Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68777 

at the bridge as soon as possible, but not 

more than one hour after malfunction or 

disability of the remote system. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 30, 2014. 

Stephen P. Metruck, 

Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, 

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27296 Filed 11–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234; EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0044; FRL–9919–29–OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS07 

Reconsideration of Certain Startup/

Shutdown Issues: National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units and Standards 

of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired 

Electric Utility, Industrial-CommercialInstitutional, and Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam 

Generating Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule; notice of final action 

on reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action on 

its reconsideration of the startup and 

shutdown provisions in the final rules 

titled, ‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coaland Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units and Standards of 

Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired 

Electric Utility, Industrial-CommercialInstitutional, and Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam 

Generating Units.’’ The national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) issued pursuant to 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112 are 

referred to as the Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards (MATS), and the new 

source performance standards (NSPS) 

issued pursuant to CAA section 111 are 

referred to as the Utility NSPS. 

On November 30, 2012, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

granted reconsideration of, proposed, 

and requested comment on a limited set 

of issues in the February 16, 2012, final 

MATS and Utility NSPS, including 

certain issues related to the final work 

practice standards applicable during 

startup periods and shutdown periods. 

On June 25, 2013, the EPA reopened the 

public comment period for the 

reconsideration issues related to the 

startup and shutdown provisions of 

MATS and the startup and shutdown 

provisions related to the particulate 

matter (PM) standard in the Utility 

NSPS. The EPA is now taking final 

action on the standards applicable 

during startup periods and shutdown 

periods in MATS and on startup and 

shutdown provisions related to the PM 

standard in the Utility NSPS. 

DATES: The effective date of the rule is 

November 19, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Docket. The EPA 

established two dockets for this action: 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0044 (NSPS action) and Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234 (MATS 

NESHAP action). All documents in the 

dockets are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available (e.g., confidential 

business information (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 form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue 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: For 

the MATS NESHAP action: Mr. William 

Maxwell, Energy Strategies Group, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(D243–01), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; Telephone number: (919) 541– 

5430; Fax number (919) 541–5450; 

Email address: maxwell.bill@epa.gov. 

For the NSPS action: Mr. Christian 

Fellner, Energy Strategies Group, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (D243– 

01), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone 

number: (919) 541–4003; Fax number 

(919) 541–5450; Email address: 

fellner.christian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline. The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. How do I obtain a copy of this 

document? 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background 

III. Summary of This Action 

IV. Summary of Final Action and Changes 

Since Proposal—MATS Startup/

Shutdown Issues 

V. Summary of Final Action and Changes 

Since Proposal—Utility NSPS 

VI. Impacts of This Final Rule 

A. Summary of Emissions Impacts, Costs 

and Benefits 

B. What are the air impacts? 

C. What are the energy impacts? 

D. What are the compliance costs? 

E. What are the economic and employment 

impacts? 

F. What are the benefits of the final 

standards? 

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 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

affected by this action include: 

Category NAICS Code 1 Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ..................................................... 221112 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units. 

Federal government .................................. 2 221122 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units owned by the federal government. 

State/local/tribal government .................... 2 221122 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units owned by municipalities. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
68778 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1The EPA continues to believe that the final 

existing source standards contain sufficient 

variability to include startup periods and shutdown 

periods. Furthermore, in light of what we have 

learned concerning the performance of the best 

performing sources during startup and shutdown 

(e.g., clean fuel use and efficient engagement of air 

pollution control devices (APCDs)), we believe that 

the best performing electric utility steam generating 

units (EGUs) for startup periods and shutdown 

periods will have hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

emissions that are lower than the numeric 

standards, when averaged over the startup and 

shutdown period as defined. However, as explained 

in the record, the lack of HAP data for these periods 

and the current technical challenges to accurately 

measure HAP emissions during startup and 

shutdown cause us to establish a work practice for 

such periods. 

Category NAICS Code 1 Examples of potentially regulated entities 

921150 Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units in Indian country. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

2Federal, state, or local government-owned and operated establishments are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility, company, 

business, organization, etc., would be 

regulated by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 60.40, 60.40Da, or 60.40c or in 40 

CFR 63.9982. 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 60.4 or 40 CFR 63.13 

(General Provisions). 

B. How do I obtain a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

rule will be available on the World 

Wide Web (WWW) through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of the 

action will be posted on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides 

information and technology exchange in 

various areas of air pollution control. A 

copy of this action will also be available 

on: www.epa.gov/mats/. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial 

review of this final rule is available only 

by filing a petition for review in the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by January 20, 2015. 

Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only 

an objection to this final rule that was 

raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

can be raised during judicial review. 

Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 

requirements established by this final 

rule may not be challenged separately in 

any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by the EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

II. Background 

On February 16, 2012, the final MATS 

and the Utility NSPS rules were 

published in the Federal Register. 77 FR 

9304. Following promulgation of the 

final rules, the Administrator received 

petitions for reconsideration of various 

provisions of both MATS and the Utility 

NSPS pursuant to CAA section 

307(d)(7)(B), including requests to 

reconsider the work practice standards 

applicable during startup periods and 

shutdown periods that were included in 

the final rule. Copies of the MATS 

petitions are provided in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234. Copies of 

the Utility NSPS petitions are provided 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0044. The EPA granted reconsideration 

of the startup and shutdown provisions 

because the agency proposed to require 

sources to comply with the numeric 

standards at all times and did not 

propose a work practice standard for 

startup periods and shutdown periods; 

thus, the public was not provided an 

opportunity to comment on the work 

practice requirements contained in the 

final rule.1 On November 30, 2012, the 

EPA published a proposed rule 

reconsidering certain new source 

standards issued in MATS and the 

startup and shutdown provisions in 

MATS and the Utility NSPS, among 

other things. 77 FR 71323. The EPA 

proposed certain minor changes to the 

startup and shutdown provisions 

contained in the 2012 final rule based 

on information obtained in the petitions 

for reconsideration. On April 24, 2013 

(78 FR 24073), the EPA took final action 

on the new source standards that were 

reconsidered and also the technical 

corrections contained in the November 

30, 2012, proposed action. The EPA did 

not take final action on the startup and 

shutdown provisions, and, on June 25, 

2013, the EPA added new information 

and analysis to the docket and reopened 

the public comment period for the 

proposed revisions to the startup and 

shutdown provisions in MATS and the 

startup and shutdown provisions related 

to the PM standard in the Utility NSPS. 

III. Summary of This Action 

This final action includes final 

amendments to the startup and 

shutdown provisions of the final MATS 

and Utility NSPS issued by the EPA on 

February 16, 2012. This action does not 

alter or reopen any other MATS or 

Utility NSPS provisions, including 

those provisions recently upheld by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (Court) in White 

Stallion Energy Center v. EPA on April 

15, 2014. 784 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 

The February 2012 final rule is and 

remains in effect for all sources, and 

existing sources must comply with the 

final rule by April 16, 2015, or seek an 

extension of that compliance date from 

the appropriate title V permitting 

authority. 

The November 30, 2012, proposed 

reconsideration rule reopened, among 

other things: (1) The requirements 

applicable during startup periods and 

shutdown periods in MATS, and (2) the 

startup and shutdown provisions related 

to the PM standard in the Utility NSPS. 

We are taking final action today on the 

requirements for startup periods and 

shutdown periods contained in 40 CFR 

Part 63, subpart UUUUU, and 40 CFR 

Part 60, subpart Da. 

As noted above, in the proposed 

reconsideration rule, the EPA proposed 

revisions to, and took comment on, the 

definitions of ‘‘startup’’ and 

‘‘shutdown’’ and the work practice 

requirements associated with those 

periods in the final MATS rule. The 

EPA also took comment on the startup 

and shutdown provisions relating to the 

PM standard in the Utility NSPS. The 

EPA received a number of comments 

regarding the proposed startup and 

shutdown provisions, including data 

and information relevant to the 

proposed work practice standard that 

applies during such periods, and the 

agency also reviewed EGU nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions data generated during startup 

periods and shutdown periods and 

submitted to the EPA pursuant to title 

IV of the CAA (i.e. the Acid Rain 

Program). On June 25, 2013 (78 FR 

38001), the EPA reopened the public 

comment period on the startup/

shutdown provision and solicited 

comment on both the public comments 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68779 

2The EPA is still reviewing the other issues 

raised in the petitions for reconsideration and is not 

taking any action at this time with respect to those 

issues. 

3This preamble does not discuss the startup and 

shutdown provisions provided in the February 2012 

final MATS rule. (See 77 FR 9486, 9493–9494.) We 

are not altering those provisions in this final action. 

However, the critical control requirement (i.e., the 

requirement to use clean fuels to start and warm the 

EGU and relevant controls prior to coal, residual, 

or solid oil-derived fuel combustion, as well as 

recordkeeping and reporting procedures for those 

requirements) is the same for both. We are 

maintaining the final rule approach and will 

evaluate the continued need for the alternative 

definition during our ongoing 8-year reviews. We 

intend to use HAP and HAP surrogate data 

collected during periods of startup and periods of 

shutdown to evaluate the accuracy of CEMS from 

the start of electricity generation to the end of 

startup as defined under the alternative included in 

this final rule (i.e., 4 hours after electricity 

generation). We will use these data to help 

determine whether it is appropriate to make 

changes to the rule in the future. 

4We note that the startup and shutdown 

provisions contained in the February 16, 2012, final 

MATS rule also required EGUs to maximize clean 

fuels during startup periods and shutdown periods, 

as sources are required to comply with all MATS 

and NSPS standards at the time of electricity 

generation. Therefore, EGUs complying with the 

work practice as finalized on February 16, 2012, 

will necessarily be required to warm their units on 

clean fuels alone for extended periods unless the 

operators determine that compliance over the 30- 

day averaging period can be achieved without 

certain HAP controls for a portion of time after the 

defined startup period. EGU operators may 

conclude compliance without controls for a short 

period after startup is possible for a number of 

reasons, including the variability included in the 

numeric standards and our understanding from 

regulating many HAP categories that sources 

generally over-control to ensure a compliance 

margin is maintained. 

5See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20269, 

–20275, and –20303. 

provided in response to the November 

30, 2012, proposal, as well as the startup 

and shutdown technical support 

document (TSD) that was based on the 

Acid Rain Program data that was made 

available in the docket.2 The agency has 

reviewed all of the comments received 

on the startup and shutdown issues. As 

described below, the EPA is taking final 

action on the startup and shutdown 

provisions in MATS and the Utility 

NSPS. 

Because this final rule is very similar 

to the February 2012 final rule, the 

impacts of these revisions on the costs 

and the benefits of the final rule are 

minor. 

IV. Summary of Final Action and 

Changes Since Proposal—MATS 

Startup/Shutdown Issues 

After consideration of the public 

comments received and other 

information, the EPA is finalizing the 

startup and shutdown provisions 

contained in the final MATS rule and 

we are also finalizing an alternative 

compliance option for startup periods 

and shutdown periods.3 We address 

several significant comments in this 

preamble. For a complete summary of 

the comments received on the issues we 

are finalizing today and our responses 

thereto, please refer to the memorandum 

‘‘National Emission Standards For 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From CoalAnd Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units—Reconsideration Of 

Certain Startup/Shutdown Issues; 

Summary Of Public Comments And 

Responses’’ (RTC) in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234. 

As discussed in more detail below, 

the alternative work practice standard 

for startup periods and shutdown 

periods requires coal- and oil-fired 

EGUs to initiate startup using only clean 

fuels and to continue combusting the 

maximum amount of clean fuels 

possible at the facility throughout the 

entire startup period. EGUs that chose to 

comply with the alternative work 

practice will be required to have 

sufficient clean fuel capacity to startup 

and warm the facility to the point where 

the primary PM controls (e.g., fabric 

filters (FFs) and electrostatic 

precipitators (ESPs)) can be brought on 

line at the same time as, or within 1 

hour of, the addition of the primary fuel 

(i.e., coal, residual oil, or solid oilderived fuel) to the EGU. If a facility 

does not have sufficient clean fuel 

capacity to enable initiation and 

operation of the PM controls within 1 

hour of addition of primary fuel, then 

the source will have to increase its clean 

fuel capacity or take other action to 

comply with the work practice 

requirements in this final rule.4 The 

alternate included in this final rule also 

requires EGUs to comply with the 

applicable numeric standards within 4 

hours of the generation of electricity or 

thermal energy for use either on site or 

for sale over the grid (i.e., the end of 

startup) and to continue to maximize 

clean fuel use throughout that period. 

The EPA has established these final 

alternative requirements after 

determining what the best performing 

EGUs do during startup periods and 

shutdown periods. The EPA used 

several different metrics to determine 

the best performing sources for various 

aspects of the work practice 

requirements and definitions. 

Specifically, concerning the use of clean 

fuels, the comments received and the 

Acid Rain data in the record indicate 

that most EGU operations start using 

clean fuels and that many of those EGUs 

generate electricity while using clean 

fuels and/or routinely engage their PM 

controls before or within 1 hour of 

beginning to combust coal, residual oil, 

or solid oil-derived fuel. The clean fuels 

identified by the commenters and 

included in the final rule are inherently 

cleaner from a HAP emissions 

perspective than coal, residual oil, or 

solid oil-derived fuel, and, for this 

reason, maximizing the use of clean 

fuels during startup will greatly limit 

the emissions of HAP while EGUs are 

warming up to temperatures sufficient 

to engage the air pollution control 

devices (APCDs). Thus, we considered 

those EGUs that use clean fuels for the 

longest period of time before the 

introduction of coal and the generation 

of electricity to be the best performing 

EGUs because they are likely to have the 

lowest amount of HAP emissions during 

the startup period. In addition, the best 

performing EGUs were also determined 

to be those with the ability to engage PM 

control devices at the time (i.e., within 

1 hour) of introduction of primary fuel. 

Further, we believe all of the concerns 

raised by commenters about the ability 

to engage the PM controls can be safely 

resolved to allow compliance with the 

final work practice, as explained in the 

RTC.5 We believe it is appropriate to use 

generation of electricity as an indicator 

of startup for two reasons. First, the 

information we have indicates that the 

only reason the owner/operator of an 

EGU chooses to fire fuel in a boiler is 

to generate electricity. Therefore, any 

event that starts with firing of fuel in a 

boiler that has been shut down will 

culminate in generation of electricity. 

Second, introduction of coal to the 

boiler is also always associated with 

generation of electricity. The TSD and 

other information confirm our 

understanding. 

For determining the appropriate time 

after generation to define the end of 

startup (i.e., the time when the 

numerical standards apply), the EPA 

conducted an analysis of continuous 

emission monitor system (CEMS) data 

for NOX and SO2 from EGUs to 

determine the range of times after initial 

generation of electricity or thermal 

energy that EGUs typically take to 

engage and operate all of their APCDs. 

The EPA determined the best 

performing 12 percent of EGUs by 

identifying those EGUs that were able to 

engage their APCDs most quickly after 

the initial generation of electricity or 

thermal energy and averaged that time 

to determine the end of the startup 

period when the numeric standards 

would become applicable. Specifically, 

we evaluated the average startup period 

for the best performing 12 percent of 

EGUs for which the EPA has the 

relevant data (i.e., those with the 

relevant NOX and/or SO2 controls). We 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
68780 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

6We note that these data are not reliable for 

quantifying emissions for this analysis but, rather, 

the data allow us to evaluate when controls are 

turned on for the purpose of determining when 

startup ends. 

7Natural gas is one of the clean fuels identified 

in this final rule and the agency determined in 2000 

that it was neither appropriate nor necessary to 

regulate natural gas-fired EGUs because the impacts 

from HAP emissions from such units are 

‘‘negligible.’’ See ‘‘Regulatory Finding on the 

Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units,’’ 65 FR 79825, 

79831 (December 20, 2000). 

used 12 percent of the sources with the 

relevant controls because the metric 

upon which the end of startup is based 

depends on the presence of the relevant 

controls, not on the actual NOX and SO2

emissions. Thus, sources without the 

relevant controls cannot be compared 

against sources with the relevant 

controls for purposes of defining the 

end of startup in this final rule. CAA 

section 112(d)(3)(A) directs the EPA to 

establish MACT floor standards based 

on the performance on the best 

performing 12 percent of sources for 

which the Administrator has data, and, 

in this case, the agency does not have 

relevant data from all sources in the 

category. For this reason, it is reasonable 

to establish the work practice based on 

12 percent of the sources with the 

relevant data (i.e., those EGUs with the 

relevant NOX or SO2 controls). 

We used this approach to determine 

the end of startup because it is 

reasonable to expect the EGUs that are 

able to most quickly and efficiently 

engage their controls after the 

generation of electricity to be the best 

performing sources and to have the 

lowest HAP emissions during and 

directly after the startup period, and 

because we are confident that EGUs will 

be able to accurately measure HAP 

emissions with CEMS at this time. The 

requirement to maximize the use of 

clean fuels (with inherently low HAP 

emissions) during the startup period 

ensures that HAP emissions are 

minimized during that time. Because 

EGUs subject to Acid Rain Program 

requirements are required to submit 

continuous NOX and SO2 data to the 

EPA, the agency believes it has data on 

all startup events from those EGUs 

subject to that program, which comprise 

nearly all EGUs subject to this rule, for 

over a decade. Thus, we believe we have 

a full data set from which to determine 

the end of the startup period for the best 

performing 12 percent of sources for 

which we have the relevant data.6 We 

maintain it is reasonable to use the CAA 

section 112(d)(3) metric for establishing 

MACT floors for existing sources as a 

starting point for determining the 

appropriate work practice when 

presented with such comprehensive 

data. See CAA 112(h)(1) (directing the 

agency to establish a work practice 

standard ‘‘which in the Administrator’s 

judgment is consistent with the 

provisions of subsection (d) or (f) of this 

section.’’). 

For shutdown periods, the EPA 

determined that sources could cease 

adding coal or oil to the EGU prior to 

shutting down the APCDs. We 

determined that sources able to run 

their control devices even after coal or 

oil is added to the EGU for the last time 

before shutdown were the best 

performing sources because HAP 

emissions would be minimized as the 

EGU combusts the remaining coal or oil 

in the boiler. 

The final work practice standard, 

when applied across the industry, will 

greatly reduce HAP emissions during 

startup periods and shutdown periods. 

The requirement to maximize clean fuel 

use throughout the startup period will 

significantly limit HAP emissions 

because of the inherently low HAP 

emissions associated with the clean 

fuels identified in 40 CFR 63.10042.7 In 

addition, the requirement to engage and 

operate PM controls as expeditiously as 

possible and within 1 hour of coal, 

residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel 

combustion will limit HAP emissions 

that are particulate in nature throughout 

the remainder of the startup period. We 

believe that application of this work 

practice will lead to HAP emissions 

during startup periods and shutdown 

periods that are comparable to, and 

potentially lower than, those levels 

authorized during normal operations 

when averaged over the entire startup 

and/or shutdown period. During the 8- 

year review required under CAA section 

112(d)(6), the agency intends to further 

assess HAP emissions during startup 

and shutdown based on data collected 

from sources complying with the final 

rule, though we recognize that 

prospectively our ability to establish 

numerical standards during startup 

periods and shutdown periods will 

depend, at least in part, on the further 

development of testing methodologies 

that will allow the agency to accurately 

measure emissions during those periods 

with an acceptable level of certainty. 

The specific provisions of the 

alternative startup and shutdown 

requirements and our rationales for 

those provisions are discussed in more 

detail below and in the RTC document 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0234. 

1. Definitions 

In the November 2012 reconsideration 

proposal, we proposed revisions to the 

definitions of startup and shutdown 

contained in the final MATS rule and 

set forth in 40 CFR 63.10042, after 

receiving petitions for reconsideration 

of the startup and shutdown provisions 

in the final MATS rule. Petitioners 

asserted, among other things, that the 

final rule’s definitions of startup and 

shutdown were not sufficiently clear, 

should accommodate operation of 

cogeneration units, and did not 

accurately reflect startup conditions for 

all affected units. We received 

additional comments on these issues 

during the public comment periods. For 

more discussion of the petitions for 

reconsideration and the comments on 

the definitions in the final rule, see the 

RTC in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234. 

As a result of comments received on 

the November 2012 proposal and the 

June 2013 reopening of the public 

comment period, we have further 

revised the proposed definitions as 

follows. 

a. Startup. The definition of startup in 

the November 2012 reconsideration 

proposed rule was similar to the 

definition the EPA finalized in MATS in 

February 2012. In this final 

reconsideration rule, we have 

maintained the final MATS definition of 

startup and, in addition, are finalizing 

an alternative definition of startup based 

on the November 2012 proposal and the 

analysis in the startup and shutdown 

TSD. Sources may choose to use either 

definition of startup when complying 

with the startup and shutdown 

requirements. We are finalizing both 

definitions because we believe that they 

both meet the requirements of CAA 

section 112 to reduce HAP emissions 

during this time period and will provide 

operators with flexibility, even though 

we question the ability to accurately 

measure HAP emissions at the start of 

electricity generation. A discussion of 

the comments and analyses that led to 

inclusion of the alternative startup 

definition is provided below. 

In the November 2012 reconsideration 

proposal, the EPA proposed that startup 

be defined as the period in which 

operation of an EGU is initiated for any 

purpose. The proposed definition 

indicated that startup begins with either 

the first-ever firing of fuel in an EGU for 

the purpose of producing electricity or 

useful thermal energy (such as heat or 

steam) for industrial, commercial, 

heating, or cooling purposes or the 

firing of fuel in an EGU for any purpose 

after a shutdown event. The proposed 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68781 

8The EPA did not include hourly PM data in this 

analysis because PM CEMS data are not available 

and PM CEMS have not yet been certified to 

accurately measure during periods of startup and 

periods of shutdown as defined in this final rule. 

9 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, EGUs must collect and report emissions 

and heat input or generation data following the end 

of startup. These data are used in calculating 

whether an EGU is in compliance with the 30-day 

average emission limits. MATS does not mandate 

that all APCDs must be fully operational at the end 

of startup (nor does it mandate that emissions 

during any given hour during this period must be 

below the 30-day average emission limits); rather, 

MATS mandates only that sources comply with the 

MATS emission standards at that time. 

definition indicated that startup ended 

when the EGU generates electricity that 

is sold or used for any other purpose 

(including on site use), or the EGU 

makes useful thermal energy (such as 

heat or steam) for industrial, 

commercial, heating, or cooling 

purposes, whichever is earlier. The 

agency received comments stating that 

the general approach provided in the 

proposed definition of ‘‘startup’’ 

(particularly the end of startup) was 

directionally correct but did not allow 

sufficient time for the APCDs to become 

effective and, thus, the industry was 

concerned that some EGUs would not be 

able to achieve the MATS emission 

limits finalized in the February 2012 

rule at the end of startup as defined in 

the final MATS rule. The comments 

further stated the opinion that startup 

did not end with first generation of 

electricity or production of steam as the 

EPA had proposed. Instead, some 

comments suggested that the defined 

end of startup should be changed to be 

4 hours after 25-percent load is first 

reached or 12 hours after first electricity 

generation, whichever occurs first. 

Some comments stated that even longer 

time periods were necessary for certain 

types of EGUs, that different startup 

periods should be defined for different 

types of EGUs, and that additional 

consideration should be given to a 

wider variety of APCDs. Other 

comments maintained that the 

definition in the final MATS rule was 

appropriate and indicated that any 

extension of time during which the 

EGUs were not subject to the final rule’s 

emission limits was not in accordance 

with CAA section 112. 

The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters to the extent they maintain 

that a work practice is required after 

emissions can be accurately measured 

or that the agency is bound to the time 

contained in the final rule where, as 

here, we conclude that the HAP 

measurement methodologies are not 

capable of accurately measuring HAP 

emissions during the defined startup 

period. The EPA did, however, conduct 

an additional technical analysis after its 

initial review of the comments and in 

June 2013 published a document 

reopening the public comment period. 

The document specifically requested 

comment on the additional technical 

analysis the EPA had conducted in 

response to comments received 

concerning the end of startup. See 

‘‘Assessment of startup period at coalfired electric generating units’’ (Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234– 

20378). In the analysis, the EPA 

examined several indicators that 

allowed the agency to assess the time 

required to engage APCDs at affected 

EGUs. Using these indicators, we found 

no significant difference in performance 

related to startup between the different 

groups or types of EGUs assessed in the 

analysis (e.g., circulating fluidized bed 

(CFB), stoker, subcritical, supercritical). 

We further indicated that the results of 

our analysis supported defining the end 

of startup at coal- and oil-fired EGUs as 

occurring at the time to achieve 25 

percent of the EGU’s nameplate 

generating capacity (megawatts, MW) 

plus 3 hours, or the start of electricity 

generation plus 6 hours, whichever 

comes first. 

The EPA has reviewed all of the 

comments received on the proposed 

definition of startup in response to these 

two opportunities for public comment 

and has revised the June 2013 analysis. 

Based on this review, we are finalizing 

a revised definition of ‘‘startup’’ that 

uses the approach outlined in the June 

2013 assessment with revisions as 

discussed below. 

Defining the End of ‘‘Startup’’ 

The June 2013 analysis suggested a 

potential end time for startup of 6 hours 

after the start of electricity generation or 

3 hours after a coal- or oil-fired EGU 

reaches 25 percent of nameplate 

capacity, whichever occurs first. In 

other words, 6 hours after the start of 

generation or 3 hours after reaching 

electricity generation equal to 25 

percent of nameplate capacity, 

whichever comes first, an EGU would 

have to start monitoring and reporting 

its emissions for the purpose of 

complying with the numeric emissions 

standards contained in MATS. 

The EPA took this approach because 

we determined that flue gas conditions 

will be adequate to accurately measure 

HAP emissions with CEMS 4 hours after 

the generation of electricity. The 

approach evaluated the time for all 

APCDs to be functioning because we 

determined that stack conditions will be 

stable at this point. The analysis was 

based on our review of hourly SO2 and 

NOX emissions from CEMS installations 

from nearly 9,500 distinct startup events 

at more than 400 coal-fired EGUs, 

including CFB boilers, and subcritical 

and supercritical pulverized coal boilers 

equipped with SO2 APCDs (e.g., wet or 

dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD)) and/ 

or NOX APCDs (e.g., selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR)). The EPA analyzed 

hourly SO2 and NOX emissions 

primarily because changes in SO2 and 

NOX emissions are reasonable indicators 

of when APCDs are operational and 

stack conditions will be sufficiently 

stable to allow for accurate 

measurement of HAP emissions with 

CEMS. We also note that SO2 emissions 

are a surrogate for acid gases (e.g., 

hydrogen chloride); SO2 APCDs can be 

used for co-benefit mercury (Hg) 

control; and NOX SCR APCDs may 

increase the oxidation of Hg, 

influencing the effectiveness of Hg 

controls.8 The goal of the analysis was 

to identify the approximate time it took, 

on average, to initiate operation of SO2

and NOX APCDs because it was those 

controls (e.g., scrubbers and SCR) that 

industry commenters stated required 

additional time to engage after the start 

of generation of electricity or useful 

thermal energy. The goal in conducting 

the analysis was not to determine the 

time it took for APCDs at all EGUs to 

become fully operational, but instead to 

determine the average time for the 

engagement of APCD to determine a 

reasonable end of startup. 

The EPA received detailed comments 

on the June 2013 analysis and the 

proposed rule. Although commenters’ 

opinions varied, the EPA identified 

three distinct groups of comments. The 

first group agreed with the EPA’s 

approach to define a time limit 

following the start of generation, but 

many commenters suggested that more 

time was necessary to safely and/or 

fully engage APCDs. The second group 

commented that CAA section 112 

requires the EPA to establish standards 

based on the average of the best 

performing 12 percent of EGUs, not the 

average of the fleet. The third group 

disagreed with the EPA’s approach, 

stating that many APCDs could not be 

fully functional within the time limits 

specified by the EPA, and citing the 

need for greater flexibility. 

The EPA evaluated the information 

provided by commenters and 

considered the different approaches to 

define the end of startup.9 After careful 

consideration and in light of issues 

raised in comments and data provided, 

the EPA has revised its initial approach 

for determining the end of startup in 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
68782 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

10 Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234– 

20269, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20275. 11See 40 CFR 63.10005(h). 

several respects. First, in the June 2013 

analysis, we did not attempt to identify 

the EGUs that were the best performing 

sources, but instead simply looked at a 

category-wide average time for 

engagement of APCDs. As certain 

commenters noted, the category-wide 

average may not satisfy the CAA section 

112(h) requirement that the EPA 

establish work practice standards 

‘‘which in the Administrator’s judgment 

[are] consistent with the provisions of 

subsections (d) or (f) of this section 

[112].’’ To more appropriately track this 

statutory directive, the EPA revised the 

analysis and identified the EGUs that 

were able to most quickly engage their 

APCDs because we determined that the 

best performing EGUs for purposes of 

defining the end of startup are those that 

are able to most efficiently engage their 

controls after the start of electricity 

generation. The EPA then averaged the 

time it took for such EGUs to bring their 

APCDs on line to determine a 

reasonable time after generation of 

electricity to define the end of startup. 

The EPA chose this approach in the 

final rule because we believe it most 

closely follows the requirements of CAA 

section 112. 

The EPA analysis of startup events at 

coal-fired EGUs indicates that the best 

performing EGUs can, on average, 

initiate operation of their SO2 and NOX

APCDs within 4 hours following the 

start of generation (see Technical 

Support Document (TSD) titled 

‘‘Assessment of startup period at coalfired electric generating units—Revised’’ 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0234). In addition, the Agency is 

confident that stack conditions at this 

time are conducive for accurate 

measurements of HAP emissions using 

CEMS. For these reason, and because 

SO2 can be used as a surrogate for the 

control of acid gases and SO2 and NOX

APCDs can impact the control of Hg 

emissions, and because we believe 

based on comments and other 

information that SO2 and NOX controls 

are generally the last APCDs to be 

engaged, the EPA has determined that 

the end of startup should be defined as 

the end of the 4th hour following the 

start of generation of electricity or useful 

thermal energy. The agency has also 

determined that it is not necessary to 

include any additional variability 

because the agency believes it has 

information on all of the startup events 

from the EGUs with the relevant data so 

startup time variability is fully 

represented in the available data. 

b. Shutdown. The EPA is maintaining 

the definition of ‘‘shutdown’’ proposed 

in the November 2012 action, and 

further requiring that all APCDs must be 

operated as long as coal, residual oil, or 

solid oil-derived fuel is being fired in 

the EGU and as long thereafter as 

possible, considering safety and system 

integrity. 

The RTC contains a summary of the 

comments received on this topic and the 

EPA’s response to those comments. 

2. Work Practice Standards and Clean 

Fuels 

The final work practice for startup 

periods requires EGUs to initiate startup 

using clean fuels and to combust only 

clean fuels until primary fuel (e.g., coal, 

residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel) is 

fed into the EGU, at which time the EGU 

must engage and operate its PM controls 

as soon as possible and no later than 1 

hour thereafter. After engagement of PM 

controls, EGUs are required to maintain 

maximum clean fuel use until the end 

of startup (i.e., 4 hours after the start of 

generation of electricity or useful 

thermal energy). The maximization of 

clean fuel use after addition of primary 

fuel to the EGU assures that the least 

amount of HAP possible will be emitted 

from the units during the startup period. 

The final rule also includes more fuels 

on the list of clean fuels that may be 

combusted during startup periods and 

shutdown periods, as discussed below. 

The EPA is finalizing a requirement in 

the work practice that PM controls be 

engaged and operated within 1 hour of 

coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived 

fuel being fired. In the November 2012 

proposal, the EPA proposed to require 

that once an EGU starts firing coal, 

residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel, all 

of the applicable control devices had to 

be engaged, with certain listed 

exceptions. PM-specific control devices 

were not included in that list of 

excepted controls because the EPA 

believed that PM controls on EGUs 

could be engaged (i.e., operational) at 

the best performing EGUs at the time the 

primary fuel (i.e., coal, residual oil, or 

solid oil-derived fuel) is fired. The EPA 

has reviewed both the record and the 

comments received, and we have 

determined that the EGUs that are able 

to engage PM controls (through either 

use of PM-specific controls (e.g., ESP, 

FF) or wet FGD scrubber system alone 

or in conjunction with PM controls) 

within 1 hour following the initiation of 

firing of coal, residual oil, or solid oilderived fuel are the best performing 

sources for purposes of minimizing 

particulate HAP emissions during 

startup periods.10 Therefore, we are 

finalizing a requirement that an owner/ 

operator must engage and operate the 

PM controls within 1 hour of first firing 

of coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived 

fuel. 

Moreover, in order to demonstrate an 

EGU’s capacity to maximize the use of 

clean fuels during startup periods and 

its ability to bring PM control devices 

online in an expeditious manner 

following first firing of coal, residual oil, 

or solid oil-derived fuel, the rule now 

requires EGU owners or operators to 

determine and report each EGU’s 

maximum storage capacity for clean 

fuels and maximum capacity for heat 

input while combusting clean fuels 

alone. The rule also requires EGU 

owners or operators to identify, record, 

and report semiannually each instance 

of startup or shutdown, specifying the 

dates and times that clean fuel use 

begins and ends; the dates and times 

that primary (i.e., coal or oil) fuel use 

starts or ends; and the hourly clean fuel 

usage, heat input, and electrical output. 

In addition, for those non-liquid oilfired EGUs not using PM CEMS, HAP 

metals CEMS, or PM continuous 

parameter monitoring system (CPMS) as 

a compliance determination method or 

not meeting low emitting EGU (LEE) 

status 11 for PM or non-mercury HAP 

metals emissions or those liquid oilfired EGUs not using PM CEMS or PM 

CPMS as a compliance determination 

method or not meeting LEE status for 

PM or HAP metals emissions, 

parametric monitoring data will be 

required to help show PM control 

device effectiveness upon first use of 

coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived 

fuel. This type of data is not required 

from EGUs using PM CEMS, HAP 

metals CEMS, or PM CPMS, as those 

instruments are already required to 

provide these data during startup 

periods; those data are suitable for 

assessing how soon and how well PM 

control devices are operating. Likewise, 

once EGUs meet the LEE status for PM 

or non-mercury HAP metals emissions 

for non-liquid oil-fired EGUs (or HAP 

metals emissions for liquid oil-fired 

EGUs), they will no longer need to 

supply additional information regarding 

PM control device operation during 

startup periods, for it is reasonable to 

expect their PM control devices to be 

properly sized and operated in order to 

demonstrate consistent operation at less 

than 50 percent of the emissions limit 

over a 3-year period. It is also 

reasonable to expect that the 

information recorded and calculated 

during startup periods and shutdown 

periods from LEE-eligible EGUs will 

show better emissions performance 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68783 

12See Delegation 7–121 and Delegation of 

Authority under the Clean Air Act to Approve 

Alternatives to Test Methods and Procedures in 

Parts 60, 61, 63, and 65, from Gina McCarthy to 

Stephen Page, September 30, 2011, in docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234. 

13See 77 FR 9303; February 16, 2012. 

14Email and attachments from Paul Miller, 

NESCAUM, to Melanie King, EPA. NESCAUM’s 

RICE NESHAP comments. October 11, 2012, also 

found in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234. 

when compared to similar information 

obtained from EGUs without LEE status. 

Upon initiation of first use of coal, 

residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel, 

EGUs not using PM CEMS or PM CPMS 

as a compliance determination method 

or not meeting LEE status for PM or 

non-mercury HAP metals emissions for 

non-liquid oil-fired EGUs (or HAP 

metals emissions for liquid oil-fired 

EGUs) are also required to record hourly 

and report semi-annually the pre- and 

post-PM control device flow rates and 

temperatures, as well as fan amps. 

Moreover, the PM control devicespecific parameters are required to be 

recorded hourly and reported semiannually. The EGUs with ESPs are 

required to record the number of fields 

in service and the secondary current 

and voltage for each hour of startup and 

shutdown. The EGUs with FFs are 

required to record the number of 

compartments in service and the 

differential pressure across the 

baghouse. Finally, the EGUs with wet 

scrubbers that are necessary for 

filterable PM emission control will 

record scrubber liquid-to-flue gas ratios 

and scrubber liquid differential pressure 

for each hour of startup and shutdown. 

Given that we do not have much 

information concerning continuous PM 

emissions or PM emission control 

devices during periods of startup, the 

final rule requires owners or operators 

of EGUs that choose to use definition (2) 

of ‘‘startup’’ contained in 40 CFR 

63.10042 to provide a report prepared 

by an independent professional 

engineer that describes the EGU, PM 

emissions, and PM emissions control 

devices both as designed and in their 

current form. This information will 

show how each EGU is able, or has been 

modified, to meet the requirements of 

this rule. In addition, the information 

will specify the time needed to engage 

PM emission control devices from 

initial fuel combustion in the EGU; the 

effectiveness of each PM emission 

control device, both upon control device 

startup and at normal operation; the PM 

emission rate; and the uncontrolled PM 

emissions rate. The report will be 

submitted as part of the EGU’s 

Notification of Compliance Status, and 

the information contained in the report 

will aid us in determining whether or 

not additional work practice 

requirements may be needed during 

startup periods to minimize HAP 

emissions. 

Finally, the EPA acknowledges the 

comments asserting safety issues that 

must be considered during startup of 

PM controls (e.g., carbon monoxide 

buildup, fabric blinding). We believe 

that almost all EGUs will be able to alter 

their source through any number of 

means, including increasing clean fuel 

capacity and modifying APCD 

operation, and comply with the final 

work practice requirements; however, 

we recognize that there may be rare 

occasions that preclude a viable 

compliance option consistent with the 

final rule. Therefore, we are finalizing 

that an owner/operator may submit to 

the Administrator a request for an EGUspecific case-by-case emission standard 

consistent with 40 CFR 63.6(g). Such a 

request requires notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. Approval or disapproval 

authority for this type of request is 

delegated to the Assistant Administrator 

of the Office of Air and Radiation, and, 

for purposes of this rule, will be 

delegated no further.12 However, the 

EPA will only consider requests that 

provide evidence of a documented 

manufacturer-identified safety issue and 

can provide proof that the PM control 

device is adequately designed and sized 

to meet the final PM emission limit. As 

identified in 40 CFR 63.10011(g)(4), in 

its request for the case-by-case 

determination, the owner/operator must 

provide, among other materials, 

documentation that: (1) The EGU is 

using clean fuels to the maximum extent 

possible to bring the EGU and PM 

control device up to the temperature 

necessary to alleviate or prevent the 

identified safety issues prior to the 

combustion of primary fuel in the EGU, 

(2) the EGU has explicitly followed the 

manufacturer’s procedures to alleviate 

or prevent the identified safety issue, (3) 

the source provides details of the 

manufacturer’s statement of concern, 

and (4) the source provides evidence 

that the PM control device is adequately 

designed and sized to meet the final PM 

emission limit. In addition, the source 

will have to indicate the other measures 

it will take to limit HAP emissions 

during startup periods and shutdown 

periods to ensure a control level 

consistent with the final work practice 

requirements. In order to ensure 

compliance with the work practice 

standards during startup periods, EGU 

owners or operators who request an 

alternative non-opacity emission 

standard shall comply with definition 

(1) of startup contained in 40 CFR 

63.10042 (i.e., the definition contained 

in the final rule promulgated on 

February 12, 2012) 13 until the final 

alternative non-opacity emission 

standard is promulgated in the Federal 

Register. 

We also proposed several revisions to 

the work practice standards issued in 

the final MATS rule in response to 

petitions on the final rule. Petitioners 

asserted that the final rule’s work 

practice standards should include 

additional fuels as ‘‘clean fuels’’ and 

recognize operating limitations of 

certain EGU types and APCDs. 

Specifically, petitioners contended that 

the list of clean fuels required for use 

during startup in order to minimize 

emissions should include, among 

others, synthetic natural gas, synthesis 

gas (syngas), biodiesel, and ultra-low 

sulfur diesel (ULSD). The EPA has also 

been informed that propane is used to 

startup some EGUs. 

In this final action, we are adding 

certain synthetic natural gas (that meets 

the specification necessary for that gas 

to be transported on a Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

regulated pipeline), synthesis gas that 

has been processed through a gas cleanup train such that it is suitable for use 

in the system’s combustion turbine, and 

ULSD to the list of clean fuels. In 

addition, the EPA does see merit, as 

suggested by some commenters, of 

further broadening the definition of 

‘‘clean fuels.’’ After reviewing other 

rules that use or require clean fuels, we 

believe that inclusion of those fuels 

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR Part 

80, subpart I (‘‘Subpart I—Motor Vehicle 

Diesel Fuel; Nonroad, Locomotive, and 

Marine Diesel Fuel; and ECA Marine 

Fuel’’) is appropriate. Specifically, the 

definitions and provisions of 40 CFR 

80.2, 80.501, 80.510, and 80.520 address 

sulfur content restrictions relating to 

distillate, diesel (including ULSD), and 

biodiesel fuels. The EPA believes that 

requiring use of clean fuels, including 

those we are adding in this final rule, 

for EGUs will significantly limit the 

HAP emissions from these sources 

during startup periods and shutdown 

periods. For example, information 

provided to the EPA on another 

rulemaking (found in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708–1459) 14

showed that the use of ULSD will 

significantly reduce emissions of air 

toxics, including metallic HAP (e.g., 

nickel, zinc, lead (Pb)) compared to the 

use of ‘‘regular’’ diesel. The EPA also 

believes that combustion of the other 40 

CFR Part 80, subpart I, fuels meeting the 

subject definitions will cause 

significantly lower HAP emissions than 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
68784 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

15 IGCC units that are also designed to co-produce 

chemicals or other products using syngas may also 

choose to use the unburned syngas in that process. 

16 ‘‘. . . (S)ources do not design to meet a 

standard, but rather to meet a level comfortably 

lower. They do so in order to provide a compliance 

margin on those days where emissions rise due to 

inherent and uncontrollable variability . . .’’ See 77 

FR 42386; July 18, 2012. 

coal and residual oil, and, as stated 

above, EGUs must use clean fuels to the 

maximum extent possible during startup 

periods and shutdown periods. 

We are maintaining the work practice 

requirement in the final MATS that 

requires EGU source owners and 

operators, when firing coal, residual oil, 

or solid oil-derived fuel in the EGU 

during startup or shutdown, to vent 

emissions to the main stack(s) and 

operate all control devices necessary to 

meet all operating and emissions 

standards that are applicable to the 

source pursuant to other CAA or state 

requirements. In addition, any partial 

(fractional) operating hour that may 

occur at the beginning of a startup 

period or at the end of a shutdown 

period is to be flagged in reports as an 

hour of startup or shutdown. 

For more discussion of each of these 

issues, please refer to the RTC, the TSD, 

and the memo ‘‘Startup and shutdown 

provisions’’ (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0234–20224) in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234. 

3. Treatment of IGCC EGU Syngas 

The EPA is finalizing both the use of 

flares and the use of duct burners for 

integrated gasification combined cycle 

(IGCC) units to handle syngas not 

combusted in the turbine during startup 

periods and shutdown periods. 

An IGCC EGU includes both a 

gasification unit and a combustion unit 

and syngas is generated in the gasifier 

for the primary purpose of being 

combusted in the associated combustion 

turbine. The EPA understands that, in 

some cases, the gasified fuel can be used 

for other purposes such as the 

production of chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, 

methanol) if the facility has been 

designed to do so. During the startup 

periods and shutdown periods, some or 

all of the syngas produced for the 

purpose of power production may not 

be combusted in the turbine. We 

proposed two options for IGCC EGUs for 

handling syngas not fired in the 

combustion turbine: (1) Syngas must be 

flared, not vented, or (2) syngas must be 

routed to duct burners, which may need 

to be installed, and the flue gas from the 

duct burners must be routed to the heat 

recovery steam generator. We solicited 

comments on the need to flare the 

unfired syngas, if it is more appropriate 

to require routing of the unfired syngas 

back into the system for all IGCC EGUs, 

and on the costs of adding duct burners, 

should they be required. 

Industry commenters stated that it is 

important that flaring remain an option 

for routine startups and shutdowns for 

safety reasons and as a viable option for 

non-routine events such as EGU ‘‘trips’’ 

when the combustion turbine cannot 

combust syngas. Commenters noted that 

the flaring option is especially critical as 

the re-routing option can only be used 

by IGCC EGUs under limited 

circumstances as the syngas may lack 

sufficient pressure for re-injection and 

gasifiers are often once-through systems 

that do not support re-routing of the 

syngas. Commenters indicated that the 

actual flaring step of an IGCC startup is 

relatively short and ordinarily lasts less 

than 2 hours and that only clean syngas 

is flared during a routine startup. 

The EPA is finalizing both options, 

use of flaring or duct burners, for 

handling of syngas not combusted in the 

turbine during startup periods and 

shutdown periods.15 The EPA believes 

that the controls are comparable and 

that allowing the option will provide 

flexibility to owners/operators of IGCC 

EGUs to choose either of the options 

subject to operational constraints at 

their IGCC EGUs. The EPA believes it 

appropriate to cover gasifier syngas 

during startup periods and shutdown 

periods of the combustion turbine 

portion of the IGCC because the units 

are inextricably linked and the unused 

gas would not be generated but for the 

startup of the combustion portion of the 

IGCC unit. The EPA is requiring the use 

of either flares or duct burners to 

combust unused syngas during startup 

periods and shutdown periods. 

4. Common Stacks 

The final MATS rule at 40 CFR 

63.10010(a)(1), (2), and (3) required 

owners or operators of EGUs with 

common stacks to either monitor the 

EGUs separately or monitor the common 

stack and assign the same emissions 

value to each EGU. No specific 

requirements concerning monitoring 

during startup periods or shutdown 

periods were given because the EPA 

believed the provisions as finalized 

were sufficient. Consistent with the 

monitoring provisions in the final rule, 

owners or operators of EGUs with 

common stacks are required to monitor 

and report emissions for compliance 

purposes at all times when any EGU 

using a common stack is operating in a 

non-startup/shutdown mode, even if 

another EGU using that common stack 

is in startup/shutdown mode. 40 CFR 

63.10005(a)(2)(iii) reinforces and 

clarifies this requirement. Also, 

consistent with the final rule, work 

practice standards, rather than numeric 

emissions limits, apply during startup 

periods or shutdown periods, but only 

to EGUs in startup or shutdown mode. 

Today’s reconsidered rule maintains the 

approach of the final rule. Owners or 

operators of EGUs with common stacks 

may either monitor each EGU separately 

upstream of the common stack or from 

the common stack. Monitoring must be 

operational (except for periods of 

monitor malfunction and during 

required quality assurance (QA) and 

maintenance activities) at all times that 

any fuel is being combusted, and 

compliance with numeric emission 

limits is required except for periods 

when all EGUs sharing the common 

stack are in startup or shutdown mode. 

Should an owner or operator choose to 

monitor the common stack, then 

emissions obtained from the monitoring 

will be applied to each EGU that shares 

the stack. This approach remains 

consistent with the final rule, and is not 

expected to be problematic emissionswise for any EGU using a common 

stack, because the EGUs in startup 

periods or shutdown periods are 

required to use clean fuels and comply 

with the other work practice 

requirements. In addition, the EGUs 

sharing the common stack and operating 

in a mode other than startup or 

shutdown are required to operate such 

that they meet their emissions limits. 

We believe, based on evaluation of 

source compliance for many years, that 

sources generally operate in a manner to 

ensure a compliance margin to avoid 

potential exceedances.16 Thus, we 

maintain the monitoring options 

available in the final rule are sufficient 

to address concerns from commenters. 

As discussed below, the EPA is also 

establishing a default electrical load of 

5 percent of the maximum sustainable 

electrical load of the EGU. This default 

value will be allowed to be used during 

periods of startup or periods of 

shutdown when the electrical load is 

zero. For EGUs sharing a common stack 

with just one common monitoring 

system, this default value will be 

available only when the electrical load 

is zero for an EGU sharing the common 

stack that is in a period of startup or 

shutdown. As soon as a non-zero 

electrical load is produced, that nonzero load must be used in electrical 

output-based emission rate calculations 

for each EGU in a startup or shutdown 

period, even if the load is less than 5 

percent of capacity. Note that the 

electrical load of all EGUs in operation 

and sharing a common stack with just 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68785 

one common monitoring system are to 

be summed when electrical outputbased emission rate calculations are 

made. 

Section 1.2.5 of the RTC contains both 

a summary of comments received on 

this topic and the EPA’s response to 

those comments. 

5. Diluent Cap 

Apart from allowing use of a diluent 

cap when calculating Hg emissions 

during startup periods or shutdown 

periods, the final rule contained no 

allowance for use of a diluent cap. The 

November 2012 proposal sought 

comment on the need for a diluent cap 

for other HAP emissions during startup 

periods and shutdown periods. Use of a 

diluent cap can be important during 

startup periods and shutdown periods 

because CEMS values can approach 

infinity because the denominator in the 

calculations for CEMS values can 

approach zero during those periods. 

Moreover, use of a diluent cap becomes 

a common stack issue when one or more 

of the EGUs is in a startup or shutdown 

mode and just one monitoring 

instrument is used in the stack. 

The EPA considered each comment 

and decided to allow use of default 

carbon dioxide (CO2) or oxygen (O2) 

values as identified in Section 3.3.4.1 of 

Appendix F of 40 CFR part 75, but only 

for startup periods or shutdown periods 

when CO2 values are below or O2 values 

are above default values for use in all 

pollutant calculations. For non-IGCC 

EGUs, the default CO2 value is 5 percent 

and the default O2 value is 14 percent. 

This means that when CEMS CO2

measurements are below 5 percent, EGU 

owners or operators are allowed to use 

5 percent CO2 in their calculations. 

Because the startup analysis showed 

that CEMS CO2 measurements exceeded 

default values within 2 hours of 

generation, the EPA does not expect to 

find default values being used when 

startup periods end. Likewise, when 

CEMS O2 measurements are larger than 

14 percent, EGU owners or operators 

will be able to use 14-percent O2 in their 

calculations. IGCC EGUs will be 

allowed to use 1 percent as a default 

CO2 value or 19 percent as a default O2

value. As mentioned earlier, default 

diluent gas values will be allowed for 

use in calculations for startup periods or 

shutdown periods when CO2 CEMS 

values are below or O2 CEMS values are 

above default values. The rule requires 

EGU owners or operators to use actual 

CO2 or O2 CEMS values for all other 

operating periods. Although the EPA 

has no specific data or information 

concerning emissions during transient 

events outside startup or shutdown 

periods, the EPA expects the short 

duration of these transient events 

outside startup or shutdown periods 

that could cause CO2 or O2 CEMS to be 

below (or above) default values to have 

little, if any, impact on the 30-boiler 

operating day rolling averages. 

The rule retains the requirement for 

EGU owners or operators to report 

instrumental CEMS, PM CPMS, and 

sorbent trap information, as well as flow 

rate information during startup periods 

or shutdown periods. Such information 

may prove useful in assessing potential 

emissions or operational limits in future 

rulemaking activities. Finally, the rule 

requires EGU owners or operators to 

identify each hour of startup or 

shutdown in which a diluent cap value 

is used. 

Section 5.1 of the RTC contains both 

a summary of comments received on 

this topic and the EPA’s response. 

6. Default Electrical Output 

The final rule provided no allowance 

regarding default electrical output. The 

November 2012 proposal sought 

comment on the need for a default 

electrical output for those owners or 

operators who choose to comply with a 

mass per electrical output standard. Use 

of a default electrical output cap can be 

important during startup periods and 

shutdown periods because the 

calculated mass per electrical output 

values can approach infinity when the 

electrical output is zero during those 

periods. 

Upon consideration of the comments, 

the rule will provide a default electrical 

load value that EGU owners or operators 

will be allowed to use during startup 

periods or shutdown periods to 

calculate emissions rates for an EGU, as 

long as the electrical load for the EGU 

is zero. Once the EGU begins generating 

electricity, the source must use the 

actual electrical output in compliance 

calculations, even if the output is below 

the 5 percent default value. Moreover, 

use of a default electrical load is not 

allowed during periods other than 

startup or shutdown. As suggested by 

one commenter, the default electrical 

load will be equivalent to 5 percent of 

the maximum sustainable electrical 

output in megawatts of an EGU, as 

defined in section 6.5.2.1(a)(1) of 

appendix A to part 75, and included in 

an EGU’s Part 75 electronic monitoring 

plan. This maximum sustainable load is 

either the nameplate capacity of the 

EGU or the highest electrical load 

observed in at least four representative 

quarters of EGU operation. When used 

in a common stack application, the 

default electrical load is 5 percent of the 

combined maximum sustainable 

electrical load of the EGUs that are in 

startup or shutdown mode during an 

hour in which the electrical load is zero. 

The default electrical load is allowed to 

be used in electrical output-based 

emission rate calculations (either 

pounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) or 

pounds per gigawatt-hour (lb/GWh)) for 

any hour in which the actual electrical 

load for a single EGU or for every EGU 

venting to a common stack is zero. The 

EPA considered, but decided against, 

requiring measurement of thermal heat 

output and conversion back into 

equivalent electrical output; instead, the 

EPA decided to use a simpler approach 

based on already-existing requirements 

of the Acid Rain Program that we 

believe are most appropriate 

considering CAA section 112 and in 

light of the available data. Finally, the 

rule requires EGU owners or operators 

to identify each hour of startup or 

shutdown in which a default electrical 

load value is used. 

Section 5.2 of the RTC contains both 

a summary of comments received on 

this topic and the EPA’s response to 

significant comments. 

7. Use of Sorbent Traps 

The final rule required continuous Hg 

data collection using sorbent traps or Hg 

CEMS under all process operating 

conditions, including, but not limited 

to, startup periods and shutdown 

periods, over the entire 30 boiler 

operating day LEE qualification testing 

period. For sorbent traps, the EPA 

allowed use of redundant backup 

sorbent trap monitoring systems during 

startup periods and shutdown periods; 

and required operation of sorbent trap 

monitoring systems and collection of Hg 

data at all times EGUs operate, but did 

not allow use of Hg data collected 

during startup or shutdown periods to 

be included in compliance calculations. 

After consideration of comments 

received on Hg monitoring during 

startup or shutdown periods using 

sorbent trap monitoring systems, the 

EPA decided that the final reconsidered 

rule will contain three alternative 

approaches for measuring Hg emissions 

during startup periods or shutdown 

periods. In the first approach, EGU 

owners or operators will continue to be 

able to use Hg CEMS for measuring Hg 

emissions. 

The second approach relies on at least 

two separate sorbent monitoring 

systems. Although the rule has no 

prohibition against an EGU owner or 

operator using one sorbent trap 

monitoring system for compliance 

purposes during periods other than 

startup or shutdown and one (or more) 

sorbent trap monitoring systems for 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
68786 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

17See 77 FR 9382 (February 16, 2012). 

startup periods or shutdown periods 

through the use of a non-redundant 

backup system (per section 2.2.2 of 

Appendix A to subpart UUUUU of Part 

63), it will be clarified that two separate 

sorbent monitoring systems are allowed. 

Reliance on this second approach would 

address one commenter’s concern that 

Hg compliance data could not be 

separated from Hg data collected during 

startup and/or shutdown periods when 

demonstrating compliance with 

numerical standards based on a sorbent 

trap system. When an EGU with at least 

two such systems (one for startup 

periods or shutdown periods and the 

other for all other periods) entered into 

a startup or shutdown period, the EGU 

owner or operator could switch 

monitoring systems either manually or 

automatically. As part of an EGU owner 

or operator’s rubric for choosing which 

Hg measurement approach to use, the 

EGU owner or operator should take into 

account that any process operating hour 

for which quality assured Hg 

concentration data are not obtained is 

counted as an hour of monitoring 

system downtime, per section 1.4 of 

Appendix A to subpart UUUUU of Part 

63. Therefore, if an EGU owner or 

operator believes change-out of sorbent 

monitoring traps may take too long, 

other approaches may be more suitable. 

An EGU owner or operator should 

carefully consider all costs—not only of 

sorbent tubes, analyses, and associated 

labor, but also of non-compliance due to 

data gaps, when determining whether 

this approach is appropriate. 

The third approach, relying on just 

one sorbent trap monitoring system for 

all periods of operation (startup, 

shutdown, and normal), will be 

identified in the rule as a viable option 

for Hg monitoring, and, for EGU owners 

or operators who choose this option, the 

rule will allow data collected during 

startup or shutdown periods to be used 

for compliance purposes. The EPA 

expects little impact on Hg emissions 

during startup or shutdown periods, 

because, as explained above, we believe 

the rule contains sufficient variability to 

include startup and shutdown periods; 

clean fuels will be used during those 

periods; default diluent and electrical 

output values, which tend to constrain 

emissions, will be available for use; and 

emissions occurring during those 

periods will be included in a 30- 

(or 90-) boiler operating day rolling 

average. EGU owners or operators may 

find that this third approach would 

work well for those instances in which 

sudden and unpredictable shutdown 

events occur, for there would be no 

need to swap sorbent trap monitoring 

systems to capture shutdown emissions. 

Finally, the EPA disagrees with 

commenters who claim that collecting 

data during startup and shutdown will 

serve no purpose relative to compliance 

with MATS and indicated that if the 

EPA needs to collect startup and 

shutdown data to better understand 

performance for a future rulemaking, 

that can be addressed through the 

information collection request (ICR) 

process where the EPA demonstrates the 

need and identifies a systematic plan to 

gather the data. As explained in the 

final rule preamble,17 collection of 

startup and shutdown information will 

provide the EPA with information to 

more fully analyze the ability and 

appropriateness of establishing numeric 

emissions and operating limits during 

startup periods or shutdown periods so 

the issue can be addressed as part of the 

ongoing 8-year review of this rule. 

Collection of these data as part of the 

rule will also serve to reduce, if not 

eliminate, future ICR requests on this 

topic. The EPA also disagrees with 

commenters who wish to place all 

startup and shutdown information on 

those EGU owners or operators who 

choose to use Hg CEMS, for EPA 

remains interested in how well sorbent 

tube monitoring systems operate during 

startup periods or shutdown periods. 

Not collecting that information from 

those systems would leave a gap in the 

EPA’s knowledge base. 

Section 5.3 of the RTC contains both 

a summary of comments received on 

this topic and the EPA’s response to 

significant comments. 

V. Summary of Final Action and 

Changes Since Proposal—Utility NSPS 

The current PM startup and shutdown 

requirements in the Utility NSPS are 

included in 40 CFR 60.42Da(e)(2) and 

require the owner/operator of an 

affected EGU to meet the work practice 

standards specified in Table 3 of 40 CFR 

Part 63, subpart UUUUU (i.e., the MATS 

rule). The Utility NSPS docket received 

a total of 23 public comments on the 

startup/shutdown reconsideration 

proposal. One of these comments was a 

duplicate. Of the remaining 22 

comments, 15 were received in both 

dockets, and 7 were received in the 

Utility NSPS docket alone. Of the seven 

comments received in the Utility NSPS 

docket alone, four were said to be sent 

to the MATS docket, but no documents 

that matched the ones in the Utility 

NSPS docket were found in the MATS 

docket. However, the majority of the 

comments overlap with issues raised as 

part of the startup and shutdown 

provision included in MATS. The EPA 

responses to these issues are discussed 

in the MATS portion of the preamble 

and docket and have not been repeated 

here or in the Utility NSPS docket. 

The sole NSPS-specific comment we 

received was that the Utility NSPS 

should include a definition of startup 

and shutdown that is consistent with 

the MATS definition and that the 

definitions of startup and shutdown in 

the Utility NSPS, MATS, and Industrial 

Boiler NESHAP (subpart DDDDD) rules 

should be consistent. There are 

situations where a facility is subject to 

the PM standard under 40 CFR Part 60, 

subpart Da, but is not subject to MATS 

(e.g., a biomass-fired EGU with natural 

gas burners >250 million British thermal 

units per hour). This facility would, 

therefore, be subject to the Industrial 

Boiler NESHAP. We have concluded 

that it is appropriate for industrial 

boilers and EGUs to have the same PM 

startup and shutdown work practice 

standards for both the NSPS and MATS. 

Therefore, we are amending 40 CFR 

60.42Da(e)(2) so that owners or 

operators of facilities subject to 40 CFR 

Part 63, subpart UUUUU, shall meet the 

work practice standards specified in 

Table 3 to Subpart UUUUU of Part 63, 

and owners or operators of facilities 

subject to 40 CFR Part 63, subpart 

DDDDD, shall meet the work practice 

standards specified in Table 3 to 

Subpart DDDDD of Part 63. 

We are also amending the regulatory 

text in the Utility NSPS to incorporate 

the relevant startup and shutdown 

definitions. We have concluded that the 

amended regulatory text is sufficient, 

and adding definitions of startup and 

shutdown are not necessary for the 

Utility NSPS. Using this approach is 

beneficial because any future 

amendments to the MATS startup and 

shutdown provisions will automatically 

be incorporated into the Utility NSPS. 

VI. Impacts of This Final Rule 

A. Summary of Emissions Impacts, 

Costs and Benefits 

Because this final rule is no more 

stringent than the February 2012 final 

rule, we expect no additional costs or 

benefits associated with these revisions. 

B. What are the air impacts? 

This final rule is no more stringent 

than the February 2012 final rule. 

Accordingly, we believe that this final 

action will not result in significant 

changes in emissions of any of the 

regulated pollutants. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68787 

C. What are the energy impacts? 

This final action is not anticipated to 

have an effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. As 

previously stated, this final rule is no 

more stringent than the February 2012 

final rule. 

D. What are the compliance costs? 

We believe there will be no significant 

change in compliance costs as a result 

of this final action because electric 

power companies would take the same 

or similar actions (e.g., operating control 

devices, recording clean fuel use, etc.) 

as they would have to comply with the 

previously finalized MATS standards. 

Moreover, we find no additional 

monitoring costs are necessary to 

comply with this final action because 

EGU owners or operators could 

continue to use the startup and 

shutdown provisions of the 

promulgated rule to demonstrate 

compliance; however, as in any other 

rule, EGU owners or operators may 

choose to conduct additional 

monitoring (and incur its expense) for 

their own purposes. 

E. What are the economic and 

employment impacts? 

Because we expect that electric power 

companies would take the same or 

similar actions to meet the requirements 

finalized in this action as they would 

have chosen to comply with the 

previously finalized MATS standards, 

we do not anticipate that this final 

action will result in significant changes 

in emissions, energy impacts, costs, 

benefits, or economic impacts. Likewise, 

we believe this action will not have any 

impacts on the price of electricity, 

employment or labor markets, or the 

U.S. economy. 

F. What are the benefits of the final 

standards? 

As previously stated, we do not 

anticipate any significant emission 

changes resulting from this action. 

Therefore, there are no direct monetized 

benefits or disbenefits associated with 

this action. 

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’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; 

October 4, 1993) and is, therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821; 

January 21, 2011). 

Because this final rule is no more 

stringent than the February 2012 final 

rule, we do not expect any additional 

costs, benefits, or economic impacts 

associated with these revisions. The 

EPA prepared an analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with the 2012 final rule. This analysis 

is contained in the ‘‘Economic Impact 

Analysis for the Final Reconsideration 

of the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards’’ found in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. This 

action clarifies but does not change the 

information collection requirements 

previously finalized and, as a result, 

does not impose any additional burden 

on industry. However, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations (see 77 FR 9304) 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0567. The OMB control numbers 

for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 

CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this action on small entities, a small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 

that 50,000; and (3) a small organization 

that is any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field. Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by the final rule with 

applicable NAICS codes are provided in 

section I.A of this preamble. 

According to the SBA size standards 

for NAICS code 221122, Utilities— 

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation, a 

firm is small if, including its affiliates, 

it is primarily engaged in the generation, 

transmission, and/or distribution of 

electric energy for sale and its total 

electric output for the preceding fiscal 

year did not exceed 4 million MWh. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The EPA has determined that none of 

the small entities will experience a 

significant impact because the action 

imposes no additional regulatory 

requirements on owners or operators of 

affected sources. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

UMRA sections 202 or 205. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of UMRA section 203 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action contains no requirements that 

apply to such governments or impose 

obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 9, 

2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. No 

affected facilities are owned or operated 

by Indian tribal governments. Thus, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
68788 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866. The EPA has evaluated the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the final MATS on children. The results 

of the evaluation are discussed in that 

final rule (77 FR 9304; February 16, 

2012) and are contained in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 

2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA); Public Law 104– 

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in their regulatory and 

procurement activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impracticable. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., material 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA requires the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This action does not involve VCS. 

Therefore, the EPA did not consider the 

use of any VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. The 

EPA has evaluated the environmental 

health or environmental effects of the 

final MATS on minority, low-income, or 

indigenous populations. The results of 

the evaluation are discussed in that final 

rule (77 FR 9304; February 16, 2012) 

and are contained in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this final rule 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This final rule will be effective 

on November 19, 2014. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 7, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts 

60 and 63 to read as follows: 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 60 continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 60.42Da is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.42Da Standards for particulate matter 

(PM). 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) During startup periods and 

shutdown periods, owners or operators 

of facilities subject to subpart UUUUU 

of part 63 of this chapter shall meet the 

work practice standards specified in 

Table 3 to subpart UUUUU of part 63 

and use the relevant definitions in 

§ 63.10042, and owners or operators of 

facilities subject to subpart DDDDD of 

part 63 shall meet the work practice 

standards specified in Table 3 to subpart 

DDDDD of part 63 and use the relevant 

definition used in § 63.7575. 

* * * * * 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 3. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 63 continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. Section 63.10000 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1)(vi) and adding 

paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 63.10000 What are my general 

requirements for complying with this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) * * * 

(vi) If your coal-fired or solid oilderived fuel-fired EGU does not qualify 

as a LEE for Hg, you must demonstrate 

initial and continuous compliance 

through use of a Hg CEMS or a sorbent 

trap monitoring system, in accordance 

with appendix A to this subpart. 

(A) You may choose to use separate 

sorbent trap monitoring systems to 

comply with this subpart: One sorbent 

trap monitoring system to demonstrate 

compliance with the numeric mercury 

emissions limit during periods other 

than startup or shutdown and the other 

sorbent trap monitoring system to report 

average mercury concentration during 

startup periods or shutdown periods. 

(B) You may choose to use one 

sorbent trap monitoring system to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

mercury emissions limit at all times 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68789 

(including startup periods and 

shutdown periods) and to report average 

mercury concentration. You must follow 

the startup or shutdown requirements 

that follow and as given in Table 3 to 

this subpart for each coal-fired, liquid 

oil-fired, or solid oil-derived fuel-fired 

EGU. 

* * * * * 

(l) On or before the date an EGU is 

subject to this subpart, you must install, 

certify, operate, maintain, and quality 

assure each monitoring system 

necessary for demonstrating compliance 

with the work practice standards for PM 

or non-mercury HAP metals during 

startup periods and shutdown periods. 

You must collect, record, report, and 

maintain data obtained from these 

monitoring systems during startup 

periods and shutdown periods. 

■ 5. Section 63.10005 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.10005 What are my initial compliance 

requirements and by what date must I 

conduct them? 

(a) * * * 

(2) To demonstrate initial compliance 

using either a CMS that measures HAP 

concentrations directly (i.e., an Hg, HCl, 

or HF CEMS, or a sorbent trap 

monitoring system) or an SO2 or PM 

CEMS, the initial performance test 

consists of 30- (or, if emissions 

averaging for Hg is used, 90-) boiler 

operating days of data collected by the 

initial compliance demonstration date 

specified in § 63.9984(f) with the 

certified monitoring system. Pollutant 

emission rates measured during startup 

periods and shutdown period (as 

defined in § 63.10042) are not to be 

included in the compliance 

demonstration, except as otherwise 

provided in § 63.10000(c)(1)(vi)(B) and 

paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. 

(i) The 30- (or, if applicable, 90-) 

boiler operating day CMS performance 

test must demonstrate compliance with 

the applicable Hg, HCl, HF, PM, or SO2

emissions limit in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart. 

(ii) You must collect hourly data from 

auxiliary monitoring systems (i.e., stack 

gas flow rate, CO2, O2, or moisture, as 

applicable) during the performance test 

period, in order to convert the pollutant 

concentrations to units of the standard. 

If you choose to comply with an 

electrical output-based emission limit, 

you must also collect hourly electrical 

load data during the performance test 

period. 

(iii) For a group of affected units that 

are in the same subcategory, are subject 

to the same emission standards, and 

share a common stack, if you elect to 

demonstrate compliance by monitoring 

emissions at the common stack, startup 

and shutdown emissions (if any) that 

occur during the 30-(or, if applicable, 

90-) boiler operating day performance 

test must either be excluded from or 

included in the compliance 

demonstration as follows: 

(A) If one of the units that shares the 

stack either starts up or shuts down at 

a time when none of the other units is 

operating, you must exclude all 

pollutant emission rates measured 

during the startup or shutdown period, 

unless you are using a sorbent trap 

monitoring system to measure Hg 

emissions and have elected to include 

startup and shutdown emissions in the 

compliance demonstrations; 

(B) If all units that are currently 

operating are in the startup or shutdown 

mode, you must exclude all pollutant 

emission rates measured during the 

startup or shutdown period, unless you 

are using a sorbent trap monitoring 

system to measure Hg emissions and 

have elected to include startup and 

shutdown emissions in the compliance 

demonstrations; or 

(C) If any unit starts up or shuts down 

at a time when another unit is operating, 

and the other unit is not in the startup 

or shutdown mode, you must include 

all pollutant emission rates measured 

during the startup or shutdown period 

in the compliance demonstrations. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 63.10007 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1), redesignating 

paragraph (f) as paragraph (g), and 

adding a new paragraph (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.10007 What methods and other 

procedures must I use for the performance 

tests? 

(a) * * * 

(1) If you use CEMS (Hg, HCl, SO2, or 

other) to determine compliance with a 

30- (or, if applicable, 90-) boiler 

operating day rolling average emission 

limit, you must collect quality- assured 

CEMS data for all unit operating 

conditions, including startup and 

shutdown (see § 63.10011(g) and Table 

3 to this subpart), except as otherwise 

provided in § 63.10020(b). Emission 

rates determined during startup periods 

and shutdown periods (as defined in 

§ 63.10042) are not to be included in the 

compliance determinations, except as 

otherwise provided in 

§§ 63.10000(c)(1)(vi)(B) and 

63.10005(a)(2)(iii). 

* * * * * 

(f) If you elect to (or are required to) 

use CEMS to continuously monitor Hg, 

HCl, HF, SO2, or PM emissions (or, if 

applicable, sorbent trap monitoring 

systems to continuously collect Hg 

emissions data), the following default 

values are available for use in the 

emission rate calculations during 

startup periods or shutdown periods (as 

defined in § 63.10042). For the purposes 

of this subpart, these default values are 

not considered to be substitute data. 

(1) Diluent cap values. If you use 

CEMS (or, if applicable, sorbent trap 

monitoring systems) to comply with a 

heat input-based emission rate limit, 

you may use the following diluent cap 

values for a startup or shutdown hour in 

which the measured CO2 concentration 

is below the cap value or the measured 

O2 concentration is above the cap value: 

(i) For an IGCC EGU, you may use 1% 

for CO2 or 19% for O2. 

(ii) For all other EGUs, you may use 

5% for CO2 or 14% for O2. 

(2) Default electrical load. If you use 

CEMS to continuously monitor Hg, HCl, 

HF, SO2, or PM emissions (or, if 

applicable, sorbent trap monitoring 

systems to continuously collect Hg 

emissions data), the following default 

value is available for use in the emission 

rate calculations during startup periods 

or shutdown periods (as defined in 

§ 63.10042). For the purposes of this 

subpart, this default value is not 

considered to be substitute data. For a 

startup or shutdown hour in which 

there is heat input to an affected EGU 

but zero electrical load, you must 

calculate the pollutant emission rate 

using a value equivalent to 5% of the 

maximum sustainable electrical output, 

expressed in megawatts, as defined in 

section 6.5.2.1(a)(1) of Appendix A to 

part 75 of this chapter. This default 

electrical load is either the nameplate 

capacity of the EGU or the highest 

electrical load observed in at least four 

representative quarters of EGU 

operation. For a monitored common 

stack, the default electrical load is used 

only when all EGUs are operating (i.e., 

combusting fuel) are in startup or 

shutdown mode, and have zero 

electrical generation. Under those 

conditions, a default electrical load 

equal to 5% of the combined maximum 

sustainable electrical load of the EGUs 

that are operating but have a total of 

zero electrical load must be used to 

calculate the hourly electrical outputbased pollutant emissions rate. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 63.10010 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f)(4) and adding 

paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 63.10010 What are my monitoring, 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

requirements? 

* * * * * 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
68790 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(f) * * * 

(4) Use only unadjusted, qualityassured SO2 concentration values in the 

emissions calculations; do not apply 

bias adjustment factors to the part 75 

SO2 data and do not use part 75 

substitute data values. For startup or 

shutdown hours (as defined in 

§ 63.10042) the default electrical load 

and the diluent cap are available for use 

in the hourly SO2 emission rate 

calculations, as described in 

§ 63.10007(f). Use a flag to identify each 

startup or shutdown hour and report a 

special code if the diluent cap or default 

electrical load is used to calculate the 

SO2 emission rate for any of these hours. 

* * * * * 

(l) You must install, certify, operate, 

maintain, and quality assure each 

monitoring system necessary for 

demonstrating compliance with the PM 

or non-mercury metals work practice 

standards for startup periods. 

(1) You shall develop a site-specific 

monitoring plan for PM or non-mercury 

metals work practice monitoring during 

startup periods. 

(2) You shall submit the site-specific 

monitoring plan upon request by the 

Administrator. 

(3) The provisions of the monitoring 

plan must address the following items: 

(i) Monitoring system installation; 

(ii) Performance and equipment 

specifications; 

(iii) Schedule for initial and periodic 

performance evaluations; 

(iv) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria; 

(v) On-going operation and 

maintenance procedures; and 

(vi) On-going recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures. 

(4) You may rely on monitoring 

system specifications or instructions to 

address paragraphs (l)(3)(i) through (vi) 

of this section. 

(5) You must operate and maintain 

the monitoring system according to the 

site-specific monitoring plan. 

■ 8. Section 63.10011 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 63.10011 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limits and 

work practice standards? 

* * * * * 

(g) You must follow the startup or 

shutdown requirements as given in 

Table 3 to this subpart for each coalfired, liquid oil-fired, or solid oilderived fuel-fired EGU. 

(1) You may use the diluent cap and 

default electrical load values, as 

described in § 63.10007(f), during 

startup periods or shutdown periods. 

(2) You must operate all CMS, collect 

data, calculate pollutant emission rates, 

and record data during startup periods 

or shutdown periods. 

(3) You must report the information as 

required in § 63.10031. 

(4) If you choose to use paragraph (2) 

of the definition of ‘‘startup’’ in 

§ 63.10042 and you find that you are 

unable to safely engage and operate your 

particulate matter (PM) control(s) within 

1 hour of first firing of coal, residual oil, 

or solid oil-derived fuel, you may 

choose to rely on paragraph (1) of 

definition of ‘‘startup’’ in § 63.10042 or 

you may submit a request to use an 

alternative non-opacity emissions 

standard, as described below. 

(i) As mentioned in § 63.6(g)(1), the 

request will be published in the Federal 

Register for notice and comment 

rulemaking. Until promulgation in the 

Federal Register of the final alternative 

non-opacity emission standard, you 

shall comply with paragraph (1) of the 

definition of ‘‘startup’’ in § 63.10042. 

You shall not implement the alternative 

non-opacity emissions standard until 

promulgation in the Federal Register of 

the final alternative non-opacity 

emission standard. 

(ii) The request need not address the 

items contained in § 63.6(g)(2). 

(iii) The request shall provide 

evidence of a documented 

manufacturer-identified safely issue. 

(iv) The request shall provide 

information to document that the PM 

control device is adequately designed 

and sized to meet the PM emission limit 

applicable to the EGU. 

(v) In addition, the request shall 

contain documentation that: 

(A) The EGU is using clean fuels to 

the maximum extent possible to bring 

the EGU and PM control device up to 

the temperature necessary to alleviate or 

prevent the identified safety issues prior 

to the combustion of primary fuel in the 

EGU; 

(B) The EGU has explicitly followed 

the manufacturer’s procedures to 

alleviate or prevent the identified safety 

issue; and 

(C) Identifies with specificity the 

details of the manufacturer’s statement 

of concern. 

(vi) The request shall specify the other 

work practice standards the EGU owner 

or operator will take to limit HAP 

emissions during startup periods and 

shutdown periods to ensure a control 

level consistent with the work practice 

standards of the final rule. 

(vii) You must comply with all other 

work practice requirements, including 

but not limited to data collection, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. 

■ 9. Section 63.10020 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 63.10020 How do I monitor and collect 

data to demonstrate continuous 

compliance? 

* * * * * 

(c) You may not use data recorded 

during EGU startup or shutdown in 

calculations used to report emissions, 

except as otherwise provided in 

§§ 63.10000(c)(1)(vi)(B) and 

63.10005(a)(2)(iii). In addition, data 

recorded during monitoring system 

malfunctions or monitoring system outof-control periods, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions or 

monitoring system out-of-control 

periods, or required monitoring system 

quality assurance or control activities 

may not be used in calculations used to 

report emissions or operating levels. 

You must use all of the quality-assured 

data collected during all other periods 

in assessing the operation of the control 

device and associated control system. 

* * * * * 

(e) Additional requirements during 

startup periods or shutdown periods. 

(1) During each period of startup, you 

must record for each EGU: 

(i) The date and time that clean fuels 

being combusted for the purpose of 

startup begins; 

(ii) The quantity and heat input of 

clean fuel for each hour of startup; 

(iii) The electrical load for each hour 

of startup; 

(iv) The date and time that non-clean 

fuel combustion begins; and 

(v) The date and time that clean fuels 

being combusted for the purpose of 

startup ends. 

(2) During each period of shutdown, 

you must record for each EGU: 

(i) The date and time that clean fuels 

being combusted for the purpose of 

shutdown begins; 

(ii) The quantity and heat input of 

clean fuel for each hour of shutdown; 

(iii) The electrical load for each hour 

of shutdown; 

(iv) The date and time that non-clean 

fuel combustion ends; and 

(v) The date and time that clean fuels 

being combusted for the purpose of 

shutdown ends. 

(3) For PM or non-mercury HAP 

metals work practice monitoring during 

startup periods, you must monitor and 

collect data according to this section 

and the site-specific monitoring plan 

required by § 63.10011(l). 

(i) Except for an EGU that uses PM 

CEMS or PM CPMS to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM emissions limit 

or that has LEE status for filterable PM 

or total non-Hg HAP metals for nonVerDate Sep<11>2014 14:12 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19NOR1.SGM 19NOR1

rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68791 

liquid oil-fired EGUs (or HAP metals 

emissions for liquid oil-fired EGUs), or 

individual non-mercury metals CEMS 

you must: 

(A) Record temperature and flow rate 

of post-combustion (exhaust) gas and 

amperage of forced draft fan(s) upstream 

of each filterable PM control device 

during each hour of startup. 

(B) Record temperature and flow rate 

of exhaust gas and amperage of induced 

draft fan(s) downstream of each 

filterable control device during each 

hour of startup. 

(C) For an EGU with an electrostatic 

precipitator, record the number of fields 

in service, as well as each field’s 

secondary voltage and secondary 

current during each hour of startup. 

(D) For an EGU with a fabric filter, 

record the number of compartments in 

service, as well as the differential 

pressure across the baghouse during 

each hour of startup. 

(E) For an EGU with a wet scrubber 

needed for filterable PM control, record 

the scrubber liquid to fuel ratio and the 

differential pressure of the liquid during 

each hour of startup. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

■ 10. Section 63.10021 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.10021 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations, operating limits, and work 

practice standards? 

* * * * * 

(h) You must follow the startup or 

shutdown requirements as given in 

Table 3 to this subpart for each coalfired, liquid oil-fired, or solid oilderived fuel-fired EGU. 

(1) You may use the diluent cap and 

default electrical load values, as 

described in § 63.10007(f), during 

startup periods or shutdown periods. 

(2) You must operate all CMS, collect 

data, calculate pollutant emission rates, 

and record data during startup periods 

or shutdown periods. 

(3) You must report the information as 

required in § 63.10031. 

(4) You may choose to submit an 

alternative non-opacity emission 

standard, in accordance with the 

requirements contained in 

§ 63.10011(g)(4). Until promulgation in 

the Federal Register of the final 

alternative non-opacity emission 

standard, you shall comply with 

paragraph (1) of the definition of 

‘‘startup’’ in § 63.10042. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 63.10022 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (a) and adding paragraph 

(a)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 63.10022 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance under the 

emissions averaging provision? 

(a) Following the compliance date, the 

owner or operator must demonstrate 

compliance with this subpart on a 

continuous basis by meeting the 

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (4) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(4) For each existing EGU 

participating in the emissions averaging 

option, operate in accordance with the 

startup or shutdown work practice 

requirements given in Table 3 to this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 63.10030 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (e) and adding paragraph 

(e)(8) to read as follows: 

§ 63.10030 What notifications must I 

submit and when? 

* * * * * 

(e) When you are required to conduct 

an initial compliance demonstration as 

specified in § 63.10011(a), you must 

submit a Notification of Compliance 

Status according to § 63.9(h)(2)(ii). The 

Notification of Compliance Status report 

must contain all the information 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through 

(8) of this section, as applicable. 

* * * * * 

(8) Identification of whether you plan 

to rely on paragraph (1) or (2) of the 

definition of ‘‘startup’’ in § 63.10042. 

(i) Should you choose to rely on 

paragraph (2) of the definition of 

‘‘startup’’ in § 63.10042 for your EGU, 

you shall include a report that 

identifies: 

(A) The original EGU installation 

date; 

(B) The original EGU design 

characteristics, including, but not 

limited to, fuel and PM controls; 

(C) Each design PM control device 

efficiency; 

(D) The design PM emission rate from 

the EGU in terms of pounds PM per 

MMBtu and pounds PM per hour; 

(E) The design time from start of fuel 

combustion to necessary conditions for 

each PM control device startup; 

(F) Each design PM control device 

efficiency upon startup of the PM 

control device; 

(G) The design EGU uncontrolled PM 

emission rate in terms of pounds PM per 

hour; 

(H) Each change from the original 

design that did or could have changed 

PM emissions, including, but not 

limited to, each different fuel mix, each 

revision to each PM control device, and 

each EGU revision, along with the 

month and year that the change 

occurred; 

(I) Current EGU PM producing 

characteristics, including, but not 

limited to, fuel mix and PM controls; 

(J) Current PM emission rate from the 

EGU in terms of pounds PM per MMBtu 

and pounds per hour; 

(K) Current PM control device 

efficiency from each PM control device; 

(L) Current time from start of fuel 

combustion to conditions necessary for 

each PM control device startup; 

(M) Current PM control device 

efficiency upon startup of each PM 

control device; and 

(N) Current EGU uncontrolled PM 

emission rate in terms of pounds PM per 

hour. 

(ii) The report shall be prepared, 

signed, and sealed by a professional 

engineer licensed in the state where 

your EGU is located. Apart from 

preparing, signing, and sealing this 

report, the professional engineer shall 

be independent and not otherwise 

employed by your company, any parent 

company of your company, or any 

subsidiary of your company. 

■ 13. Section 63.10031 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (c) and adding paragraph 

(c)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 63.10031 What reports must I submit and 

when? 

* * * * * 

(c) The compliance report must 

contain the information required in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(5) For each instance of startup or 

shutdown: 

(i) Include the maximum clean fuel 

storage capacity and the maximum 

hourly heat input that can be provided 

for each clean fuel determined 

according to the requirements of 

§ 63.10032(f). 

(ii) Include the information required 

to be monitored, collected, or recorded 

according to the requirements of 

§ 63.10020(e). 

(iii) If you choose to use CEMS for 

compliance purposes, include hourly 

average CEMS values and hourly 

average flow rates. Use units of 

milligrams per cubic meter for PM 

CEMS, micrograms per cubic meter for 

Hg CEMS, and ppmv for HCl, HF, or 

SO2 CEMS. Use units of standard cubic 

meters per hour on a wet basis for flow 

rates. 

(iv) If you choose to use a separate 

sorbent trap measurement system for 

startup or shutdown reporting periods, 

include hourly average mercury 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
68792 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

concentration in terms of micrograms 

per cubic meter. 

(v) If you choose to use a PM CPMS, 

include hourly average operating 

parameter values in terms of the 

operating limit, as well as the operating 

parameter to PM correlation equation. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 63.10032 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 63.10032 What records must I keep? 

* * * * * 

(f) Regarding startup periods or 

shutdown periods: 

(1) You must keep records of the 

occurrence and duration of each startup 

or shutdown; 

(2) You must keep records of the 

determination of the maximum clean 

fuel capacity for each EGU; 

(3) You must keep records of the 

determination of the maximum hourly 

clean fuel heat input and of the hourly 

clean fuel heat input for each EGU; and 

(4) You must keep records of the 

information required in § 63.10020(e). 

* * * * * 

■ 15. In § 63.10042: 

■ a. Revise the definitions for ‘‘Boiler 

operating day,’’ ‘‘Shutdown’’, and 

‘‘Startup’’; and 

■ b. Add in alphabetical order new 

definitions for ‘‘Clean fuel,’’ ‘‘Default 

electrical load,’’ and ‘‘Diluent cap.’’ 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.10042 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Boiler operating day means a 24-hour 

period that begins at midnight and ends 

the following midnight during which 

any fuel is combusted at any time in the 

EGU, excluding startup periods or 

shutdown periods. It is not necessary for 

the fuel to be combusted the entire 24- 

hour period. 

* * * * * 

Clean fuel means natural gas, 

synthetic natural gas that meets the 

specification necessary for that gas to be 

transported on a Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

regulated pipeline, propane, distillate 

oil, synthesis gas that has been 

processed through a gas clean-up train 

such that it could be used in a system’s 

combustion turbine, or ultra-low-sulfur 

diesel (ULSD) oil, including those fuels 

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 

80, subpart I (‘‘Subpart I—Motor Vehicle 

Diesel Fuel; Nonroad, Locomotive, and 

Marine Diesel Fuel; and ECA Marine 

Fuel’’). 

* * * * * 

Default electrical load means an 

electrical load equal to 5 percent of the 

maximum sustainable electrical output 

(megawatts), as defined in section 

6.5.2.1(a)(1) of Appendix A to part 75 of 

this chapter, of an affected EGU that is 

in startup or shutdown mode. For 

monitored common stack 

configurations, the default electrical 

load is 5 percent of the combined 

maximum sustainable electrical load of 

the EGUs that are in startup or 

shutdown mode during an hour in 

which the electrical load for all 

operating EGUs is zero. The default 

electrical load is used to calculate the 

electrical output-based emission rate 

(lb/MWh or lb/GWh, as applicable) for 

any startup or shutdown hour in which 

the actual electrical load is zero. The 

default electrical load is not used for 

EGUs required to make heat input-based 

emission rate (lb/MMBtu or lb/TBtu, as 

applicable) calculations. For the 

purposes of this subpart, the default 

electrical load is not considered to be a 

substitute data value. 

* * * * * 

Diluent cap means a default CO2 or O2

concentration that may be used to 

calculate the Hg, HCl, HF, or SO2

emission rate (lb/MMBtu or lb/TBtu, as 

applicable) during a startup or 

shutdown hour in which the measured 

CO2 concentration is below the cap 

value or the measured O2 concentration 

is above the cap value. The appropriate 

diluent cap values for EGUs are 

presented in § 63.10007(f) and in section 

6.2.1.2 of Appendix A to this subpart. 

For the purposes of this subpart, the 

diluent cap is not considered to be a 

substitute data value. 

* * * * * 

Shutdown means the period in which 

cessation of operation of an EGU is 

initiated for any purpose. Shutdown 

begins when the EGU no longer 

generates electricity or makes useful 

thermal energy (such as heat or steam) 

for industrial, commercial, heating, or 

cooling purposes or when no coal, 

liquid oil, syngas, or solid oil-derived 

fuel is being fired in the EGU, 

whichever is earlier. Shutdown ends 

when the EGU no longer generates 

electricity or makes useful thermal 

energy (such as steam or heat) for 

industrial, commercial, heating, or 

cooling purposes, and no fuel is being 

fired in the EGU. Any fraction of an 

hour in which shutdown occurs 

constitutes a full hour of shutdown. 

Startup means: 

(1) Either the first-ever firing of fuel 

in a boiler for the purpose of producing 

electricity, or the firing of fuel in a 

boiler after a shutdown event for any 

purpose. Startup ends when any of the 

steam from the boiler is used to generate 

electricity for sale over the grid or for 

any other purpose (including on-site 

use). Any fraction of an hour in which 

startup occurs constitutes a full hour of 

startup; or 

(2) The period in which operation of 

an EGU is initiated for any purpose. 

Startup begins with either the firing of 

any fuel in an EGU for the purpose of 

producing electricity or useful thermal 

energy (such as heat or steam) for 

industrial, commercial, heating, or 

cooling purposes (other than the firstever firing of fuel in a boiler following 

construction of the boiler) or for any 

other purpose after a shutdown event. 

Startup ends 4 hours after the EGU 

generates electricity that is sold or used 

for any other purpose (including on site 

use), or 4 hours after the EGU makes 

useful thermal energy (such as heat or 

steam) for industrial, commercial, 

heating, or cooling purposes (16 U.S.C. 

796(18)(A) and 18 CFR 292.202(c)), 

whichever is earlier. Any fraction of an 

hour in which startup occurs constitutes 

a full hour of startup. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Revise Table 3 to subpart UUUUU 

of part 63 to read as follows: 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART UUUUU OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS

[As stated in § 63.9991, you must comply with the following applicable work practice standards:] 

If your EGU is . . . You must meet the following . . . 

1. An existing EGU ............................................. Conduct a tune-up of the EGU burner and combustion controls at least each 36 calendar 

months, or each 48 calendar months if neural network combustion optimization software is 

employed, as specified in § 63.10021(e). 

2. A new or reconstructed EGU ......................... Conduct a tune-up of the EGU burner and combustion controls at least each 36 calendar 

months, or each 48 calendar months if neural network combustion optimization software is 

employed, as specified in § 63.10021(e). 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68793 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART UUUUU OF PART 63—WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS—Continued 

[As stated in § 63.9991, you must comply with the following applicable work practice standards:] 

If your EGU is . . . You must meet the following . . . 

3. A coal-fired, liquid oil-fired (excluding limiteduse liquid oil-fired subcategory units), or solid 

oil-derived fuel-fired EGU during startup.

You have the option of complying using either of the following work practice standards. 

(1) If you choose to comply using paragraph (1) of the definition of ‘‘startup’’ in § 63.10042, 

you must operate all CMS during startup. Startup means either the first-ever firing of fuel in 

a boiler for the purpose of producing electricity, or the firing of fuel in a boiler after a shutdown event for any purpose. Startup ends when any of the steam from the boiler is used to 

generate electricity for sale over the grid or for any other purpose (including on site use). 

For startup of a unit, you must use clean fuels as defined in § 63.10042 for ignition. Once 

you convert to firing coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel, you must engage all of the 

applicable control technologies except dry scrubber and SCR. You must start your dry 

scrubber and SCR systems, if present, appropriately to comply with relevant standards applicable during normal operation. You must comply with all applicable emissions limits at all 

times except for periods that meet the applicable definitions of startup and shutdown in this 

subpart. You must keep records during startup periods. You must provide reports concerning activities and startup periods, as specified in § 63.10011(g) and § 63.10021(h) and 

(i). 

(2) If you choose to comply using paragraph (2) of the definition of ‘‘startup’’ in § 63.10042, 

you must operate all CMS during startup. You must also collect appropriate data, and you 

must calculate the pollutant emission rate for each hour of startup. 

For startup of an EGU, you must use one or a combination of the clean fuels defined in 

§ 63.10042 to the maximum extent possible throughout the startup period. You must have 

sufficient clean fuel capacity to engage and operate your PM control device within one hour 

of adding coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel to the unit. You must meet the startup 

period work practice requirements as identified in § 63.10020(e). 

Once you start firing coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel, you must vent emissions to the 

main stack(s). You must comply with the applicable emission limits within 4 hours of start of 

electricity generation. You must engage and operate your particulate matter control(s) within 

1 hour of first firing of coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel. 

You must start all other applicable control devices as expeditiously as possible, considering 

safety and manufacturer/supplier recommendations, but, in any case, when necessary to 

comply with other standards made applicable to the EGU by a permit limit or a rule other 

than this Subpart that require operation of the control devices. 

Relative to the syngas not fired in the combustion turbine of an IGCC EGU during startup, you 

must either: (1) flare the syngas, or (2) route the syngas to duct burners, which may need to 

be installed, and route the flue gas from the duct burners to the heat recovery steam generator. 

If you choose to use just one set of sorbent traps to demonstrate compliance with Hg emission 

limits, you must comply with all applicable Hg emission limits at all times; otherwise, you 

must comply with all applicable emission limits at all times except for startup or shutdown 

periods conforming to this practice. You must collect monitoring data during startup periods, 

as specified in § 63.10020(a) and (e). You must keep records during startup periods, as provided in §§ 63.10032 and 63.10021(h). Any fraction of an hour in which startup occurs constitutes a full hour of startup. You must provide reports concerning activities and startup periods, as specified in §§ 63.10011(g), 63.10021(i), and 63.10031. 

4. A coal-fired, liquid oil-fired (excluding limiteduse liquid oil-fired subcategory units), or solid 

oil-derived fuel-fired EGU during shutdown.

You must operate all CMS during shutdown. You must also collect appropriate data, and you 

must calculate the pollutant emission rate for each hour of shutdown. 

While firing coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel during shutdown, you must vent emissions to the main stack(s) and operate all applicable control devices and continue to operate 

those control devices after the cessation of coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel being 

fed into the EGU and for as long as possible thereafter considering operational and safety 

concerns. In any case, you must operate your controls when necessary to comply with other 

standards made applicable to the EGU by a permit limit or a rule other than this Subpart 

and that require operation of the control devices. 

If, in addition to the fuel used prior to initiation of shutdown, another fuel must be used to support the shutdown process, that additional fuel must be one or a combination of the clean 

fuels defined in § 63.10042 and must be used to the maximum extent possible. 

Relative to the syngas not fired in the combustion turbine of an IGCC EGU during shutdown, 

you must either: (1) flare the syngas, or (2) route the syngas to duct burners, which may 

need to be installed, and route the flue gas from the duct burners to the heat recovery 

steam generator. 

You must comply with all applicable emission limits at all times except during startup periods 

and shutdown periods at which time you must meet this work practice. You must collect 

monitoring data during shutdown periods, as specified in § 63.10020(a). You must keep 

records during shutdown periods, as provided in §§ 63.10032 and 63.10021(h). Any fraction 

of an hour in which shutdown occurs constitutes a full hour of shutdown. You must provide 

reports concerning activities and shutdown periods, as specified in §§ 63.10011(g), 

63.10021(i), and 63.10031. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
68794 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 17. Revise Table 9 to subpart UUUUU 

of part 63 to read as follows: 

TABLE 9 TO SUBPART UUUUU OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART UUUUU 

[As stated in § 63.10040, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions according to the following] 

Citation Subject Applies to subpart UUUUU 

§ 63.1 ........................................................ Applicability ........................................... Yes. 

§ 63.2 ........................................................ Definitions .............................................. Yes. Additional terms defined in § 63.10042. 

§ 63.3 ........................................................ Units and Abbreviations ........................ Yes. 

§ 63.4 ........................................................ Prohibited Activities and Circumvention Yes. 

§ 63.5 ........................................................ Preconstruction Review and Notification Requirements.Yes. 

§ 63.6(a), (b)(1)–(5), (b)(7), (c), (f)(2)–(3), 

(h)(2)–(9), (i), (j).

Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements.Yes. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ............................................ General Duty to minimize emissions .... No. See § 63.10000(b) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ........................................... Requirement to correct malfunctions 

ASAP.

No. 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ............................................... SSM Plan requirements ........................ No. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) ................................................ SSM exemption ..................................... No. 

§ 63.6(h)(1) ............................................... SSM exemption ..................................... No. 

§ 63.6(g) ................................................... Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements, Use of an alternative non-opacity emission standard.Yes. See §§ 63.10011(g)(4) and 63.10021(h)(4) for additional requirements. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ............................................... Performance testing .............................. No. See § 63.10007. 

§ 63.8 ........................................................ Monitoring Requirements ...................... Yes. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ............................................ General duty to minimize emissions 

and CMS operation.

No. See § 63.10000(b) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .......................................... Requirement to develop SSM Plan for 

CMS.

No. 

§ 63.8(d)(3) ............................................... Written procedures for CMS ................. Yes, except for last sentence, which refers to an SSM 

plan. SSM plans are not required. 

§ 63.9 ........................................................ Notification Requirements ..................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(a), (b)(1), (c), (d)(1)–(2), (e), and 

(f).

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.Yes, except for the requirements to submit written reports 

under § 63.10(e)(3)(v). 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) .......................................... Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups and shutdowns.No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ......................................... Recordkeeping of malfunctions ............. No. See § 63.10001 for recordkeeping of (1) occurrence 

and duration and (2) actions taken during malfunction. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ........................................ Maintenance records ............................. Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv) ........................................ Actions taken to minimize emissions 

during SSM.

No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(v) ......................................... Actions taken to minimize emissions 

during SSM.

No. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ........................................ Recordkeeping for CMS malfunctions .. Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(ix) ................................ Other CMS requirements ...................... Yes. 

§ 63.10(b)(3), and (d)(3)–(5) .................... ................................................................ No. 

§ 63.10(c)(7) ............................................. Additional recordkeeping requirements 

for CMS—identifying exceedances 

and excess emissions.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(c)(8) ............................................. Additional recordkeeping requirements 

for CMS—identifying exceedances 

and excess emissions.

Yes. 

§ 63.10(c)(10) ........................................... Recording nature and cause of malfunctions.No. See § 63.10032(g) and (h) for malfunctions recordkeeping requirements. 

§ 63.10(c)(11) ........................................... Recording corrective actions ................. No. See § 63.10032(g) and (h) for malfunctions recordkeeping requirements. 

§ 63.10(c)(15) ........................................... Use of SSM Plan .................................. No. 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ............................................. SSM reports .......................................... No. See § 63.10021(h) and (i) for malfunction reporting requirements. 

§ 63.11 ...................................................... Control Device Requirements ............... No. 

§ 63.12 ...................................................... State Authority and Delegation ............. Yes. 

§§ 63.13–63.16 ......................................... Addresses, Incorporation by Reference, 

Availability of Information, Performance Track Provisions.

Yes. 

§§ 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)–(9), (b)(2), (c)(3)–(4), 

(d), 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), 

(e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv), 63.8(a)(3), 

63.9(b)(3), (h)(4), 63.10(c)(2)–(4), 

(c)(9).

Reserved ............................................... No. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68795 

■ 18. Appendix A to subpart UUUUU is 

amended by adding sections 7.1.2.5, 

7.1.8.5, and 7.1.8.6, to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart UUUUU of Part 

63—Hg Monitoring Provisions 

* * * * * 

7. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

* * * * * 

7.1.2 Operating Parameter Records. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

7.1.2.5 If applicable, a flag to indicate 

that the hour is a startup or shutdown 

hour (as defined in § 63.10042). 

* * * * * 

7.1.8 Hg Emission Rate Records. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

7.1.8.5 If applicable, a code to 

indicate that the default electrical load 

(as defined in § 63.10042) was used to 

calculate the Hg emission rate. 

7.1.8.6 If applicable, a code to 

indicate that the diluent cap (as defined 

in § 63.10042) was used to calculate the 

Hg emission rate. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Appendix B to subpart UUUUU is 

amended by revising section 9.3.1 and 

adding sections 10.1.2.5, 10.1.7.5, and 

10.1.7.6 to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart UUUUU of Part 

63—-HCl and HF Monitoring Provisions 

* * * * * 

9. Data Reduction and Calculations 

* * * * * 

9.3.1 For heat input-based emission 

rates, select an appropriate emission 

rate equation from among Equations 19– 

1 through 19–9 in EPA Method 19 in 

Appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter, 

to calculate the HCl or HF emission rate 

in lb/MMBtu. Multiply the HCl 

concentration value (ppm) by 9.43 × 

10¥8 to convert it to lb/scf, for use in 

the applicable Method 19 equation. For 

HF, the conversion constant from ppm 

to lb/scf is 5.18 × 10¥8. The appropriate 

diluent cap value from section 6.2.1.2 of 

Appendix A to this subpart may be used 

to calculate the HCl or HF emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) during startup or shutdown 

hours. 

* * * * * 

10. Recordkeeping Requirements 

* * * * * 

10.1.2 Operating Parameter Records. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

10.1.2.5 If applicable, a flag to 

indicate that the hour is a startup or 

shutdown hour (as defined in 

§ 63.10042). 

* * * * * 

10.1.7 HCl and HF Emission Rate 

Records. * * * 

* * * * * 

10.1.7.5 If applicable, a code to 

indicate that the default electrical load 

(as defined in § 63.10042) was used to 

calculate the HCl or HF emission rate. 

10.1.7.6 If applicable, a code to 

indicate that the diluent cap (as defined 

in § 63.10042) was used to calculate the 

HCl or HF emission rate. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–27125 Filed 11–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234; FRL–9919–21– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS39 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and 

Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating 

Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to amend the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam 

Generating Units (Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards (MATS)). This direct 

final rule amends the reporting 

requirements in the MATS rule by 

temporarily requiring affected sources to 

submit all required emissions and 

compliance reports to the EPA through 

the Emissions Collection and 

Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) Client 

Tool and temporarily suspending the 

requirement for affected sources to 

submit certain reports using the 

Electronic Reporting Tool and the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

5, 2015 without further notice, unless 

the EPA receives adverse comment by 

December 19, 2014. If the EPA receives 

adverse comment, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that some 

or all of the amendments in the final 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234, by 

one of the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0234. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Mail Code: 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234. 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 Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://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 http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://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 http://

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 not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES