rolling Btu/s)]. (1) Feedrate of total chlorine and average feedrate limits and 12-hour (4) You must calculate an annual chloride—(i) Incinerators, cement kilns, rolling average hazardous waste thermal rolling average hazardous waste lightweight aggregate kilns, solid fuel- concentrations as specified in semivolatile metals thermal fired boilers, and hydrochloric acid paragraphs (n)(2)(ii) and (iii). You must concentration that is updated each hour. production furnaces. You must establish comply with both feedrate limits for (B) For low volatile metals, you must 12-hour rolling average limit for the semivolatile metals and low volatile establish 12-hour rolling average total feedrate of chlorine (organic and metals. feedrate limits for chromium as the inorganic) in all feedstreams as the (B) New sources. When complying thermal concentration of chromium in average of the test run averages. with the emission standards under all hazardous waste feedstreams. You (ii) Liquid fuel-fired boilers. You must § 63.1221, you must establish must calculate a hazardous waste establish a 12-hour rolling average limit semivolatile metal and low volatile thermal concentration for chromium for for the feedrate of chlorine (organic and metal feedrate limits as 12-hour rolling each run as the total mass feedrate of inorganic) as the thermal concentration average hazardous waste thermal chromium for all hazardous waste of chlorine in all hazardous waste concentrations as specified in feedstreams divided by the total heat feedstreams. You must calculate a paragraphs (n)(2)(ii) and (iii). input rate for all hazardous waste hazardous waste thermal concentration (v) Liquid fuel-fired boilers. (A) For feedstreams. The 12-hour rolling for chlorine for each run as the total semivolatile metals, you must establish average feedrate limit for chromium is mass feedrate of chlorine for all an annual rolling average hazardous the average of the hazardous waste hazardous waste feedstreams divided by waste thermal concentration limit, as thermal concentrations for the runs. the total heat input rate for all follows: (vi) LVM limits for pumpable wastes. hazardous waste feedstreams. The 12- (1) You must calculate a semivolatile You must establish separate feedrate hour rolling average feedrate limit metals system removal efficiency for limits for low volatile metals in chlorine is the average of the hazardous each test run as [1—semivolatile metals pumpable feedstreams using the waste thermal concentrations for the emission rate (g/s) / semivolatile metals procedures prescribed above for total runs. feedrate (g/s)], and calculate the average low volatile metals. Dual feedrate limits * * * * * system removal efficiency of the test run for both pumpable and total feedstreams averages, except if your source is not are not required, however, if you base (q) * * * equipped with a control system that the total feedrate limit solely on the (1) * * * consistently and reproducibly controls feedrate of pumpable feedstreams. (ii) You must specify (e.g., by semivolatile metals emissions, you must (vii) Extrapolation of feedrate levels. reference) the otherwise applicable assume zero system removal efficiency. In lieu of establishing feedrate limits as requirements as a mode of operation in If emissions exceed the semivolatile specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through your Documentation of Compliance metals emission standard, it is not a (iii) of this section, you may request as under § 63.1211(d), your Notification of violation because compliance with the part of the performance test plan under Compliance under § 63.1207(j), and semivolatile metals emission standard, §§ 63.6(b) and (c) and 63.1207(e) and (f) your title V permit application. These which is derived from normal emissions to use the semivolatile metal and low requirements include the otherwise data, is based on compliance with the volatile metal feedrates and associated applicable requirements governing semivolatile metals hazardous waste emission rates during the emission standards, monitoring and thermal concentration limit on an comprehensive performance test to compliance, and notification, reporting, annual rolling average. extrapolate to higher allowable feedrate and recordkeeping. (2) You must calculate the annual limits and emission rates. The average hazardous waste semivolatile extrapolation methodology will be * * * * * metals thermal concentration limit as reviewed and approved, as warranted, 8. Section 63.1210 is amended by: the semivolatile metals emission by the Administrator. The review will a. Revising the table in paragraph standard (lb/MM Btu) divided by the consider in particular whether: (a)(1) and the table in paragraph (a)(2). system removal efficiency. The (A) Performance test metal feedrates b. Redesignating paragraph (b) as (d). hazardous waste thermal concentration are appropriate (i.e., whether feedrates c. Adding new paragraph (b). limit is expressed as: pounds are at least at normal levels; depending semivolatile metals in hazardous waste on the heterogeneity of the waste, d. Adding new paragraph (c). feedstreams per million Btu of whether some level of spiking would be The revisions and additions read as hazardous waste. appropriate; and whether the physical follows: (3) You must comply with the annual form and species of spiked material is § 63.1210 What are the notification average hazardous waste semivolatile appropriate); requirements? metals thermal concentration limit by (B) Whether the extrapolated feedrates measuring the feedrate of semivolatile you request are warranted considering (a) * * * metals in all hazardous waste historical metal feedrate data; and (1) * * *

Reference Notification

63.9(b) ...... Initial notifications that you are subject to subpart EEE of this part. 63.9(d) ...... Notification that you are subject to special compliance requirements.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21369

Reference Notification

63.9(j) ...... Notification and documentation of any change in information already provided under § 63.9. 63.1206(b)(5)(i) ...... Notification of changes in design, operation, or maintenance. 63.1206(c)(7)(ii)(C) ...... Notification of excessive bag leak detection system exceedances. 63.1207(e), 63.9(e), 63.9(g)(1) and Notification of performance test and continuous monitoring system evaluation, including the performance (3). test plan and CMS performance evaluation plan.1 63.1210(d), 63.1207(j), 63.1207(k), Notification of compliance, including results of performance tests and continuous monitoring system per- 63.1207(l), 63.9(h), 63.10(d)(2), formance evaluations. 63.10(e)(2). 1 You may also be required on a case-by-case basis to submit a feedstream analysis plan under § 63.1209(c)(3).

(2) * * *

Reference Notification, request, petition, or application

63.9(i) ...... You may request an adjustment to time periods or postmark deadlines for submittal and review of required information. 63.10(e)(3)(ii) ...... You may request to reduce the frequency of excess emissions and CMS performance reports. 63.10(f) ...... You may request to waive recordkeeping or reporting requirements. 63.1204(d)(2)(iii), 63.1220(d)(2)(iii) Notification that you elect to comply with the emission averaging requirements for cement kilns with in-line raw mills. 63.1204(e)(2)(iii), 63.1220(e)(2)(iii) Notification that you elect to comply with the emission averaging requirements for preheater or preheater/ precalciner kilns with dual stacks. 63.1206(b)(4), 63.1213, 63.6(i), You may request an extension of the compliance date for up to one year. 63.9(c). 63.1206(b)(5)(i)(C) ...... You may request to burn hazardous waste for more than 720 hours and for purposes other than testing or pretesting after a making a change in the design or operation that could affect compliance with emission standards and prior to submitting a revised Notification of Compliance. 63.1206(b)(8)(iii)(B) ...... If you elect to conduct particulate matter CEMS correlation testing and wish to have federal particulate matter and opacity standards and associated operating limits waived during the testing, you must notify the Administrator by submitting the correlation test plan for review and approval. 63.1206(b)(8)(v) ...... You may request approval to have the particulate matter and opacity standards and associated operating limits and conditions waived for more than 96 hours for a correlation test. 63.1206(b)(9) ...... Owners and operators of lightweight aggregate kilns may request approval of alternative emission stand- ards for mercury, semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, and hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas under certain conditions. 63.1206(b)(10) ...... Owners and operators of cement kilns may request approval of alternative emission standards for mercury, semivolatile metal, low volatile metal, and hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas under certain conditions. 63.1206(b)(14) ...... Owners and operators of incinerators may elect to comply with an alternative to the particulate matter standard. 63.1206(b)(15) ...... Owners and operators of cement and lightweight aggregate kilns may request to comply with the alter- native to the interim standards for mercury. 63.1206(c)(2)(ii)(C) ...... You may request to make changes to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. 63.1206(c)(5)(i)(C) ...... You may request an alternative means of control to provide control of combustion system leaks. 63.1206(c)(5)(i)(D) ...... You may request other techniques to prevent fugitive emissions without use of instantaneous pressure lim- its. 63.1207(c)(2) ...... You may request to base initial compliance on data in lieu of a comprehensive performance test. 63.1207(d)(3) ...... You may request more than 60 days to complete a performance test if additional time is needed for rea- sons beyond your control. 63.1207(e)(3), 63.7(h) ...... You may request a time extension if the Administrator fails to approve or deny your test plan. 63.1207(h)(2) ...... You may request to waive current operating parameter limits during pretesting for more than 720 hours. 63.1207(f)(1)(ii)(D) ...... You may request a reduced hazardous waste feedstream analysis for organic hazardous air pollutants if the reduced analysis continues to be representative of organic hazardous air pollutants in your haz- ardous waste feedstreams. 63.1207(g)(2)(v) ...... You may request to operate under a wider operating range for a parameter during confirmatory perform- ance testing. 63.1207(i) ...... You may request up to a one-year time extension for conducting a performance test (other than the initial comprehensive performance test) to consolidate testing with other state or federally-required testing. 63.1207(j)(4) ...... You may request more than 90 days to submit a Notification of Compliance after completing a perform- ance test if additional time is needed for reasons beyond your control. 63.1207(l)(3) ...... After failure of a performance test, you may request to burn hazardous waste for more than 720 hours and for purposes other than testing or pretesting. 63.1209(a)(5), 63.8(f) ...... You may request: (1) Approval of alternative monitoring methods for compliance with standards that are monitored with a CEMS; and (2) approval to use a CEMS in lieu of operating parameter limits. 63.1209(g)(1) ...... You may request approval of: (1) Alternatives to operating parameter monitoring requirements, except for standards that you must monitor with a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) and except for requests to use a CEMS in lieu of operating parameter limits; or (2) a waiver of an operating parameter limit. 63.1209(l)(1) ...... You may request to extrapolate mercury feedrate limits. 63.1209(n)(2) ...... You may request to extrapolate semivolatile and low volatile metal feedrate limits. 63.1211(e) ...... You may request to use data compression techniques to record data on a less frequent basis than re- quired by § 63.1209.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21370 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

(b) Notification of intent to comply requirements and therefore are not equivalent jurisdiction of your facility. (NIC). (1) You must prepare a enforceable deadlines; the requirements In addition, you must publish the notice Notification of Intent to Comply that of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (F) of in newspapers of general circulation in includes all of the following this section must be included as part of adjacent counties or equivalent information: the NIC only to inform the public of jurisdiction where such publication (i) General information: your how you intend to comply with the would be necessary to inform the (A) The name and address of the emission standards of this subpart. affected public. You must publish the owner/operator and the source; (iii) A summary of the public meeting notice as a display advertisement. (B) Whether the source is a major or required under paragraph (c) of this (ii) Visible and accessible sign. You an area source; section; must post a notice on a clearly marked (C) Waste minimization and emission (iv) If you intend to cease burning sign at or near the source. If you place control technique(s) being considered; hazardous waste prior to or on the the sign on the site of the hazardous (D) Emission monitoring technique(s) compliance date, you must include in waste combustor, the sign must be large you are considering; your NIC a schedule of key dates for the enough to be readable from the nearest (E) Waste minimization and emission steps to be taken to stop hazardous spot where the public would pass by the control technique(s) effectiveness; waste activity at your combustion unit. site. (F) A description of the evaluation Key dates include the date for submittal (iii) Broadcast media announcement. criteria used or to be used to select of RCRA closure documents required You must broadcast a notice at least waste minimization and/or emission under subpart G, part 264 of this once on at least one local radio station control technique(s); and chapter. or television station. (G) A general description of how you (2) You must make a draft of the NIC (iv) Notice to the facility mailing list. intend to comply with the emission available for public review no later than You must provide a copy of the notice standards of this subpart. 30 days prior to the public meeting to the facility mailing list in accordance (ii) As applicable to each source, required under paragraph (c)(1) of this with § 124.10(c)(1)(ix) of this chapter. information on key activities and section. (4) You must include all of the estimated dates for these activities that (3) You must submit the final NIC to following in the notices required under will bring the source into compliance the Administrator no later than one year paragraph (c)(3) of this section: with emission control requirements of following the effective date of the (i) The date, time, and location of the this subpart. You must include all of the emission standards of this subpart. following key activities and dates in (c) NIC public meeting and notice. (1) meeting; your NIC: Prior to the submission of the NIC to the (ii) A brief description of the purpose (A) The dates by which you will permitting agency, and no later than 10 of the meeting; develop engineering designs for months after the effective date of the (iii) A brief description of the source emission control systems or process emission standards of this subpart, you and proposed operations, including the changes for emissions; must hold at least one informal meeting address or a map (e.g., a sketched or (B) The date by which you will with the public to discuss anticipated copied street map) of the source commit internal or external resources activities described in the draft NIC for location; for installing emission control systems achieving compliance with the emission (iv) A statement encouraging people or making process changes for emission standards of this subpart. You must post to contact the source at least 72 hours control, or the date by which you will a sign-in sheet or otherwise provide a before the meeting if they need special issue orders for the purchase of voluntary opportunity for attendees to access to participate in the meeting; component parts to accomplish provide their names and addresses; (v) A statement describing how the emission control or process changes. (2) You must submit a summary of the draft NIC (and final NIC, if requested) (C) The date by which you will meeting, along with the list of attendees can be obtained; and submit construction applications; and their addresses developed under (vi) The name, address, and telephone (D) The date by which you will paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and number of a contact person for the NIC. initiate on-site construction, installation copies of any written comments or 9. Section 63.1211 is amended by: of emission control equipment, or materials submitted at the meeting, to a. Revising the table in paragraph (b). process change; the Administrator as part of the final b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) and (E) The date by which you will NIC, in accordance with paragraph (d) as (d) and (e). complete on-site construction, (b)(1)(iii) of this section; c. Adding new paragraph (c). installation of emission control (3) You must provide public notice of The revisions and additions read as equipment, or process change; and the NIC meeting at least 30 days prior follows: (F) The date by which you will to the meeting. You must provide public achieve final compliance. The notice in all of the following forms: § 63.1211 What are the recordkeeping and individual dates and milestones listed (i) Newspaper advertisement. You reporting requirements? in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (F) of must publish a notice in a newspaper of * * * * * this section as part of the NIC are not general circulation in the county or (b) * * *

Reference Document, data, or information

63.1200, 53.10 (b) and (c) ...... General. Information required to document and maintain compliance with the regulations of subpart EEE, including data recorded by continuous monitoring systems (CMS), and copies of all notifications, reports, plans, and other documents submitted to the Administrator. 63.1204(d)(1)(ii), 63.1220(d)(1)(ii) .. Documentation of mode of operation changes for cement kilns with in-line raw mills. 63.1204(d)(2)(ii), 63.1220(d)(2)(ii) .. Documentation of compliance with the emission averaging requirements for cement kilns with in-line raw mills. 63.1204(e)(2)(ii), 63.1220(e)(2)(ii) .. Documentation of compliance with the emission averaging requirements for preheater or preheater/ precalciner kilns with dual stacks.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21371

Reference Document, data, or information

63.1206(b)(1)(ii) ...... If you elect to comply with all applicable requirements and standards promulgated under authority of the Clean Air Act, including sections 112 and 129, in lieu of the requirements of subpart EEE when not burning hazardous waste, you must document in the operating record that you are in compliance with those requirements. 63.1206(b)(5)(ii) ...... Documentation that a change will not adversely affect compliance with the emission standards or operating requirements. 63.1206(b)(11) ...... Calculation of hazardous waste residence time. 63.1206(c)(2) ...... Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. 63.1206(c)(2)(v)(A) ...... Documentation of your investigation and evaluation of excessive exceedances during malfunctions. 63.1206(c)(3)(v) ...... Corrective measures for any automatic waste feed cutoff that results in an exceedance of an emission standard or operating parameter limit. 63.1206(c)(3)(vii) ...... Documentation and results of the automatic waste feed cutoff operability testing. 63.1206(c)(4)(ii) ...... Emergency safety vent operating plan. 63.1206(c)(4)(iii) ...... Corrective measures for any emergency safety vent opening. 63.1206(c)(5)(ii) ...... Method used for control of combustion system leaks. 63.1206(c)(6) ...... Operator training and certification program. 63.1206(c)(7)(i)(D) ...... Operation and maintenance plan. 63.1209(c)(2) ...... Feedstream analysis plan. 63.1209(k)(6)(iii), 63.1209(k)(7)(ii), Documentation that a substitute activated carbon, dioxin/furan formation reaction inhibitor, or dry scrubber 63.1209(k)(9)(ii), 63.1209(o)(4)(iii). sorbent will provide the same level of control as the original material. 63.1209(k)(7)(i)(C) ...... Results of carbon bed performance monitoring. 63.1209(q) ...... Documentation of changes in modes of operation. 63.1211(d) ...... Documentation of compliance.

(c) Compliance progress reports have submitted timely and complete (D) The dates by which approvals of associated with the notification of intent permit applications. any operating and construction permits to comply—(1) General. Not later than (ii) If you can comply with the or licenses are anticipated; and two years following the effective date of emission standards and operating (E) The projected date by which you the emission standards of this subpart, requirements of this subpart, without expect to comply with the emission you must comply with the following, undertaking any of the activities standards and operating requirements of unless you comply with paragraph described in paragraph (c)(1) of this this subpart. (c)(2)(ii) of this section: section, you must submit a progress (4) Sources that intend to cease burning hazardous waste prior to or on (i) Develop engineering design for any report documenting either: the compliance date. (i) If you indicated physical modifications to the source (A) That you, at the time of the in your NIC your intent to cease burning needed to comply with the emission progress report, are in compliance with hazardous waste and do so prior to standards of this subpart; the emission standards and operating submitting a progress report, you are (ii) Submit applicable construction requirements; or exempt from the requirements of applications to the Administrator; and (B) The steps you will take to comply, paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this (iii) Document an internal or external without undertaking any of the section. However, you must submit and commitment of resources, i.e., funds or activities listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) include in your progress report the date personnel, to purchase, fabricate, and through (c)(1)(iii) of this section. on which you stopped burning install any equipment, devices, and (3) Schedule. (i) You must include in hazardous waste and the date(s) you ancillary structures needed to comply the progress report a detailed schedule submitted, or plan to submit RCRA with the emission standards and that lists key dates for all projects that closure documents. operating requirements of this subpart. will bring the source into compliance (ii) If you signify in the progress with the emission standards and report, submitted not later than two (2) Progress report. (i) You must operating requirements of this subpart years following the effective date of the submit to the Administrator a progress for the time period between submission emission standards of this subpart, your report not later than two years following of the progress report and the intention to cease burning hazardous the effective date of the emission compliance date of the emission waste, you must stop burning hazardous standards of this subpart, which standards and operating requirements of waste on or before the compliance date contains information documenting that this subpart. of the emission standards of this you have met the requirements of subpart. paragraph (c)(1) of this section and (ii) The schedule must contain updates the information you previously anticipated or actual dates for all of the * * * * * 10. Section 63.1212 is added to provided in your NIC. This information following: subpart EEE to read as follows: will be used by the Administrator to (A) Bid and award dates, as necessary, determine if you have made adequate for construction contracts and § 63.1212 What are the other requirements progress towards compliance with the equipment supply contractors; pertaining to the NIC and associated emission standards of this subpart. In (B) Milestones such as ground progress report? any evaluation of adequate progress, the breaking, completion of drawings and (a) Certification of intent to comply. Administrator may consider any delays specifications, equipment deliveries, (1) The Notice of Intent to Comply (NIC) in a source’s progress caused by the intermediate construction completions, and Progress Report must contain the time required to obtain necessary and testing; following certification signed and dated permits (e.g., operating and construction (C) The dates on which applications by an authorized representative of the permits or licenses) from governmental will be submitted for operating and source: ‘‘I certify under penalty of law regulatory agencies when the sources construction permits or licenses; that I have personally examined and am

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21372 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

familiar with the information submitted (3) Approval of major alternatives to RfCHCl is the reference concentration of in this document and all attachments monitoring under §§ 63.8(f) and HCl and that, based on my inquiry of those 63.1209(a)(5), as defined in § 63.90, and (3) You must use the RfC values for individuals immediately responsible for as required in this subpart. hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas obtaining the information, I believe that (4) Approval of major alternatives to found at http://epa.gov/ttn/atw/ the information is true, accurate, and recordkeeping and reporting under toxsource/sumnmary.html. complete. I am aware that there are §§ 63.10(f) and 63.1211(a) through (d), (4) The hydrogen chloride and significant penalties for submitting false as defined in § 63.90, and as required in chlorine gas emission rates you use to information, including the possibility of this subpart. calculate the HCl-equivalent emission fine and imprisonment’’. 12. Section § 63.1215 is added to rate limit for incinerators, cement kilns, (2) An authorized representative subpart EEE to read as follows: and lightweight aggregate kilns must not should be a responsible corporate officer § 63.1215 What are the alternative risk- result in total chlorine emission (for a corporation), a general partner (for based standards for total chlorine? concentrations exceeding the standards a partnership), the proprietor (of a sole provided by §§ 63.1203, 63.1204, and (a) General. You may establish and proprietorship), or a principal executive 63.1205. comply with site-specific, risk-based officer or ranking elected official (for a (c) Eligibility demonstration—(1) emission limits for total chlorine under municipality, State, Federal, or other General. You must perform an eligibility the procedures prescribed in this public agency). demonstration to determine whether section. You may comply with these (b) Sources that begin burning your selected hydrogen chloride and risk-based emission limits in lieu of the hazardous waste after the effective date chlorine gas emission rates meet the emission standards for total chlorine of the emission standards of this national exposure standards using either provided under §§ 63.1216, 63.1217, subpart. (1) If you begin to burn a look-up table analysis prescribed by 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221 of this hazardous waste after the effective date paragraph (c)(3) of this section, or a site- chapter after review and approval by the of the emission standards of this specific compliance demonstration permitting authority. To identify and subpart, but prior to nine months after prescribed by paragraph (c)(4) of this comply with the limits, you must: the effective date of the emission section. (1) Identify hydrogen chloride and standards of this subpart, you must (2) Definition of eligibility. Your chlorine gas emission rates for each on- comply with the requirements of facility is eligible for the alternative site hazardous waste combustor. You §§ 63.1206(a)(2), 63.1210(b) and (c), risk-based standards for total chlorine if may select hydrogen chloride and 63.1211(c), and paragraph (a) of this either: chlorine gas emission rates as you section, and associated time frames for (i) The sum of the calculated HCl- choose to demonstrate eligibility for the public meetings and document equivalent emission rates for all on-site total chlorine standards under this submittals. hazardous waste combustors is below section, except as provided by (2) If you intend to begin burning the appropriate value in the look-up paragraph (b)(4) of this section; hazardous waste more than nine months table; or (2) Perform an eligibility after the effective date of the emission (ii) Your site-specific compliance demonstration to determine if your HCl- standards of this subpart, you must demonstration indicates that your equivalent emission rate limits meet the comply with the requirements of maximum Hazard Index for hydrogen national exposure standards, as §§ 63.1206(a)(2), 63.1210(b) and (c), chloride and chlorine gas emissions prescribed by paragraphs (b) and (c) of 63.1211(c), and paragraph (a) of this from all on-site hazardous waste this section; section prior to burning hazardous (3) Submit your eligibility combustors at a location where people waste. In addition: demonstration for review and approval, live is less than or equal to 1.0, rounded (i) You must make a draft NIC as prescribed by paragraph (d) of this to the nearest tenths decimal place (0.1). available to the public, notice the public section; (3) Look-up table analysis. (i) The meeting, conduct a public meeting, and (4) Demonstrate compliance with the look-up table is provided as Table 1 to submit a final NIC prior to burning HCl-equivalent emission rate limits, as this section. hazardous waste; and prescribed by the testing and monitoring (ii) To determine the correct HCl- (ii) You must submit your progress requirements under paragraph (e) of this equivalent emission rate value from the report at the time you submit your final section; and look-up table, you must use the average NIC. (5) Comply with the requirements for stack height for your hazardous waste 11. Section 63.1214 is amended by changes, as prescribed by paragraph (f) combustors (i.e., the mean of the stack revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), of this section. height of all on-site hazardous waste and (c)(4) to read as follows: (b) HCl-equivalent emission rates. (1) combustors) and the minimum distance between any hazardous waste § 63.1214 Implementation and You must establish a total chlorine limit for each hazardous waste combustor as combustor stack and the property enforcement. boundary. * * * * * an HCl-equivalent emission rate. (2) You must calculate the toxicity- (iii) If one or both of these values for (c) * * * weighted HCl-equivalent emission rate stack height and distance to nearest (1) Approval of alternatives to for each combustor as follows: property boundary do not match the requirements in §§ 63.1200, 63.1203, × exact values in the look-up table, you 63.1204, 63.1205, 63.1206(a), 63.1215, ERtw = è(ERi (RfCHCl/RfCi)) would use the next lowest table value. 63.1216, 63.1217, 63.1218, 63.1219, Where: (iv) You are not eligible for the look- 63.1220, and 63.1221. ERtw is the HCl-equivalent emission up table analysis if your facility is (2) Approval of major alternatives to rate, lb/hr located in complex terrain. test methods under §§ 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and ERi is the emission rate of HAP i in lbs/ (v) If the sum of the calculated HCl- (f), 63.1208(b), and 63.1209(a)(1), as hr equivalent emission rates for all on-site defined in § 63.90, and as required in RfCi is the reference concentration of hazardous waste combustors is below this subpart. HAP i the appropriate value in the look-up

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21373

table, the emission limit for total (d) Review and approval of eligibility demonstration must also contain, at a chlorine for each combustor is the HCl- demonstrations—(1) Content of the minimum, the following: equivalent emission rate you calculated. eligibility demonstration—(i) General. (A) Identification of the risk (4) Site-specific compliance The eligibility demonstration must assessment methodology used; demonstration. (i) You may use any include the following information, at a (B) Documentation of the fate and scientifically-accepted peer-reviewed minimum: transport model used; risk assessment methodology for your (A) Identification of each hazardous (C) Documentation of the fate and site-specific compliance demonstration. waste combustor combustion gas transport model inputs, including the An example of one approach for emission point (e.g., generally, the flue stack parameters listed in paragraph performing the demonstration for air gas stack); (d)(1)(i)(C) of this section converted to toxics can be found in the EPA’s ‘‘Air (B) The maximum capacity at which the dimensions required for the model; Toxics Risk Assessment Reference each combustor will operate, and the (D) As applicable: Library, Volume 2, Site-Specific Risk maximum rated capacity for each (1) Meteorological data; Assessment Technical Resource combustor, using the metric of stack gas (2) Building, land use, and terrain Document,’’ which may be obtained volume emitted per unit of time, as well data; through the EPA’s Air Toxics Web site as any other metric that is appropriate (3) Receptor locations and population at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw. for the combustor (e.g., million Btu/hr data; and (4) Other facility-specific parameters (ii) Your facility is eligible for the heat input for boilers; tons of dry raw input into the model; alternative risk-based total chlorine material feed/hour for cement kilns); emission limit if your site-specific (E) Documentation of the fate and (C) Stack parameters for each transport model outputs; compliance demonstration shows that combustor, including, but not limited to the maximum Hazard Index for (F) Documentation of any exposure stack height, stack area, stack gas assessment and risk characterization hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas temperature, and stack gas exit velocity; emissions from each on-site hazardous calculations; and, (D) Plot plan showing all stack (G) Documentation of the predicted waste combustor is less than or equal to emission points, nearby residences, and Hazard Index for HCl-equivalents and 1.0 rounded to the nearest tenths property boundary line; comparison to the limit of less than 1.0. decimal place (0.1). (E) Identification of any stack gas (iii) At a minimum, your site-specific (2) Review and approval—(i) Existing control devices used to reduce sources. (A) If you operate an existing compliance demonstration must: emissions from each combustor; (A) Estimate long-term inhalation source, you must be in compliance with (F) Identification of the RfC values the emission standards on the exposures through the estimation of used to calculate the HCl-equivalent annual or multi-year average ambient compliance date. If you elect to comply emissions rate; with the alternative risk-based emission concentrations; (G) Calculations used to determine the (B) Estimate the inhalation exposure rate limit for total chlorine, you must HCl-equivalent emission rate; for the actual individual most exposed have completed the eligibility (H) For incinerators, cement kilns, to the facility’s emissions from demonstration and received approval and lightweight aggregate kilns, hazardous waste combustors; from your delegated permitting (C) Use site-specific, quality-assured calculations used to determine that the authority by the compliance date. data wherever possible; HCl-equivalent emission rate limit for (B) You must submit the eligibility (D) Use health-protective default each combustor does not exceed the demonstration to your permitting assumptions wherever site-specific data standards for total chlorine at authority for review and approval not are not available, and: §§ 63.1203, 63.1204, and 63.1205; and later than 12 months prior to the (E) Contain adequate documentation (I) The HCl-equivalent emission rate compliance date. You must submit a of the data and methods used for the limit for each hazardous waste separate copy of the eligibility assessment so that it is transparent and combustor that you will certify in the demonstration to: U.S. EPA, Risk and can be reproduced by an experienced Documentation of Compliance required Exposure Assessment Group, Emission risk assessor and emissions under § 63.1211(d) that you will not Standards Division (C404–01), Attn: measurement expert. exceed, and the limits on the operating Group Leader, Research Triangle Park, (iv) Your site-specific compliance parameters specified under § 63.1209(o) North Carolina 27711. demonstration need not: that you will establish in the (C) Your permitting authority will (A) Assume any attenuation of Documentation of Compliance. notify you of approval or intent to exposure concentrations due to the (ii) Additional content of look-up disapprove your eligibility penetration of outdoor pollutants into table demonstration. If you use the look- demonstration within 6 months after indoor exposure areas; up table analysis, your eligibility receipt of the original demonstration, (B) Assume any reaction or deposition demonstration must also contain, at a and within 3 months after receipt of any of the emitted pollutants during minimum, the following: supplemental information that you transport from the emission point to the (A) Calculations used to determine submit. A notice of intent to disapprove point of exposure. the average stack height of on-site your eligibility demonstration will (v) If your site-specific compliance hazardous waste combustors; identify incomplete or inaccurate demonstration documents that the (B) Identification of the combustor information or noncompliance with maximum Hazard Index for hydrogen stack with the minimum distance to the prescribed procedures and specify how chloride and chlorine gas emissions property boundary of the facility; and much time you will have to submit from your hazardous waste combustors (C) Comparison of the values in the additional information. is less than or equal to 1.0, you would look-up table to your maximum HCl- (D) If your permitting authority has establish a maximum HCl-equivalent equivalent emission rate. not approved your eligibility emission rate limit for each combustor (iii) Additional content of a site- demonstration to comply with a risk- based on the hydrogen chloride and specific compliance demonstration. If based HCl-equivalent emission rate(s) chlorine gas emission rates used in this you use a site-specific compliance by the compliance date, you must site-specific compliance demonstration. demonstration, your eligibility comply with the MACT emission

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21374 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

standards for total chlorine gas under Method 26/26A, or an equivalent (A) Changes that would decrease the §§ 63.1216, 63.1217, 63.1219, 63.1220, method, to measure chlorine gas. allowable HCl-equivalent emission rate and 63.1221 of this chapter. (ii) If you operate an incinerator, limit. If you plan to make a change that (ii) New sources. General. (A) If you boiler, or lightweight aggregate kiln, you would decrease the allowable HCl- operate a source that is not an existing must use EPA Method 320/321 or equivalent emission rate limit source and that becomes subject to ASTM D 6735–01, or an equivalent documented in your eligibility subpart EEE, you must comply with the method, to measure hydrogen chloride, demonstration, you must comply with MACT emission standards for total and Method 26/26A, or an equivalent § 63.1206(b)(5)(i)(A)–(C); chlorine unless and until your eligibility method, to measure total chlorine, and calculate chlorine gas by difference if: (B) Changes that would not decrease demonstration has been approved by the the allowable HCl-equivalent emission permitting authority. (A) The bromine/chlorine ratio in feedstreams is greater than 5 percent; or rate limit. (1) If you determine that a (B) If you operate a new or (B) The sulfur/chlorine ratio in change would not decrease the reconstructed source that starts up feedstreams is greater than 50 percent. allowable HCl-equivalent emission rate before the effective date of the emission (3) Operating parameter limits. (i) limit documented in your eligibility standards proposed today, or a solid You must establish limits on the same demonstration, you must document the fuel-fired boiler or liquid fuel-fired operating parameters that apply to change in the operating record upon boiler that is an area source that sources complying with the MACT making such change. increases its emissions or its potential to standard for total chlorine under (2) If the change would increase your emit such that it becomes a major source § 63.1209(o), except that feedrate limits allowable HCl-equivalent emission rate of HAP before the effective date of on total chlorine and chloride must be limit and you elect to establish a higher §§ 63.1216 and 63.1217, you would be established as specified under HCl-equivalent limit, you must submit a required to comply with the emission paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section. revised eligibility demonstration for standards under §§ 63.1216 and 63.1217 (ii) Annual rolling average feedrate. review and approval. Upon approval of until your eligibility demonstration is You must establish an annual rolling the revised eligibility demonstration, approved by your permitting authority. average feedrate limit for total chlorine you must comply with and chloride as the average of the test (C) If you operate a new or § 63.1206(b)(5)(i)(A)(2), (B), and (C). reconstructed source that starts up after run averages during the comprehensive the effective date of the emission performance test. (2) Changes over which you do not standards proposed today, or a solid (A) To document compliance with the have control. (i) You must review the fuel-fired boiler or liquid fuel-fired feedrate limit, you must know the total documentation you use in your boiler that is an area source that chlorine and chloride concentration of eligibility demonstration every five increases its emissions or its potential to feedstreams at all times and years on the anniversary of the emit such that it becomes a major source continuously monitor the flowrate of all comprehensive performance test and of HAP after the effective date of feedstreams. submit for review and approval with the §§ 63.1216 and 63.1217, you would be (B) You must measure the flowrate of comprehensive performance test plan required to comply with the emission each feedstream at least once each either a certification that the standards under §§ 63.1216 and 63.1217 minute and update the annual rolling information used in your eligibility until your eligibility demonstration is average hourly based on the average of demonstration has not changed in a approved by your permitting authority. the 60 previous 1-minute manner that would decrease the measurements. (e) Testing and monitoring allowable HCl-equivalent emission rate (f) Changes—(1) Changes over which limit, or a revised eligibility requirements—(1) General. You must you have control. (i) Changes in design, document compliance during the demonstration for a revised HCl- operation, or maintenance of a equivalent emission rate limit. comprehensive performance test under hazardous waste combustor that may § 63.1207 with the HCl-equivalent affect the rate of emissions of HCl- (ii) If you determine that you cannot emission rate limit established in an equivalents from the combustor are demonstrate compliance with a lower approved eligibility demonstration for subject to the requirements of allowable HCl-equivalent emission rate each hazardous waste combustor. § 63.1206(b)(5). limit during the comprehensive (2) Test methods. (i) If you operate a (ii) If you change the information performance test because you cannot cement kiln or a combustor equipped documented in the demonstration of complete changes to the design or with a dry acid gas scrubber, you must eligibility for the HCl-equivalent operation of the source prior to the test, should use EPA Method 320/321 or emission rate limit and which is used to you may request that the permitting ASTM D 6735–01, or an equivalent establish the HCl-equivalent emission authority grant you additional time as method, to measure hydrogen chloride, rate limit, you are subject to the necessary to make those changes, not to and the back-half (caustic impingers) of following requirements: exceed three years.

TABLE 1. TO § 63.1215.—ALLOWABLE TOXICITY-WEIGHTED EMISSION RATE EXPRESSED IN HCL EQUIVALENTS (LB/HR)

Stack ht Distance to property boundary (m) (m) 10 30 50 100 200 500

2 ...... 0.0244 0 .0322 0 .0338 0.0627 0.173 0.766 5 ...... 0.0475 0 .0612 0 .0881 0.168 0 .309 0 .881 10 ...... 0 .165 0 .187 0.216 0.336 0.637 1 .59 20 ...... 0 .661 1 .01 1.01 1.2 1.87 4 .31 35 ...... 2 .02 2.02 4 .04 4.11 5.08 10 .4 50 ...... 4 .11 4.11 4 .11 9.74 10 .8 18 .0

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21375

13. Section 63.1216 and an (7) Except for an area source as of 99.99% for each principle organic undesignated center heading are added defined in § 63.2, particulate matter in hazardous constituent (POHC) to subpart EEE to read as follows: excess of 68 mg/dscm corrected to 7 designated under paragraph (c)(3) of this percent oxygen. section. You must calculate DRE for Emissions Standards and Operating (b) Emission limits for new sources. each POHC from the following equation: Limits for Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, You must not discharge or cause Liquid Fuel-Fired Boilers, and DRE = [1¥(Wout / Win)] × 100% combustion gases to be emitted into the Hydrochloric Acid Production Where: atmosphere that contain: Furnaces Win = mass feedrate of one POHC in a (1) For dioxin and furan, either carbon waste feedstream; and § 63.1216 What are the standards for solid monoxide or hydrocarbon emissions in Wout = mass emission rate of the same fuel-fired boilers that burn hazardous excess of the limits provided by POHC present in exhaust emissions waste? paragraph (b)(5) of this section; prior to release to the atmosphere. (a) Emission limits for existing (2) Mercury in excess of 10 µg/dscm sources. You must not discharge or corrected to 7 percent oxygen; (2) 99.9999% DRE. If you burn the cause combustion gases to be emitted (3) Except for an area source as dioxin-listed hazardous wastes F020, into the atmosphere that contain: defined in § 63.2, cadmium and lead in F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027 (see (1) For dioxin and furan, either carbon excess of 170 µg/dscm, combined § 261.31 of this chapter), you must monoxide or hydrocarbon emissions in emissions, corrected to 7 percent achieve a DRE of 99.9999% for each excess of the limits provided by oxygen; POHC that you designate under paragraph (a)(5) of this section; (4) Except for an area source as paragraph (c)(3) of this section. You (2) Mercury in excess of 10 ug/dscm defined in § 63.2, arsenic, beryllium, must demonstrate this DRE performance corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and chromium in excess of 190 µg/ on POHCs that are more difficult to (3) Except for an area source as dscm, combined emissions, corrected to incinerate than tetra-, penta-, and defined in § 63.2, cadmium and lead in 7 percent oxygen; hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and excess of 170 ug/dscm, combined (5) For carbon monoxide and dibenzofurans. You must use the emissions, corrected to 7 percent hydrocarbons, either: equation in paragraph (c)(1) of this oxygen; (i) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 section to calculate DRE for each POHC. (4) Except for an area source as parts per million by volume, over an In addition, you must notify the defined in § 63.2, arsenic, beryllium, hourly rolling average (monitored Administrator of your intent to and chromium in excess of 210 ug/ continuously with a continuous incinerate hazardous wastes F020, F021, dscm, combined emissions, corrected to emissions monitoring system), dry basis F022, F023, F026, or F027. 7 percent oxygen; and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If (3) Principal organic hazardous (5) For carbon monoxide and you elect to comply with this carbon constituents (POHCs). (i) You must treat hydrocarbons, either: monoxide standard rather than the the POHCs in the waste feed that you (i) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 hydrocarbon standard under paragraph specify under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this parts per million by volume, over an (b)(5)(ii) of this section, you must also section to the extent required by hourly rolling average (monitored document that, during the destruction paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this continuously with a continuous and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs section. emissions monitoring system), dry basis or their equivalent as provided by (ii) You must specify one or more and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If §§ 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons do not POHCs from the list of hazardous air you elect to comply with this carbon exceed 10 parts per million by volume pollutants established by 42 U.S.C. monoxide standard rather than the during those runs, over an hourly 7412(b)(1), excluding caprolactam (CAS hydrocarbon standard under paragraph rolling average (monitored continuously number 105602) as provided by § 63.60, (a)(5)(ii) of this section, you must also with a continuous emissions monitoring for each waste to be burned. You must document that, during the destruction system), dry basis, corrected to 7 base this specification on the degree of and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs percent oxygen, and reported as difficulty of incineration of the organic or their equivalent as provided by propane; or constituents in the waste and on their § 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons do not (ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 10 parts concentration or mass in the waste feed, exceed 10 parts per million by volume per million by volume, over an hourly considering the results of waste analyses during those runs, over an hourly rolling average (monitored continuously or other data and information. rolling average (monitored continuously with a continuous emissions monitoring (d) Significant figures. The emission with a continuous emissions monitoring system), dry basis, corrected to 7 limits provided by paragraphs (a) and system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as (b) of this section are presented with percent oxygen, and reported as propane; two significant figures. Although you propane; or (6) Except for an area source as must perform intermediate calculations (ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 10 parts defined in § 63.2, hydrogen chloride and using at least three significant figures, per million by volume, over an hourly chlorine gas in excess of 73 parts per you may round the resultant emission rolling average (monitored continuously million by volume, combined levels to two significant figures to with a continuous emissions monitoring emissions, expressed as a chloride document compliance. (¥) system), dry basis, corrected to 7 (Cl ) equivalent, dry basis and 14. Section 63.1217 is added to percent oxygen, and reported as corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and subpart EEE to read as follows: propane; (7) Except for an area source as (6) Except for an area source as defined in § 63.2, particulate matter in § 63.1217 What are the standards for liquid defined in § 63.2, hydrogen chloride and excess of 34 mg/dscm corrected to 7 fuel-fired boilers that burn hazardous chlorine gas in excess of 440 parts per percent oxygen. waste? million by volume, combined (c) Destruction and removal efficiency (a) Emission limits for existing emissions, expressed as a chloride (DRE) standard—(1) 99.99% DRE. sources. You must not discharge or (Cl(¥)) equivalent, dry basis and Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) cause combustion gases to be emitted corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and of this section, you must achieve a DRE into the atmosphere that contain:

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21376 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

(1)(i) Dioxin and furan in excess of (6) Except for an area source as exceed 10 parts per million by volume 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 defined in § 63.2, in excess of 2.5 ×0¥2 during those runs, over an hourly percent oxygen for incinerators lbs combined emissions of hydrogen rolling average (monitored continuously equipped with either a waste heat boiler chloride and chlorine gas attributable to with a continuous emissions monitoring or dry air pollution control system; or the hazardous waste per million British system), dry basis, corrected to 7 (ii) Either carbon monoxide or thermal unit heat input from the percent oxygen, and reported as hydrocarbon emissions in excess of the hazardous waste; and propane; or limits provided by paragraph (a)(5) of (7) Except for an area source as (ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 10 parts this section for sources not equipped defined in § 63.2 or as provided by per million by volume, over an hourly with either a waste heat boiler or dry air paragraph (e)(2) of this section, rolling average (monitored continuously pollution control system; particulate matter in excess of 59 mg/ with a continuous emissions monitoring (iii) A source equipped a wet air dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen. system), dry basis, corrected to 7 pollution control system followed by a (b) Emission limits for new sources. percent oxygen, and reported as dry air pollution control system is not You must not discharge or cause propane; considered to be a dry air pollution combustion gases to be emitted into the (6) Except for an area source as × ¥4 control system, and a source equipped atmosphere that contain: defined in § 63.2, in excess of 7.2 10 with a dry air pollution control system (1)(i) Dioxin and furan in excess of lbs combined emissions of hydrogen followed a wet air pollution control 0.015 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 chloride and chlorine gas attributable to system is considered to be a dry air percent oxygen for incinerators the hazardous waste per million British pollution control system for purposes of equipped with either a waste heat boiler thermal unit heat input from the this emission limit; or dry air pollution control system; or hazardous waste; and ¥ (7) Except for an area source as (2) Mercury in excess of 3.7 × 10 6 lbs (ii) Either carbon monoxide or defined in § 63.2 or as provided in mercury emissions attributable to the hydrocarbon emissions in excess of the paragraph (e)(3) of this section, hazardous waste per million British limits provided by paragraph (a)(5) of particulate matter in excess of 9.8 mg/ thermal unit heat input from the this section for sources not equipped dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen. hazardous waste; with either a waste heat boiler or dry air (c) Destruction and removal efficiency (3) Except for an area source as pollution control system; (iii) A source equipped a wet air (DRE) standard—(1) 99.99% DRE. defined in § 63.2, in excess of 1.1 × 10¥5 pollution control system followed by a Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) lbs combined emissions of cadmium dry air pollution control system is not of this section, you must achieve a DRE and lead attributable to the hazardous considered to be a dry air pollution of 99.99% for each principle organic waste per million British thermal unit control system, and a source equipped hazardous constituent (POHC) heat input from the hazardous waste; with a dry air pollution control system designated under paragraph (c)(3) of this (4) Except for an area source as followed a wet air pollution control section. You must calculate DRE for defined in § 63.2, in excess of 1.1 × 10¥4 system is considered to be a dry air each POHC from the following equation: lbs chromium emissions attributable to pollution control system for purposes of DRE = [1¥(Wout / Win)] × 100% the hazardous waste per million British this emission limit; Where: thermal unit heat input from the (2) In excess of 3.8 × 10¥7 lbs mercury Win = mass feedrate of one POHC in a hazardous waste; emissions attributable to the hazardous waste feedstream; and (5) For carbon monoxide and waste per million British thermal unit Wout = mass emission rate of the same hydrocarbons, either: heat input from the hazardous waste; POHC present in exhaust emissions (i) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 (3) Except for an area source as prior to release to the atmosphere. parts per million by volume, over an defined in § 63.2, in excess of 4.3 × 10¥6 (2) 99.9999% DRE. If you burn the hourly rolling average (monitored lbs combined emissions of cadmium dioxin-listed hazardous wastes F020, continuously with a continuous and lead attributable to the hazardous F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027 (see emissions monitoring system), dry basis waste per million British thermal unit § 261.31 of this chapter), you must and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If heat input from the hazardous waste; achieve a DRE of 99.9999% for each you elect to comply with this carbon (4) Except for an area source as POHC that you designate under monoxide standard rather than the defined in § 63.2, in excess of 3.6 × 10¥5 paragraph (c)(3) of this section. You hydrocarbon standard under paragraph lbs chromium emissions attributable to must demonstrate this DRE performance (a)(5)(ii) of this section, you must also the hazardous waste per million British on POHCs that are more difficult to document that, during the destruction thermal unit heat input from the incinerate than tetra-, penta-, and and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs hazardous waste; hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and or their equivalent as provided by (5) For carbon monoxide and dibenzofurans. You must use the § 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons do not hydrocarbons, either: equation in paragraph (c)(1) of this exceed 10 parts per million by volume (i) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 section to calculate DRE for each POHC. during those runs, over an hourly parts per million by volume, over an In addition, you must notify the rolling average (monitored continuously hourly rolling average (monitored Administrator of your intent to with a continuous emissions monitoring continuously with a continuous incinerate hazardous wastes F020, F021, system), dry basis, corrected to 7 emissions monitoring system), dry basis F022, F023, F026, or F027. percent oxygen, and reported as and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If (3) Principal organic hazardous propane; or you elect to comply with this carbon constituents (POHCs). (i) You must treat (ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 10 parts monoxide standard rather than the the POHCs in the waste feed that you per million by volume, over an hourly hydrocarbon standard under paragraph specify under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this rolling average (monitored continuously (a)(5)(ii) of this section, you must also section to the extent required by with a continuous emissions monitoring document that, during the destruction paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this system), dry basis, corrected to 7 and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs section. percent oxygen, and reported as or their equivalent as provided by (ii) You must specify one or more propane; § 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons do not POHCs from the list of hazardous air

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21377

pollutants established by 42 U.S.C. 15. Section 63.1218 is added to SRE = [1¥(Cl out / Cl in)] X 100% 7412(b)(1), excluding caprolactam (CAS subpart EEE to read as follows: Where: number 105602) as provided by § 63.60, Clin = mass feedrate of total chlorine or for each waste to be burned. You must § 63.1218 What are the standards for hydrochloric acid production furnaces that chloride in all feedstreams, reported base this specification on the degree of burn hazardous waste? as chloride; and difficulty of incineration of the organic (a) Emission limits for existing Clout = mass emission rate of hydrogen constituents in the waste and on their sources. You must not discharge or chloride and chlorine gas, reported concentration or mass in the waste feed, cause combustion gases to be emitted as chloride, in exhaust emissions considering the results of waste analyses into the atmosphere that contain: prior to release to the atmosphere. or other data and information. (1) Dioxin and furan emissions in (d) Significant figures. The emission (7) For particulate matter, hydrogen excess of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm, corrected limits provided by paragraphs (a) and chloride and chlorine gas emissions in to 7 percent oxygen; excess of the levels provided by (b) of this section are presented with (2) For mercury, hydrogen chloride two significant figures. Although you paragraph (a)(6) of this section. and chlorine gas emissions in excess of (b) Emission limits for new sources. must perform intermediate calculations the levels provided by paragraph (a)(6) using at least three significant figures, You must not discharge or cause of this section; combustion gases to be emitted into the you may round the resultant emission (3) For lead and cadmium, hydrogen levels to two significant figures to atmosphere that contain: chloride and chlorine gas emissions in (1) Dioxin and furan emissions in document compliance. excess of the levels provided by (e) Alternative to the particulate excess of 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm, corrected paragraph (a)(6) of this section; to 7 percent oxygen; matter standard for liquid fuel-fired (4) For arsenic, beryllium, and boilers. (1) General. In lieu of complying (2) For mercury, hydrogen chloride chromium, hydrogen chloride and and chlorine gas emissions in excess of with the applicable particulate matter chlorine gas emissions in excess of the standards of paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(7) the levels provided by paragraph (a)(6) levels provided by paragraph (a)(6) of of this section; of this section, you may elect to comply this section; with the following alternative metal (3) For lead and cadmium, hydrogen (5) For carbon monoxide and chloride and chlorine gas emissions in emission control requirements: hydrocarbons, either: excess of the levels provided by (2) Alternative metal emission control (i) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 paragraph (a)(6) of this section; requirements for existing sources. (i) parts per million by volume, over an (4) For arsenic, beryllium, and You must not discharge or cause hourly rolling average (monitored chromium, hydrogen chloride and combustion gases to be emitted into the continuously with a continuous chlorine gas emissions in excess of the atmosphere that contain in excess of 1.1 emissions monitoring system), dry basis × ¥5 10 lbs combined emissions of and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If levels provided by paragraph (a)(6) of cadmium, lead, and selenium you elect to comply with this carbon this section; (5) For carbon monoxide and attributable to the hazardous waste per monoxide standard rather than the million British thermal unit heat input hydrocarbon standard under paragraph hydrocarbons, either: (i) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 from the hazardous waste, corrected to (a)(5)(ii) of this section, you must also parts per million by volume, over an 7 percent oxygen; and, document that, during the destruction (ii) You must not discharge or cause and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs hourly rolling average (monitored combustion gases to be emitted into the or their equivalent as provided by continuously with a continuous atmosphere that contain in excess of 7.7 § 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons do not emissions monitoring system), dry basis × ¥5 10 lbs combined emissions of exceed 10 parts per million by volume and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If antimony, arsenic, beryllium, during those runs, over an hourly you elect to comply with this carbon chromium, cobalt, manganese, and rolling average (monitored continuously monoxide standard rather than the nickel attributable to the hazardous with a continuous emissions monitoring hydrocarbon standard under paragraph waste per million British thermal unit system), dry basis, corrected to 7 (b)(5)(ii) of this section, you must also heat input from the hazardous waste, percent oxygen, and reported as document that, during the destruction corrected to 7 percent oxygen. propane; or and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs (3) Alternative metal emission control (ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 10 parts or their equivalent as provided by requirements for new sources. (i) You per million by volume, over an hourly § 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons do not must not discharge or cause combustion rolling average (monitored continuously exceed 10 parts per million by volume gases to be emitted into the atmosphere with a continuous emissions monitoring during those runs, over an hourly × ¥6 that contain in excess of 4.3 10 lbs system), dry basis, corrected to 7 rolling average (monitored continuously combined emissions of cadmium, lead, percent oxygen, and reported as with a continuous emissions monitoring and selenium attributable to the propane; system), dry basis, corrected to 7 hazardous waste per million British (6) For hydrogen chloride and percent oxygen, and reported as thermal unit heat input from the chlorine gas, either: propane; or hazardous waste, corrected to 7 percent (i) Emission in excess of 14 parts per (ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 10 parts oxygen; and, million by volume, combined per million by volume, over an hourly (ii) You must not discharge or cause emissions, expressed as a chloride (Cl(¥) rolling average (monitored continuously combustion gases to be emitted into the equivalent, dry basis and corrected to 7 with a continuous emissions monitoring atmosphere that contain in excess of 3.6 percent oxygen; or system), dry basis, corrected to 7 × 10¥5 lbs combined emissions of (ii) Emissions greater than the levels percent oxygen, and reported as antimony, arsenic, beryllium, that would be emitted if the source is propane; chromium, cobalt, manganese, and achieving a system removal efficiency (6) For hydrochloric acid and chlorine nickel attributable to the hazardous (SRE) of less than 99.9927 percent for gas, either: waste per million British thermal unit total chlorine and chloride fed to the (i) Emission in excess of 1.2 parts per heat input from the hazardous waste, combustor. You must calculate SRE million by volume, combined corrected to 7 percent oxygen. from the following equation: emissions, expressed as a chloride

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21378 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

(Cl (¥)) equivalent, dry basis and number 105602) as provided by § 63.60, you elect to comply with this carbon corrected to 7 percent oxygen; or for each waste to be burned. You must monoxide standard rather than the (ii) Emissions greater than the levels base this specification on the degree of hydrocarbon standard under paragraph that would be emitted if the source is difficulty of incineration of the organic (a)(5)(ii) of this section, you must also achieving a system removal efficiency constituents in the waste and on their document that, during the destruction (SRE) of less than 99.99937 percent for concentration or mass in the waste feed, and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs total chlorine and chloride fed to the considering the results of waste analyses or their equivalent as provided by combustor. You must calculate SRE or other data and information. § 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons do not from the following equation: (d) Significant figures. The emission exceed 10 parts per million by volume SRE = [1¥(Cl out / Cl in)] × 100% limits provided by paragraphs (a) and during those runs, over an hourly Where: (b) of this section are presented with rolling average (monitored continuously two significant figures. Although you with a continuous emissions monitoring Cl in = mass feedrate of total chlorine or chloride in all feedstreams, reported must perform intermediate calculations system), dry basis, corrected to 7 as chloride; and using at least three significant figures, percent oxygen, and reported as you may round the resultant emission propane; or Cl out = mass emission rate of hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas, reported levels to two significant figures to (ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 10 parts as chloride, in exhaust emissions document compliance. per million by volume, over an hourly 16. Section 63.1219 and a new prior to release to the atmosphere. rolling average (monitored continuously undesignated center heading are added with a continuous emissions monitoring (7) For particulate matter, hydrogen to subpart EEE to read as follows: system), dry basis, corrected to 7 chloride and chlorine gas emissions in percent oxygen, and reported as excess of the levels provided by Replacement Emissions Standards and Operating Limits for Incinerators, propane; paragraph (a)(6) of this section. (6) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine Cement Kilns, and Lightweight (c) Destruction and removal efficiency gas (total chlorine) in excess of 1.5 parts Aggregate Kilns (DRE) standard—(1) 99.99% DRE. per million by volume, combined Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) § 63.1219 What are the replacement emissions, expressed as a chloride of this section, you must achieve a DRE standards for hazardous waste (Cl(¥)) equivalent, dry basis and of 99.99% for each principle organic incinerators? corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and hazardous constituent (POHC) (a) Emission limits for existing (7) Except as provided by paragraph designated under paragraph (c)(3) of this sources. You must not discharge or (e)(2) of this section, particulate matter section. You must calculate DRE for cause combustion gases to be emitted in excess of 34 mg/dscm corrected to 7 each POHC from the following equation: into the atmosphere that contain: percent oxygen. DRE = [1¥(Wout / Win)] × 100% (1)(i) Dioxin and furan in excess of (b) Emission limits for new sources. Where: 0.28 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 You must not discharge or cause combustion gases to be emitted into the Win = mass feedrate of one POHC in percent oxygen for incinerators a waste feedstream; and equipped with either a waste heat boiler atmosphere that contain: (1)(i) Dioxin and furans in excess of Wout = mass emission rate of the same or dry air pollution control system; or POHC present in exhaust emissions (ii) Dioxin and furan in excess of 0.40 0.11 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 prior to release to the atmosphere. ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 percent percent oxygen for incinerators oxygen for sources not equipped with equipped with either a waste heat boiler (2) 99.9999% DRE. If you burn the either a waste heat boiler or dry air or dry air pollution control system; or dioxin-listed hazardous wastes F020, pollution control system; (ii) Dioxin and furans in excess of F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027 (see (iii) A source equipped a wet air 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 § 261.31 of this chapter), you must pollution control system followed by a percent oxygen for sources not equipped achieve a DRE of 99.9999% for each dry air pollution control system is not with either a waste heat boiler or dry air POHC that you designate under considered to be a dry air pollution pollution control system; paragraph (c)(3) of this section. You control system, and a source equipped (iii) A source equipped a wet air must demonstrate this DRE performance with a dry air pollution control system pollution control system followed by a on POHCs that are more difficult to followed a wet air pollution control dry air pollution control system is not incinerate than tetra-, penta-, and system is considered to be a dry air considered to be a dry air pollution hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and pollution control system for purposes of control system, and a source equipped dibenzofurans. You must use the this emission limit; with a dry air pollution control system equation in paragraph (c)(1) of this (2) Mercury in excess of 130 µg/dscm followed a wet air pollution control section to calculate DRE for each POHC. corrected to 7 percent oxygen; system is considered to be a dry air In addition, you must notify the (3) Cadmium and lead in excess of 59 pollution control system for purposes of Administrator of your intent to µg/dscm, combined emissions, this standard; incinerate hazardous wastes F020, F021, corrected to 7 percent oxygen; (2) Mercury in excess of 8 µg/dscm F022, F023, F026, or F027. (4) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium corrected to 7 percent oxygen; (3) Principal organic hazardous in excess of 84 µg/dscm, combined (3) Cadmium and lead in excess of 6.5 constituents (POHCs). (i) You must treat emissions, corrected to 7 percent µg/dscm, combined emissions, the POHCs in the waste feed that you oxygen; corrected to 7 percent oxygen; specify under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this (5) For carbon monoxide and (4) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium section to the extent required by hydrocarbons, either: in excess of 8.9 µg/dscm, combined paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this (i) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 emissions, corrected to 7 percent section. parts per million by volume, over an oxygen; (ii) You must specify one or more hourly rolling average (monitored (5) For carbon monoxide and POHCs from the list of hazardous air continuously with a continuous hydrocarbons, either: pollutants established by 42 U.S.C. emissions monitoring system), dry basis (i) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 7412(b)(1), excluding caprolactam (CAS and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If parts per million by volume, over an

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21379

hourly rolling average (monitored Administrator of your intent to 17. Section 63.1220 is added to continuously with a continuous incinerate hazardous wastes F020, F021, subpart EEE to read as follows: emissions monitoring system), dry basis F022, F023, F026, or F027. and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If (3) Principal organic hazardous § 63.1220 What are the replacement constituent (POHC). (i) You must treat standards for hazardous waste burning you elect to comply with this carbon cement kilns? monoxide standard rather than the each POHC in the waste feed that you hydrocarbon standard under paragraph specify under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this (a) Emission limits for existing (b)(5)(ii) of this section, you must also section to the extent required by sources. You must not discharge or document that, during the destruction paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this cause combustion gases to be emitted and removal efficiency (DRE) test runs section. into the atmosphere that contain: (1)(i) Dioxin and furan in excess of or their equivalent as provided by (ii) You must specify one or more 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 § 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons do not POHCs from the list of hazardous air percent oxygen; or exceed 10 parts per million by volume pollutants established by 42 U.S.C. (ii) Dioxin and furan in excess of 0.40 during those runs, over an hourly 7412(b)(1), excluding caprolactam (CAS ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 percent rolling average (monitored continuously number 105602) as provided by § 63.60, oxygen provided that the combustion with a continuous emissions monitoring for each waste to be burned. You must gas temperature at the inlet to the initial system), dry basis, corrected to 7 base this specification on the degree of dry particulate matter control device is percent oxygen, and reported as difficulty of incineration of the organic 400°F or lower based on the average of propane; or constituents in the waste and on their the test run average temperatures; (ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 10 parts concentration or mass in the waste feed, (2) Mercury in excess of 64 µg/dscm per million by volume, over an hourly considering the results of waste analyses or other data and information. corrected to 7 percent oxygen; rolling average (monitored continuously (3) In excess of 4.0 × 10¥4 lbs with a continuous emissions monitoring (d) Significant figures. The emission limits provided by paragraphs (a) and combined emissions of cadmium and system), dry basis, corrected to 7 lead attributable to the hazardous waste percent oxygen, and reported as (b) of this section are presented with two significant figures. Although you per million British thermal unit heat propane; input from the hazardous waste; (6) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine must perform intermediate calculations ¥ (4) In excess of 1.4 × 10 5 lbs gas in excess of 0.18 parts per million using at least three significant figures, combined emissions of arsenic, by volume, combined emissions, you may round the resultant emission beryllium, and chromium attributable to expressed as a chloride (Cl(¥)) levels to two significant figures to the hazardous waste per million British equivalent, dry basis and corrected to 7 document compliance. thermal unit heat input from the percent oxygen; and (e) Alternative to the particulate (7) Except as provided by paragraph matter standard for incinerators—(1) hazardous waste; (5) Carbon monoxide and (e)(3) of this section, particulate matter General. In lieu of complying with the hydrocarbons. (i) For kilns equipped in excess of 1.6 mg/dscm corrected to 7 applicable particulate matter standards with a by-pass duct or midkiln gas percent oxygen. of paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(7) of this (c) Destruction and removal efficiency section, you may elect to comply with sampling system, either: (DRE) standard—(1) 99.99% DRE. the following alternative metal emission (A) Carbon monoxide in the by-pass Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) control requirements: duct or mid-kiln gas sampling system in of this section, you must achieve a (2) Alternative metal emission control excess of 100 parts per million by destruction and removal efficiency requirements for existing sources. (i) volume, over an hourly rolling average (DRE) of 99.99% for each principle You must not discharge or cause (monitored continuously with a organic hazardous constituent (POHC) combustion gases to be emitted into the continuous emissions monitoring designated under paragraph (c)(3) of this atmosphere that contain cadmium, lead, system), dry basis and corrected to 7 µ section. You must calculate DRE for and selenium in excess of 59 g/dscm, percent oxygen. If you elect to comply each POHC from the following equation: combined emissions, corrected to 7 with this carbon monoxide standard percent oxygen; and, rather than the hydrocarbon standard DRE = [1 ¥ (W /W )] × 100% out in (ii) You must not discharge or cause under paragraph (a)(5)(i)(B) of this Where: combustion gases to be emitted into the section, you must also document that, Win = mass feedrate of one POHC in a atmosphere that contain antimony, during the destruction and removal waste feedstream; and arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, efficiency (DRE) test runs or their Wout = mass emission rate of the same manganese, and nickel in excess of 84 equivalent as provided by POHC present in exhaust emissions µg/dscm, combined emissions, § 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons in the by- prior to release to the atmosphere. corrected to 7 percent oxygen. pass duct or mid-kiln gas sampling (2) 99.9999% DRE. If you burn the (3) Alternative metal emission control system do not exceed 10 parts per dioxin-listed hazardous wastes F020, requirements for new sources. (i) You million by volume during those runs, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027 (see must not discharge or cause combustion over an hourly rolling average § 261.31 of this chapter), you must gases to be emitted into the atmosphere (monitored continuously with a achieve a DRE of 99.9999% for each that contain cadmium, lead, and continuous emissions monitoring POHC that you designate under selenium in excess of 6.5/dscm, system), dry basis, corrected to 7 paragraph (c)(3) of this section. You combined emissions, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as must demonstrate this DRE performance percent oxygen; and, propane; or on POHCs that are more difficult to (ii) You must not discharge or cause (B) Hydrocarbons in the by-pass duct incinerate than tetra-, penta-, and combustion gases to be emitted into the or midkiln gas sampling system in hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and atmosphere that contain antimony, excess of 10 parts per million by dibenzofurans. You must use the arsenic, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, volume, over an hourly rolling average equation in paragraph (c)(1) of this manganese, and nickel in excess of 8.9 (monitored continuously with a section to calculate DRE for each POHC. µg/dscm, combined emissions, continuous emissions monitoring In addition, you must notify the corrected to 7 percent oxygen. system), dry basis, corrected to 7

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21380 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

percent oxygen, and reported as thermal unit heat input from the an hourly rolling average (monitored propane; hazardous waste; continuously with a continuous (ii) For kilns not equipped with a by- (5) Carbon monoxide and emissions monitoring system), dry basis, pass duct or midkiln gas sampling hydrocarbons. (i) For kilns equipped corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and system, either: with a by-pass duct or midkiln gas (2) Hydrocarbons not exceeding 20 (A) Hydrocarbons in the main stack in sampling system, carbon monoxide and parts per million by volume, over an excess of 20 parts per million by hydrocarbons emissions are limited in hourly rolling average (monitored volume, over an hourly rolling average both the bypass duct or midkiln gas continuously with a continuous (monitored continuously with a sampling system and the main stack as monitoring system), dry basis, corrected continuous emissions monitoring follows: to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as system), dry basis, corrected to 7 (A) Emissions in the by-pass or propane at any time during the percent oxygen, and reported as midkiln gas sampling system are limited destruction and removal efficiency propane; or to either: (DRE) test runs or their equivalent as (B) Carbon monoxide in the main (1) Carbon monoxide in excess of 100 provided by § 63.1206(b)(7); and stack in excess of 100 parts per million parts per million by volume, over an (3) If construction of the kiln by volume, over an hourly rolling hourly rolling average (monitored commenced after April 19, 1996 at a average (monitored continuously with a continuously with a continuous plant site where a cement kiln (whether continuous emissions monitoring emissions monitoring system), dry basis burning hazardous waste or not) did not system), dry basis and corrected to 7 and corrected to 7 percent oxygen. If previously exist, hydrocarbons are you elect to comply with this carbon percent oxygen. If you elect to comply limited to 50 parts per million by monoxide standard rather than the with this carbon monoxide standard volume, over a 30-day block average hydrocarbon standard under paragraph rather than the hydrocarbon standard (monitored continuously with a (b)(5)(i)(A)(2) of this section, you also under paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(A) of this continuous monitoring system), dry must document that, during the section, you also must document that, basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and destruction and removal efficiency during the destruction and removal reported as propane. (DRE) test runs or their equivalent as efficiency (DRE) test runs or their (6) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine provided by § 63.1206(b)(7), equivalent as provided by gas in excess of 78 parts per million, hydrocarbons do not exceed 10 parts per § 63.1206(b)(7), hydrocarbons in the combined emissions, expressed as a million by volume during those runs, (¥) main stack do not exceed 20 parts per chloride (Cl ) equivalent, dry basis over an hourly rolling average million by volume during those runs, and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and (monitored continuously with a over an hourly rolling average (7) Particulate matter in excess of 13 continuous emissions monitoring (monitored continuously with a mg/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen. system), dry basis, corrected to 7 continuous emissions monitoring (c) Destruction and removal efficiency percent oxygen, and reported as system), dry basis, corrected to 7 (DRE) standard—(1) 99.99% DRE. propane; or percent oxygen, and reported as Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) (2) Hydrocarbons in the by-pass duct propane. of this section, you must achieve a or midkiln gas sampling system in destruction and removal efficiency (6) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine excess of 10 parts per million by (DRE) of 99.99% for each principle gas in excess of 110 parts per million by volume, over an hourly rolling average organic hazardous constituent (POHC) volume, combined emissions, expressed (monitored continuously with a (¥) designated under paragraph (c)(3) of this as a chloride (Cl ) equivalent, dry continuous emissions monitoring section. You must calculate DRE for basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and system), dry basis, corrected to 7 each POHC from the following equation: (7) Particulate matter in excess of 65 percent oxygen, and reported as mg/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen. ¥ × propane; and DRE = [1 (Wout /Win )] 100% (b) Emission limits for new sources. (B) Hydrocarbons in the main stack Where: You must not discharge or cause are limited, if construction of the kiln W = mass feedrate of one POHC in a combustion gases to be emitted into the commenced after April 19, 1996 at a in waste feedstream; and atmosphere that contain: plant site where a cement kiln (whether (1)(i) Dioxin and furan in excess of burning hazardous waste or not) did not Wout = mass emission rate of the same 0.20 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 previously exist, to 50 parts per million POHC present in exhaust emissions percent oxygen; or by volume, over a 30-day block average prior to release to the atmosphere. (ii) Dioxin and furan in excess of 0.40 (monitored continuously with a (2) 99.9999% DRE. If you burn the ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 percent continuous monitoring system), dry dioxin-listed hazardous wastes F020, oxygen provided that the combustion basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027 (see gas temperature at the inlet to the initial reported as propane. § 261.31 of this chapter), you must dry particulate matter control device is (ii) For kilns not equipped with a by- achieve a DRE of 99.9999% for each 400°F or lower based on the average of pass duct or midkiln gas sampling POHC that you designate under the test run average temperatures; system, hydrocarbons and carbon paragraph (c)(3) of this section. You (2) Mercury in excess of 35 µg/dscm monoxide are limited in the main stack must demonstrate this DRE performance corrected to 7 percent oxygen; to either: on POHCs that are more difficult to (3) In excess of 6.2 × 10¥5 lbs (A) Hydrocarbons not exceeding 20 incinerate than tetra-, penta-, and combined emissions of cadmium and parts per million by volume, over an hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and lead attributable to the hazardous waste hourly rolling average (monitored dibenzofurans. You must use the per million British thermal unit heat continuously with a continuous equation in paragraph (c)(1) of this input from the hazardous waste; emissions monitoring system), dry basis, section to calculate DRE for each POHC. (4) In excess of 1.4 × 10¥5 lbs corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and In addition, you must notify the combined emissions of arsenic, reported as propane; or Administrator of your intent to beryllium, and chromium attributable to (B)(1) Carbon monoxide not exceeding incinerate hazardous wastes F020, F021, the hazardous waste per million British 100 parts per million by volume, over F022, F023, F026, or F027.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21381

(3) Principal organic hazardous Cmill-off = average performance test Ctot = {Cmain × (Qmain/(Qmain + Qbypass))} + constituent (POHC). (i) You must treat concentration of regulated {Cbypass × (Qbypass/(Qmain + Qbypass))} each POHC in the waste feed that you constituent with the raw mill off- Where: specify under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this line; C = gas flowrate-weighted average C tot section to the extent required by mill-on = average performance test concentration of the regulated concentration of regulated paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this constituent; section. constituent with the raw mill on- Cmain = average performance test (ii) You must specify one or more line; concentration demonstrated in the POHCs from the list of hazardous air Tmill-off = time when kiln gases are not main stack; pollutants established by 42 U.S.C. routed through the raw mill; and T = time when kiln gases are Cbypass = average performance test 7412(b)(1), excluding caprolactam (CAS mill-on concentration demonstrated in the number 105602) as provided by § 63.60, routed through the raw mill. bypass stack; (ii) Compliance. (A) If you use this for each waste to be burned. You must Q = volumetric flowrate of main emission averaging provision, you must main base this specification on the degree of stack effluent gas; and difficulty of incineration of the organic document in the operating record Q = volumetric flowrate of bypass compliance with the emission standards bypass constituents in the waste and on their effluent gas. concentration or mass in the waste feed, on an annual basis by using the considering the results of waste analyses equation provided by paragraph (d)(2) of (ii) Compliance. (A) You must or other data and information. this section. demonstrate compliance with the (d) Cement kilns with in-line kiln raw (B) Compliance is based on one-year emission standard(s) using the emission mills. The provisions of § 63.1204(d) block averages beginning on the day you concentrations determined from the apply. submit the initial notification of performance tests and the equation (1) General. (i) You must conduct compliance. provided by paragraph (e)(1) of this performance testing when the raw mill (iii) Notification. (A) If you elect to section; and is on-line and when the mill is off-line document compliance with one or more (B) You must develop operating to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards using this emission parameter limits for bypass stack and emission standards, and you must averaging provision, you must notify the main stack flowrates that ensure the establish separate operating parameter Administrator in the initial emission concentrations calculated with limits under § 63.1209 for each mode of comprehensive performance test plan the equation in paragraph (e)(1) of this operation, except as provided by submitted under § 63.1207(e). section do not exceed the emission paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section. (B) You must include historical raw standards on a 12-hour rolling average (ii) You must document in the mill operation data in the performance basis. You must include these flowrate operating record each time you change test plan to estimate future raw mill limits in the Notification of Compliance. from one mode of operation to the down-time and document in the (iii) Notification. If you elect to alternate mode and begin complying performance test plan that estimated document compliance under this with the operating parameter limits for emissions and estimated raw mill down- emissions averaging provision, you that alternate mode of operation. time will not result in an exceedance of must: (iii) You must establish rolling an emission standard on an annual (A) Notify the Administrator in the averages for the operating parameter basis. initial comprehensive performance test limits anew (i.e., without considering (C) You must document in the plan submitted under § 63.1207(e). The previous recordings) when you begin notification of compliance submitted performance test plan must include, at complying with the operating limits for under § 63.1207(j) that an emission a minimum, information describing the the alternate mode of operation. standard will not be exceeded based on flowrate limits established under (iv) If your in-line kiln raw mill has the documented emissions from the paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B) of this section; dual stacks, you may assume that the performance test and predicted raw mill and dioxin/furan emission levels in the by- down-time. (B) Document in the Notification of pass stack and the operating parameter (e) Preheater or preheater/precalciner Compliance submitted under limits determined during performance kilns with dual stacks—(1) General. You § 63.1207(j) the demonstrated gas testing of the by-pass stack when the must conduct performance testing on flowrate-weighted average emissions raw mill is off-line are the same as when each stack to demonstrate compliance that you calculate with the equation the mill is on-line. with the emission standards, and you provided by paragraph (e)(2) of this (2) Emissions averaging. You may must establish operating parameter section. comply with the mercury, semivolatile limits under § 63.1209 for each stack, (f) Significant figures. The emission metal, low volatile metal, and except as provided by paragraph limits provided by paragraphs (a) and hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas emission (d)(1)(iv) of this section for dioxin/furan (b) of this section are presented with standards on a time-weighted average emissions testing and operating two significant figures. Although you basis under the following procedures: parameter limits for the by-pass stack of must perform intermediate calculations (i) Averaging methodology. You must in-line raw mills. using at least three significant figures, calculate the time-weighted average (2) Emissions averaging. You may you may round the resultant emission emission concentration with the comply with the mercury, semivolatile levels to two significant figures to following equation: metal, low volatile metal, and document compliance. { × Ctotal = Cmill-off (Tmill-off/(Tmill-off + hydrochloric acid/chlorine gas emission (g) [Reserved]. } { × Tmill-on)) + Cmill-on (Tmill-on/ standards specified in this section on a (h) When you comply with the } (Tmill-off + Tmill-on )) gas flowrate-weighted average basis particulate matter requirements of Where: under the following procedures: paragraphs (a)(7) or (b)(7) of this section, Ctotal = time-weighted average (i) Averaging methodology. You must you are exempt from the New Source concentration of a regulated calculate the gas flowrate-weighted Performance Standard for particulate constituent considering both raw average emission concentration using matter and opacity under § 60.60 of this mill on time and off time; the following equation: chapter.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21382 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

18. Section 63.1221 is added to (b) Emission limits for new sources. designated under paragraph (c)(3) of this subpart EEE to read as follows: You must not discharge or cause section. You must calculate DRE for combustion gases to be emitted into the each POHC from the following equation: § 63.1221 What are the replacement ¥ atmosphere that contain: DRE = [1 (Wout / Win)] × 100% standards for hazardous waste burning (1) Dioxins and furans in excess of lightweight aggregate kilns? Where: 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 (a) Emission limits for existing percent oxygen; Win = mass feedrate of one POHC in a sources. You must not discharge or (2) Mercury in excess of 67 µg/dscm waste feedstream; and cause combustion gases to be emitted corrected to 7 percent oxygen; Wout = mass emission rate of the same into the atmosphere that contain: (3)(i) In excess of 2.4 × 10¥5 lbs POHC present in exhaust emissions (1) Dioxins and furans in excess of combined emissions of cadmium and prior to release to the atmosphere. 0.40 ng TEQ/dscm corrected to 7 lead attributable to the hazardous waste (2) 99.9999% DRE. If you burn the percent oxygen; per million British thermal unit heat dioxin-listed hazardous wastes F020, µ (2) Mercury in excess of 67 g/dscm input from the hazardous waste; and F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027 (see corrected to 7 percent oxygen; (ii) Lead and cadmium in excess of 43 § 261.31 of this chapter), you must × ¥4 (3)(i) In excess of 3.1 10 lbs µg/dscm, combined emissions, achieve a destruction and removal combined emissions of cadmium and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; efficiency (DRE) of 99.9999% for each lead attributable to the hazardous waste (4)(i) In excess of 3.2 × 10¥5 lbs POHC that you designate under per million British thermal unit heat combined emissions of arsenic, paragraph (c)(3) of this section. You input from the hazardous waste; and beryllium, and chromium attributable to must demonstrate this DRE performance (ii) Lead and cadmium in excess of the hazardous waste per million British on POHCs that are more difficult to µ 250 g/dscm, combined emissions, thermal unit heat input from the incinerate than tetra-, penta-, and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; hazardous waste; and hexachlorodibenzo-dioxins and × ¥5 (4)(ii) In excess of 9.5 10 lbs (ii) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium dibenzofurans. You must use the combined emissions of arsenic, in excess of 110 µg/dscm, combined equation in paragraph (c)(1) of this beryllium, and chromium attributable to emissions, corrected to 7 percent section to calculate DRE for each POHC. the hazardous waste per million British oxygen; In addition, you must notify the thermal unit heat input from the (5) Carbon monoxide and Administrator of your intent to burn hazardous waste; and hydrocarbons. (i) Carbon monoxide in hazardous wastes F020, F021, F022, (ii) Arsenic, beryllium, and chromium excess of 100 parts per million by µ F023, F026, or F027. in excess of 110 g/dscm, combined volume, over an hourly rolling average (3) Principal organic hazardous emissions, corrected to 7 percent (monitored continuously with a constituents (POHCs). (i) You must treat oxygen; continuous emissions monitoring each POHC in the waste feed that you (5) Carbon monoxide and system), dry basis and corrected to 7 specify under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this hydrocarbons. (i) Carbon monoxide in percent oxygen. If you elect to comply section to the extent required by excess of 100 parts per million by with this carbon monoxide standard paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this volume, over an hourly rolling average rather than the hydrocarbon standard section. (monitored continuously with a under paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section, (ii) You must specify one or more continuous emissions monitoring you also must document that, during the POHCs from the list of hazardous air system), dry basis and corrected to 7 destruction and removal efficiency pollutants established by 42 U.S.C. percent oxygen. If you elect to comply (DRE) test runs or their equivalent as 7412(b)(1), excluding caprolactam (CAS with this carbon monoxide standard provided by § 63.1206(b)(7), number 105602) as provided by § 63.60, rather than the hydrocarbon standard hydrocarbons do not exceed 20 parts per for each waste to be burned. You must under paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section, million by volume during those runs, base this specification on the degree of you also must document that, during the over an hourly rolling average difficulty of incineration of the organic destruction and removal efficiency (monitored continuously with a constituents in the waste and on their (DRE) test runs or their equivalent as continuous emissions monitoring concentration or mass in the waste feed, provided by § 63.1206(b)(7), system), dry basis, corrected to 7 considering the results of waste analyses hydrocarbons do not exceed 20 parts per percent oxygen, and reported as or other data and information. million by volume during those runs, propane; or (d) Significant figures. The emission over an hourly rolling average (ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 20 parts limits provided by paragraphs (a) and (monitored continuously with a per million by volume, over an hourly (b) of this section are presented with continuous emissions monitoring rolling average, dry basis, corrected to 7 two significant figures. Although you system), dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, and reported as must perform intermediate calculations percent oxygen, and reported as propane; using at least three significant figures, propane; or (6) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine you may round the resultant emission (ii) Hydrocarbons in excess of 20 parts gas in excess of 600 parts per million by levels to two significant figures to per million by volume, over an hourly volume, combined emissions, expressed document compliance. rolling average, dry basis, corrected to 7 as a chloride (Cl¥) equivalent, dry basis percent oxygen, and reported as and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; and PART 264—STANDARDS FOR propane; (7) Particulate matter in excess of 23 OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF (6) Hydrogen chloride and chlorine mg/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen. HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, gas in excess of 600 parts per million by (c) Destruction and removal efficiency STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL volume, combined emissions, expressed (DRE) standard—(1) 99.99% DRE. FACILITIES as a chloride (Cl(¥)) equivalent, dry Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) basis and corrected to 7 percent oxygen; of this section, you must achieve a 1. The authority citation for part 264 and destruction and removal efficiency continues to read as follows: (7) Particulate matter in excess of 57 (DRE) of 99.99% for each principal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, mg/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen. organic hazardous constituent (POHC) 6925, 6927, 6928(h), and 6974.

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21383

2. Section 264.340 is amended by PART 266—STANDARDS FOR THE (l) If the Director concludes that there revising the first sentence of paragraph MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC is reason to believe that compliance (b)(1) and adding paragraph (b)(5) to HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC with the standards in 40 CFR part 63, read as follows: TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE subpart EEE alone may not be protective MANAGEMENT FACILITIES of human health or the environment, the § 264.340 Applicability. Director shall require additional * * * * * 1. The authority citation for part 266 information or assessment(s) that the continues to read as follows: (b) * * * (1) Except as provided by Director determines are necessary to paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(5) of this Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1006, 2002(a), 3001– ensure protection of human health and 3009, 3014, 6905, 6906, 6912, 6921, 6922, the environment. The Director also may section, the standards of this part no 6924–6927, 6934, and 6937. require a permittee or an applicant to longer apply when an owner or operator provide information necessary to demonstrates compliance with the 2. Section 266.100 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph determine whether such an maximum achievable control assessment(s) should be required. technology (MACT) requirements of part (b)(1) and adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 3. Section 270.19 is amended by 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: conducting a comprehensive § 266.100 Applicability. performance test and submitting to the * * * * * § 270.19 Specific part B information requirements for incinerators. Administrator a Notification of (b) * * * (1) Except as provided by Compliance under §§ 63.1207(j) and paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this * * * * * 63.1210(d) of this chapter documenting section, the standards of this part no (e) When an owner or operator compliance with the requirements of longer apply when an owner or operator demonstrates compliance with the air part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter. demonstrates compliance with the emission standards and limitations in *** maximum achievable control part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter (i.e., by conducting a comprehensive * * * * * technology (MACT) requirements of part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter by performance test and submitting a (5) The particulate matter standard of conducting a comprehensive Notification of Compliance under § 264.343(c) remains in effect for performance test and submitting to the §§ 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) of this incinerators that elect to comply with Administrator a Notification of chapter documenting compliance with the alternative to the particulate matter Compliance under §§ 63.1207(j) and all applicable requirements of part 63, standard of § 63.1219(e) of this chapter. 63.1210(d) of this chapter documenting subpart EEE, of this chapter), the * * * * * compliance with the requirements of requirements of this section do not part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter. apply, except those provisions the PART 265—INTERIM STATUS *** Director determines are necessary to ensure compliance with §§ 264.345(a) STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND * * * * * OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE and 264.345(c) of this chapter if you (3) If you own or operate a boiler or elect to comply with § 270.235(a)(1)(i) to TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND hydrochloric acid furnace that is an area DISPOSAL FACILITIES minimize emissions of toxic compounds source under § 63.2 of this chapter and from startup, shutdown, and you elect not to comply with the malfunction events. Nevertheless, the 1. The authority citation for part 265 emission standards under §§ 63.1216, continues to read as follows: Director may apply the provisions of 63.1217, and 63.1218 of this chapter for this section, on a case-by-case basis, for Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912, particulate matter, semivolatile and low purposes of information collection in 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6935, 6936, and volatile metals, and total chlorine, you accordance with §§ 270.10(k), 270.10(l), 6937. also remain subject to: 270.32(b)(2), and 270.32(b)(3) of this (i) Section 266.105—Standards to chapter. 2. Section 265.340 is amended by control particulate matter; 3. Section 270.22 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as (ii) Section 266.106—Standards to revising the introductory text to read as follows: control metals emissions, except for follows: mercury; and § 265.340 Applicability. (iii) Section 266.107—Standards to § 270.22 Specific part B information * * * * * control hydrogen chloride and chlorine requirements for boilers and industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste. (b) * * * (1) Except as provided by gas. paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this * * * * * When an owner or operator of a section, the standards of this part no cement kiln, lightweight aggregate kiln, longer apply when an owner or operator PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED solid fuel-fired boiler, liquid fuel-fired PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE demonstrates compliance with the boiler, or hydrochloric acid production HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT furnace demonstrates compliance with maximum achievable control PROGRAM the air emission standards and technology (MACT) requirements of part limitations in part 63, subpart EEE, of 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter by 1. The authority citation for part 270 this chapter (i.e., by conducting a conducting a comprehensive continues to read as follows: comprehensive performance test and performance test and submitting to the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924, submitting a Notification of Compliance Administrator a Notification of 6925, 6927, 6939, and 6974. under §§ 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) of Compliance under §§ 63.1207(j) and 2. Section 270.10 is amended by this chapter documenting compliance 63.1210(d) of this chapter documenting adding paragraph (l) to read as follows: with all applicable requirements of part compliance with the requirements of 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter), the part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter. § 270.10 General application requirements. requirements of this section do not * * * * * * * * * * apply. The requirements of this section

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 21384 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

do apply, however, if the Director modification can be requested under APPENDIX I TO § 270.42—CLASSIFICA- determines certain provisions are this section for the purpose of TION OF PERMIT MODIFICATION— necessary to ensure compliance with technology changes needed to meet the Continued §§ 266.102(e)(1) and 266.102(e)(2)(iii) of 40 CFR 63.1215, 63.1216, 63.1217, this chapter if you elect to comply with 63.1218, 63.1219, 63.1220, and 63.1221 Modifications Class § 270.235(a)(1)(i) to minimize emissions standards promulgated on [date of of toxic compounds from startup, publication of the final rule in the shutdown, and malfunction events; or if Federal Register]. ***** you are an area source and elect to * * * * * 1 Class 1 modifications requiring prior Agen- comply with the §§ 266.105, 266.106, (k) Waiver of RCRA permitting cy approval. and 266.107 standards and associated requirements in support of transition to 6. Section 270.62 is amended by requirements for particulate matter, the part 63 MACT standards. (1) You revising the introductory text to read as hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas, and may request to have specific RCRA follows: non-mercury metals; or the Director operating and emissions limits waived determines certain provisions apply, on by submitting a Class 1 permit § 270.62 Hazardous waste incinerator a case-by-case basis, for purposes of modification request under Appendix I permits. information collection in accordance of this section, section L(10). You must: When an owner or operator with §§ 270.10(k), 270.10(l), (i) Identify the specific RCRA permit demonstrates compliance with the air 270.32(b)(2), and 270.32(b)(3). operating and emissions limits which emission standards and limitations in * * * * * you are requesting to waive; part 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter 4. Section 270.32 is amended by (ii) Provide an explanation of why the (i.e., by conducting a comprehensive adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as changes are necessary in order to performance test and submitting a follows: minimize or eliminate conflicts between Notification of Compliance under the RCRA permit and MACT §§ 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) of this § 270.32 Establishing permit conditions. compliance; and chapter documenting compliance with * * * * * (iii) Discuss how the revised all applicable requirements of part 63, (b) * * * provisions will be sufficiently subpart EEE, of this chapter), the (3) If, as the result of an assessment(s) protective. requirements of this section do not or other information, the Administrator (2) To request this modification in apply, except those provisions the or Director determines that conditions conjunction with MACT performance Director determines are necessary to are necessary in addition to those testing where permit limits may only be ensure compliance with §§ 264.345(a) required under 40 CFR parts 63, subpart waived during actual test events and and 264.345(c) of this chapter if you EEE, 264 or 266 to ensure protection of pretesting, as defined under 40 CFR elect to comply with § 270.235(a)(1)(i) to human health and the environment, he 63.1207(h)(2)(i) and (ii), for an aggregate minimize emissions of toxic compounds shall include those terms and time not to exceed 720 hours of from startup, shutdown, and conditions in a RCRA permit for a operation (renewable at the discretion of malfunction events. Nevertheless, the hazardous waste combustion unit. the Administrator) you must: Director may apply the provisions of * * * * * (i) Demonstrate that your site-specific this section, on a case-by-case basis, for 5. Section 270.42 is amended by: emissions test plan and continuous purposes of information collection in a. Revising paragraph (j)(1). monitoring system performance accordance with §§ 270.10(k), 270.10(l), b. Redesignating paragraph (j)(2) as evaluation test plan have been 270.32(b)(2), and 270.32(b)(3) of this chapter. (j)(3). submitted and approved by the c. Adding new paragraph (j)(2). Administrator as required in 40 CFR * * * * * d. Adding new paragraph (k); and 63.1207(e), and 7. Section 270.66 is amended by e. Adding a new entry 10 in (ii) Submit your modification request revising the introductory text to read as numerical order in the table under upon approval of your test plan. follows: section L of Appendix I. (3) The Director shall approve or deny The revisions and additions reads as § 270.66 Permits for boilers and industrial the request within 30 days of receipt of follows: furnaces burning hazardous waste. the request. The Director may, at his or When an owner or operator of a § 270.42 Permit modification at the request her discretion, extend this 30 day cement kiln, lightweight aggregate kiln, of the permittee. deadline one time for up to 30 days by solid fuel-fired boiler, liquid fuel-fired * * * * * notifying the facility owner or operator. boiler, or hydrochloric acid production (j) * * * * * * * * furnace demonstrates compliance with (1) Facility owners or operators must the air emission standards and have complied with the Notification of APPENDIX I TO § 270.42—CLASSIFICA- limitations in part 63, subpart EEE, of Intent to Comply (NIC) requirements of TION OF PERMIT MODIFICATION this chapter (i.e., by conducting a 40 CFR 63.1210 that were in effect prior comprehensive performance test and to October 11, 2000, (See 40 CFR part Modifications Class submitting a Notification of Compliance 63 §§ 63.1200–63.1499 revised as of July under §§ 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) of 1, 2000) in order to request a permit this chapter documenting compliance modification under this section for the ***** with all applicable requirements of part purpose of technology changes needed 10. Changes to RCRA permit provi- 63, subpart EEE, of this chapter), the sions needed to support transition to meet the 40 CFR 63.1203, 63.1204, to 40 CFR part 63 (Subpart EEE— requirements of this section do not and 63.1205 standards. National Emission Standards for apply. The requirements of this section (2) Facility owners or operators must Hazardous Air Pollutants From do apply, however, if the Director comply with the Notification of Intent to Hazardous Waste Combustors), determines certain provisions are Comply (NIC) requirements of 40 CFR provided the procedures of necessary to ensure compliance with 63.1210(b) and 63.1212 before a permit § 270.42(k) are followed ...... 1 1 §§ 266.102(e)(1) and 266.102(e)(2)(iii) of

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21385

this chapter if you elect to comply with malfunction events under any of the Administrator a Notification of § 270.235(a)(1)(i) to minimize emissions following options when requesting Compliance documenting compliance of toxic compounds from startup, removal of permit conditions that are no with the standards of part 63, subpart shutdown, and malfunction events; or if longer applicable according to EEE, of this chapter. you are an area source and elect to §§ 264.340(b) and 266.100(b) of this * * * * * chapter: comply with the §§ 266.105, 266.106, (2) Operations under a subsequent and 266.107 standards and associated * * * * * RCRA permit. When an owner or requirements for particulate matter, (2) Addressing permit conditions operator of an incinerator, cement kiln, hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas, and upon permit reissuance. The owner or lightweight aggregate kiln, solid fuel- non-mercury metals; or the Director operator of an incinerator, cement kiln, fired boiler, liquid fuel-fired boiler, or determines certain provisions apply, on lightweight aggregate kiln, solid fuel- hydrochloric acid production furnace a case-by-case basis, for purposes of fired boiler, liquid fuel-fired boiler, or that is operating under the interim information collection in accordance hydrochloric acid production furnace status standards of parts 265 or 266 of with §§ 270.10(k), 270.10(l), that has conducted a comprehensive this chapter submits a RCRA permit 270.32(b)(2), and 270.32(b)(3). performance test and submitted to the application, the owner or operator may * * * * * Administrator a Notification of request that the Director control Compliance documenting compliance 8. Section 270.235 is amended by: emissions from startup, shutdown, and with the standards of part 63, subpart a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) malfunction events under any of the EEE, of this chapter may request in the introductory text and (a)(2) introductory options provided by paragraphs (a)(2)(i), application to reissue the permit for the text. (a)(2)(ii), or (a)(2)(iii) of this section. b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) combustion unit that the Director introductory text and (b)(2). control emissions from startup, * * * * * The revisions read as follows: shutdown, and malfunction events PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR under any of the following options: § 270.235 Options for incinerators, cement AUTHORIZATION OF STATE kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, solid fuel- * * * * * HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS fired boilers, liquid fuel-fired boilers and (b) * * * (1) Interim status hydrochloric acid production furnaces to operations. In compliance with 1. The authority citation for part 271 minimize emissions from startup, §§ 265.340 and 266.100(b), the owner or continues to read as follows: shutdown, and malfunction events. operator of an incinerator, cement kiln, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and (a) * * * (1) Revisions to permit lightweight aggregate kiln, solid fuel- 6926. conditions after documenting fired boiler, liquid fuel-fired boiler, or compliance with MACT. The owner or hydrochloric acid production furnace 2. Section 271.1(j) is amended by operator of a RCRA-permitted that is operating under the interim adding the following entry to Table 1 in incinerator, cement kiln, lightweight status standards of part 265 or 266 of chronological order by date of aggregate kiln, solid fuel-fired boiler, this chapter may control emissions of publication in the Federal Register, to liquid fuel-fired boiler, or hydrochloric toxic compounds during startup, read as follows: acid production furnace may request shutdown, and malfunction events that the Director address permit under either of the following options § 271.1 Purpose and scope. conditions that minimize emissions after conducting a comprehensive * * * * * from startup, shutdown, and performance test and submitting to the (j) * * *

TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Federal Reg- Promulgation date Title of regulation ister ref- Effective date erence

******* Insert date of publication of final rule in the Federal Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous [Insert FR [Insert date of Register (FR)]. Waste Combustors. page num- publication bers of final of final rule]. rule].

[FR Doc. 04–7858 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate mar<24>2004 19:05 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP2.SGM 20APP2 Tuesday, April 20, 2004

Part III

Federal Trade Commission 16 CFR Part 682 Disposal of Consumer Report Information and Records; Proposed Rule

VerDate mar<24>2004 20:24 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\20APP3.SGM 20APP3 21388 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION publicly available on the FTC Web site. I. Introduction The fields marked with an asterisk on The FACT Act was signed into law on 16 CFR Part 682 the form are required in order for the December 4, 2003. Fair and Accurate RIN 3084–AA94 FTC to fully consider a particular Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Pub. L. comment. Commenters may choose not No. 108–159 (2003). In general, the Act Disposal of Consumer Report to fill in one or more of those fields, but amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act Information and Records if they do so, their comments may not (‘‘FCRA’’) to enhance the accuracy of be considered. consumer reports and to allow AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission Comments on any proposed filing, consumers to exercise greater control (FTC). regarding the type and amount of recordkeeping, or disclosure ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; marketing solicitations they receive. To requirements that are subject to request for public comment. promote increasingly efficient national paperwork burden review under the credit markets, the FACT Act also Paperwork Reduction Act should SUMMARY: The Federal Trade establishes uniform national standards additionally be submitted to: Office of Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) in key areas of regulation regarding is proposing a rule regarding the proper Information and Regulatory Affairs, consumer report information. Finally, disposal of consumer report information Office of Management and Budget, the Act contains a number of provisions and records. The Fair and Accurate Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal intended to combat consumer fraud and Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (‘‘FACT Trade Commission. Comments should related crimes, including identity theft, Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’) requires the Federal be submitted via facsimile to (202) 395– and to assist its victims. Reserve Board, Office of the Comptroller 6974 because U.S. postal mail at the Section 216 of the FACT Act requires of the Currency, Federal Deposit Office of Management and Budget is the Commission, Federal banking Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift subject to lengthy delays due to agencies, National Credit Union Supervision (collectively, the ‘‘Federal heightened security precautions. Such Administration, and Securities and banking agencies’’), National Credit comments should also be sent to the Exchange Commission (the ‘‘Agencies’’), Union Administration, Securities and following address: Federal Trade to issue regulations requiring ‘‘any Exchange Commission, and Federal Commission/Office of the Secretary, person that maintains or otherwise Trade Commission, in coordination Room 159–H (Annex H), 600 possesses consumer information, or any with one another, to adopt consistent Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., compilation of consumer information, and comparable rules regarding such Washington, DC 20580. derived from consumer reports for a disposal. The FTC Act and other laws the business purpose to properly dispose of DATES: Written comments must be Commission administers permit the any such information or compilation.’’ received on or before June 15, 2004. collection of public comments to The purpose of this section is to prevent unauthorized disclosure of consumer ADDRESSES: Interested parties are consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive information and to reduce the risk of invited to submit written comments. fraud or related crimes, including Comments should refer to ‘‘The FACT public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be identity theft, by ensuring that records Act Disposal Rule, R–411007’’ to containing sensitive financial or facilitate the organization of comments. considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC personal information are appropriately A comment filed in paper form should redacted or destroyed before being include this reference both in the text Web site, to the extent practicable, at http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discarded. The Agencies are required to and on the envelope, and should be consult and coordinate with each other mailed or delivered to the following discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for so that, to the extent possible, address: Federal Trade Commission/ regulations implementing this section Office of the Secretary, Room 159–H individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments are consistent and comparable. In (Annex H), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, addition, the Agencies’ regulations must NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the be consistent with the Gramm-Leach- containing confidential material must be ‘‘ Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s Bliley Act ( GLBA’’) and other filed in paper form. The FTC is provisions of Federal law. The requesting that any comment filed in privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ ftc/privacy.htm. Commission has conferred with the paper form be sent by courier or Agencies and now offers for public overnight service, if possible, because FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comment this proposed rule regarding U.S. postal mail in the Washington area Ellen Finn or Susan McDonald, the disposal of consumer report and at the Commission is subject to Attorneys, (202) 326–3224, Division of information and records (‘‘Disposal delay due to heightened security Financial Practices, Bureau of Consumer Rule’’ or ‘‘Rule’’).1 precautions. Protection, Federal Trade Commission, II. Summary of Proposed Rule An electronic comment can be filed 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., by (1) clicking on http:// Washington, DC 20580. The following is a section-by-section www.regulations.gov; (2) selecting summary of the Commission’s proposed ‘‘Federal Trade Commission’’ at ‘‘Search SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Rule. for Open Regulations;’’ (3) locating the notice contains the following sections: summary of this Notice; (4) clicking on I. Introduction 1 The Federal banking agencies, SEC, and NCUA ‘‘Submit a Comment on this II. Summary of Proposed Rule propose to implement section 216 of the FACT Act by amending their existing guidelines and rules on Regulation;’’ and (5) completing the III. Invitation to Comment information security previously issued to form. For a given electronic comment, IV. Communications by Outside Parties to implement section 501(b) of the GLBA. However, any information placed in the following Commissioners or Their Advisors because the entities subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction fields—‘‘Title,’’ ‘‘First Name,’’ ‘‘Last under the FACT Act and the GLBA are overlapping V. Paperwork Reduction Act but not coextensive, the Commission is proposing Name,’’ ‘‘Organization Name,’’ ‘‘State,’’ VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act a separate rule to implement section 216 of the ‘‘Comment,’’ and ‘‘Attachment’’—will be Proposed Rule FACT Act.

VerDate mar<24>2004 20:24 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP3.SGM 20APP3 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21389

Proposed Section 682.1: Definitions which applies to ‘‘any person over about a consumer that is taken from a This section defines terms for which the Federal Trade Commission consumer report, including information purposes of the proposed Disposal Rule. has jurisdiction, that, for a business that results in whole or in part from Proposed section 682.1(a) makes clear purpose, maintains or otherwise manipulation of information from a possesses consumer information, or any consumer report or information from a that, unless otherwise stated, terms used 2 in the Disposal Rule have the same compilation of consumer information.’’ consumer report that has been meaning as set forth in the Fair Credit This section, which tracks the language combined with other types of 5 Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. of section 216 of the FACT Act, creates information. Thus, any person that two criteria for determining whether a Thus, for example, the term ‘‘consumer possesses such information, including person would be required to comply report’’ as used in the Disposal Rule has an affiliate that has received it pursuant with the Disposal Rule. First, does the the same meaning as the term to section 603(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the FCRA, person maintain or otherwise possess ‘‘consumer report’’ elsewhere in the would be obligated to properly dispose the consumer information for a business FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d) (defining of it. purpose? Second, does the record being ‘‘consumer report’’). The proposed The Commission requests comment disposed of contain consumer Disposal Rule also defines two new on the scope of the proposed Rule and information, or any compilation of terms: ‘‘consumer information’’ and the costs and benefits of covering the consumer information? ‘‘disposal.’’ entities and information proposed. The As to the first criterion, the Commission also seeks comment on Proposed section 682.1(b) defines Commission reads ‘‘for a business ‘‘consumer information’’ as any record whether the definition of covered purpose’’ broadly to include all business ‘‘consumer information’’ should be about an individual, whether in paper, reasons for which a person may possess electronic, or other form, that is a further clarified, by example or or maintain consumer information. otherwise. Finally, the Commission consumer report or is derived from a Thus, the Rule would likely cover any consumer report. The Commission requests comment on whether there are person that possesses or maintains any persons or classes of persons believes a broad definition of the term, consumer information other than an which includes all types of records that covered by the proposed Rule that it individual consumer who has obtained should consider exempting from the are consumer reports, or contain his or her own consumer report. Among consumer information derived from Rule’s application pursuant to section the entities that possess or maintain 216(a)(3) of the FACTA. consumer reports, will best effectuate consumer information for a business the purpose of the Act. However, under purpose are consumer reporting Proposed Section 682.3: Proper Disposal this definition, information that is agencies, including resellers of of Consumer Information derived from consumer reports but does consumer reports, that are in the Regarding the standard for disposal, not identify any particular consumers business of selling consumer the proposed Rule would require that would not be covered under the information, as well as lenders, insurers, any person that maintains or otherwise proposed Rule. The Commission employers, landlords, government possesses consumer information ‘‘take believes that limiting ‘‘consumer agencies, mortgage brokers, automobile reasonable measures to protect against information’’ to information that dealers, and other users of consumer unauthorized access to or use of the identifies particular consumers is 3 reports. Companies that possess information in connection with its consistent with current law relating to consumer information in connection disposal.’’ The Commission recognizes the scope of the term ‘‘consumer report’’ with the provision of services to another that there are few foolproof methods of under the FCRA and the purposes of entity are also directly covered by the record destruction. Accordingly, the section 216. proposed Rule to the extent that they proposed Rule does not require covered Proposed section 682.1(c) defines 4 dispose of the consumer information. persons to ensure perfect destruction of ‘‘disposing’’ or ‘‘disposal’’ to include the As to the second criterion, the FACT consumer information in every instance; discarding or abandonment of consumer Act and proposed Rule make clear that rather, it requires covered entities to information, as well as the sale, the disposal requirements apply not take reasonable measures to protect donation, or transfer of any medium, only to consumer reports, but also to against unauthorized access to or use of including computer equipment, upon records containing ‘‘consumer the information in connection with its which consumer information is stored. information, or any compilation of disposal. By itself, the sale, donation, or transfer consumer information, derived from In determining what measures are of consumer information would not be consumer reports.’’ FACT Act, section ‘‘reasonable’’ under the Rule, the considered ‘‘disposal’’ under the 628(a)(1). The Commission believes that proposed Rule. the phrase ‘‘derived from consumer Commission expects that entities The Commission requests comment reports’’ covers all of the information covered by the proposed Rule would on both of these proposed definitions. consider the sensitivity of the consumer 2 ‘‘Person’’ is defined in the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. information, the nature and size of the Proposed Section 682.2: Purpose and 1681a(b), as ‘‘any individual, partnership, entity’s operations, the costs and Scope corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, benefits of different disposal methods, government or governmental subdivision or agency, Proposed section 682.2(a) sets forth and relevant technological changes. or other entity.’’ ‘‘Reasonable measures’’ are very likely to the purpose of the proposed Disposal 3 As these examples illustrate, the Commission Rule, which is to reduce the risk of views a ‘‘business purpose’’ as broader than a require elements such as the consumer fraud and related harms, ‘‘permissible purpose’’ as defined in section 604 of establishment of policies and the FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. 1681b (outlining procedures governing disposal, as well including identity theft, created by permissible uses of consumer reports). Although improper disposal of consumer ‘‘permissible purposes’’ are generally ‘‘business as appropriate employee training. information. See Cong. Rec. S13889 purposes,’’ there are a variety of business purposes (Nov. 4, 2003) (Statement of Sen. for which persons maintain or possess ‘‘consumer 5 Information that does not identify particular information’’ beyond those listed as ‘‘permissible’’ consumers would not be covered, even if the Nelson). for users of consumer reports. information was originally ‘‘derived from consumer Proposed section 682.2(b) sets forth 4 Examples of such companies could include reports,’’ since that information would no longer be the scope of the proposed Disposal Rule, records management or waste disposal companies. ‘‘about a consumer.’’

VerDate mar<24>2004 20:24 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP3.SGM 20APP3 21390 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

The flexible standard for disposal in entity’s unique circumstances, they are filed in paper form be sent by courier or the proposed Rule would allow covered intended merely to provide general overnight service, if possible, because persons to make decisions appropriate guidance. U.S. postal mail in the Washington area to their particular circumstances and The Commission invites comment on and at the Commission is subject to should minimize the disruption of the proposed standard for record delay due to heightened security existing practices to the extent that they disposal. In particular, the Commission precautions. already provide appropriate protections invites comment on: (1) The costs and An electronic comment can be filed for consumers. It is also intended to benefits of the proposed standard; (2) by (1) clicking on http:// minimize the burden of compliance for the costs and benefits of any alternative www.regulations.gov; (2) selecting smaller entities. In addition, a standards; (3) the appropriateness and ‘‘Federal Trade Commission’’ at ‘‘Search ‘‘reasonable measures’’ standard would usefulness of providing examples in the for Open Regulations;’’ (3) locating the harmonize the Disposal Rule with the Rule of reasonable record disposal summary of this Notice; (4) clicking on Commission’s Safeguards Rule, 16 CFR measures; (4) the merits of the examples ‘‘Submit a Comment on this part 314, implementing section 501(b) of included in this notice, as well as any Regulation;’’ and (5) completing the the GLBA, so that entities subject to other standards or examples that the form. For a given electronic comment, both rules will not face conflicting Commission might consider to provide any information placed in the following requirements.6 An entity subject to the guidance on appropriate record fields—‘‘Title,’’ ‘‘First Name,’’ ‘‘Last Safeguards Rule is required to address disposal. Name,’’ ‘‘Organization Name,’’ ‘‘State,’’ the disposal of customer information as Proposed Section 682.4: Relation to ‘‘Comment,’’ and ‘‘Attachment’’—will be one part of a larger, written information Other Laws publicly available on the FTC Web site. security program reasonable and The fields marked with an asterisk on The proposal makes clear that nothing appropriate for that entity. An entity the form are required in order for the in the proposed Rule is intended to that incorporates proper disposal FTC to fully consider a particular create a requirement that a person measures for consumer information, as comment. Commenters may choose not defined in the FACT Act Disposal Rule, maintain or destroy any record pertaining to a consumer. Nor is the to fill in one or more of those fields, but into the broader information security if they do so, their comments may not program required by the Safeguards Rule intended to affect any requirement imposed under any other provision of be considered. Rule would easily be able to comply Comments on any proposed filing, 7 law to maintain or destroy such records. with both rules. recordkeeping, or disclosure Despite the many benefits of a flexible Proposed Section 682.5: Effective Date requirements that are subject to ‘‘reasonableness’’ standard, the paperwork burden review under the Commission recognizes that such a The Commission proposes to make Paperwork Reduction Act should standard can leave covered persons with the Disposal Rule effective 3 months additionally be submitted to: Office of some uncertainty about compliance. after the publication of the final Rule. Information and Regulatory Affairs, Accordingly, the proposed Rule III. Invitation To Comment includes examples intended to provide Office of Management and Budget, The Commission invites interested guidance on disposal measures that Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal members of the public to submit written would be deemed reasonable under the Trade Commission. Comments should data, views, facts, and arguments Rule. These examples are illustrative be submitted via facsimile to (202) 395– addressing the issues raised by this only, not exhaustive, and because they 6974 because U.S. postal mail at the Notice. Written comments must be cannot take into account a particular Office of Management and Budget is received on or before June 15, 2004. subject to lengthy delays due to Comments should refer to ‘‘The FACT 6 The coverage of the proposed Disposal Rule is heightened security precautions. Such different from that of the Commission’s Safeguards Act Disposal Rule, R–411007’’ to comments should also be sent to the Rule. Although some entities may be subject to both facilitate the organization of comments. following address: Federal Trade rules, there are a variety of entities subject to the A comment filed in paper form should Commission/Office of the Secretary, proposed Disposal Rule that are not subject to the include this reference both in the text Safeguards Rule because they are not ‘‘financial Room 159–H (Annex H), 600 institutions’’ under GLBA. This differential and on the envelope, and should be Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., coverage was specifically intended by Congress. See mailed or delivered to the following Washington, DC 20580. Cong. Rec. S13889 (Nov. 4, 2003) (Statement of Sen. address: Federal Trade Commission/ The FTC Act and other laws the Nelson). In addition, the proposed Disposal Rule Office of the Secretary, Room 159–H and the Safeguards Rule apply to different sets of Commission administers permit the information. See 16 CFR 314.1(b) (describing scope (Annex H), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, collection of public comments to of ‘‘customer information’’ covered by Safeguards NW., Washington, DC 20580. If the consider and use in this proceeding as Rule); Proposed Disposal Rule §§ 682.1(b) & comment contains any material for appropriate. All timely and responsive 682.2(b) (defining scope of ‘‘consumer information’’ which confidential treatment is subject to proposed Disposal rule). public comments, whether filed in 7 As noted above, in addition to the entities that requested, it must be filed in paper paper or electronic form, will be own consumer information, waste disposal (rather than electronic) form, and the considered by the Commission, and will companies and other companies that obtain first page of the document must be be available to the public on the FTC consumer information in connection with the clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential.’’ 8 The provision of services would be directly covered by Web site, to the extent practicable, at the Disposal Rule. By contrast, such entities are FTC is requesting that any comment http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter of generally deemed ‘‘service providers’’ under the discretion, the FTC makes every effort to Safeguards Rule. To the extent that such entities 8 Commission Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The remove home contact information for undertake disposal measures that comply with the comment must be accompanied by an explicit Disposal Rule, such measures would also be request for confidential treatment, including the individuals from the public comments it appropriate disposal measures under the service factual and legal basis for the request, and must receives before placing those comments provider provisions of the Safeguards Rule. See 16 identify the specific portions of the comment to be on the FTC Web site. More information, CFR 314.4(d). However, such disposal measures withheld from the public record. The request will including routine uses permitted by the would only be one part of the broader security be granted or denied by the Commission’s General program required of both financial institutions and, Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s indirectly, their service providers under the public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ Safeguards Rule. 4.9(c). ftc/privacy.htm.

VerDate mar<24>2004 20:24 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP3.SGM 20APP3 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules 21391

IV. Communications by Outside Parties C. Description of Small Entities to reduce the burden that might otherwise to Commissioners or Their Advisors Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply be imposed on small entities by a more Written communications and The proposed Disposal Rule, which rigid, prescriptive rule. Nonetheless, the summaries or transcripts of oral tracks the language of section 216 of the Commission is concerned about the communications respecting the merits FACT Act, applies to ‘‘any person that, potential impact of the proposed Rule of this proceeding from any outside for a business purpose, maintains or on small entities, and invites comment party to any Commissioner or otherwise possesses consumer on the costs of compliance for such Commissioner’s advisor will be placed information, or any compilation of parties. on the public record. See 16 CFR consumer information.’’ As discussed E. Identification of Other Duplicative, 1.26(b)(5). above, the entities covered by the Rule Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal V. Paperwork Reduction Act would include consumer reporting Rules agencies, resellers of consumer reports, In accordance with the Paperwork lenders, insurers, employers, landlords, The FTC has not identified any other Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506) government agencies, mortgage brokers, Federal statutes, rules, or policies that (PRA), the Commission has reviewed automobile dealers, waste disposal would conflict with the proposed Rule’s the proposed rule. The proposed rule companies, and any other business that requirement that covered persons take explicitly provides that it is not possesses or maintains consumer reasonable measures to protect against intended ‘‘(1) to require a person to information. Although it is not readily unauthorized access to or use of the maintain or destroy any record feasible to determine a precise number information in connection with its pertaining to a consumer that is not of small entities that will be subject to disposal. However, the Commission is imposed under other law; or (2) to alter the proposed Rule, it is clear that requesting comment on the extent to or affect any requirement imposed numerous small entities across almost which other federal standards involving under any other provision of law to every industry could potentially be privacy or security of information may maintain or destroy such a record.’’ As subject to the Rule. duplicate, satisfy, or inform the such, the proposed rule does not impose For example, any employer, proposed Rule’s requirements. In any recordkeeping requirement or regardless of industry or size, that addition, the FTC seeks comment and ‘‘ otherwise constitute a collection of obtains a consumer report (whether a information about any statutes or rules information’’ as it is defined in the full credit report or a pre-employment that may conflict with the proposed regulations implementing the PRA. See background check of public records) requirements, as well as any other state, 5 CFR 1320.3(c). would be subject to the proposed Rule. local, or industry rules or policies that VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Indeed, any company, regardless of require covered entities to implement The Regulatory Flexibility Act industry or size, that obtains consumer practices that comport with the (‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires an reports for a business purpose would be requirements of the proposed Rule. subject to the proposed Rule. In agency to provide an Initial Regulatory F. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Flexibility Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) with a addition, a variety of consumer proposed rule and a Final Regulatory reporting agencies and resellers of Section 216 of the FACT Act requires Flexibility Analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) with the consumer reports may qualify as small the Commission to issue regulations final rule, if any, unless the agency businesses, as could a number of waste regarding the proper disposal of certifies that the rule will not have a disposal companies, all of which would consumer information. The Act also significant economic impact on a be subject to the proposed Rule. requires that the regulations cover ‘‘any substantial number of small entities. See Given the diversity of the entities person who possesses or maintains’’ 5 U.S.C. 603–605. The Commission has potentially subject to the Rule, consumer report information. This determined that it is appropriate to determining a precise estimate of the broad coverage is consistent with the publish an IRFA in order to inquire into number of small entities that will be section’s purpose of preventing identity the impact of the proposed Rule on subject to the proposed Rule, or theft because the risks created by small entities. Therefore, the describing those entities, is not possible. improper disposal of consumer Commission has prepared the following The Commission invites comment and information are the same regardless of analysis. information on this issue. the nature of the entity disposing of the records. However, the standards in the A. Reasons for the Proposed Rule D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements proposed Rule are flexible, and take Section 216 of the FACT Act requires account of a covered entity’s size and the Commission to issue regulations The proposed Rule would not impose sophistication, as well as the costs and regarding the proper disposal of any reporting or any specific benefits of alternative disposal methods. consumer information in order to recordkeeping requirements within the The FTC welcomes comment on any prevent sensitive financial and personal meaning of the Paperwork Reduction significant alternatives, consistent with information from falling into the hands Act, discussed above. The proposed the purposes of the FACT Act, that of identity thieves or others who might Rule would require covered entities, would minimize the impact on small use the information to victimize when disposing of consumer entities. consumers. The requirements of the information, to take reasonable proposed Rule are intended to fulfill the measures to protect against List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 682 obligations imposed by section 216. unauthorized access to or use of the information in connection with its Consumer reports, Consumer B. Statement of Objectives and Legal disposal. What is considered reporting agencies, Credit, Fair Credit Basis ‘‘reasonable’’ will vary according to an Reporting Act, Trade practices. The objectives of the proposed Rule entity’s nature and size, the costs and Accordingly, the Commission are discussed above. The legal basis for benefits of available disposal methods, proposes to add part 682 of title 16 of the proposed Rule is section 216 of the and the sensitivity of the information the Code of Federal Regulations as FACT Act. involved. This flexibility is intended to follows:

VerDate mar<24>2004 20:24 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP3.SGM 20APP3 21392 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Proposed Rules

PART 682—DISPOSAL OF CONSUMER otherwise possesses consumer from several references or other reliable REPORT INFORMATION AND information or any compilation of sources, requiring that the disposal RECORDS consumer information. company be certified by a recognized trade association or similar third party, Sec. § 682.3 Proper disposal of consumer reviewing and evaluating the disposal information. 682.1 Definitions. company’s information security policies 682.2 Purpose and scope. (a) Standard. Any person who or procedures, or taking other 682.3 Proper disposal of consumer maintains or otherwise possesses information. appropriate measures to determine the consumer information, or any competency and integrity of the 682.4 Relation to other laws. compilation of consumer information, 682.5 Effective date. potential disposal company. for a business purpose must properly Authority: Pub. L. 108–159, sec. 216. (4) (a) For disposal companies dispose of such information by taking explicitly hired to dispose of consumer reasonable measures to protect against § 682.1 Definitions. information: implementing and unauthorized access to or use of the monitoring compliance with policies (a) In general. Except as modified by information in connection with its and procedures that protect against this part or unless the context otherwise disposal. unauthorized access to or use of (b) Examples. Reasonable measures to requires, the terms used in this part consumer information during collection protect against unauthorized access to have the same meaning as set forth in and transportation, and disposing of or use of consumer information in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. such information in accordance with connection with its disposal would 1681 et seq. examples (1) and (2) above. (b) As used in this part, ‘‘consumer include: (b) For traditional garbage collectors information’’ means any record about an (1) Implementing and monitoring engaged in the normal course of individual, whether in paper, electronic, compliance with policies and business: disposing of garbage in or other form, that is a consumer report procedures that require the burning, accordance with standard procedures. or is derived from a consumer report. pulverizing, or shredding of papers (c) As used in this part, ‘‘disposing’’ or containing consumer information so § 682.4 Relation to other laws. ‘‘disposal’’ includes: that the information cannot practicably Nothing in this rule shall be (1) the discarding or abandonment of be read or reconstructed. construed— consumer information, and (2) Implementing and monitoring (a) to require a person to maintain or (2) the sale, donation, or transfer of compliance with policies and destroy any record pertaining to a any medium, including computer procedures that require the destruction consumer that is not imposed under equipment, upon which consumer or erasure of electronic media other law; or information is stored. containing consumer information so (b) to alter or affect any requirement that the information cannot practicably § 682.2 Purpose and scope. imposed under any other provision of be read or reconstructed. law to maintain or destroy such a (a) Purpose. This part (‘‘rule’’) (3) After due diligence, entering into record. implements section 216 of the Fair and and monitoring compliance with a Accurate Credit Transactions Act of written contract with another party § 682.5 Effective date. 2003, which is designed to reduce the engaged in the business of record This rule is effective 3 months from risk of consumer fraud and related destruction to dispose of consumer the date on which a final rule is harms, including identity theft, created information in a manner consistent with published in the Federal Register. by improper disposal of consumer this rule. In this context, due diligence information. could include reviewing an By direction of the Commission. (b) Scope. This rule applies to any independent audit of the disposal Donald S. Clark, person over which the Federal Trade company’s operations and/or its Secretary. Commission has jurisdiction, that, for a compliance with this rule, obtaining [FR Doc. 04–8904 Filed 4–19–04; 8:45 am] business purpose, maintains or information about the disposal company BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

VerDate mar<24>2004 20:24 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20APP3.SGM 20APP3 i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 76 Tuesday, April 20, 2004

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING APRIL

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. 94...... 21042 Presidential Documents 1 CFR 98...... 21042 Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 51...... 18801 301...... 18245 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 3 CFR 309...... 18245 Other Services 310...... 18245 Proclamations: 311...... 18245 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 7765...... 18465 313...... 18245 Privacy Act Compilation 741–6064 7766...... 18467 318...... 18245 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043 7767...... 18469 319...... 18245 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741–6086 7768...... 19077 320...... 18245, 21047 7769...... 19307 381...... 21047 7770...... 19751 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 7771...... 20537 11 CFR World Wide Web Executive Orders: Proposed Rules: Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 13334...... 19917 110...... 18301, 18841 is located at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html 5 CFR 12 CFR Federal Register information and research tools, including Public Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: 537...... 21039 229...... 19921 http://www.archives.gov/federallregister/ Proposed Rules: 335...... 19085 1650...... 18294 1700...... 18808 E-mail 1653...... 18294 Proposed Rules: FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is 1655...... 18294 222...... 19123 an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital 1690...... 18294 303...... 20558 form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 1710...... 19126 of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and 7 CFR PDF links to the full text of each document. 301...... 21039 14 CFR To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select 772...... 18471 25...... 18246, 19311 Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 905...... 19079 39 ...... 17033, 17034, 17901, (orchange settings); then follow the instructions. 916...... 19753 17903, 17905, 17906, 17909, 917...... 19753 17911, 17913, 17914, 17915, PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 929...... 18803 17917, 17918, 17919, 17921, service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 982...... 19082 17924, 17925, 18250, 19313, To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 983...... 17844 19618, 19756, 19758, 19759, and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 984...... 17899 20539, 20809, 20811, 20815, the instructions. Proposed Rules: 20817, 20818, 21049 FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 272...... 20724 71 ...... 17283, 19314, 19315, respond to specific inquiries. 273...... 20724 19316, 19317, 19318, 19319, 301...... 19950 19922, 19923, 20820, 20821, Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 330...... 17984 20822, 20823 Federal Register system to: [email protected] 761...... 20834 73...... 18471, 21053 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 762...... 20834 97...... 17284 regulations. 763...... 20834 121...... 19761 764...... 20834 135...... 18472 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, APRIL 765...... 20834 Proposed Rules: 766...... 20834 39 ...... 17072, 17073, 17076, 17033–17282...... 1 767...... 20834 17077, 17080, 17082, 17084, 17283–17584...... 2 768...... 20834 17086, 17088, 17091, 17095, 17585–17898...... 5 769...... 20834 17097, 17101, 17103, 17105, 17899–18244...... 6 926...... 19118 17107, 17109, 17111, 17113, 18245–18470...... 7 1033...... 19292 17115, 17610, 17984, 17987, 18471–18800...... 8 1124...... 18834 17989, 17991, 17993, 17996, 18304, 18306, 18843, 18845, 18801–19076...... 9 8 CFR 18848, 19132, 19135, 19777, 19077–19310...... 12 103...... 20528 19950, 19952, 19954, 19956, 19311–19752...... 13 Proposed Rules: 20566 19753–19920...... 14 103...... 18296 61...... 21073 19921–20536...... 15 71 ...... 18308, 18309, 18508, 20537–20804...... 16 9 CFR 19359, 19360, 19958, 19960, 20805–21038...... 19 1...... 17899 19961, 19962, 19963, 20834, 21039–21392...... 20 2...... 17899 20835, 20837 3...... 17899 91...... 21073 77...... 20805 119...... 21073 93...... 21040 121...... 21073

VerDate mar 24 2004 21:20 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\20APCU.LOC 20APCU ii Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Reader Aids

135...... 21073 47...... 20839 400...... 17928 2553...... 20830 136...... 21073 Proposed Rules: 26 CFR 13...... 17355 46 CFR 15 CFR 1...... 17586 242...... 19964 515...... 19774 738...... 21055 Proposed Rules: 740...... 21055 1 ...... 17117, 17477, 18314 37 CFR 47 CFR 774...... 17926 20...... 20840 401...... 17299 1...... 17946 301...... 17117, 20840 16 CFR 38 CFR 2...... 18275, 18832 27 CFR 22...... 17063 316...... 21024 20...... 19935, 21068 24...... 17063 9...... 20823 1210...... 19762 Proposed Rules: 25...... 18275 Proposed Rules: 28 CFR 17...... 21075 27...... 17946 316...... 18851 73 ...... 17070, 17071, 19328, 682...... 21388 803...... 21058 39 CFR 804...... 21059 20554, 20555, 20556 801...... 18686 111...... 17059 74...... 17946 802...... 18686 29 CFR Proposed Rules: 80...... 19947 803...... 18686 35...... 17570 111...... 19363, 20841 90...... 17946, 17959 101...... 17946 17 CFR 1952...... 20826, 20828 40 CFR 1981...... 17587 Proposed Rules: 200...... 21057 4022...... 19925 9...... 19105 0...... 17124 Proposed Rules: 4044...... 19925 52 ...... 17302, 17929, 18815, 1 ...... 17124, 18006, 19779 30...... 17998 19937, 19939, 20548 11...... 18857 232...... 17864 Proposed Rules: 1910...... 17774 63 ...... 19106, 19734, 19943, 13...... 18007 240...... 17864 1917...... 19361 20968 54...... 18508 249...... 17864 1918...... 19361 68...... 18819 61...... 17124, 18006 80...... 17932 64...... 20845 19 CFR 1926...... 20840 81...... 20550 69...... 17124, 18006 Proposed Rules: 30 CFR 147...... 18478 73 ...... 17124, 17125, 18860, 24...... 18296 75...... 17480 166...... 17303 19363, 19364, 20571 180 ...... 17304, 18255, 18263, 80...... 18007 20 CFR 925...... 19927 931...... 19321 18275, 18480, 19767 87...... 19140 404...... 19924 257...... 17308 Proposed Rules: 641...... 19014 745...... 18489 48 CFR 200...... 19137 Proposed Rules: 917...... 21075 Proposed Rules: Ch. 1...... 17740, 17770 404...... 18310 52 ...... 17368, 17374, 18006, 1...... 17741 31 CFR 18319, 18323, 18853, 19968 2...... 17741, 17764 21 CFR 1...... 17298 63 ...... 18327, 18338, 19139, 4...... 17768 Ch. 1 ...... 17285 103...... 19093, 19098 19743, 19968, 21198 8...... 17741 1 ...... 19763, 19765, 19766 240...... 17272 81...... 17374, 18853 15...... 17768 20...... 19766 86...... 17532 29...... 17769 173...... 17297 32 CFR 122...... 18166 31...... 17764 201...... 18255 199...... 17035 136...... 18166 45...... 17741 206...... 18728 719...... 20540 141...... 18166 49...... 17741 250...... 18728 725...... 20540 143...... 18166 52...... 17741, 17770 312...... 17927 727...... 20541 257...... 17380 53...... 17741 314...... 18728 752...... 20542 264...... 21198 601...... 19329 522...... 17585 1602...... 20542 265...... 21198 602...... 19329 573...... 19320 1605...... 20542 266...... 21198 603...... 19329 600...... 18728 1609...... 20542 270...... 21198 604...... 19329 601...... 18728 1656...... 20542 271...... 21077, 21198 605...... 19329 606...... 18255 2001...... 17052 300...... 19363 606...... 19329 610...... 18255 Proposed Rules: 403...... 18166 609...... 19329 807...... 18472 519...... 18314 430...... 18166 611...... 19329 1308...... 17034 455...... 18166 612...... 19329 Proposed Rules: 33 CFR 465...... 18166 613...... 19329 Ch. 1 ...... 17615 616...... 19329 101...... 17927 42 CFR 101...... 20838 104...... 17927 617...... 19329 117 ...... 17055, 17057, 17595, 411...... 17933 619...... 19329 22 CFR 17597, 18473, 19103, 19325, 414...... 17935 622...... 19329 126...... 18810 20544, 21061, 21062, 21064 424...... 17933 623...... 19329 147...... 19933, 21065 Proposed Rules: 625...... 19329 24 CFR 165 ...... 18473, 19326, 21067 50...... 20778 626...... 19329 Proposed Rules: 167...... 18476 93...... 20778 628...... 19329 30...... 19906 334 ...... 20545, 20546, 20547 630...... 19329 200...... 21036 402...... 18811 44 CFR 632...... 19329 203...... 19906 Proposed Rules: 64...... 17310 636...... 19329 320...... 19746 100...... 18002 65...... 17597, 17600 637...... 19329 110...... 17119, 20568 67 ...... 17312, 17606, 17608 642...... 19329 25 CFR 117 ...... 17122, 17616, 17618, Proposed Rules: 651...... 19329 Proposed Rules: 18004 67 ...... 17381, 17619, 17620 652...... 19329 30...... 20839 165...... 18794, 18797 653...... 19329 37...... 20839 334...... 20570 45 CFR Proposed Rules: 39...... 20839 1206...... 19110 19...... 18244 42...... 20839 36 CFR 2551...... 20829 45...... 17584 44...... 20839 223...... 18813 2552...... 19774 52...... 17584

VerDate mar 24 2004 21:20 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\20APCU.LOC 20APCU Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Reader Aids iii

49 CFR 595...... 21069 92...... 17318 Proposed Rules: 172...... 20831 1104...... 18498 216...... 17973 17 ...... 17383, 17627, 17634, 1572...... 17969 18016, 18018, 18035, 18515, 192...... 18228 223...... 18444 Proposed Rules: 18516, 18770, 19364, 19620 219...... 19270 224...... 18444 541...... 18010 100...... 19964 375...... 17313 229...... 21070 544...... 18861 622...... 19346 223...... 20571 541...... 17960 571...... 17622, 18015 648...... 17980, 18291 229...... 19365 542...... 17960 572...... 17622 543...... 17960 660 ...... 17329, 18444, 19347 300...... 19147 571...... 18496 50 CFR 679 ...... 17982, 19116, 19358, 635...... 19147 579...... 20556 17...... 18279, 18499 19776, 20833 648...... 19805

VerDate mar 24 2004 21:20 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\20APCU.LOC 20APCU iv Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Reader Aids

REMINDERS Occupant crash protection— Electric utility steam staffing information The items in this list were Safety equipment removal; generating units; posting; comments due by editorially compiled as an aid exemptions from make comments due by 4-30- 4-27-04; published 2-27- to Federal Register users. inoperative prohibition 04; published 3-16-04 [FR 04 [FR 04-03732] Inclusion or exclusion from for persons with 04-04457] HEALTH AND HUMAN this list has no legal disabilities; published 4- Air programs; State authority SERVICES DEPARTMENT significance. 20-04 delegations: Food and Drug Louisiana; comments due by Administration COMMENTS DUE NEXT 4-26-04; published 3-26- Biological products: RULES GOING INTO WEEK 04 [FR 04-06299] EFFECT APRIL 20, 2004 Human cells, tissues, and Air quality implementation cellular and tissue-based plans; approval and AGRICULTURE products; establishment promulgation; various AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT registration and listing; DEPARTMENT States: comments due by 4-26- Federal Crop Insurance Florida; comments due by Animal and Plant Health Corporation 04; published 1-27-04 [FR Inspection Service 4-28-04; published 3-29- 04-01733] Crop insurance regulations: Exportation and importation of 04 [FR 04-06824] Food additives: Apples; comments due by Environmental statements; animals and animal Polymers— 4-28-04; published 3-29- availability, etc.: products: Polymer films/layers; 04 [FR 04-06938] Coastal nonpoint pollution Cattle from Australia and technical amendment; COMMERCE DEPARTMENT control program— New Zealand: brucellosis comments due by 4-26- testing; published 4-20-04 National Oceanic and Minnesota and Texas; 04; published 3-26-04 Classical swine fever; Atmospheric Administration Open for comments [FR 04-06738] until further notice; disease status change— Fishery conservation and Reports and guidance published 10-16-03 [FR France and Spain; management: documents; availability, etc.: Magnuson-Stevens Act 03-26087] published 4-20-04 Evaluating safety of provisions— Water pollution control: COMMERCE DEPARTMENT antimicrobial new animal Essential fish habitat; National Pollutant Discharge Industry and Security drugs with regard to their comments due by 4-26- Elimination System— Bureau microbiological effects on 04; published 2-25-04 North Dakota; comments bacteria of human health Export administration [FR 04-04149] due by 4-28-04; regulations: concern; Open for Northeastern United States published 3-29-04 [FR comments until further Commerce Control List— fisheries— 04-06928] notice; published 10-27-03 Addition of Aruba, Atlantic mackerel, squid, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT [FR 03-27113] Netherlands Antilles, and butterfish; OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION HOMELAND SECURITY East Timor, and comments due by 4-26- Federal sector equal DEPARTMENT Democratic Republic of 04; published 3-26-04 employment opportunity: Congo; update of Coast Guard [FR 04-06856] Complaint processing data country names; Anchorage regulations: Northeast multispecies; posting; comments due by published 4-20-04 Maryland; Open for comments due by 4-30- 4-26-04; published 3-23- comments until further ENVIRONMENTAL 04; published 2-24-04 04 [FR 04-06393] PROTECTION AGENCY [FR 04-04018] notice; published 1-14-04 FEDERAL [FR 04-00749] Superfund program: Summer flounder, scup, COMMUNICATIONS Drawbridge operations: National oil and hazardous and black sea bass; COMMISSION Connecticut; comments due substances contingency comments due by 4-29- Common carrier services: 04; published 4-14-04 by 4-30-04; published 3-1- plan— Controlling the Assault of [FR 04-08488] 04 [FR 04-04489] National priorities list Non-Solicited Pornography Maritime security: update; published 2-20- COURT SERVICES AND and Marketing Act of 04 OFFENDER SUPERVISION 2003 and Telephone Continuous Synopsis PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR THE Consumer Protection Act Record; application OFFICE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA of 1991; implementation— availability; comments due by 4-27-04; published 2- Semi-annual agenda; Open for Consumer protection from Federal Employee Student 27-04 [FR 04-04210] Loan Assistance Act: comments until further unwanted mobile notice; published 12-22-03 Regattas and marine parades: Student loans repayment; service commercial [FR 03-25121] published 4-20-04 messages and national Cuyahoga Rowing Regatta; ENERGY DEPARTMENT do-not-call registery comments due by 4-26- TRANSPORTATION revisions; comments 04; published 3-11-04 [FR DEPARTMENT Federal Energy Regulatory Commission due by 4-30-04; 04-05466] Federal Aviation published 3-31-04 [FR INTERIOR DEPARTMENT Administration Electric rate and corporate regulation filings: 04-07226] Fish and Wildlife Service Airworthiness directives: Virginia Electric & Power Radio stations; table of Endangered and threatened AeroSpace Technologies of Co. et al.; Open for assignments: species: Australia Pty Ltd.; comments until further Illinois; comments due by 4- Critical habitat published 3-3-04 notice; published 10-1-03 26-04; published 3-17-04 designations— Bombardier; published 3-1- [FR 04-06043] [FR 03-24818] Mexican spotted owl; 04 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND HUMAN comments due by 4-26- TRANSPORTATION PROTECTION AGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 04; published 3-26-04 DEPARTMENT Air pollutants, hazardous; Centers for Medicare & [FR 04-06764] National Highway Traffic national emission standards; Medicaid Services Santa Ana sucker; Safety Administration and air pollution; standards Medicare and Medicaid: comments due by 4-26- Motor vehicle safety of performance for new Long term care facilities; 04; published 2-26-04 standards: stationary sources: nursing services; nurse [FR 04-04226]

VerDate mar 24 2004 21:20 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\20APCU.LOC 20APCU Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 20, 2004 / Reader Aids v

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT Investment advisory Short Brothers; comments Update Service) on 202–741– Surface Mining Reclamation contracts approval; due by 4-26-04; published 6043. This list is also and Enforcement Office disclosure requirements; 3-25-04 [FR 04-06680] available online at http:// Permanent program and comments due by 4-26- Airworthiness standards: www.archives.gov/ abandoned mine land 04; published 2-19-04 [FR Special conditions— federal—register/public—laws/ 04-03535] public laws.html. reclamation plan Avidyne Corp., Inc.; — submissions: Securities: various airplane models; Iowa; comments due by 4- Section 18 covered comments due by 4-26- The text of laws is not 26-04; published 3-25-04 securities; designation; 04; published 3-26-04 published in the Federal [FR 04-06734] comments due by 4-26- [FR 04-06748] Register but may be ordered in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual West Virginia; comments 04; published 3-26-04 [FR TRANSPORTATION pamphlet) form from the due by 4-26-04; published 04-06815] DEPARTMENT Superintendent of Documents, 3-25-04 [FR 04-06735] SMALL BUSINESS National Highway Traffic U.S. Government Printing ADMINISTRATION JUSTICE DEPARTMENT Safety Administration Office, Washington, DC 20402 Disaster loan areas: Drug Enforcement Fuel economy standards: (phone, 202–512–1808). The Maine; Open for comments Administration Corporate Average Fuel text will also be made until further notice; Schedules of controlled Economy Program; available on the Internet from published 2-17-04 [FR 04- substances: comments due by 4-27- GPO Access at http:// 03374] Alpha-methyltryptamine and 04; published 12-29-03 www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/ 5-methoxy-N,N- TRANSPORTATION [FR 03-31890] index.html. Some laws may diisopropyltryptamine; DEPARTMENT Corporate Average Fuel not yet be available. placement into Schedule Federal Aviation Economy Program; I; comments due by 4-30- Administration product plan information H.R. 2584/P.L. 108–219 04; published 3-31-04 [FR Airworthiness directives: request; comments due 04-07218] To provide for the conveyance Airbus; comments due by 4- by 4-27-04; published 12- to the Utrok Atoll local LABOR DEPARTMENT 26-04; published 3-25-04 29-03 [FR 03-31891] government of a Occupational Safety and [FR 04-06678] Motor vehicle safety decommissioned National Health Administration Boeing; comments due by standards: Oceanic and Atmospheric Safety and health standards: 4-26-04; published 2-26- Bus emergency exits and Administration ship, and for Assigned protection factors; 04 [FR 04-04258] window retention and other purposes. (Apr. 13, comments due by 4-29- Bombardier; comments due release; comments due by 2004; 118 Stat. 615) 04; published 3-30-04 [FR by 4-30-04; published 3- 4-26-04; published 3-12- Last List April 14, 2004 04-07074] 31-04 [FR 04-06774] 04 [FR 04-05691] NATIONAL CREDIT UNION Eurocopter France; Rear impact guards; ADMINISTRATION comments due by 4-27- comments due by 4-27- 04; published 2-27-04 [FR 04; published 2-27-04 [FR Credit unions: 04-04356] 04-04276] Public Laws Electronic Share insurance and General Electric Co.; Notification Service appendix— TREASURY DEPARTMENT comments due by 4-26- Comptroller of the Currency (PENS) Living trust accounts; 04; published 2-26-04 [FR comments due by 4-26- 04-03798] Corporate activities: 04; published 2-26-04 McDonnell Douglas; National banks; operating [FR 04-04217] subsidies annual report; PENS is a free electronic mail comments due by 4-26- notification service of newly PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT comments due by 4-26- 04; published 3-11-04 [FR enacted public laws. To OFFICE 04-05518] 04; published 3-25-04 [FR 04-06710] subscribe, go to http:// Notification and Federal McDonnell Douglas; listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ Employee Antidiscrimination comments due by 4-27- publaws-l.html and Retaliation Act of 2002; 04; published 2-27-04 [FR LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS Title II implementation; 04-04475] Note: This service is strictly comments due by 4-26-04; Raytheon; comments due by This is a continuing list of for E-mail notification of new published 3-31-04 [FR 04- 4-26-04; published 3-1-04 public bills from the current laws. The text of laws is not 07197] [FR 04-04372] session of Congress which available through this service. SECURITIES AND Saab; comments due by 4- have become Federal laws. It PENS cannot respond to EXCHANGE COMMISSION 26-04; published 3-26-04 may be used in conjunction specific inquiries sent to this Investment companies: [FR 04-06685] with ‘‘PLUS’’ (Public Laws address.

VerDate mar 24 2004 21:20 Apr 19, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\20APCU.LOC 20APCU