Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2871 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rulemaking 

action, pertaining to the District of 

Columbia’s section 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure requirements for the 2008 

ozone, the 2010 NO2, and the 2010 SO2

NAAQS and to the District of 

Columbia’s contingency plan for the 

prevention of air pollution episodes, 

does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 18, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00640 Filed 1–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0790; FRL–9919–36– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS10 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 

Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: On February 1, 2013, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

finalized amendments to the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

(Area Source Boilers Rule). 

Subsequently, the EPA received three 

petitions for reconsideration of the final 

rule. The EPA is announcing 

reconsideration of and requesting public 

comment on five issues raised in the 

petitions for reconsideration, as detailed 

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

In this action, the EPA is also 

proposing a limited number of technical 

corrections and amendments to the final 

rule to correct inadvertent errors and to 

clarify some applicability and 

implementation issues raised by 

stakeholders subject to the final rule. 

Also, we propose to delete rule 

provisions for an affirmative defense for 

malfunction in light of a recent court 

decision on the issue. 

The EPA is seeking comment only on 

the five issues being reconsidered, the 

proposed deletion of the affirmative 

defense and on the technical corrections 

and amendments described in the 

preceding paragraph. The EPA will not 

respond to any comments addressing 

any other issues or any other provisions 

of the final rule. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before March 9, 2015, or 

30 days after date of public hearing, if 

later. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us 

requesting to speak at a public hearing 

by January 26, 2015, a public hearing 

will be held on February 5, 2015. If you 

are interested in attending the public 

hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at 

(919) 541–7966 to verify that a hearing 

will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2006–0790, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mail code: 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0790, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate 

copy also be sent to the contact person 

identified below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, EPA WJC 

West Building, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006– 

0790. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Public Hearing: If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

January 26, 2015, the public hearing 

will be held on February 5, 2015 at the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2872 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

EPA’s campus at 109 T.W. Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina. The hearing will begin at 

10:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time) and 

conclude at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard 

Time). There will be a lunch break from 

12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Please contact 

Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541–7966 or 

at garrett.pamela@epa.gov to register to 

speak at the hearing or to inquire as to 

whether or not a hearing will be held. 

The last day to pre-register in advance 

to speak at the hearing will be February 

2, 2015. Additionally, requests to speak 

will be taken the day of the hearing at 

the hearing registration desk, although 

preferences on speaking times may not 

be able to be fulfilled. If you require the 

service of a translator or special 

accommodations such as audio 

description, please let us know at the 

time of registration. If you require an 

accommodation we ask that you preregister for the hearing, as we may not 

be able to arrange such accommodations 

without advance notice. The hearing 

will provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views or 

arguments concerning the proposed 

action. The EPA will make every effort 

to accommodate all speakers who arrive 

and register. Because the hearing is 

being held at a U.S. government facility, 

individuals planning to attend the 

hearing should be prepared to show 

valid picture identification to the 

security staff in order to gain access to 

the meeting room. Please note that the 

REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 

2005, established new requirements for 

entering federal facilities. If your 

driver’s license is issued by Alaska, 

American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Montana, New York, 

Oklahoma, or the state of Washington, 

you must present an additional form of 

identification to enter the federal 

building. Acceptable alternative forms 

of identification include: Federal 

employee badges, passports, enhanced 

driver’s licenses and military 

identification cards. In addition, you 

will need to obtain a property pass for 

any personal belongings you bring with 

you. Upon leaving the building, you 

will be required to return this property 

pass to the security desk. No large signs 

will be allowed in the building, cameras 

may only be used outside of the 

building and demonstrations will not be 

allowed on federal property for security 

reasons. The EPA may ask clarifying 

questions during the oral presentations, 

but will not respond to the 

presentations at that time. Written 

statements and supporting information 

submitted during the comment period 

will be considered with the same weight 

as oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the public 

hearing. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 

3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Mary Johnson, Energy Strategies Group, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(D243–01), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–5025; facsimile number: (919) 

541–5450; email address: 

johnson.mary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of this Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in the preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. What is the source of authority for the 

reconsideration action? 

B. What entities are potentially affected by 

the reconsideration action? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

II. Background 

III. Discussion of the Issues under 

Reconsideration 

A. Definitions of Startup and Shutdown 

B. Alternative Particulate Matter Standard 

for New Oil-fired Boilers that Combust 

Low-sulfur Oil 

C. Establishment of a Subcategory and 

Separate Requirements for Limited-use 

Boilers 

D. Establishment of a Provision that 

Eliminates Further Performance Testing 

for Particulate Matter for Certain Boilers 

Based on their Initial Compliance Test 

E. Establishment of a Provision that 

Eliminates Further Fuel Sampling for 

Mercury for Certain Coal-fired Boilers 

Based on their Initial Compliance 

Demonstration 

IV. Technical Corrections and Clarifications 

V. Affirmative Defense 

VI. Solicitation of Public Comment and 

Participation 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

A red-line version of the regulatory 

language that incorporates the proposed 

changes in this action is available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2006–0790). 

I. General Information 

A. What is the source of authority for 

the reconsideration action? 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 112 and 

307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412 and 

7607(d)(7)(B)). 

B. What entities are potentially affected 

by the reconsideration action? 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action include: 

Industry category NAICS code a Examples of regulated entities 

Any area source facility using a boiler as 

defined in the final rule.

321 

11 

Wood product manufacturing. 

Agriculture, greenhouses. 

311 Food manufacturing. 

327 Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing. 

424 Wholesale trade, nondurable goods. 

531 Real estate. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2873 

Industry category NAICS code a Examples of regulated entities 

611 Educational services. 

813 Religious, civic, professional, and similar organizations. 

92 Public administration. 

722 Food services and drinking places. 

62 Health care and social assistance. 

22111 Electric power generation. 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your boiler is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.11193 

of subpart JJJJJJ (National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers Area Sources). If 

you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult either the air 

permitting authority for the entity or 

your EPA regional representative, as 

listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A 

(General Provisions). 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to the EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI to only the 

following address: Ms. Mary Johnson, 

c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer 

(Room C404–02), U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006– 

0790. 

Docket. The docket number for this 

action is Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2006–0790. 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this document will be 

posted on the WWW. Following 

signature, the EPA will post a copy of 

this document at http://www.epa.gov/

airquality/combustion/actions.html and 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/

boilerpg.html. 

II. Background 

The EPA finalized the Area Source 

Boilers Rule on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 

15554). The EPA received eight 

petitions for reconsideration of the 

March 2011 rulemaking. On December 

23, 2011 (76 FR 80532), the EPA granted 

the petitions for reconsideration on 

certain issues, and proposed revisions to 

the March 2011 final rule in response to 

the reconsideration petitions and to 

address four issues the EPA previously 

identified in the March 21, 2011, action 

as warranting reconsideration. 

On February 1, 2013, the EPA 

promulgated amendments to the Area 

Source Boiler Rule (78 FR 7488). 

Following promulgation of the February 

1, 2013, final Area Source Boiler Rule, 

the EPA received three petitions for 

reconsideration pursuant to section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. The EPA 

received a petition dated April 1, 2013, 

from the American Forest and Paper 

Association, on their behalf and on 

behalf of the American Wood Council, 

National Association of Manufacturers, 

Biomass Power Association, Corn 

Refiners Association, National Oilseed 

Processors Association, Rubber 

Manufacturers Association, 

Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers 

Association and U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce. The EPA received a petition 

dated April 2, 2013, from the Council of 

Industrial Boiler Owners and the 

American Chemistry Council. Finally, 

the EPA received a petition dated April 

2, 2013, from Earthjustice, on behalf of 

the Sierra Club, Clean Air Council, 

Partnership for Policy Integrity, 

Louisiana Environmental Action 

Network and Environmental Integrity 

Project. The petitions are available for 

review in the rulemaking docket (see 

document numbers EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2006–0790–2523, EPA–HQ–OAR–2006– 

0790–2524 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2006– 

0790–2525). On August 5, 2013, the 

EPA issued letters to the petitioners 

granting reconsideration on five specific 

issues raised in the petitions for 

reconsideration and indicating that the 

agency would issue a Federal Register 

notice regarding the reconsideration 

process. This action requests comment 

on the five issues for which the EPA 

granted reconsideration. Section III of 

this preamble summarizes these issues 

and discusses our proposed responses to 

each issue. 

We are also proposing a limited 

number of clarifying changes and 

corrections to the final rule. These 

amendments would clarify some 

applicability and implementation issues 

raised by stakeholders subject to the 

final rule and correct inadvertent errors 

promulgated in the final rule. Section IV 

of this preamble describes the clarifying 

changes and corrections and provides 

the rationale for these amendments. In 

addition, we are proposing to amend the 

final rule to remove the affirmative 

defense provisions. Section V of this 

preamble provides the rationale for the 

change. 

III. Discussion of the Issues Under 

Reconsideration 

The February 1, 2013, amendments, 

among other things, revised the 

definitions of ‘‘startup’’ and 

‘‘shutdown.’’ In addition, the 

amendments established a subcategory 

and separate requirements for certain 

boilers that operate on a limited basis. 

The amendments also established an 

alternative particulate matter (PM) 

standard for new oil-fired boilers that 

combust low-sulfur oil, and new 

monitoring provisions that eliminate 

further stack testing for PM and further 

fuel sampling for mercury (Hg) under 

certain circumstances based on initial 

compliance demonstrations. The EPA 

received petitions for reconsideration 

with respect to these specific 

components of the amendments and 

granted reconsideration of the following 

five issues on August 5, 2013, to provide 

an additional opportunity for public 

comment: 

• The definitions of startup and 

shutdown periods; 

• Alternative particulate matter 

standard for new oil-fired boilers that 

combust low-sulfur oil; 

• Establishment of a subcategory for 

limited-use boilers and the applicable 

standards for that subcategory; 

• Provision that eliminates further 

performance testing for particulate 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2874 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

matter for boilers whose initial 

compliance test shows that its 

particulate matter emissions are equal to 

or less than half of the particulate matter 

emission limit; and 

• Provision that eliminates fuel 

sampling at coal-fired boilers that 

demonstrate compliance with the 

mercury emission limit by fuel analysis 

based on the results of the boiler’s 

initial compliance demonstration. 

The reconsideration petitions stated 

that the public lacked sufficient 

opportunity to comment on these 

provisions. Although these provisions 

were established after consideration of 

public comments received on the 

proposed rule, the EPA has granted 

reconsideration on these issues in order 

to allow an additional opportunity for 

comment. These issues are discussed in 

more detail in the following sections. 

With regard to the startup and 

shutdown provisions, the EPA is 

proposing certain revisions to the 

definitions of startup and shutdown. 

The proposed revision to the definition 

of startup is the addition of an alternate 

definition of startup. 

A. Definitions of Startup and Shutdown 

The February 1, 2013, final rule 

revised the definitions of ‘‘startup’’ and 

‘‘shutdown,’’ as proposed on December 

23, 2011. In December 2011, we 

proposed defining ‘‘startup’’ as the 

period between the state of no 

combustion in the boiler to the period 

where the boiler first achieves 25- 

percent load (i.e., a cold start) and 

‘‘shutdown’’ as the period that begins 

when a boiler last operates at 25-percent 

load and ending with a state of no fuel 

combustion in the boiler. A number of 

commenters indicated that the proposed 

load specifications (i.e., 25-percent load) 

within the definitions of ‘‘startup’’ and 

‘‘shutdown’’ were inconsistent with 

either safe or normal (proper) operation 

of the various types of boilers 

encountered within the source category. 

As the basis for defining periods of 

startup and shutdown, a number of 

commenters suggested alternative load 

specifications based on the specific 

considerations of their boilers; other 

commenters suggested the achievement 

of various steady-state conditions. 

We determined adjustments in the 

definitions of ‘‘startup’’ and 

‘‘shutdown’’ to be appropriate and, as 

explained in the preamble to the 

February 1, 2013, final rule, made 

adjustments that we believed addressed 

the comments and were appropriate 

based on the fact that industrial boilers 

function to provide steam or, in the case 

of cogeneration units, electricity; 

therefore, industrial boilers should be 

considered subject to applicable 

standards at all times steam of the 

proper pressure, temperature, and flow 

rate is being supplied to a common 

header system or energy user(s) for use 

as either process steam or for the 

cogeneration of electricity. In the 

February 1, 2013, final rule, startup and 

shutdown were defined based on the 

time during which fuel is fired in a 

boiler for the purpose of supplying 

steam or heat for heating and/or 

producing electricity or for any other 

purpose. We defined startup as the 

period between either the first-ever 

firing of fuel in the boiler or the firing 

of fuel in the boiler after a shutdown 

and when the boiler first supplies steam 

or heat. We defined shutdown as the 

period between either when none of the 

steam or heat from the boiler is supplied 

or no fuel is being fired in the boiler, 

whichever is earlier, and when there is 

no steam and no heat being supplied 

and no fuel being fired in the boiler. 

The EPA received two petitions 

asserting that the public lacked an 

opportunity to comment on the 

amended startup and shutdown 

definitions. 

We are soliciting comment on the 

definition of startup and shutdown that 

were promulgated in the February 1, 

2013, final rule, with the clarifying 

revisions explained below. We are 

proposing to revise the definitions of 

startup and shutdown in this 

reconsideration action as set forth in 40 

CFR 63.11237. Petitioners asserted that 

the final rule’s definitions of startup and 

shutdown were not sufficiently clear. 

Although the EPA revised the 

definitions of startup and shutdown 

included in the February 1, 2013, final 

rule, in response to comments, we have 

granted reconsideration on this issue to 

provide an opportunity for comment on 

those amended definitions, as well as 

the adjustments we are now proposing 

to make to the definitions of startup and 

shutdown. 

1. Startup and Shutdown Periods 

Petitioners assert that the terms 

‘‘supplying’’ and ‘‘or for any other 

purpose’’ in both the startup and 

shutdown definitions are too openended and could be read to mean that 

steam and heat supplied for uses within 

the boiler itself will end the startup 

period or delay onset of the shutdown 

period. Petitioners explain that many 

boilers use steam to drive rotating 

equipment such as feedwater pumps, to 

preheat feedwater and to operate deaerators, and that some of these uses 

(e.g., operating feedwater pumps and 

preheating feedwater) begin in the early 

stages of starting a boiler and continue 

until the boiler is cooled down. 

Petitioners assert that the terms 

‘‘supplying’’ and ‘‘or for any other 

purpose’’ in effect limit the use of 

energy during startup and shutdown 

periods and inappropriately truncate 

these periods. Petitioners state that 

efficient and cost-effective internal uses 

of steam and heat for operating the 

boiler should not be discouraged by 

definitions that necessarily limit the 

duration of the startup and shutdown 

periods and that may require costly 

retrofits to boilers with no 

commensurate environmental benefit. 

2. Startup 

In addition to soliciting public 

comment on the definition of startup 

contained in the February 1, 2013, final 

rule, the EPA is proposing to add an 

alternate definition to the definition of 

startup that is in the February 1, 2013, 

final rule. We are proposing to allow 

sources to use either definition of 

startup when complying with the 

startup requirements. As explained in 

more detail below, under the alternate 

definition, startup would end 4 hours 

after the unit begins supplying useful 

thermal energy. 

Specifically, the EPA is proposing the 

alternate definition to clarify that, in 

terms of the first-ever firing of fuel, 

startup begins when fuel is fired for the 

purpose of supplying useful thermal 

energy (such as steam or hot water) for 

heating, cooling, or process purposes or 

producing electricity and to clarify that 

startup ends 4 hours after when the 

boiler makes useful thermal energy. The 

proposed clarification regarding the end 

of startup would apply to first-ever 

startups as well as startups occurring 

after shutdown events. With regard to 

when startup begins after a shutdown 

event, the alternate definition is the 

same as the definition in the February 

1, 2013, final rule. That is, startup 

begins with the firing of fuel in a boiler 

for any purpose after a shutdown event. 

In this alternate definition, we are 

proposing the clarification regarding the 

first-ever firing of fuel to address 

implementation issues regarding ‘‘prestartup’’ activities that are done as part 

of installing a new boiler. Under the 

February 1, 2013, definition of 

‘‘startup,’’ a new boiler would be 

considered to have started up, and 

subject to the rule, when it first fires 

fuel ‘‘for any purpose.’’ However, a 

newly installed unit needs to be tested 

to ensure that it was properly installed 

and will operate as it was designed and 

that all associated components were 

also properly installed and will operate 

as designed. The EPA did not intend for 

the startup period to begin when a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2875 

1See technical support document titled 

‘‘Assessment of Startup Period at Coal-Fired 

Electric Generating Units—Revised’’ in the docket. 

2 It is important to remember that the hour at 

which startup ends is the hour at which reporting 

for the purpose of determining compliance begins. 

Therefore, sources must collect and report operating 

limit data following the end of startup. These data 

are used in calculating whether a source is in 

compliance with the 30-day average operating 

limits. 

3See attachments to the following Email 

messages included in the docket: Robert Bessette, 

CIBO, to Robert Wayland, EPA, dated May 6, 2014; 

Amy Marshall, URS, to Jim Eddinger, EPA, dated 

June 10, 2014; and Reynaldo Forte, EPA, to Jim 

Eddinger, EPA, dated May 7, 2014. 

newly installed unit first fires fuel for 

testing or other pre-startup purposes 

because such firing of fuel does not 

represent normal operation of the unit. 

The EPA is also proposing in the 

alternate definition to replace ‘‘steam 

and heat’’ in the February 1, 2013, 

definition of startup with ‘‘useful 

thermal energy.’’ This proposed revision 

would apply to first-ever startups as 

well as startups after shutdown events 

and is intended to address the issue 

raised by petitioners that the language 

in the February 1, 2013, definition 

regarding the end of the startup period 

is ambiguous since once fuel is fired 

some steam or heat is generated, but not 

in useful or controllable quantities. The 

petitioners comment that it takes time 

for steam to be heated to adequate 

temperatures and pressures for 

beneficial use and that steam or heat 

should not be construed to be supplied 

until it is of adequate temperature and 

pressure. The EPA agrees with 

petitioners that the startup period 

should not end until such time as fuel 

is fired resulting in steam or hot water 

that is useful thermal energy because it 

takes time for steam to be heated to 

adequate temperatures and pressures for 

beneficial use and we believe the 

appropriate criteria for ending startup in 

the definition should be when useful 

steam is supplied. This proposed 

change doesn’t alter the EPA’s 

determination that it is not technically 

feasible to require stack testing—in 

particular, to complete the multiple 

required test runs—during periods of 

startup and shutdown due to physical 

limitations and the short duration of 

startup and shutdown periods. 

In order to clarify the term ‘‘useful 

thermal energy,’’ we are proposing to 

define ‘‘useful thermal energy’’ as 

energy (i.e., steam or hot water) that 

meets the minimum operating 

temperature and/or pressure required by 

any energy use system that uses energy 

provided by the affected boiler. 

The EPA received two petitions for 

reconsideration of the definition of 

startup in the February 1, 2013, final 

rule. Petitioners assert that the amended 

definition of startup does not account 

for a wide range of boilers that 

operationally are still in startup mode 

even after some steam or heat is 

supplied to the plant. Petitioners assert 

that some boilers begin to supply steam 

or heat for some purposes onsite before 

they have achieved necessary 

temperature or load to engage emission 

controls. Petitioners cite the example 

where a boiler provides steam to a 

lumber kiln that is starting up. The 

boiler must preheat the metal steam 

lines, which is necessary in cold 

climates where a rush of steam can 

cause the metal to expand too quickly, 

resulting in catastrophic damage. 

Petitioners point out that, according to 

the final rule, a boiler supplying even a 

small amount of steam would no longer 

be in startup and would be required at 

that point in time to engage emission 

controls. Petitioners explain that, 

according to equipment specifications 

and established safe boiler operations, a 

source operator should not engage 

emission controls until specific 

parameters are met. 

Petitioners state that they previously 

urged the EPA to revise the startup 

definition to allow facilities to 

determine the minimum stable 

operating load on a unit-specific basis 

and include the minimum stable 

operating load and the proper 

procedures to follow during startup and 

shutdown in a site-specific plan. 

Petitioners assert that the amended 

definition of startup still does not 

account for the broad range of boiler and 

fuel types, operational methodologies 

and facility demands placed on boilers. 

For this reason, petitioners continue to 

urge the EPA to adopt a startup 

definition that allows sources to identify 

startup periods on a site-specific and 

unit-specific basis. Petitioners assert 

that only with this degree of flexibility 

will the rule account for the multiple 

design and operational variables of the 

diverse boiler population regulated in a 

way that allows safe and effective 

operation with assurance of compliance 

with the standard. 

Petitioners express that, above all, the 

boiler operator’s primary concern 

during startup is safety. The startup 

procedures must ensure that the 

equipment is brought up to normal 

operating conditions in a safe manner, 

and startup ends when the boiler and its 

controls are fully functional. The end of 

startup occurs when safe, stable 

operating conditions are reached, after 

emissions controls are properly 

operating. The startup provisions 

should not include requirements that 

could affect safe operating practices. 

The EPA agrees with petitioners that 

the startup period should not end until 

such time that all control devices have 

reached stable conditions. The EPA has 

very limited information specifically for 

industrial boilers on the hours needed 

for controls to reach stable conditions 

after the start of supplying useful 

thermal energy. However, the EPA does 

have information for electric utility 

steam generating units (EGUs) on the 

hours to stable control operation after 

the start of electricity generation. Using 

hour-by-hour emissions and operation 

data for EGUs reported to the agency 

under the Acid Rain Program, we found 

that controls used on the best 

performing 12 percent EGUs reach 

stable operation within 4 hours after the 

start of electricity generation.1 Since the 

types of controls used on EGUs are 

similar to those used on industrial 

boilers and the start of electricity 

generation is similar to the start of 

supplying useful thermal energy, we 

believe that the controls on the best 

performing industrial boilers would also 

reach stable operation within 4 hours 

after the start of supplying useful 

thermal energy and have included this 

timeframe in the proposed alternate 

definition.2 This conclusion is 

supported by the very limited 

information (13 units) the EPA does 

have on industrial boilers and by 

information submitted by the Council of 

Industrial Boiler Owners obtained from 

an informal survey of its members on 

the time needed to reach stable 

conditions during startup.3

The EPA is seeking comment on the 

definition of startup in the February 1, 

2013, final rule, as well as this action’s 

proposed revision to the February 1, 

2013, definition of startup to include an 

alternate definition of startup. 

3. Shutdown 

In this action, the EPA is proposing to 

revise the definition of shutdown in the 

February 1, 2013, final rule. 

Specifically, the EPA is proposing to 

clarify that shutdown begins when the 

boiler no longer makes useful thermal 

energy and ends when the boiler no 

longer makes useful thermal energy and 

no fuel is fired in the boiler. The EPA 

is also proposing to replace ‘‘steam and 

heat’’ in the February 1, 2013, definition 

of shutdown with ‘‘useful thermal 

energy’’ to address the same issue raised 

by petitioners regarding the language in 

the definition of ‘‘startup’’ described 

above. The EPA intended for the 

shutdown period to begin when fuel is 

no longer fired for the purpose of 

creating useful thermal energy. 

The EPA received one petition for 

reconsideration of the definition of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2876 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

shutdown in the February 1, 2013, final 

rule. Petitioners assert that the amended 

definition of shutdown is problematic 

for units firing solid fuels on a grate or 

in a fluidized bed combustor where the 

residual material in the unit keeps 

burning after fuel feed to the unit is 

stopped. Petitioners explain that, in 

such a case, fuel is still burning (‘‘being 

fired’’) in the unit despite the fact that 

load reduction is occurring, additional 

fuel is not being fed and the shutdown 

process has clearly begun. For this 

reason, petitioners assert that the 

shutdown definition should be revised 

to state that shutdown begins either 

when none of the steam and heat from 

the boiler is supplied for heating and/ 

or producing electricity or when fuel is 

no longer being fed to the boiler, and 

that shutdown ends when there is both 

no steam or heat being supplied and no 

fuel being combusted in the boiler. 

The EPA agrees with the petitioners 

that, for certain types of boilers where 

the fuel is combusted on a grate or bed, 

fuel firing may be considered to 

continue even after fuel feed to the unit 

is stopped. The EPA intended that the 

shutdown period would begin when 

fuel is no longer being fired for the 

purpose of creating useful thermal 

energy. Thus, we believe the proposed 

revisions to the definition of shutdown 

that address this issue are appropriate. 

The EPA is seeking comment on the 

February 1, 2013, definition of 

shutdown, as well as the revisions to the 

definition of shutdown that we are now 

proposing to make. 

B. Alternative Particulate Matter 

Standard for New Oil-Fired Boilers That 

Combust Low-Sulfur Oil 

The February 1, 2013, final rule added 

a new provision that specifies that new 

or reconstructed oil-fired boilers with 

heat input capacity of 10 million Btu 

per hour (MMBtu/hr) or greater that 

combust only oil that contains no more 

than 0.50 weight percent sulfur or a 

mixture of 0.50 weight percent sulfur oil 

with other fuels not subject to a PM 

emission limit under this subpart and 

that do not use a post-combustion 

technology (except a wet scrubber) to 

reduce PM or sulfur dioxide emissions 

meet generally available control 

technology (GACT) for PM, providing 

the type of fuel combusted is monitored 

and recorded on a monthly basis. After 

the December 23, 2011, reconsideration 

proposal, the EPA received a number of 

comments urging that we provide an 

exemption from the PM limit for units 

burning low-sulfur liquid fuel as is 

provided in subpart Dc of 40 CFR part 

60 (Standards of Performance for Small 

Industrial-Commercial-Institutional 

Steam Generating Units), which is also 

the basis for the PM emission limit to 

which these new and reconstructed 

boilers are subject. Commenters asserted 

that such an exemption is justified since 

the low sulfur content indicates low PM 

emissions and that boilers firing lowsulfur liquid fuel should only be subject 

to a requirement to maintain records 

documenting the liquid fuel fired. We 

agreed that burning low-sulfur liquid 

fuel can be an alternative method of 

meeting GACT for PM and added the 

subpart Dc provision that would allow 

low-sulfur liquid fuel burning boilers 

currently complying with subpart Dc to 

use the same compliance approach to 

meet the Area Source Boiler Rule 

requirement for PM. 

The EPA received a petition asserting 

that the public lacked an opportunity to 

comment on the new provision for lowsulfur liquid fuel burning boilers as well 

as the definition of low-sulfur liquid 

fuel. Petitioners object to this alternative 

standard because they assert that the 

EPA has not shown that burning liquid 

fuels that qualify as being low-sulfur 

under the final rule will actually control 

the urban hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) for which the category of sources 

was listed. Petitioners also assert that 

the final rule’s definition of low-sulfur 

encompasses liquid fuels with 

extremely high sulfur content and will 

allow emissions that exceed the 

numerical emission limit for PM that 

the EPA determined was GACT. In 

addition, petitioners note that the final 

rule allows use of liquid fuel up to 0.5 

percent sulfur by weight, which 

translates to about 5,000 parts per 

million (ppm), which they assert is far 

higher than the generally accepted 

definition of low sulfur content of 500 

ppm. 

Although the EPA added the 

alternative PM standard for new oilfired boilers that combust low-sulfur oil 

in the February 1, 2013, final rule in 

response to comments and these 

comments related to a proposed rule 

provision that adopted some, but not all, 

of the provisions for PM control in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Dc, we have 

granted reconsideration on this issue to 

provide an opportunity for comment on 

the new provision. The EPA requests 

comment, along with supporting 

information, on (1) whether and, if so, 

to what extent burning liquid fuels that 

qualify as being low-sulfur, as defined 

under the final rule, would control the 

urban metal HAP for which the category 

of sources was listed and for which PM 

serves as a surrogate (i.e., Hg, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, lead, chromium, 

manganese, nickel) and (2) whether the 

final rule’s definition of low-sulfur 

would allow emissions that exceed the 

final rule’s numerical emission limit for 

PM. 

The EPA also solicits comment on an 

alternative PM standard for new oilfired boilers that combust ultra-lowsulfur liquid fuel. The National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines (RICE NESHAP) 

(78 FR 6674, January 30, 2013) require 

certain stationary emergency 

compression ignition RICE to use diesel 

fuel that meets the specifications of 40 

CFR 80.510(b), which require that diesel 

fuel have a maximum sulfur content of 

15 ppm. This fuel is referred to as ultralow sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD). The RICE 

NESHAP final rule notes that 

information provided to the EPA by 

commenters showed that the use of 

ULSD will significantly reduce 

emissions of air toxics, including 

metallic HAP (e.g., nickel, zinc, lead) 

(78 FR 6680, January 30, 2013). In 

addition, the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Major Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

and Process Heaters (Boiler maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT)) 

(78 FR 7138, January 31, 2013) include 

a provision for certain boilers or process 

heaters that combust ultra-low-sulfur 

liquid fuel. The final rule specifies that 

if an affected boiler or process heater is 

in the units designed to burn light 

liquid subcategory and it combusts 

ultra-low-sulfur liquid fuel, further 

performance tests do not need to be 

conducted if the pollutants measured 

during the initial compliance 

performance tests meet the emission 

limits, providing ongoing compliance 

with the emissions limits is 

demonstrated by monitoring and 

recording the type of fuel combusted on 

a monthly basis. (See 40 CFR 

63.7515(h).) The Boiler MACT defines 

ultra-low-sulfur liquid fuel as a 

distillate oil that has less than or equal 

to 15 ppm sulfur. (See 40 CFR 63.7575.) 

Specifically, we request comment on 

an alternative provision to the February 

1, 2013, final rule’s alternative PM 

standard for new oil-fired boilers that 

combust low-sulfur oil that would 

specify that new or reconstructed oilfired boilers with heat input capacity of 

10 MMBtu/hr or greater that combust 

only ultra-low-sulfur liquid fuel meet 

GACT for PM providing the type of fuel 

combusted is monitored and recorded 

on a monthly basis. Under this 

alternative provision, GACT would not 

require initial compliance performance 

testing demonstrating compliance with 

the PM emission limit because sufficient 

testing has shown that ULSD contains 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2877 

low levels of urban metal HAP that we 

can be assured that this alternative 

standard is effective. The EPA also 

requests comment, along with 

supporting information, on whether, 

and, if so, to what extent burning ultralow-sulfur liquid fuels, as described 

above, would control the urban metal 

HAP for which the category of sources 

were listed. 

C. Establishment of a Subcategory and 

Separate Requirements for Limited-Use 

Boilers 

The February 1, 2013, final rule 

established a limited-use boiler 

subcategory that includes any boiler that 

burns any amount of solid or liquid 

fuels and has a federally enforceable 

average annual capacity factor of no 

more than 10 percent. The final rule 

established separate requirements for 

this subcategory of boilers that operate 

on a limited basis. In response to the 

December 23, 2011, reconsideration 

proposal, several commenters asserted 

that the EPA should also include a 

limited-use subcategory in the Area 

Source Boiler Rule for the same reasons 

we determined a seasonal boiler 

subcategory was appropriate. 

Commenters suggested that we should 

apply the same 5-year tune-up cycle for 

limited-use units such as auxiliary 

boilers that we proposed for seasonallyoperated units and small oil-fired units. 

Commenters explained that in the 

electric utility industry, auxiliary 

boilers are typically used to generate the 

steam necessary to bring a main EGU on 

line during startup and, since auxiliary 

boilers are primarily operated during 

unit startup, operation for many of these 

boilers is typically very limited and 

sporadic. Commenters also pointed out 

that the Boiler MACT includes a 

limited-use subcategory. 

The EPA determined that a limiteduse subcategory was appropriate and 

included a limited-use subcategory 

along with separate standards in the 

final Area Source Boiler Rule. 

Specifically, the final rule specifies that 

limited-use boilers must complete a 

tune-up every 5 years. Such boilers are 

not subject to the emission limits, the 

energy assessment requirements or the 

operating limits. In the February 1, 

2013, final rule, we stated our belief that 

establishing a limited-use subcategory 

was reasonable. First, we pointed out 

that boilers that operate no more than 10 

percent of the year (i.e., a limited-use 

boiler) would operate for no more than 

6 months in between tune-ups on a 5- 

year tune-up cycle. We further pointed 

out that the brief period of operations 

for these limited-use boilers is even less 

than the number of operating months 

that seasonal boilers and full-time 

boilers will operate between tune-ups. 

Next, we noted that the irregular 

schedule of operations also makes it 

difficult to schedule more frequent tuneups. Finally, we noted that it is 

technically infeasible to test these 

limited-use boilers since these units 

serve as back-up energy sources and 

their operating schedules can be 

intermittent and unpredictable. 

The EPA received a petition asserting 

that the public lacked an opportunity to 

comment on the new limited-use boiler 

subcategory, as well as the tune-up 

requirement established for the new 

subcategory. Petitioners object to the 

EPA’s decision to create a separate 

subcategory for these boilers and to the 

EPA’s rationale for requiring nothing 

more than one tune-up every 5 years for 

these boilers. Specifically, petitioners 

assert that limited-use boilers differ 

from other boilers only in that they are 

operated for fewer total hours over the 

course of a year and that the EPA has 

not explained why this is a distinction 

that justifies differential treatment. 

The EPA disagrees with the 

petitioners’ claim that we have not 

explained why limited-use boilers 

should have separate regulatory 

requirements. As described above, we 

fully explained our rationale for 

establishing a limited-use boiler 

subcategory and separate requirements 

for that subcategory in the February 1, 

2013, final rule. However, in 

consideration of the fact that the public 

lacked the opportunity to comment on 

the new subcategory and requirements, 

we have granted reconsideration to 

provide an opportunity for public 

comment on this issue. The EPA 

requests comment regarding whether 

the separate requirements for a limiteduse boiler subcategory are necessary or 

appropriate. Commenters should 

provide detailed information supporting 

their comment. If, after evaluating all 

comments and data received on this 

issue, the EPA determines that 

amendments to the limited-use boiler 

subcategory and the separate 

requirements for that subcategory may 

be appropriate, we will propose such 

amendments in a future regulatory 

action. 

D. Establishment of a Provision That 

Eliminates Further Performance Testing 

for Particulate Matter for Certain Boilers 

Based on Their Initial Compliance Test 

The February 1, 2013, final rule added 

a new provision that specifies that 

further PM emissions testing does not 

need to be conducted if, when 

demonstrating initial compliance with 

the PM emission limit, the performance 

test results show that the PM emissions 

from the affected boiler are equal to or 

less than half of the applicable PM 

emission limit. The EPA believes that 

inclusion of such a provision promotes 

good PM performance from new boilers 

and could also promote new technology 

development. In such instances, the 

owner or operator must continue to 

comply with all applicable operating 

limits and monitoring requirements to 

ensure that there are no changes in 

operation of the boiler or air pollution 

control equipment that could increase 

emissions. If the initial performance test 

results show that the PM emissions are 

greater than half of the PM emission 

limit, the owner or operator must 

conduct subsequent performance tests 

every 3 years as specified in the final 

rule. After the December 23, 2011, 

reconsideration proposal, the EPA 

received comments asserting that the 

most effective control strategy for small 

oil-fired boilers is the tune-up required 

by the standards and that establishing a 

PM limit for those boilers between 10 

MMBtu/hr and 30 MMBtu/hr just 

ensures that those boilers will do stack 

testing demonstrating that the boilers 

are in compliance without the need for 

controls; a fact already known. 

Commenters also asserted that 

establishing a PM limit imposes a stack 

test obligation on small facilities with 

the least resources to deal with the 

testing. After considering the comments, 

the EPA did not eliminate or revise the 

PM limit for new oil-fired boilers with 

heat input capacity between 10 MMBtu/ 

hr and 30 MMBtu/hr. We did, however, 

believe that adjustments to the PM 

performance test frequency, as 

described above, were appropriate for 

boilers that demonstrate during their 

initial performance test that their PM 

emissions are equal to or less than half 

of the PM limit. We further stated our 

belief that the performance test 

adjustment should not be potentially 

applicable to only new oil-fired boilers 

with heat input capacity between 10 

MMBtu/hr and 30 MMBtu/hr, but to all 

new boilers subject to a PM emission 

limit. 

The EPA received a petition asserting 

that the public lacked an opportunity to 

comment on the new provision that 

eliminates further performance testing 

for PM for certain boilers based on their 

initial compliance test. Petitioners 

object to the EPA’s decision to exempt 

sources from PM performance testing 

indefinitely based on a single 

performance test showing low 

emissions. Petitioners assert that 

because the EPA determined that urban 

metal HAP emissions should be 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2878 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

controlled through a surrogate limit on 

PM emissions and that compliance with 

the PM emission limit should be 

determined through performance 

testing, the new provision, which fails 

to require performance testing to 

determine compliance, is arbitrary. 

Petitioners further assert that, because of 

variability in PM emissions, it is 

arbitrary to conclude that a source that 

measures low emissions in one test will 

have emissions below the limit forever 

thereafter. Specifically, petitioners 

assert that emissions of PM from 

individual sources are likely to be 

highly variable due to variations in 

proportions of co-fired fuels within a 

given subcategory, changes in fuel mix 

within a given fuel type and changes in 

fuel suppliers for a given fuel type. 

We have granted reconsideration on 

this issue to provide an opportunity for 

comment on the new provision. The 

EPA requests comment, along with 

supporting information, on the 

magnitude and range of variability in 

PM and urban metal HAP emissions 

from individual boilers. More 

specifically, we request comment on 

whether the emissions variability at an 

individual boiler within a specific 

subcategory could result in an 

exceedance of the applicable PM limit 

by such boiler whose PM emissions are 

demonstrated to be equal to or less than 

half of the applicable PM emission limit 

(i.e., a doubling or more of PM 

emissions). We also request comment on 

to what extent a requirement to burn 

only the fuel types and fuel mixtures 

used to demonstrate that a boiler’s PM 

emissions are equal to or less than half 

of the PM limit would limit variability 

in the boiler’s PM emissions. 

The EPA also solicits comment on an 

alternative provision that would specify 

less frequent performance testing for PM 

based on the initial compliance test. 

Specifically, we request comment on an 

alternative provision that would specify 

that when demonstrating initial 

compliance with the PM emission limit, 

if the performance test results show that 

the PM emissions from the affected 

boiler are equal to or less than half of 

the applicable PM emission limit, 

additional PM emissions testing would 

not need to be conducted for 5 years. In 

such instances, the owner or operator 

would be required to continue to 

comply with all applicable operating 

limits and monitoring requirements to 

ensure that there are no changes in 

operation of the boiler or air pollution 

control equipment that could increase 

emissions. We request comment on also 

including a requirement that the owner 

or operator only burn the fuel types and 

fuel mixtures used to demonstrate that 

the PM emissions from the affected 

boiler are equal to or less than half of 

the applicable PM emission limit. As 

long as the performance test results 

show that the PM emissions from the 

affected boiler are equal to or less than 

half of the applicable PM emission 

limit, the source could continue 

conducting performance tests every 5 

years. If the initial performance test 

results or results from a subsequent 

performance test show that the PM 

emissions are greater than half of the 

PM emission limit, the owner or 

operator would be required to conduct 

subsequent performance tests every 3 

years, as specified in the final rule. 

E. Establishment of a Provision That 

Eliminates Further Fuel Sampling for 

Mercury for Certain Coal-Fired Boilers 

Based on Their Initial Compliance 

Demonstration 

The February 1, 2013, final rule added 

a new provision that specifies that 

further fuel analysis sampling does not 

need to be conducted if, when 

demonstrating initial compliance with 

the Hg emission limit based on fuel 

analysis, the Hg constituents in the fuel 

or fuel mixture are measured to be equal 

to or less than half of the Hg emission 

limit. The EPA believes that inclusion of 

such a provision promotes use of lowHg coal. In such instances, the owner or 

operator must continue to comply with 

all applicable operating limits and 

monitoring requirements, which include 

only burning the fuel types and fuel 

mixtures used to demonstrate 

compliance and keeping monthly 

records of fuel use. When demonstrating 

initial compliance with the Hg emission 

limit, if the Hg constituents in the fuel 

or fuel mixture are greater than half of 

the Hg emission limit, the owner or 

operator must conduct quarterly 

sampling. After the December 23, 2011, 

reconsideration proposal, the EPA 

realized that when the performance 

stack testing frequency was revised from 

being required on an annual basis in the 

June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31896) proposed 

rule to being required on a triennial 

basis in the March 2011 final rule, we 

neglected to revise the fuel analysis 

requirements. The June 2010 proposed 

rule required a monthly fuel analysis. 

The February 1, 2013, final rule requires 

quarterly fuel analysis if, when 

demonstrating initial compliance with 

the Hg emission limit, the Hg 

constituents in the fuel or fuel mixture 

are greater than half of the Hg emission 

limit. 

The EPA received a petition asserting 

that the public lacked an opportunity to 

comment on the new provision that 

eliminates further fuel sampling for Hg 

for certain coal-fired boilers based on 

their initial compliance demonstration. 

Petitioners object to the EPA’s decision 

to exempt sources from fuel sampling 

for Hg based on a single fuel analysis. 

Petitioners assert that because the EPA 

determined that Hg must be regulated 

based on the performance of maximum 

achievable control technology and that 

compliance with the Hg emission limit 

can be determined through fuel 

analysis, the new provision, which fails 

to require fuel analysis to determine 

compliance, is arbitrary. Petitioners 

further assert that the variability in the 

Hg content of fuels available to coalfired boilers at area sources is so great 

that a single fuel analysis cannot show 

that a source will comply with the 

standard in perpetuity. Petitioners claim 

that the February 1, 2013, final rule 

defines coal-fired boilers subject to the 

standard broadly and allows sources to 

burn highly non-homogenous fuels 

without changing subcategories, which 

enables a high degree of variability in 

emissions. Specifically, petitioners note 

that the final rule allows variation in 

proportions of fuels co-fired (i.e., coal 

and biomass), changes in fuel mix 

within a given fuel type and changes in 

fuel suppliers for a given fuel type. 

We have granted reconsideration on 

this issue to provide an opportunity for 

comment on the new provision. The 

EPA requests comment, along with 

supporting information, on the 

magnitude and range of variability in Hg 

content in coal that is likely to be 

combusted in an individual boiler. More 

specifically, we request comment on 

whether the variability within a specific 

fuel type or fuel mixture could result in 

an exceedance of the applicable Hg limit 

by a boiler in the coal subcategory 

whose Hg content in their fuel or fuel 

mixture are demonstrated to be equal to 

or less than half of the applicable Hg 

emission limit (i.e., a doubling or more 

of Hg emissions). 

The EPA also solicits comment on an 

alternative provision that would specify 

less frequent fuel analysis sampling for 

Hg based on the initial compliance 

demonstration. Specifically, we request 

comment on an alternative provision 

that would specify that when 

demonstrating initial compliance with 

the Hg emission limit based on fuel 

analysis, if the Hg constituents in the 

fuel or fuel mixture are measured to be 

equal to or less than half of the Hg 

emission limit, additional fuel analysis 

sampling for Hg would not need to be 

conducted for 12 months. In such 

instances, the owner or operator would 

be required to continue to comply with 

all applicable operating limits and 

monitoring requirements, which include 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2879 

only burning the fuel types and fuel 

mixtures used to demonstrate 

compliance and keeping monthly 

records of fuel use, to ensure that there 

are no changes in operation of the boiler 

or air pollution control equipment that 

could increase emissions. As long as the 

fuel analysis sampling shows that the 

Hg constituents in the fuel or fuel 

mixture are equal to or less than half of 

the Hg emission limit, the source could 

continue fuel analysis sampling on an 

annual basis. If the initial fuel analysis 

sampling or subsequent fuel analysis 

sampling show that the Hg emissions 

are greater than half of the Hg emission 

limit, the owner or operator would be 

required to conduct subsequent fuel 

analysis sampling on a quarterly basis 

(i.e., every 3 months) as specified in the 

final rule. 

IV. Technical Corrections and 

Clarifications 

We are proposing several clarifying 

changes and corrections to the final 

rule. These proposed changes are 

described in Table 1 of this preamble. 

TABLE 1—MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSED CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS TO 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART JJJJJJ 

Section of subpart JJJJJJ Description of proposed correction 

40 CFR 63.11195(k) ........................................... Revise the language in this paragraph to use the phrase ‘‘as defined in this subpart’’ instead 

of ‘‘covered by subpart UUUUU of this part’’ to clarify that fossil fuel-fired EGUs are not subject to the rule. 

40 CFR 63.11210(j) ............................................ Amend this paragraph to clarify that this provision applies to existing affected boilers that have 

not operated on any of the fuels subject to subpart JJJJJJ (i.e., ‘‘on solid fossil fuel, biomass, or liquid fuel’’) between the rule’s effective date and compliance date. 

40 CFR 63.11214(a) ........................................... Amend this paragraph to clarify that the requirement to submit a signed statement in the Notification of Compliance Status report that indicates that an initial tune-up of the boiler was 

conducted only applies to owners and operators of existing coal-fired boilers with a heat 

input capacity of less than 10 MMBtu/hr. 

40 CFR 63.11214(b) ........................................... Amend this paragraph to clarify that the requirement to submit a signed statement in the Notification of Compliance Status report that indicates that an initial tune-up of the boiler was 

conducted only applies to owners and operators of existing biomass-fired boilers and existing oil-fired boilers. 

40 CFR 63.11214(c) ........................................... Amend this paragraph to clarify that the energy assessment is also considered to have been 

completed if the maximum number of on-site technical hours specified in the definition of energy assessment applicable to the facility has been expended. 

40 CFR 63.11220(d) ........................................... Amend this paragraph to clarify that this provision applies to existing affected boilers that have 

not operated on any of the fuels subject to subpart JJJJJJ (i.e., ‘‘on solid fossil fuel, biomass, or liquid fuel’’) since the previous compliance demonstration and more than 3 years 

have passed since the previous compliance demonstration. 

40 CFR 63.11221(c) ........................................... Amend this paragraph to clarify that data collected during periods of startup and shutdown 

may not be used in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. 

40 CFR 63.11222(a)(2) ...................................... Amend this paragraph to clarify that the requirement to demonstrate that all fuel types and 

mixtures of fuels burned would result in lower emissions of Hg than the applicable emission 

limit (if you demonstrate compliance through fuel analysis), or result in lower fuel input of Hg 

than the maximum values calculated during the last performance stack test (if you demonstrate compliance through performance stack testing) only applies to owners and operators of boilers subject to a Hg emission limit. 

40 CFR 63.11224(a)(7) ...................................... Amend this paragraph to clarify the oxygen level set point for a source that operates an oxygen trim system but is not required to conduct a carbon monoxide performance stack test. 

40 CFR 63.11225(a)(4) ...................................... Amend this paragraph to clarify that owners and operators of new boilers subject only to a requirement to conduct a tune-up are not required to prepare and submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status for the tune-up. 

40 CFR 63.11225(b) ........................................... Amend this paragraph to clarify that boilers subject only to energy assessment and/or tune-up 

requirements may submit only a biennial or 5-year compliance report. 

40 CFR 63.11225(c)(2)(iv) .................................. Amend this paragraph to include the requirement, as specified in § 63.11210(e), that owners 

and operators of new oil-fired boilers meeting the low sulfur fuel requirements in 

§ 63.11210(e) must keep records, on a monthly basis, of the type of fuel combusted. 

40 CFR 63.11225(e)(1) ...................................... Amend this paragraph to clarify the EPA point of contact for submittal of confidential performance test information. 

40 CFR 63.11225(g) ........................................... Revise the language in this paragraph to (1) use the phrase ‘‘due to a fuel change that results 

in the boiler meeting the definition of gas-fired boiler, as defined in § 63.11237’’ instead of 

‘‘due to a change to 100 percent natural gas’’ to clarify that boilers switching out of subpart 

JJJJJJ due to a fuel change are not only those that change to 100-percent natural gas, but 

include those for which the fuel change results in the boiler meeting the subpart JJJJJJ definition of ‘‘Gas-fired boiler,’’ which encompasses those boilers that change to 100-percent 

natural gas; and (2) clarify that in addition to a permit limit resulting in a boiler becoming 

subject to the subpart, a permit limit can also result in a boiler no longer being subject to the 

subpart. 

40 CFR 63.11237 ............................................... Add the definition of ‘‘Annual capacity factor’’ to clarify its meaning within the definition of 

‘‘Limited-use boiler.’’ 

Revise the definition of ‘‘Coal’’ to clarify that coal derived liquids are excluded from the definition of ‘‘Coal’’ and are considered to be a liquid fuel. 

Revise the definition of ‘‘Dry scrubber’’ to delete the phrase ‘‘and process heaters.’’ 

Add the definition of ‘‘Fossil fuel’’ to clarify its meaning within the definition of ‘‘Electric utility 

steam generating unit (EGU).’’ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2880 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSED CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS TO 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART JJJJJJ—Continued 

Section of subpart JJJJJJ Description of proposed correction 

Revise the definition of ‘‘Gas-fired boiler’’ to clarify that the 48 hours of liquid fuel usage allowed on an annual calendar basis includes performing maintenance and operator training. 

This revision clarifies the intent of the liquid fuel usage allowance in that periodic testing, 

maintenance and operator training activities are all done to ensure that the boiler is capable 

of operating properly on liquid fuel when needed during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply interruptions or startups. This clarification does not revise the amount of time that liquid 

fuel can be used on an annual basis, but clarifies when it can be used. 

Revise the definition of ‘‘Limited-use boiler’’ to delete the word ‘‘average’’ to eliminate confusion regarding its use in the definition and maintain consistent terminology within the subpart. 

Revise the definition of ‘‘Load fraction’’ to clarify how load fraction is determined for a boiler 

co-firing natural gas with a solid or liquid fuel. 

Revise the definition of ‘‘Oxygen trim system’’ to include draft controller and to clarify that it is 

a system that maintains the desired excess air level over its operating load range. 

Table 1 to subpart JJJJJJ .................................. Revise item 6.b. to add ‘‘(3-run average or 10-day rolling average)’’ to be consistent with items 

1.c. and 2.c. of Table 1. 

Table 2 to subpart JJJJJJ .................................. Revise item 16 to clarify that (1) ‘‘operates under an energy management program’’ does not 

mean that the energy management program must be implemented in perpetuity, but, rather, 

for at least one year between January 1, 2008, and the compliance date specified in 

§ 63.11196; and (2) an energy management program developed according to ENERGY 

STAR guidelines would also satisfy the requirement. 

Table 6 to subpart JJJJJJ .................................. Revise item 2.(c) to clarify that ‘‘load fraction’’ is as defined in § 63.11237. 

V. Affirmative Defense 

In several prior CAA section 112 and 

CAA section 129 rules, including this 

rule, the EPA had included an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

violations caused by malfunctions in an 

effort to create a system that 

incorporates some flexibility, 

recognizing that there is a tension, 

inherent in many types of air regulation, 

to ensure adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite 

the most diligent of efforts, emission 

standards may be violated under 

circumstances entirely beyond the 

control of the source. Although the EPA 

recognized that its case-by-case 

enforcement discretion provides 

sufficient flexibility in these 

circumstances, it included the 

affirmative defense to provide a more 

formalized approach and more 

regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. 

Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

case-by-case enforcement discretion 

approach is adequate); but see Marathon 

Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 

(9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of 

‘‘upsets beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a 

source could demonstrate in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding that it had 

met the requirements of the affirmative 

defense in the regulation, civil penalties 

would not be assessed. Recently, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated an 

affirmative defense in one of the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations. NRDC v. 

EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) 

(vacating affirmative defense provisions 

in CAA section 112 rule establishing 

emission standards for Portland cement 

kilns). The court found that the EPA 

lacked authority to establish an 

affirmative defense for private civil suits 

and held that under the CAA, the 

authority to determine civil penalty 

amounts in such cases lies exclusively 

with the courts, not the EPA. 

Specifically, the court found: ‘‘As the 

language of the statute makes clear, the 

courts determine, on a case-by-case 

basis, whether civil penalties are 

‘appropriate.’ ’’ See NRDC, 2014 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 7281 at *21 (‘‘[U]nder this 

statute, deciding whether penalties are 

‘appropriate’ . . . is a job for the courts, 

not EPA.’’). In light of NRDC, the EPA 

is proposing to remove the regulatory 

affirmative defense provision in the 

current rule. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112 

standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ 

and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless 

operation.’’ 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 

malfunction). 

Further, to the extent the EPA files an 

enforcement action against a source for 

violation of an emission standard, the 

source can raise any and all defenses in 

that enforcement action and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. Cf. 

NRDC at 1064 (arguments that violation 

were caused by unavoidable technology 

failure can be made to the courts in 

future civil cases when the issue arises). 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

VI. Solicitation of Public Comment and 

Participation 

The EPA seeks full public 

participation in arriving at its final 

decisions. The EPA requests public 

comment on the five issues under 

reconsideration. At this time, other than 

the proposed revisions to the startup 

and shutdown definitions, the EPA is 

not proposing any specific revisions to 

the final rule with regard to the five 

reconsideration issues. Nevertheless, we 

may retain or rescind the final rule 

provisions or adopt an alternative 

discussed above based on comments 

and information we receive. 

Additionally, the EPA is making 

certain clarifying changes and 

corrections to the final rule. We are 

soliciting comment on whether the 

proposed changes provide the intended 

accuracy, clarity and consistency. The 

EPA is also amending the final rule by 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2881 

removing the affirmative defense 

provisions. We request comment on all 

of these proposed changes. 

The EPA is seeking comment only on 

the five issues, the clarifying changes 

and corrections, and the amendments 

described above. The EPA will not 

respond to any comments addressing 

any other issues or any other provisions 

of the final rule or any other rule. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. The OMB has previously approved 

the information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0668. The EPA is not proposing 

any new information collection 

activities (e.g., monitoring, reporting, 

recordkeeping) as part of this action. 

With this action, the EPA is seeking 

additional comments on five aspects of 

the final Area Source Boiler Rule (78 FR 

7488, February 1, 2013). We are also 

proposing a limited number of 

amendments that would clarify some 

applicability and implementation issues 

raised by stakeholders subject to the 

final rule and correct inadvertent errors 

promulgated in the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This action seeks comment on 

five aspects of the final Area Source 

Boiler Rule and also proposes a limited 

number of clarifications and corrections 

to the final rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

This action seeks comment on five 

aspects of the final Area Source Boiler 

Rule and also proposes a limited 

number of clarifications and corrections 

to the final rule. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. This action seeks 

comment on five aspects of the final 

Area Source Boiler Rule and also 

proposes a limited number of 

clarifications and corrections to the final 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action seeks 

comment on five aspects of the final 

Area Source Boiler Rule and also 

proposes a limited number of 

clarifications and corrections to the final 

rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying to those regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that the EPA has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. This action seeks comment 

on five aspects of the final Area Source 

Boiler Rule and also proposes a limited 

number of clarifications and corrections 

to the final rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: December 1, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart JJJJJJ—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers Area Sources 

■ 2. Section 63.11195 is amended by 

revising paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 63.11195 Are any boilers not subject to 

this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(k) An electric utility steam generating 

unit (EGU) as defined in this subpart. 

■ 3. Section 63.11210 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (j) introductory text, 

(j)(1), and (j)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 63.11210 What are my initial compliance 

requirements and by what date must I 

conduct them? 

* * * * * 

(j) For existing affected boilers that 

have not operated on solid fossil fuel, 

biomass, or liquid fuel between the 

effective date of the rule and the 

compliance date that is specified for 

your source in § 63.11196, you must 

comply with the applicable provisions 

as specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) You must complete the initial 

compliance demonstration, if subject to 

the emission limits in Table 1 to this 

subpart, as specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, no later than 180 

days after the re-start of the affected 

boiler on solid fossil fuel, biomass, or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2882 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

liquid fuel and according to the 

applicable provisions in § 63.7(a)(2). 

(2) You must complete the initial 

performance tune-up, if subject to the 

tune-up requirements in § 63.11223, by 

following the procedures described in 

§ 63.11223(b) no later than 30 days after 

the re-start of the affected boiler on solid 

fossil fuel, biomass, or liquid fuel. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 63.11214 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) through (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.11214 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the work practice 

standard, emission reduction measures, 

and management practice? 

(a) If you own or operate an existing 

or new coal-fired boiler with a heat 

input capacity of less than 10 million 

Btu per hour, you must conduct a 

performance tune-up according to 

§ 63.11210(c) or (f), as applicable, and 

§ 63.11223(b). If you own or operate an 

existing coal-fired boiler with a heat 

input capacity of less than 10 million 

Btu per hour, you must submit a signed 

statement in the Notification of 

Compliance Status report that indicates 

that you conducted an initial tune-up of 

the boiler. 

(b) If you own or operate an existing 

or new biomass-fired boiler or an 

existing or new oil-fired boiler, you 

must conduct a performance tune-up 

according to § 63.11210(c) or (f), as 

applicable, and § 63.11223(b). If you 

own or operate an existing biomass-fired 

boiler or existing oil-fired boiler, you 

must submit a signed statement in the 

Notification of Compliance Status report 

that indicates that you conducted an 

initial tune-up of the boiler. 

(c) If you own or operate an existing 

affected boiler with a heat input 

capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or 

greater, you must submit a signed 

certification in the Notification of 

Compliance Status report that an energy 

assessment of the boiler and its energy 

use systems was completed according to 

Table 2 to this subpart and that the 

assessment is an accurate depiction of 

your facility at the time of the 

assessment or that the maximum 

number of on-site technical hours 

specified in the definition of energy 

assessment applicable to the facility has 

been expended. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.11220 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.11220 When must I conduct 

subsequent performance tests or fuel 

analyses? 

* * * * * 

(d) For existing affected boilers that 

have not operated on solid fossil fuel, 

biomass, or liquid fuel since the 

previous compliance demonstration and 

more than 3 years have passed since the 

previous compliance demonstration, 

you must complete your subsequent 

compliance demonstration no later than 

180 days after the re-start of the affected 

boiler on solid fossil fuel, biomass, or 

liquid fuel. 

■ 6. Section 63.11221 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.11221 Is there a minimum amount of 

monitoring data I must obtain? 

* * * * * 

(c) You may not use data collected 

during periods of startup and shutdown, 

monitoring system malfunctions or outof-control periods, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions or 

out-of-control periods, or required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

quality control activities in calculations 

used to report emissions or operating 

levels. Any such periods must be 

reported according to the requirements 

in § 63.11225. You must use all the data 

collected during all other periods in 

assessing the operation of the control 

device and associated control system. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 63.11222 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.11222 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limits? 

(a) * * * 

(2) If you have an applicable mercury 

or PM emission limit, you must keep 

records of the type and amount of all 

fuels burned in each boiler during the 

reporting period. If you have an 

applicable mercury emission limit, you 

must demonstrate that all fuel types and 

mixtures of fuels burned would result in 

lower emissions of mercury than the 

applicable emission limit (if you 

demonstrate compliance through fuel 

analysis), or result in lower fuel input 

of mercury than the maximum values 

calculated during the last performance 

stack test (if you demonstrate 

compliance through performance stack 

testing). 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 63.11224 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.11224 What are my monitoring, 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

(a) * * * 

(7) You must operate the oxygen 

analyzer system at or above the 

minimum oxygen level that is 

established as the operating limit 

according to Table 6 to this subpart 

when firing the fuel or fuel mixture 

utilized during the most recent CO 

performance stack test. If your facility is 

not required to conduct a CO 

performance stack test, you must set the 

oxygen level to the oxygen 

concentration measured during the most 

recent tune-up to optimize CO to 

manufacturer’s specifications and you 

must operate the oxygen analyzer 

system at or above that level. Operation 

of oxygen trim systems to meet these 

requirements shall not be done in a 

manner which compromises furnace 

safety. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 63.11225 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(4) introductory 

text, (b) introductory text, (c)(2)(iv), 

(e)(1) and (g) introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.11225 What are my notification, 

reporting, and recordkeeping, 

requirements? 

(a) * * * 

(4) You must submit the Notification 

of Compliance Status no later than 120 

days after the applicable compliance 

date specified in § 63.11196 unless you 

own or operate a new boiler subject only 

to a requirement to conduct a biennial 

or 5-year tune-up or you must conduct 

a performance stack test. If you own or 

operate a new boiler subject to a 

requirement to conduct a tune-up, you 

are not required to prepare and submit 

a Notification of Compliance Status for 

the tune-up. If you must conduct a 

performance stack test, you must submit 

the Notification of Compliance Status 

within 60 days of completing the 

performance stack test. You must 

submit the Notification of Compliance 

Status in accordance with paragraphs 

(a)(4)(i) and (vi) of this section. The 

Notification of Compliance Status must 

include the information and 

certification(s) of compliance in 

paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (v) of this 

section, as applicable, and signed by a 

responsible official. 

* * * * * 

(b) You must prepare, by March 1 of 

each year, and submit to the delegated 

authority upon request, an annual 

compliance certification report for the 

previous calendar year containing the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (4) of this section. You 

must submit the report by March 15 if 

you had any instance described by 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section. For 

boilers that are subject only to the 

energy assessment requirement and/or a 

requirement to conduct a biennial or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2883 

5-year tune-up according to 

§ 63.11223(a) and not subject to 

emission limits or operating limits, you 

may prepare only a biennial or 5-year 

compliance report as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) For each boiler subject to an 

emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 

you must keep records of monthly fuel 

use by each boiler, including the type(s) 

of fuel and amount(s) used. For each 

new oil-fired boiler that meets the 

requirements of § 63.11210(e), you must 

keep records, on a monthly basis, of the 

type of fuel combusted. 

* * * * * 

(e)(1) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test 

(defined in § 63.2) as required by this 

subpart you must submit the results of 

the performance tests, including any 

associated fuel analyses, required by 

this subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database 

by using CEDRI that is accessed through 

EPA’s CDX (www.epa.gov/cdx). 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in the file format generated through use 

of EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool 

(ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ 

ert/index.html). Only data collected 

using test methods on the ERT Web site 

are subject to this requirement for 

submitting reports electronically to 

WebFIRE. Owners or operators who 

claim that some of the information being 

submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) 

must submit a complete ERT file 

including information claimed to be CBI 

on a compact disk or other commonly 

used electronic storage media 

(including, but not limited to, flash 

drives) to EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 

02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 

27703. The same ERT file with the CBI 

omitted must be submitted to EPA via 

CDX as described earlier in this 

paragraph. At the discretion of the 

delegated authority, you must also 

submit these reports, including CBI, to 

the delegated authority in the format 

specified by the delegated authority. For 

any performance test conducted using 

test methods that are not listed on the 

ERT Web site, the owner or operator 

shall submit the results of the 

performance test in paper submissions 

to the Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. 

* * * * * 

(g) If you have switched fuels or made 

a physical change to the boiler and the 

fuel switch or change resulted in the 

applicability of a different subcategory 

within this subpart, in the boiler 

becoming subject to this subpart, or in 

the boiler switching out of this subpart 

due to a fuel change that results in the 

boiler meeting the definition of gas-fired 

boiler, as defined in § 63.11237, or you 

have taken a permit limit that resulted 

in you becoming subject to this subpart 

or no longer being subject to this 

subpart, you must provide notice of the 

date upon which you switched fuels, 

made the physical change, or took a 

permit limit within 30 days of the 

change. The notification must identify: 

* * * * * 

§ 63.11226 [Removed] 

■ 10. Remove § 63.11226. 

■ 11. Section 63.11237 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By adding, in alphabetical order, 

the definitions for ‘‘Annual capacity 

factor,’’ ‘‘Fossil fuel,’’ and ‘‘Useful 

thermal energy.’’ 

■ b. By revising the definitions for 

‘‘Coal,’’ ‘‘Dry scrubber,’’ ‘‘Gas-fired 

boiler,’’ ‘‘Limited-use boiler,’’ ‘‘Load 

fraction,’’ ‘‘Oxygen trim system,’’ 

‘‘Shutdown,’’ and ‘‘Startup.’’ 

■ c. By removing the definition of 

‘‘Affirmative defense.’’ 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.11237 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Annual capacity factor means the 

ratio between the actual heat input to a 

boiler from the fuels burned during a 

calendar year and the potential heat 

input to the boiler had it been operated 

for 8,760 hours during a year at the 

maximum steady state design heat input 

capacity. 

* * * * * 

Coal means all solid fuels classifiable 

as anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, or lignite by the American 

Society for Testing and Materials in 

ASTM D388 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 63.14), coal refuse, and petroleum 

coke. For the purposes of this subpart, 

this definition of ‘‘coal’’ includes 

synthetic fuels derived from coal 

including, but not limited to, solventrefined coal, coal-oil mixtures, and coalwater mixtures. Coal derived gases and 

liquids are excluded from this 

definition. 

* * * * * 

Dry scrubber means an add-on air 

pollution control system that injects dry 

alkaline sorbent (dry injection) or sprays 

an alkaline sorbent (spray dryer) to react 

with and neutralize acid gas in the 

exhaust stream forming a dry powder 

material. Sorbent injection systems used 

as control devices in fluidized bed 

boilers are included in this definition. A 

dry scrubber is a dry control system. 

* * * * * 

Fossil fuel means natural gas, oil, 

coal, and any form of solid, liquid, or 

gaseous fuel derived from such material. 

* * * * * 

Gas-fired boiler includes any boiler 

that burns gaseous fuels not combined 

with any solid fuels and burns liquid 

fuel only during periods of gas 

curtailment, gas supply interruption, 

startups, or for periodic testing, 

maintenance, or operator training on 

liquid fuel. Periodic testing, 

maintenance, or operator training on 

liquid fuel shall not exceed a combined 

total of 48 hours during any calendar 

year. 

* * * * * 

Limited-use boiler means any boiler 

that burns any amount of solid or liquid 

fuels and has a federally enforceable 

annual capacity factor of no more than 

10 percent. 

* * * * * 

Load fraction means the actual heat 

input of a boiler divided by heat input 

during the performance test that 

established the minimum sorbent 

injection rate or minimum activated 

carbon injection rate, expressed as a 

fraction (e.g., for 50 percent load the 

load fraction is 0.5). For boilers that cofire natural gas with a solid or liquid 

fuel, the load fraction is determined by 

the actual heat input of the solid or 

liquid fuel divided by heat input of the 

solid or liquid fuel fired during the 

performance test (e.g., if the 

performance test was conducted at 100 

percent solid fuel firing, for 100 percent 

load firing 50 percent solid fuel and 50 

percent natural gas, the load fraction is 

0.5). 

* * * * * 

Oxygen trim system means a system of 

monitors that is used to maintain excess 

air at the desired level in a combustion 

device over its operating load range. A 

typical system consists of a flue gas 

oxygen and/or carbon monoxide 

monitor that automatically provides a 

feedback signal to the combustion air 

controller or draft controller. 

* * * * * 

Shutdown means the period in which 

cessation of operation of a boiler is 

initiated for any purpose. Shutdown 

begins when the boiler no longer makes 

useful thermal energy (such as steam or 

hot water) for heating, cooling, or 

process purposes or generates 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2884 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

electricity, or when no fuel is being fed 

to the boiler, whichever is earlier. 

Shutdown ends when the boiler no 

longer makes useful thermal energy 

(such as steam or hot water) for heating, 

cooling, or process purposes or 

generates electricity, and no fuel is 

being combusted in the boiler. 

* * * * * 

Startup means: 

(1) Either the first-ever firing of fuel 

in a boiler for the purpose of supplying 

steam or heat for heating and/or 

producing electricity, or for any other 

purpose, or the firing of fuel in a boiler 

after a shutdown event for any purpose. 

Startup ends when any of the steam or 

heat from the boiler is supplied for 

heating and/or producing electricity, or 

for any other purpose, or 

(2) The period in which operation of 

a boiler is initiated for any purpose. 

Startup begins with either the first-ever 

firing of fuel in a boiler for the purpose 

of supplying useful thermal energy 

(such as steam or hot water) for heating, 

cooling or process purposes, or 

producing electricity, or the firing of 

fuel in a boiler for any purpose after a 

shutdown event. Startup ends four 

hours after when the boiler makes 

useful thermal energy (such as steam or 

hot water) for heating, cooling, or 

process purposes, or generates 

electricity, whichever is earlier. 

* * * * * 

Useful thermal energy means energy 

(i.e., steam or hot water) that meets the 

minimum operating temperature and/or 

pressure required by any energy use 

system that uses energy provided by the 

affected boiler. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Table 1 to subpart JJJJJJ is amended 

by revising the entry for ‘‘6.’’ to read as 

follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART JJJJJJ OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS

*******

If your boiler is in this subcategory . . . For the following 

pollutants . . . 

You must achieve less than or equal to the following 

emission limits, except during periods of startup and 

shutdown . . . 

*******

6. Existing coal-fired boilers with heat input capacity of 

10 MMBtu/hr or greater that do not meet the definition 

of limited-use boiler.

a. Mercury ..........................

b. CO ..................................

2.2E–05 lb per MMBtu of heat input. 

420 ppm by volume on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen (3-run average or 10-day rolling average). 

■ 13. Table 2 to subpart JJJJJJ is amended 

by revising the entry for ‘‘16.’’ to read 

and follows: 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART JJJJJJ OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS, EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES, AND

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

*******

If your boiler is in this subcategory . . . You must meet the following . . . 

*******

16. Existing coal-fired, biomass-fired, or oil-fired boilers (units with heat 

input capacity of 10 MMBtu/hr and greater), not including limited-use 

boilers.

Must have a one-time energy assessment performed by a qualified energy assessor. An energy assessment completed on or after January 

1, 2008, that meets or is amended to meet the energy assessment 

requirements in this table satisfies the energy assessment requirement. Energy assessor approval and qualification requirements are 

waived in instances where past or amended energy assessments 

are used to meet the energy assessment requirements. A facility that 

operated under an energy management program developed according to the ENERGY STAR guidelines for energy management or 

compatible with ISO 50001 for at least one year between January 1, 

2008, and the compliance date specified in § 63.11196 that includes 

the affected units also satisfies the energy assessment requirement. 

The energy assessment must include the following with extent of the 

evaluation for items (1) to (4) appropriate for the on-site technical 

hours listed in § 63.11237: 

(1) A visual inspection of the boiler system, 

(2) An evaluation of operating characteristics of the affected boiler 

systems, specifications of energy use systems, operating and 

maintenance procedures, and unusual operating constraints, 

(3) An inventory of major energy use systems consuming energy 

from affected boiler(s) and which are under control of the boiler 

owner or operator, 

(4) A review of available architectural and engineering plans, facility operation and maintenance procedures and logs, and fuel 

usage, 

(5) A list of major energy conservation measures that are within 

the facility’s control, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2885 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART JJJJJJ OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS, EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES, AND

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES—Continued 

*******

If your boiler is in this subcategory . . . You must meet the following . . . 

(6) A list of the energy savings potential of the energy conservation measures identified, and 

(7) A comprehensive report detailing the ways to improve efficiency, the cost of specific improvements, benefits, and the time 

frame for recouping those investments. 

■ 14. Table 6 to subpart JJJJJJ is amended 

by revising the entry for ‘‘2.’’ to read as 

follows: 

TABLE 6 TO SUBPART JJJJJJ OF PART 63—ESTABLISHING OPERATING LIMITS

*******

If you have an applicable emission 

limit for . . . 

And your operating limits are 

based on . . . 

You must . . . Using . . . According to the following 

requirements 

*******

2. Mercury ............ Dry sorbent or 

activated carbon injection 

rate operating 

parameters.

Establish a site-specific minimum 

sorbent or activated carbon injection rate operating limit according to § 63.11211(b).

Data from the sorbent or activated carbon injection rate 

monitors and the mercury performance stack tests.

(a) You must collect sorbent or 

activated carbon injection rate 

data every 15 minutes during 

the entire period of the performance stack tests; 

(b) Determine the average sorbent or activated carbon injection rate for each individual 

test run in the three-run performance stack test by computing the average of all the 

15-minute readings taken during each test run. 

(c) When your unit operates at 

lower loads, multiply your sorbent or activated carbon injection rate by the load fraction, 

as defined in § 63.11237, to 

determine the required injection rate. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–30388 Filed 1–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2013–0225; FRL–9915–63] 

RIN 2070–AJ99 

Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate 

and Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonate Chemical 

Substances; Significant New Use Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA), EPA is proposing to 

amend a significant new use rule 

(SNUR) for long-chain perfluoroalkyl 

carboxylate (LCPFAC) chemical 

substances by designating as a 

significant new use manufacturing 

(including importing) or processing of 

an identified subset of LCPFAC 

chemical substances for any use that 

will not be ongoing after December 31, 

2015, and all other LCPFAC chemicals 

substances for which there are currently 

no ongoing uses. For this SNUR, EPA is 

also proposing to make inapplicable the 

exemption for persons who import 

LCPFAC chemical substances as part of 

articles. In addition, EPA is also 

proposing to amend a SNUR for 

perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFAS) 

chemical substances that would make 

inapplicable the exemption for persons 

who import PFAS chemical substances 

as part of carpets. Persons subject to 

these SNURs would be required to 

notify EPA at least 90 days before 

commencing such manufacture or 

processing. The required notifications 

would provide EPA with the 

opportunity to evaluate the intended 

use and, if necessary, an opportunity to 

protect against potential unreasonable 

risks from that activity before it occurs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2013–0225, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS