P.1 

OAR Box 1865 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

197) FR 7-6-1989 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 12/3/2008 3:22:25 PM Sheet 197 of 198 
P.2 

#-/.?-Z 7 

Federal Register / Vol. 54. Ni Thursday, July o. 1989 / Proposed Rules 2H447 

personal hearing, or the submisBion of 

additional evidence could not be 

accomplished ir manner. Such 

motions should be filed at the following 

address: Office of the Chairman. Special 

Legal Assistant (01C), Board of 

a Appeals, 810 Vermont Avenue, 

NW. Washington. DC 2040. The ruling 

on the motion will be by the Chain 

Depending upon the ruling on the 

motion, action will be taken as follows: 

(1) Good cause not shown. If good 

cause is not shown, the request for a 

change in representation, the request for 

a personal hearing, or the additional 

evidence submitted will be referred to 

the agency of original jurisdiction upon 

completion of the Board's action on the 

pending appeal without action by the 

Board concerning the request or 

additional evidence. Any personal 

hearing granted as a result of a request 

so referred or any additional evidence 

so referred may be treated by that 

agency as the basis for a reopened claim 

if appropriate. If the Board denied a 

benefit sought in the pending appeal and 

any evidence so referred which was 

received prior to the date of the Board's 

decision, or testimony presented at a 

hearing resulting from a request for a 

hearing so referred, together with the 

evidence already of record, is 

subsequently found to be the basis of an 

allowance of that benefit, the effective 

date of the award will be the same as if 

the benefit had been granted by the 

Board as a result of the appeal which 

was pending at the time that the hearing 

request or additional evidence was 

recei 

(2) Good cause shown. If good cause 

is shown, the request for a change in 

representation or for a personal hearing 

will be honored. Any pertinent evidence 

submitted by the appellant or 

representative will be accepted, sub; 

to the requirements of paragraph (d) of 

this section and, if a simultaneously 

contested claim is involved, the 

requirements of paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(d) Consideration of additional 

evidence by agency of original 

jurisdict: ent evide i 

submitted by the appellant or 

*e which is accepted by the 

Board under the provisions of 

section, as well as any referred to 

i by the originating agency under 

Rule 73(1 

be referred to the agency of origii 

jurisdiction for review and pn 

of a Supplemental State 

unless this procedural right is waived by 

the appellant or unless the Board 

determines that the benefit, or benefits, 

to which the evide i 

allowed on appeal without su< 

Such waiver must be in writting oi 

hearing on appeal is conducted, formally 

entered on the record orally at the time 

of the hearing. 

(e) 5 '»us/y con tes ted ch I 

In simultaneously contested claims, if 

pertinent evidence is submitted by any 

claimant and is accepted by the B< 

she provisions of this section, the 

substance of such evidence will be 

mailed to each of the oth( 

who will then have 60 days from I 

date of mailing of notice of the new 

evidence within which to comment upon 

it and/or submit additional evident 

rebuttal. The date of the letter of 

notification of the new evidence will be 

presumed to be the date of mailing for 

purposes of determining whether such 

comment or evidence in rebuttal . 

. submitted. No further period will 

be provided for response to such 

comment or rebuttal evidence. 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 4004. 4005. 4005A) 

Crass-References: For further 

ning hearings, see 

§ 3.103 and Rules 57 through 71 

9.157-19.171). New and Material 

See § 3.156(a) Reo/i 

n. See § 3.160(e). Computation of 

Time Limit. See Rule 31 (§ 19.131) 

Holidays. See Rule 32 (§ 19.132). 

[FR Doc. 89-15816 Filed 7-5-89; 8:45 urn] 

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[AD-FRL-3568-2J 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources; IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam 

Generating Units 

AGENCY: Environmental i 

icy (EPA). 

ACTION: Pi vision of rule. 

SUMMARY: On December 16.1987. 

standards of performance were 

ulgated (i.e.. Subpart Db und' 

CFR P niting emissions of sulfur 

de (SOj) and particulate matter 

(PM) from oil-fired industrialcommercial-in 

gene: its wilh heat input 

than 29 MW (too 

ur) (52 FR 47826). T 

propo i amend the SOi am 

emis: i included in these 

lor oil-fired steam gem 

units by (1) increasing the SO 

limil 

from the SO. percent r< 

million Btu) ti 

millii 

limit of 43 

millioi 

sulfur oils. This action is I 

DATES: Comm 

propo• 

Augua 

B). 

speak at 

578). a public hearing wil 

on Jul;. Inning ai l 

Persons I 

hearing should call Ms. A 

will I tance will 

impairmt • 

wishing to 

8.) 

ADDRESSi 

submitted 

Air DJ 

I 

Enviro 

ington, l>< 

AttlM 

Pal' 

pubii 

ofAdminisI 

North 

present oral tes 

Ann l 

numb 

Dt 

Wati v.. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

; i . 
P.3 

28448 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 128 / Thursday, July 6, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

'-•"v 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

New source performance standards 

(NSPS) limiting emissions of SO» from 

industrial-commercial-institutional 

steam generating units with a heat input 

capacity greater than 29 MW (100 

million Btu/hr) firing coal or oil and 

emissions of PM from units firing oil 

were proposed on June 19,1986 (51 FR 

22384). Standards limiting emissions of 

SO* and PM from this source category 

were promulgated on December 16,1987 

(52 FR 47826). 

Several petitions for reconsideration 

of these NSPS were filed with EPA in 

February, March, and May of 1988. 

These petitions were denied on January 

13,1989 (54 FR 1610). 

Among other things, this NSPS 

requires a 90 percent reduction in SOj 

emissions from industrial-commercialinstitutional steam generating units 

firing oil. Steam generating units firing 

very low sulfur oil, however, are exempt 

from this percent reduction requirement. 

As discussed in the notice promulgating 

the NSPS (52 FR 47826), the Agency 

considers the impacts associated with 

an NSPS requiring a percent reduction in 

SOj emissions unreasonable for steam 

generating units firing very low sulfur 

oil. 

In addition to limiting SO* emissions 

from oil-fired steam generating units, the 

NSPS also limits PM emissions from oilfired units. 

Rationale—Oil SO- Amendment 

The sulfur content of fuel oil varies 

widely, from as low as 0.3 weight 

percent for some distillate and residual 

fuel oils to as much as 3.0 weight 

percent or more for some residual fuel 

oils. The maximum sulfur content of 

distillate fuel oil, however, is limited to 

0.5 weight percent through fuel oil 

specifications adopted by the American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM). Thus, the sulfur content of 

distillate fuel oil serves as a useful 

benchmark for distinguishing very low 

sulfur fuel oils from higher sulfur fuel 

oils. 

The national average sulfur content of 

distillate fuel oil is about 0.3 weight 

percent, which is equivalent to about 0.3 

lb SO2 per million Btu. Consequently, an 

SO2 emission rate of 130 ng/J (0.3 lb 

SOj/million Btu) was used to distinguish 

very low sulfur fuel oil, such as distillate 

fuel oil, from higher sulfur fuel oil in the 

analyses supporting proposal and 

promulgation of the standards limiting 

SO2 emissions from oil-fired industrialcommercial-institutional steam 

generating units with a heat input 

capacity greater than 29 MW (100 

million Btu/hr) [e.g., 51 FR 22384, 52 FR 

47826, "Summary of Regulatory Analysis 

for New Source Performance Standards: 

Industrial-Commercial-Institutional 

Steam Generating Units of Greater than 

100 Million Btu/hr Heat Input") EPA480/3-86-005)]. 

As mentioned above, steam 

generating units firing very low sulfur 

fuel oil are exempt from the SO2 percent 

reduction requirement included in these 

standards limiting SO2 emissions from 

industrial-commercial-institutional 

steam generating units. This exemption 

is based on the conclusion that the 

impacts of standards requiring a percent 

reduction in SO2 emissions are 

unreasonable for steam generating units 

firing very low sulfur fuel oil. 

Administratively, this exemption was 

included in the regulation by providing 

an exemption from the SO2 percent 

reduction requirement for fuel oil with 

an SO2 emission rate of less than 130 

ng/J (0.3 lb. SOi/million Btu) based, as 

discussed above, on the sulfur content of 

distillate fuel oil. 

A recent review of Department of 

Energy data, however, indicates that the 

sulfur content of distillate fuel oil is 

highly variable. Although the national 

average sulfur content of distillate fuel 

oil is about 0.3 weight percent, 

depending on factors such as the season 

of the year, geographic location, the 

crude oil from which the distillate fuel 

oil is refined, and the extent to which 

desulfurization or blending is used to 

produce distillate fuel oil at a refinery, 

the sulfur content of distillate fuel oil 

can range from as low as 0.1 weight 

percent to as high as 0.4 weight percent 

and, on occasion, as high as 0.5 weight 

percent. 

As mentioned above, the maximum 

sulfur content of distillate fuel oil is 

limited by ASTM fuel oil specifications 

and, in producing a distillate fuel oil 

product for sale, refineries meet, or 

exceed these specifications. The use and 

acceptance of these ASTM fuel oil 

specifications is so widespread that the 

actual specifications of a shipment of 

distillate fuel oil are frequently not 

reported. As a result, when fuel oil 

terminals and local fuel oil distributors 

take delivery of a shipment of distillate 

fuel oil, they generally do not know the 

actual sulfur content of the distillate fuel 

oil they receive; they only know that it 

meets, or exceeds, ASTM specifications. 

The amount of distillate fuel oil that a 

new industrial-commercial-institutional 

steam generating unit might fire is so 

small that the owner or operator of the 

unit is limited to purchasing whatever 

distillate fuel oil is available from a fuel 

oil terminal or local fuel oil distributor. 

The owner or operator of the steam 

generating unit is unable to specify the 

sulfur content of the distillate fuel oil he 

would like to purchase, much as a 

motorist is unable to specify the octane 

of the gasoline he would like to 

purchase from his local service station. 

Also, since the fuel oil terminal or 

local fuel oil distributor generally does 

not know the actual sulfur content of the 

distillate fuel oil that is received, the 

owner or operator is unable to 

determine the sulfur content of the 

distillate fuel oil prior to purchase. 

Consequently, the wide variation in the 

sulfur content of distillate fuel oil is 

beyond the control of the owner or 

operator of an industrial-commercialinstitutional steam generating unit. 

In light of this wide variability in the 

sulfur content of distillate fuel oil, the 

present exemption from the percent 

reduction requirement included n the 

standards for industrial-commercialinstitutional steam generating units 

firing fuel oil with an SO2 emission rate 

of 130 ng/J (0.3 lb SO2/million Btu) or 

less fails to provide the exemption for 

very low sulfur fuel oil which is 

necessary to ensure that the impacts of 

the standard are considered reasonable. 

This situation can be corrected by 

increasing the SO2 emission rate in the 

exemption so that it reflects the 

maximum sulfur content of distillate fuel 

oil. For this reason, today's notice 

proposes to increase the SO2 emission 

rate in the exemption from the percent 

reduction requirement for steam 

generating units firing very low sulfur 

fuel oil from 130 ng/J (0.3 lb S02/million 

Btu) to 215 ng/J (0.5 lb SOz/million Btu). 

Rationale—Oil PM Amendment 

The standards limiting PM emissions 

from oil-fired industrial-commercialinstitutional steam generating units 

under Subpart Db limit PM emissions to 

43 ng/J (0.10 lb PM/million Btu). Firing 

very low sulfur fuel oils which are 

capable of meeting an SO2 emission 

limit of 130 ng/J (0.3 lb SO2 million Btu) 

or, for that matter an SO2 emission limit 

of 215 ng/J (0.5 lb SO2 million Btu), result 

in PM emissions of 43 ng/J (0.10 lb PM/ 

million Btu) or less. 

Thus, for those oil-fired steam 

generating units which fire very low 

sulfur fuel oils, the imposition of a PM 

emission limit of 43 ng/J (0.10 lb PM/ 

million Btu) achieves no additional PM 

emission reductions beyond that 

achieved by the SO2 standards. On the 

other hand, the PM emission limit 

imposes additional costs due to the 

emission source testing requirements 

associated with the emission limit. As a 

result, the PM emission limit for oil-fired 

steam generating units firing very low 

sulfur oils achieves no additional 
P.4 

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 128 / Thursday, July 6, 1989 / Proposed Rules 28449 

benefits, but imposes additional costs. 

For this reason, today's notice proposes 

to delete the PM emission limit from the 

PM standards for those oil-fired steam 

generating units which fire very low 

sulfur oils. 

Although combustion of very low 

sulfur oil results in very low PM 

emissions, it is possible through 

incomplete combustion for PM 

emissions to increase considerably. 

Incomplete combustion can result from 

poor maintenance or improper 

operation. In both cases, incomplete 

combustion can easily be identified by 

the increased opacity of emissions. 

Thus, the opacity limit in the PM 

standards for oil-fired steam generating 

units does achieve additional benefits in 

terms of PM emissions and no 

amendments are proposed to the opacity 

limits under the PM standards for those 

oil-fired steam generating units which 

fire very low sulfur oils. 

Miscellaneous 

Under Executive Order 12291, a 

rulemaking action must be examined to 

determine if it is a "major rule" and, 

therefore, subject to certain 

requirements of the Order. Today's 

rulemaking action would result in none 

of the adverse economic effects set forth 

in section 1 of the Order as grounds for 

finding a regulation to be a "major rule." 

This rulemaking action would not 

increase the burden on the industrialcommercial-institutional steam 

generating unit source category. It would 

not result in any increase in costs or 

prices, and would not disrupt marketcompetition. This revision, therefore, 

would not be a "major rule" under 

Executive Order 12291. 

Under section 317 of the Clean Air 

Act, an economic impact assessment 

must be prepared for revisions that are 

determined to be substantial. These 

revisions are not substantial; as a result, 

an economic impact assessment has not 

been prepared. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the 

Administrator certifies that these 

revision would not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The revisions would not 

increase the burden on this source 

category, and it has already been 

determined that, in the absence of these 

revisions, the standards would not 

affect a substantial number of small 

entities (52 FR 47841, December 16, 

1987). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Changes to the information collection 

requirements as proposed in today's 

notice have not been submitted for 

approval to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

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

The information collection requirements 

previously approved by OMB for 

promulgation of the IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam 

Generating Unit NSPS (40 CFR Part 60 

Subpart Db) in December 1987 were 

conservatively high estimates which 

represent "worst case" impacts. The 

small change in information collection 

caused by the elimination of a one-timeonly initial PM performance test for oil- • 

fired units firing very low sulfur oil does 

not change the "worst case" information 

collection requirements. Considering the 

other information collection activities 

required by the SO2 and PM standards 

for oil-fired units (including an initial 

SO2 performance test, continuous 

monitoring for SO2 and opacity, 

quarterly SO2 continuous compliance 

reports with quality assurance 

requirements, and quarterly excess 

emission reports for opacity), the initial 

PM performance test is insignificant. 

Therefore, the burden of information 

collection remains unchanged. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Date: June 26,1989. 

William K Reilly, 

Administrator. 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

1. The authority citation for Part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411, 7414, and 7601(a). 

2. Section 60.416 is amended by 

revising the following definition: 

§ 60.41b Definitions. 

**** * 

"Very low sulfur oil" means an oil 

that, when combusted without postcombustion SO* control, has an SO* 

emission rate equal to or less than 215 

ng/J (0.5 lb SO,/million Btu). 

3. Section 60.42b is amended by 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (d) and paragraph (f) to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.42b Standard for sulfur dioxide. 

**** * 

(d) On and after the date on which the 

performance test is completed or 

required to be completed under 60.8 of 

this part, whichever comes first, no 

owner or operator of an affected facility 

listed in paragraphs (d) (1), (2), (3), or (4) 

of this section shall cause to be 

discharged into the atmosphere any 

gases that contain sulfur dioxide in 

excess of 520 ng/J (1.2 lb/million Btu) 

heat input if the affected facility 

combusts coal, or 215 ng/J (0.5 lb/ 

million Btu) heat input if the affected 

facility combusts oil. Percent reduction 

requirements are not applicable to 

affected facilities under this paragraph: 

**** * 

(f) Compliance with the emission 

limits under this section are determined 

on a 24-hour average basis for affected 

facilities which (1) have a Federally 

enforceable permit limiting the annual 

capacity factor for oil to 10 percent or 

less, (2) combust only very low sulfur 

oil, and (3) do not combust any other 

fuel. 

4. Section 60.43b is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (f) HS 

follows: 

§ 60.43b Standard for particulate matter. 

**** * 

(b) On and after the date on which tho 

performance test is completed or 

required to be completed under 60.8 of 

this part, whichever date comes first, no 

owner or operator of an affected facility 

that combusts oil (or mixtures of oil with 

other fuels) and uses a conventional or 

emerging technology to reduce SO» 

emissions shall cause to be discharged 

into the atomsphere from that affected 

facility any gases that contain 

particulate matter in excess of 43 ng/J 

(0.10 lb/million Btu) heat imput. 

**** * 

(f) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test is completed or 

is required to be completed under 60.8 of 

this part, whichever date comes first, no 

onwer or operator of an affected facility 

that combusts coal, oil, wood, or 

mixtures of these fuels with any other 

fuels shall cause to be discharged into 

the atmosphere any gases that exhibit 

greater than 20 percent opacity (6-

minute average), except for one 6-minute 

period per hour of not more than 27 

percent opactity. 

5. Section 60.45b is amended by 

revising the introdutory text of 

paragraph (d) as follows: 

§ 60.45b Compliance and performance 

test methods and procedures for sulfur 

dioxide. 

**** * 

(d) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility that combusts only very 

low sulfur oil, has an annual capacity 

factor for oil of 10 percent (0.10) or loss, 

and is subject to a Federally enforceable 

requirement limiting operation of tho 

affected facility to an anuual capacity 

factor for oil of 10 percent (0.10) or less 

shall: 

**** * * 

|FR Doc. 89-15748 Filed 7-5-89; 8:45 um| 

BILLING CODE 6560-56-M